It's now a cliche around these parts that right-wingers "support our troops" by just slapping one of those ribbon magnets on their SUVs.

Being the good little progressive that I am, I assumed that this was just snark, and there wasn't anything to the stereotype. But, out of boredom, I started counting those ribbon magnets while driving around, and keeping track of what cars they were on....

Guaranteed 100% Content-Free poll-diary!

Now that the inmates have been running the asylum for five years, which of these Yesterday's Tomorrow's have we become, Today? Between the Doublespeak, bloodthirsty militarism, and religious fundamentalism, it's so hard to tell...

Of course, feel free to offer write-in votes, as I'm sure I'm forgetting several Dystopias.

The Smithsonian generated some controversy recently when it was learned that the museum was going to allow the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the group pushing the "Intelligent Design" agenda, to screen a film titled "The Privileged Planet" on the museum grounds.  The film, apparently (I have not seen it), promotes Intelligent Design.

A relative of mine who is in a graduate program on museum science has been forwarding emails from a discussion group among curators and students about the Smithsonian's decision, and many of these people have been in contact with the Smithsonian, arguing that screening the ID film was at odds with the very purpose of a museum.  The Smithsonian has just issued a response, and it seems they decided the critics were correct.  However, they won't be preventing the showing, as they have apparently already entered into a contract with the Discovery Institute to allow the use of their facilities for the movie as a private event.

The complete Smithsonian statement is below:

After the nuclear compromise last night, there was an explosion of debate about what the deal meant, what its ramifications were, and which side won.  Some folks ventured over into the right-wing blogs to see what their reactions were, and reported back a lot of similar reactions to those that were happening here.  Out of morbid curiousity, I started making some of those rounds myself. It was a creepy and unsettling experience, but not for all the reasons I expected.

The creepiest part of the trudge through Wingnuttia was that it did not feel like a carnival freak show or Aryan rally. Even worse, it felt more like looking through a mirror - everything was familiar, but completely backwards.

More below...

According to ABC News, the CIA has recently blown up another al-Qaeda operative.  

Want to guess where in the chain of command this operative was?  It couldn't possibly be "third" could it....?

...which now puts the number of al Qaeda #3s killed somewhere probably around 20.  Although if you want to play Lawyerball about it, we don't know if this fellow had actually gotten his promotion processed by HR before his explosion.

Update [2005-5-13 19:10:47 by Nim]:: I just noticed this rather engimatically ominous closing line to the article in question:

Whoopsie!

If you want well-researched, thoroughly linked and sourced ruminations on progressive issues, please visit any of the other diaries in the list. This is just low-grade Google snark, not to be confused with actual political nutrition.

Is there anything to be learned from how many hits Google returns on a search? Maybe, maybe not...

"Tom Daschle" and capitulate - 846
"Harry Reid" and capitulate - 396

"Tom DeLay" and corrupt - 126,000
"Nancy Pelosi" and corrupt - 26,700
"Newt Gingrich" and corrupt - 44,500
"Tom Foley" and corrupt - 2,820

"Dick Cheney" and Satan - 145,000
"John Edwards" and Satan - 75,700

Republican and "sexual repression" - 3,610
Democrat and "sexual repression" - 585

"Bill Frist" and crapweasel - 27
"Bill Frist" and cats - 69,300
"Bill Frist" and ghoul - 201
"Laura Bush" and robot - 21,200

"George Bush" and "short bus" - 848
"Bill Clinton" and "short bus" - 545

"Rush Limbaugh" and bullshit - 56,900
"Al Franken" and bullshit - 30,700

Does it mean anything? Probably not :)

This morning as I was reading a BBC "Have Your Say" piece asking readers What Should the New Pope Do?, I found that as I was reading the comments, some of them struck me as being particularly bull-headed, sanctimonious, having basic factual mistakes, and/or generally sounding like aggressive "talking point" debate.  It turned out that most (but not all) of these nose-wrinkling comments were submitted by my fellow countrymen.

Has the level of discourse and debate in the US really sunk to the level of sanctimonious talking-point FOX-news-style verbal bludgeonings? Or is it just me....?

Take the quiz, and see if you can spot the comments submitted by Americans, in response to the question - What should the new pope do?