Mr. Brooks, THIS is vicious

As was diaried and front-paged here yesterday, on Friday's The News Hour David Brooks characterized the blogosphere's attitude toward Joe Lieberman as "vicious," even suggesting that DailyKos is so venomous that its very loud voice and large forum quells politicians into submission (not wanting to get in our nasty "crosshairs"). I suppose it's because posters here swear a lot, are often hot-blooded, insult people in high places, and are especially critical of this administration's deliberate history of failure.

I say "deliberate" because the actions taken - although they've made us less safe, laid waste to our economy and environment, and threaten the very idea of democracy - have indeed benefited the corporations, military contractors, far right religious factions, and the one-half of one percent who constitute the BushCo "base." Nearly every goal outlined in the Progress for a New American Century report and similar documents, some of them earlier than PNAC, has been realized. Oh, they're good.

So, Mr. Brooks, let's take a look at this "vicious" comment. My big fat Oxford English Dictionary has more than a full page of historical definitions and linguistic uses of the word, but we need go no farther than the first entry:

Of habits, practices, etc.: Of the nature of vice; contrary to moral principles; depraved, immoral, bad.

Sure, you'll find strong language and equally strong passions here, but you tell me, which is "contrary to moral principles": A hundred comments that essentially (or actually) say "fuck George Bush" or an administration that deliberately:

1. lied us into a war that has cost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives;
2. leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent to get back at her husband for his exposure of the President's lies;
3. through unjust tax cuts and war profiteering, usurped a projected $5 trillion surplus, turning it into a much larger deficit for our children and grandchildren;
4. blocked and then refused to cooperate with an investigation by 9/11 families;
5. ignored the scientific community on global warming, citing the "American way of life" as an excuse to keep devouring the planet;
6. fostered a new wave of attacks on civil liberties that rivals earlier sedition laws, at the same time they detained and brutalized prisoners in violation of international law;
7. through tax incentives, encouraged corporations to export jobs, effectively gutting the middle class;
8. turned their backs on the Gulf Coast before and after Katrina;
9. spends its time talking about flag burning, same-sex marriage, and Terry Schiavo, when there are real issues to address;
10. cut veterans' benefits and extended military tours, at the same time they blabber on about "supporting the troops."

These are just ten that flew off my keyboard without a lot of thought (an excuse to rant). I know there are many, many more (beginning with how Bush got elected [selected] in 2000 in the first place). These deliberate actions cost lives and livelihoods. They destroy, they devastate, they kill - people, families, lands, economies, cultures.

This is what the dictionary means by "vicious," and it demands condemnation, it demands dissent.

I supposed dissent will always get framed as "unpatriotic" by those dissented against. That's the nature of dissent. So when you're called "unpatriotic" or "vicious," consider the source. I really don't mind the comments leveled at DailyKos and others, if it attracts more people to the conversation. That's one way to counteract this "vicious" or "looney" or "fringe" frame that DailyKos and others are being tarred with. Once here many readers will discover that, sure, we're passionate, but it's rare one finds, even at church, a more caring, committed, and fairer crowd than this one (a couple diaries on the rec list right now directly address our capacity to be both critical and fair). So fuck off, George Bush. I'm going to feed my neighbor's kitty now, vicious person that I am.

•  Nice diary/rant!!

  I was relieved when you stopped at number 10. I was fearful that your list would be comprehensive, taking HOURS to read!

  Brava!

  by ejbr on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 03:04:01 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, I had worked up to 18

    without really trying, but figured an even 10 made the point. And when you put aside the "vicious" label and just consider those actions that are "inept," you've got another long rant.

    by Mother Mags on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 03:12:03 PM PDT

•  Important thing is,

  the likes of David Brooks are at least taking notice, and feeling the need to say something. Very, very, different from looking down one's nose, and then pretending to not even notice, or act as if such fora are beneath even contempt. Encouraging.

  by Bhishma on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 03:11:04 PM PDT

•  Yep

  And Lieberman is fucking backstabbing lying son-of-a-bitch motherfucker.

  by jpolon on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 03:12:16 PM PDT

•  I hope ...

  ... you emailed this to Brooks.

  by Jules Beaujolais on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 03:17:51 PM PDT

•  Rep Neocon's are Shocked at Lieberman's fate

  You see, Neocon's believe they are natural elites, born to rule. As a result, they have jerry rigged the mechanisms of power to guarantee the proper results.

  But their reach doesn't extend into the democratic primary of a blue state.

  Thus they see the pitiful state of Lieberman, the loan democratic Neocon, one of their fellow travelors. They are shocked. They had forgoten all about democratic accountability.

  In their view, Lieberman is like an uber-class  person living in a ghetto community. Like a ruling elite from Haiti or pre-Castro Cuba or Iran. These things aren't supposed to happen. They are shocked and what's happening is a crime. To them that is.

  The slaves are taking over the plantation and Lieberman is having to suffer as no gentry should have to suffer. Couldn't happen to a nicer fellow.

  by The Wonder Moron on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 03:28:54 PM PDT

  •  c'mon - the neocons expected

    this and set him up perfectly for just this moment.  

    by sunsquared on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 03:34:23 PM PDT

    •  Perhaps but...

      I think Lieberman is more important to the Neocons than that.  

      The Neocons have a sort of inferiority problem. They think they're superior people but their ideas are so flakey that prior to 2000 they weren't taken seriously.

      Their ideas are still flakey. But, with Lieberman on their side, they could claim 'bipartisanship' for their ideas gaining instant credibility that they never came close to diserving.  

      I can't believe that the Neocons aren't lamenting this thought and so are trying to paint Lieberman as a centrist and the forces that are against him as radical reactionary leftist - a true threat to the whole nation.

      So perhaps I am wrong, but still, the loss of instant bipartisanship is a big loss to the Neocons and perhaps the first step towards their total banishment from publicn discourse, which having experienced for so long they secretly fear to be a likely event. And it would be nices if that was the case.

      by The Wonder Moron on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 01:08:12 PM PDT

•  Brooks and SCLM

  I just listened 20 minutes or so ago to the Shields and Brooks segment on PBS.

  I don't know the degree to which Brooks is parroting Republican talking points, or just the SCLM talking points, but I do find his part about 'moderates' interesting.

  It seems as though anybody who self describes as a moderate, or is otherwise considered a 'moderate' by the SCLM is above criticizm or scrutiny. Brooks never defended any of the decisions of Lieberman, but he did lump him in with other self styled moderates and said "look for the extreme wings of both parties to go after their moderates."

  So, the fact that Lieberman supported and still cheerleads for a war that most would argue has become a disaster is supposed to be overlooked because he is a 'moderate'?

  I think what is really fair to say is that the idea of holding elected leaders to account for their actions is something most in the SCLM just don't understand.

  by Adam T on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 03:31:29 PM PDT

•  Thanks, Mother Mags.........

  your rant made my evening!  Isn't amazing ( read: disgusting) that they give us so much to work with?

  by Cronesense on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 04:50:25 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, we'll never run outta material.

    by Mother Mags on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 05:23:49 PM PDT

    •  And that's the damn sad truth...n/t

      by Cronesense on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 07:01:02 PM PDT

•  Lieberman's acquiring some interesting supporters

  He's the Right's poster boy for the "good Democrat": someone midway between an animal companion and a domestic servant. Tame, in other words.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 04:56:37 PM PDT

•  I actually hold out some hope for Brooks

  I don't think he is a complete nutcase like William Kristol, for instance. I'm gald to see that he is paying attention here, and I hope he might learn something eventually.

  Great list, BTW.

  by tjfxh on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 05:04:35 PM PDT