Did you notice that literally the day after Diane E. put up Andrew Sullivan's old Bush-bashing column, Paul Krugman references it? There's no way that's a coincidence.

And right after she posts a rumor about J.P. Morgan manipulating the gold market to protect its gold short position, the SEC investigates J.P. Morgan for Enron related mischief, including, apparently, suspicious gold trades?

This woman has eerie powers. I don't want to make her mad.

Today, hundreds of thousands of good people read Charles Krauthammer's column about how liberals are dumb, but liberals think conservatives are mean. Zing!

Did someone wake up on the Dowd side of the bed this morning? Future columns from Charles Krauthammer:

Men Can't Commit, but Women Are Insecure

Black People Drive Like This, But White People Drive Like This

So What's the Deal With Airline Peanuts, Huh? Am I Right?

***************************

This is as good a time as any for this- a friend of mine decided to go to an open mike night at a local comedy club a while back and try to do an intentionally bad, unfunny, offensive act, a la Neil Hamburger. He shared two of his jokes with me, and they're incredibly offensive. They're so awful that I'm putting them in the comments so you can skip by them if you don't want to read them.

Croooow Blog links to this article about the absurd failure of the Emmys to nominate David Letterman for "Individual Performance in a Variety or Music Program". The article correctly notes that:

This is the man who gave television one of its most important entertainment hours of the entire season: his Sept. 17 "Late Show With David Letterman" on CBS, six days after the terrorist attacks on his adopted city and home base.

It was a highly personal, intensely individual moment, and so brave, honest and mesmerizing a performance that it should have been a lock. Failing to acknowledge Letterman's finest hour, regardless of the arcane nominating policies involved, is simply inexcusable.

The article notes that John Stewart was nominated, as was David Letterman in two previous years. I know, it's just the Emmys, but this is a terrible shame. A while ago, I posted the monologue that David Letterman gave on September 17th. I would bet my life that people will be watching this monologue in 50 years. Here's the link.

I'm still haunted by this line.

As I understand it (and my understanding of this is vague at best), another smaller group of people stole some airplanes and crashed them into buildings. And we're told that they were zealots, fueled by religious fervor... religious fervor. And if you live to be a thousand years old, will that make any sense to you? Will that make any Goddamned sense?

USA! USA! USA! From the BBC site:

Britons have been labelled the world's worst holidaymakers in a survey of tourist boards around the globe...

But the Germans are generally welcomed and topped the poll of tourist offices in 17 countries worldwide.

Top tourists

1st Germans
2nd Americans
3rd Japanese
4th Italians
5th French, Norwegians, Swedes

Categories included behaviour, politeness, willingness to learn the language, trying local delicacies and spending on the local economy.

And overall, the British finished bottom of the league table of 24 nations, which was topped by the Germans, Americans and Japanese...

Americans were judged the most courteous and the British the rudest, alongside the Russians and Canadians...

The Brits also seemed to make least effort in speaking the local language, a quality excelled by the Germans, French and Americans...

The big spenders were the Americans, then the Japanese and Russians.

I LOVE IT!! This is the best news I'm likely to hear all day. And it totally jives with what I experienced when I lived in London. No one was as courteous or friendly as the average American tourist. Stand proud, American tourists! We rock!

In your face, Canada!

Matthew Yglesias refers today to a blog I'd never seen, Off the Pine. I'm impressed, and I agree with every word here:

For Barnes, Bush needs to take a domestic stand - and he should take it on (taxes). After all, Reagan didn't back down on his tax cut. Barnes, however, blithely ignores the reason why Bush has been squishy on domestic policy - his agenda, crafted to please core GOP constituencies, has never been popular. If it hadn't been for a staggering display of political cowardice by the Dems, his unpopular gift to the rich wouldn't even be in place to be repealed. If Fred Barnes and friends weren't so wedded to market fundamentalism, they'd offer Bush much better advice. Instead of standing up for the GOP's favorite special interests, stand up the Dems'. Stand up for radical education reform - the kind the teacher's union cringes at. Offer a deal with the environmentalists - ANWR for California-style carbon emission standards, and make them explain why caribou habitat is more important than energy indpendence. Bush could take a whole number of domestic stands that could both put the Dems on the defensive and actually advance the national interest. But Fred Barnes would rather Bush go down in flames behind the idea that in this time of national challenge, we must all sacrifice - except the rich. Right now, the neocons domestic policy agenda seems about as bankrupt as WorldCom.

I've got too many freakin' blogs, but still: into the blogroll with ye, Off the Pine!

Paul Krugman makes an excellent point about individual Social Security accounts here:

Those personal accounts won't be like personal stock portfolios. The Social Security Administration can't and won't become a stockbroker for 130 million clients, most of them with quite small accounts. Instead it's likely that a privatization scheme would require individuals to invest with one of a handful of designated private investment funds.

That would mean enormous commissions for the managers of those funds. And those who would be likely to benefit showed their appreciation, in advance: During the 2000 election, according to opensecrets.org, campaign contributors in the two categories labeled "securities and investment" and "miscellaneous finance" (basically individual wheeler-dealers) gave Mr. Bush almost six times as much as they gave Al Gore.

He then goes on to talk about Bush's highly suspicious deal which moved more than $1 billion from the University of Texas's endowment into the private funds of his friends and associates. But I digress.

- Even if the government did nothing unethical or exceptionally stupid,
- and even if the administration didn't turn privatization into a massive windfall for a few well-connected donors,
- and even if we still had a surplus to fund our Social Security obligations while money is siphoned into private accounts,

the whole scheme would still be extremely problematic.

There are a lot of questions that remain to be answered about individual private accounts before they could be seriously considered. A while ago, I copied a long letter on this subject off of Slate's "The Fray". It's from March 2001, and was written by John Nowicki. I've posted it before, but I think it's really important. It's a bit of a time capsule- he is willing to assume that the budget would continue to be in surplus. What a silly person!

********

While I agree with 90% of what you've said here, I do have to call you on the stock market point. As a stereotype social Liberal/fiscal Conservative (I support affirmative action and NAFTA), the continued acceptance by the "New Democrat" wing of the horridly bad idea of govt. controlled stock investments bugs me.

To wit, you just have waaaay too much moral hazard involved here. First, a few basic, though probably incorrect assumptions. We'll assume the "surplus" runs as projected, and that the $3.5T holds. We'll also assume that the "Parliament of Whores (PoW)" (Thank you P.J. O'Rorke) doesn't buy votes with it, by shipping the cash back home in "Highway Improvements", etc... Pretty heroic assumptions in my book, especially the latter, but hey. One last assumption, just to weaken my position...the govt. only dumps a $1T into the market.

First, where do they dump that $1T, which is now the single largest investment fund in the market? Since this is the govt., the investments will implicitly have to follow political rules. Denny's gets nailed for racial discrimination...can you picture the headlines if the Fed. is holding huge amounts of that firm? Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson running protests? Uh huh...so out goes the money, fast, not for economic reasons, but political/social ones. What about non-union shops? What about firms that do/don't offer gay employees partner benefits? What about the reverse under a conservative Republican admin?

What you have, no matter how much blather is made about "independence" of the fund managers (which is practically impossible, even the Fed. is only quasi free of politics), is an implicit industrial policy. The govt. running the private markets. With a $1T 800 pound gorilla bouncing around the markets, acting economically "irrational" (i.e. reacting to political pressures) no private investments are safe. Would you want to be the fool holding Apple stocks, when a heavily conservative admin takes over, and quietly places pressure on the administration agency to divest, as the have a gay friendly partnership benefits program? Or holding an anti-union firm when a new liberal admin does the same? With no investments safe from short to medium term slams when the gorilla divests, no one will invest.

Moreover, what about changes in political behavior based on the markets? Would a DoJ go after a Microsoft if the govt. held a chunk of the stock? Would we be more, or less likely to act militarily if the country in question could tank the govts. portfolio (for example, a Middle Eastern Conflict and oil stocks). Would the Fed. restrict rates while the Nasdaq is plunging? And would not every such action, as just mentioned, immediately create the impression of investment based bias, even if not. Again, using the MS example...smart money on a breakup would be in Sun, Aol/Netscape. But as an investor, would that not make the govt. an "inside trader" to its own DoJ policy?

In addition, what about PoW payola? Given the impossibility to completely exclude political considerations from investment issues, would it not behoove companies to pony up at the PoW trough? It's already necessary to buy off your Representatives and Presidents through soft money...imagine if you give those same folks implicit power over market valuations. How often would "Senator Blowhard" put pressure on the investment admin to place money into a large campaign contributor? If we think we have corruption now...just wait for this. You also create an incentive to industry to spend $ on buying politicians, rather than compete effectively...options cash based on short term market value, not long term profitability.

This is getting too long, so here's a few others in shorthand...

1. Domestic vs. International investment. Will the admin be free to invest abroad, or only domestically? I can't picture the political air to allow diverse international investments, so the fund is totally at risk to one market's downturns. Also, that $1T restricted to domestic investments impacts #2, below.

2. Maximum investments. Can the govt. hold controlling interest in a company? I don't even need to explain the implications of that, but $1T invested domestically implies that happening, especially in small caps. If you accordingly lock out small caps, you now make it likely in mid caps, and so on.

3. Related to #3, above. What about foreign owned firms listed domestically? Daimler/Chrysler for example? Especially if said firm directly competes against a purely domestically held firm?

4. Sectoral Shifts. We have seen a huge sectoral shift in the economy from old line industries with low skill/high wage employment, to services and technology, with high skill/high pay employment. The result has been an erosion of unskilled labor income and an explosion in high skill income. As a computer programmer I benefit from this. But as a govt. investor, will you really take tax money from factory workers to invest in firms that will destroy their employment? You will if you want to get return from the winning sector in the shift. Conversely then, will you tax me to prop up the failing sector, and lower the returns accordingly?

5. Boomer Bye-bye. When the boomers hit majority retirement, this $1T will leave, and leave quickly. I hope you have plans set for dealing with the deep recession.

6. Too many more to even go into. I will reiterate that this is just 1/3 the total "surplus"...it gets far worse if the entire thing is used in this manner.

In summary, you blithely ignore huge amounts of political, moral, and corruption risks inherent in this model. The only way to minimize these risks would conflict with each other, and with the goal of maximizing investment returns. You create an implicit govt. industrial policy, and a potential for actual govt. ownership of firms. There is no way around these issues. You then will pull the rug out in 20 years, triggering a huge recession. Thus, the idea of surplus investment in private markets is a horrid one, and should be abandoned.

Ryan Nunn has an intelligent evaluation of the Greenspan legacy that makes at least two extremely important points.

First, Greenspan doesn't have omnipotent powers over the equities market or business cycle, and deserves a lot of credit for what he was able to achieve.

My question is (to paraphrase Dave Thomas): where's the inflation? Look at CPI data over the last ten years or so; it doesn't lie. Greenspan and the Fed have been charged with maintaining price stability, and they have done a fine job of it for more than a decade. Despite what some seem to think, Greenspan is not God. He could not be expected to "prick the equity bubble", manage economic growth, keep unemployment low, and send the Bengals to the playoffs. He has one blunt instrument to use - open market operations (the discount window and reserve requirements being relatively ineffective).

Second, the economy is really big and messy, and before you blame a politician for the way it's behaving, you'd better have a damn good reason. (This includes blaming Bush for every drop in the stock market; some people are doing it intelligently, but a few folks are showing their knee-jerk.)

This rhetoric coming from conservatives like Sullivan betrays a dismaying technocratic bent. The economy isn't supposed to have a leader, or a maestro, or a general. It's supposed to run itself, with the help of government property right enforcement and a stable currency. The Greenspan legacy that Sullivan derides is an amazing one. It is said that the 90's economy reaped a peace dividend in the aftermath of the Cold War; what is often not mentioned is that it also reaped a Greenspan dividend of price stability.

I've spent a few minutes at the PostPolitics blog, and I highly recommend it. It's run by a team of thoughtful conservatives who seem to be more interested in arguing issues than scoring cheap points. Into the blogroll with you, guys!

I've seen a few conservative sites make this argument about Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch, but none quite so self-refutingly as Tim Blair.

Larry Klayman and his Judicial Watch lawsuit factory didn't get much respect during the Clinton presidency. Given Judicial Watch's frenzied approach – it launched scores of actions against President Bill Clinton and Clinton associates, most of which went nowhere – the lack of respect perhaps wasn't surprising.

Nor was it surprising to read, in mainstream media reports, that Judicial Watch was a "conservative group", a "conservative legal group", or a "conservative Washington, DC, legal group". CNN reported that Judicial Watch enjoyed funding from Richard Mellon Scaife and described Judicial Watch as "a conservative public interest group". Associated Press used the phrase "conservative legal group", and ABC news said "Judicial Watch pursues a conservative poltical agenda". Damn those conservatives. Why won't they leave Bill alone?

With a change of administration has come a change in Judicial Watch's targets. Now the group is suing Dick Cheney. And, in the media, Judicial Watch has suddenly become one of the good guys.

Associated Press, which tagged the Clinton-attacking Judicial Watch as a "conservative legal group", now hails the anti-Cheney Judicial Watch as a "watchdog group" and accepts Klayman's claim to be "non-partisan".

...So, while Judicial Watch has revealed itself to be non-partisan, the US media has revealed itself to be exactly the opposite.

Let's review. Judicial Watch sprang into existence and showered a Democratic administration with lawsuits, most of which are baseless. 100% of its lawsuits were aimed at Democrats. The media percieved this as an assault on a Democratic president and calls Judicial Watch "conservative." Then, it starts suing a Republican administration. After it changes tactics and start assaulting both parties, the media stops calling them conservative. Instead, it calls them "non-partisan".

What part am I supposed to be outraged about, exactly? The part where Judicial Watch is viciously slurred as "conservative"? What would you call a group that sprang into existence and peppered Bush with lawsuits- bipartisan? Tim Blair adds, "Damn those conservatives. Why won't they leave Bill alone?" out of his ass, but this isn't an argument. These are the worst labels Blair can find- "conservative group", a "conservative legal group", a "conservative Washington, DC, legal group", "a conservative public interest group", "conservative legal group", "Judicial Watch pursues a conservative poltical agenda". Not exactly fighting words.

Or is it the part where the media starts labelling Judicial Watch as "non-partisan"? This is after they changed from an exclusively anti-Democratic organization to an organization that attacks both parties? Is this the biased part- after they started acting non-partisan, the media labels them as "non-partisan"? I guess it's because the media called them "one of the good guys"- no, wait, that part came out of Tim Blair's ass, too.

To summarize: This is it? This is liberal media bias? Jebus. In an unbiased media, what would have happened differently?

Idiots.

A belt buckle that raised suspicion with security workers at Los Angeles International Airport caused the temporary evacuation of part of a terminal area Sunday, authorities said.

The belt buckle had an image of an explosive device on it, said airport spokeswoman Gaby Pacheco. The item was discovered at about 4:30 p.m. by security workers monitoring a scanning machine on the departure level of the terminal, Pacheco said.

They evacuated the terminal because of a belt buckle with an image of a bomb on it. "We've also been watching out for guys with black-and-white striped shirts, little masks, and bags with dollar signs on them," they didn't add.

One subject that Mac Thompson at Warliberal covers especially well is the Bush administration's refusal to enforce the Endangered Species Act. Here's a short and sweet post:

Bush Admin. Wants Manatee Plan Nixed

Of course it does. If we don't drive our powerboats at high speed through the habitats of an endangered species, the terrorists win.

Oh, they're talking about how it will take too long because of the bureaucracy and they'll never beat the deadline. But in the end, it's because the Administration is dragging its feet, once again, on protected species, because it's fundamentally opposed to the the Endangered Species Act. If they could save money while saving manatees, the Administration would spend money to avoid protecting them.

By the way, here's an Economist article on global warming, and why inaction is not an option.

Economics Two-Fer:

Diane E. also has a really interesting post about gold prices. I would have naively expected gold prices to be rising rapidly as people cashed in their stocks and found someplace else for their money, but it fell $11 on Tuesday. According to a letter writer, whose accuracy I'm not equipped to judge, JP Morgan was sitting on a large gold short position and manipulating the market by selling huge volumes to push the price down. I don't know jack about the gold market, but I learned at Enron that this kind of manipulations is stupid, stupid, stupid.

Also, Brad DeLong has a detailed post about Greenspan's monetary policy that is well worth your attention. Print it out and look at it at lunch. Remember it when idiots want to talk about the economic policies of the 90's.

Diane E. at Letter From Gotham has a gem: A column by Andrew Sullivan, back when he was a passionate McCain supporter, about George W. Bush's noxious push-polling to beat John McCain:

During the past couple of weeks, as Bush's lame excuse for a candidacy has found itself seriously winded by McCain's insurgency, the phones have been ringing off the hook. According to dozens of complaints, push-polls have suggested that McCain is a liberal Democrat who favours abortion on demand and is a "baby-killer" or "friend of baby-killers"; that his war record has been distorted and that he wants public financing of election campaigns....

Safire is understating the case. Like his father before him, Bush combines inarticulate high-mindedness in office with ruthless demagoguery on the campaign trail. One of Bush's first tactics in South Carolina was to drag out from under a rock a former soldier who claimed McCain does not care about veterans; a little like saying John Major could not give a damn about cricket.

I write this a day before the results of the South Carolina primary are known. If Bush has prevailed, it is a pyrrhic victory. The ugliness of his tactics, his willingness to consort with the most unsavoury characters in a notoriously unsavoury state and the sheer vacuousness of his message have revealed him to be not merely hollow but also malicious and unwise.

In the past few weeks Bush has gathered around him, with uncanny efficiency, the unprincipled lowlife who have poisoned the Republican party for a decade or more. You can tell a lot about a person by who his friends are. If these hatchet men and bigots are Bush's friends, then deliver us speedily unto his enemies.

Sweeeeet. Et tu, Andrew?

Did you see this in TAPped yesterday?

While Democrats faithfully work with the president to create a Homeland Security Department, the GOP lards up the bill with all kinds of special amendments. One of them, according to The New York Times, is a provision to "delay by a year the start of screening airport baggage for explosives."

WHAT?!? Let's look at the instant replay:

One of them, according to The New York Times, is a provision to "delay by a year the start of screening airport baggage for explosives."

Maybe there's an explanation for this, but it's a fucking hell of a lot more important than what Robert Rubin knew about Enron. Who did this? What the fuck are they doing?

In not-especially-related news, the war on drugs is apparently more important than the war on terrorism:

I'm a blue-blooded American, 44 years old, who has taught college several years for the Department of Defense, and I was excited my skills would be helpful in the war against terror. Then came the FBI's lie detector test.

I admitted I'd smoked marijuana about 20 times when I was 18. I've never used drugs since. But within five minutes I was put out on the street.

I told the FBI agent who kicked me out that "I doubt very seriously that Bin Laden screened any of the hijackers for drug experimentation when they were kids." The FBI agent confided, "You wouldn't believe the number of super- qualified individuals we've turned away. Just last week we let go a highly qualified psychologist for the same reason. It's very frustrating."

George W. Bush couldn't get a job at the FBI. God-DAMN it, is there a war on terrorism, or isn't there?

Congress is going to put The Onion out of business. As Glenn Reynolds explains, Joe Biden, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Patrick Leahy, and Richard Durbin are sponsoring an asinine anti-drug bill that is trying to git tuff on raves.

When he introduced the bill in June, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said "most raves are havens for illicit drugs," and congressional findings submitted with the bill label as drug paraphernalia such rave mainstays as bottled water, "chill rooms" and glow sticks.

My three-year-old nephew is fond of bottled water and glow sticks, and usually needs a "chill room." Presumably Biden regards him as a dangerous criminal.

Rave promoters aren't idiots. If this law passes, all it will do is make raves suck more as promoters game the system. Official vendors at the raves will stop selling the proscribed items. Instead, freelancers will sell them. "Chill rooms" will now be called "cool down rooms." Thus will the republic be saved. If glow sticks and bottled water are outlawed, only outlaws will have glow sticks and bottled water.

I don't go to raves, but when I read about what they're trying to outlaw, I immediately thought of the other places I see bottled water and glow sticks- 4th of July fireworks displays, outdoor concerts, and Halloween. The bill probably has some unenforceable language about how there has to electronic music going on, but missions creep. Those damn fat cats in Washington can have my 4th of July glow sticks when they pry them out of my cold, dead fingers.

Anyway, it's easy and fun to mock of a stupid bill. (I mean, if I can do it...) Glenn goes on to a larger theme- what the feds embarassing "war on drugs" says about our "war on terrorism." I think he's right, but it's not so much fun anymore.

The drug war has been a massive failure: a waste of money, of lives and of time. It's also been accompanied by extensive inroads on traditional American freedoms: property forfeitures, "no-knock" searches, expanded wiretap authority, and the destruction of financial privacy, to name just a few.

These are inroads that have served the agendas of bureaucrats but that haven't done anything to solve the problem that was claimed as their justification. And the drug war's combination of intrusiveness, corruption and ineptitude calls into question the government's ability to carry out the war on terrorism.

Will the drug war serve as a model for the war on terrorism? Some within the federal bureaucracy seem to think it should, and it's easy to understand why: The drug war may have been a disaster for America, but it has been a three-decade gravy train for bureaucrats. And if Congress can't ride herd on the drug war bureaucracy, it probably won't be able to oversee the terror-war bureaucracy either.

Not being a bureaucrat, I think the drug war is a terrible model. In fact, I think it's an argument against creating a Homeland Security bureaucracy at all. If we can't trust the government to tell a glow stick from a hypodermic needle, then I don't think we can trust it to tell the difference between an American and a terrorist.

I'm willing to support an invasion of Iraq and of other enemy nations like Saudi Arabia or Syria. I'm not willing to support an approach that will turn the United States itself into an occupied country — something the drug war crowd has come a long way toward doing on its own.

In reality, we're not going to invade Saudi Arabia or Syria unless warbloggers successfully overthrow the government. Period. I don't know if I'd bet on the U.S. invading Iraq. So where does that lead us? I'm afraid that it's going to lead us right where Glenn is pointing- to a big, self-perpetuating, intrusive bureacracy that isn't particularly good at fighting terrorism. It's already happening.

More on this later.

I don't trust my own judgement on this, but it seems to me that most of the references I see to Andrew Sullivan anymore are negative ones from liberal sites. He may be pissing away his credibility with stunts like this. Much praise to Counterspin for keeping track.

First, Sullivan writes a defamatory and inaccurate slam about Robert Rubin, accusing Rubin personally for this corrupt deal between Citigroup and Enron. I suppose that this isn't hypocritical after Sullivan's principled and strident criticism of Bush for the Harken affair (cough), but he gets the facts wrong. Hesiod notes:

Andrew Sullivan has already started the "what did Rubin know?" line of propaganda. Not only that, Sully lied his glutes off and claimed that Bob Rubin joined Citigroup in July of 1999! Sorry, Andy, but Rubin didn't join the company until October 26, 1999.

He also either misread the New York Times article, or deliberately misrepresented it, when he claimed that the deal between Enron and Citigroup was "cemented" in the Fall of 1999.

Au contraire! The deal itself was "cemented," meaning agreed to, by the late Spring of 1999.

To his credit, he revised his post later on. It doesn't have quite the power of the old one, because all he can do is string together accusations and talk about how, well, he mighta known. Possibly. For all I know. They might have still been discussing it in November. Stupid New York Times.

To his discredit, he revised it without any indication of what he had previously posted. You would have no way to know that he had just inaccurately accused Rubin hours ago. It never happened. How can you trust this guy?

UPDATE: I should have noted that Atrios turned me on to this.

You want to read a really interesting personal blog? Check out True Porn Clerk Stories. Un-freakin-believable.

(via Teresa Nielsen Hayden )

I think that enough enough digital ink has been spilled about Steve Earle's song sung from the perspective of John Walker Lindh; Matt Welch says what I'd want to say about it here and here. Welch defends the right of an artist to write a song from the perspective that he doesn't necessarily share, and adds, "Look, the song may well be crap, and maybe Earle has converted to Wahhabism and renounced his U.S. citizenship. But that’s a trifecta I’d bet the farm against." That sounds about right to me.

So here's a song that really, really does bug me: "They Schools", by Dead Prez. Here are the lyrics. Here are some excerpts:

Man that school shit is a joke
The same people who control the school system control
The prison system, and the whole social system
Ever since slavery, nawsayin?...

You see dog, you see how quick these motherfuckers be to like
Be tellin niggas get a diploma so you can get a job
Knowwhatimsayin but they don't never tell you how the job
Gonna exploit you every time knowwhatimsayin that's why I be like
Fuck they schools!...

School is like a 12 step brainwash camp
They make you think if you drop out you aint got a chance
To advance in life, they try to make you pull your pants up
Students fight the teachers and get took away in handcuffs....

Then you know they math class aint important 'less you addin up cash
In multiples, unemployment aint rewardin
They may as well teach us extortion
You either get paid or locked up, the pricipal is like a warden
In a four year sentence, mad niggas never finish
But that doesn't mean I couldn't be a doctor or a dentist

(CHORUS)
They schools can't teach us shit
My people need freedom, we tryin to get all we can get
All my high school teachers can suck my dick
Tellin me white man lies straight bullshit (echoes)
They schools aint teachin us, what we need to know to survive
(Say what, say what)
They schools don't educate, all they teach the people is lies

Man, that makes me blow my top. If the Klan had a collective IQ over room temperature, I'd swear that they were behind this kind of bullshit. Spreading this kind of distain for education and achievement is probably the most efficient legal way to cripple black progress. Thanks a lot, Dead Prez.

I have no intention of turning this page into SmarterKausfiles, but Diane E. at Letter From Gotham has got a great post about how misleading Kaus can be when he wants to be. Diane was gone for a while, so it's especially good to have her back.

She's also got a thought-provoking post about our enemies, the Saudis, which you'll have to scroll to, because of the blogger bug:

The United States created Saudi Arabia but we can't so easily divest ourselves of it because to do so, especially now, would destroy our own economy, not to mention the even shaky economies of the Pacific Rim and Europe. The United States of America is indeed "The Supreme Guardian of the Saudi Crown." We--or the people who run a good deal of our economy and our foreign policy--are in bed with the bastards.

Does that answer the question, "why don't we stand up to the Saudis"?

We are the Saudis, and they are us.

You may have read Mickey Kaus's most recent dire warnings about the threat of left-wing violence, which is apparently caused by left-wing commentary. Many of us left-wing bloggers scoffed, but now Kaus has real, hard evidence: a message on a message board. I'll admit that I was skeptical when I read Kaus's original post. But I'm not too proud to admit that I was wrong- an anonymous post on a message board is all the evidence I need.

But has Kaus gone far enough?

Matthew Yglesias, Atrios and Media Whores Online have done a great public service by hunting down these disturbing quotes from right wingers on Free Republic and Lucianne.com.

Ron Paul is the only member of congress that I wouldn't want to see hanged.
********
"Will not someone rid me of the meddlesome atheist?"

"Can't we push HIM somewhere?

Yes, off a cliff along with all the other socialist/commies." (re: Nedow)
*************
I’m convinced [the liberals' relentless war] won’t stop as long as they draw breath!

Then the solution is simple. They have after all sided with the enemy and blame America for all the world's problems. They do support the enemies' "rights" to plan their deadly mischief. After a fair trial for treason -- say about five or so minutes -- execute them.

So it appears that the threat could come from the right as well. It's not just politics, though. Alert citizens know that evil takes no holiday, and danger wears many disguises. With a minimum of effort, I came across this chilling post on a Dominique Moceanu message board:

I still love Dominique, even though I want to kill her for not loving me. I dont know what to do...i am confused.

Followed closely by this one:

THAT'S RIGHT. NO ONE BUT ME HAS ANY RIGHT TO EVEN LOOK AT DOMINIQUE MOCEANU, THE GREATEST GYMNAST IN THE WORLD AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE UNIVERSE. GOD CREATED DOMINIQUE ESPECIALLY FOR ME AND WHOEVER SHE IS SEEING NOW IS GOING TO FRY IN HELL FOR TOUCHING MY PROPERTY.
DOMINIQUE MOCEANU, WILL YOU PLEASE MARRY ME?

So in addition to the very real threat of left-wing violence, and the threat of right-wing violence, we must be careful to watch the streets for the coming bloodbath from Dominque Moceanu-fan violence. But that's not all. Ladies, you may wish to avert your eyes from the sinister extremists at this Beatles fan message board:

OHMIGOSH!!! I am soooooooooo sorry bout how i said I wanted to kiss the press!!! I meant I wanted to KILL the press, I'm so sorry bout that...as I was saying, I want to kiLL the press for saying he was dying, got it? Ok, who cares anyway? Well, I do, so there...
I WANT TO KILL THE PRESS!!! I WANT TO KILL THEM!!!

To quote Mickey, "This is how some of the people who read those sites are thinking these days." Scary, isn't it?

Are we doing enough to prevent the imminent wave of Vietnamese violence? Not if this Vietnamese message board is any indication. (What are you saying? Of course it's an indication! Smear away!-- ed. You got it!):

fuck aussies, they should all die, they got criminal ancestors so the blood is in their veins. die aussies, your days are counting

Terror lurks in even the most innocent-looking corners of the internet, such as this Debra Messing message board:

>Happy birthday, Debra Messy-hair!

How dare you make fun of her hair! Her hair is, like, totally gorgeous! Take it back! Your days are counting!

OK, I wrote that, but it's on the internet so it must be true.

Now, all of this is quite terrifying, but there's no need to overreact to the rantings of a few asshole lunatics on public message boards by blaming huge groups of innocent people for whatever crap you manage to dig up. Just take common sense precautions, and make sure to keep your eye on left-wingers, right-wingers, Dominique Moceanu fans, Beatles fans, Vietnamese people, and me. (You might want to watch out for all Will and Grace fans- you can't be too careful!)You never know when we're going to snap. After all, it only takes a few.