litmus test

Advertisements

slippery slope

don’t know if link is available,
this is from the dead-tree edition:

playboy
jan/feb 2012

playboy: “So you’re saying Rachel Maddow isn’t watchable?”

chris wallace: “I find her smart-alecky.”

playboy: “CNN is certainly making a big fuss over Anderson Cooper lately. What’s your take on him?”

chris wallace: “I think he’s fine. I don’t get what all the hype’s about. I just wouldn’t tune him in. They’ve spent millions of dollars promoting him. I think he’s a serious guy. I think he’s an attractive guy. He’s just not somebody I have any desire to watch.”

playboy: “What about online? I suspect you’re not a fan of Arianna Huffington.”

chris wallace: “I don’t like her on TV because I have trouble understanding her. I think she’d have more credibility if she didn’t have such a thick accent. She’s been in this country for how many decades? It’s like Henry Kissinger. Lose the accent already! The Huffington Post, I read it. Sometimes I’m curious to see what it has to say. It has a fellow who does a live blog of all the Sunday talk shows. I routinely look at that. Given its political bent, it roughs me up, but I find it entertaining.”

Which Circle of Hell for Peter King?

Once was a nasty congressman named Peter King
Bastard never did say a single decent thing
Known for his racist rants
Never gave Muslims a chance
Of Peter King it would be better if we heard nothing

The high circles of U.S. policy-making are crawling with evil creeps.  Peter King stands out even among his spooky brethren for his gall and willful use of paranoia, hatred, fear and intimidation.  Peter King has a dark heart and a dark vision and he wants to bathe the world in his vision.  Peter King doesn’t just represent what is wrong with America, but he represents what is wrong with the human  condition.  Everyone must struggle to conquer the darkness in their hearts, and he has failed.  He is the man that remains when the darkness prevails.

Enough with the florid rhetoric and cheesy limericks.  What is bringing about this paroxysm?  An article in The Arts section of the New York Times served as a reminder of why Peter King’s soul belongs to the inner circles of hell.

Some filmmakers with serious insider status have been making a movie about the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  Peter King can’t stand it.  Peter King is citing, “security concerns,” and he ‘s worried that this about giving Obama a boost in November:

Peter T. King, Republican of New York, disclosed on Thursday that the Pentagon was investigating whether the filmmakers — who collaborated on the Oscar-winning project “The Hurt Locker” — had improper access to classified material for the still untitled Bin Laden movie.

Mr. King also said that the Central Intelligence Agency had informed him that it was reviewing its guidelines on interaction with the entertainment industry.

Mr. King has cited security concerns in pressing for an inquiry into the release of information about the May 1 Bin Laden raid in Pakistan. But for months he and others have also voiced suspicions that the film, an independent production to be released by Sony Pictures Entertainment, might exploit classified details of Bin Laden’s killing to boost President Obama’s political fortunes.

Peter King is worried about a politician exploiting events in the War on Terror for political fortunes.  He is, after all, the expert in using fear and terror to advance his own political fortunes.  It takes gall to be Peter King.  It defies objective reality to imagine that Republicans would have been tight lipped about killing Bin Laden.  They would have built a 1,000 foot erection in the middle of the National Mall to honor their own greatness.  Never mind the counter-factuals, let’s focus on the fact that Peter King is a terrible person, and it is a national tragedy that anyone takes his security concerns seriously.

The fact is that this movie is probably going to be of the war-is-hell, but we have a job to do type.  It sounds like it will belong to the soldier’s perspective genre, where there is no thought about policy or morality.  A soldier’s job is to follow orders, and that is no secret.  It is also no secret that there was a dog named Cairo who kicked ass, and a helicopter crashed too.  Peter King isn’t concerned about security, he is concerned about democrats getting credit for being sufficiently craven and indifferent to the Bill of Rights to do what Republicans were supposed to be able to do.  After all, Obama has proven to be much more efficient and smooth at the grim imperial task of carrying out extra-judicial assassinations.  Peter King is most concerned about the Republican brand and he knows that a factual movie about Bin Laden’s killing endangers the idea that Republicans are competent at conducting the nasty side of the imperial business.

Peter King is the bullying type.  He’d rather use terrorism as a method to drive Muslims into second-class citizenship.  He’s an authoritarian oppressor.  Don’t forget that this is the same guy who conducted Homeland Security Committee hearings to investigate the Muslim threat.  Peter King is a practitioner of racist-populism, and having a dead boogey-man is rather inconvenient.  He’d prefer to ignore Bin Laden’s death.  He is much more interested in leading witch hunts.  He is a very poisonous person, and the sooner he retires the better.