You may only read this site if you've purchased Our Kampf from Amazon or Powell's or me
• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show

"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket

"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming

July 27, 2006

The Creatures Outside Looked From Pig To Man, And From Man To Pig, And From Pig To Man Again

Hezbollah? Or U.S. "supporter" of Israel?

...much of the world believes this evil ideology can be negotiated with. They believe it can be placated. They believe it can be bought off. They believe it can be reasoned with...

[But] no amount of concessions will appease the beast...

Only death and destruction...will quench the beast's appetite for blood and power.

U.S. "supporter" of Israel? Or Hezbollah?

This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations...

Our primary assumption in our fight against [this enemy] is that [our enemy] is aggressive from its inception...Therefore our struggle will end only when [our enemy] is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation...and regard all negotiators as enemies.

Answers here and here.

Posted at July 27, 2006 07:17 PM | TrackBack

Well the second one is more articulate, so that makes is Hizbollah?

Posted by: MCMC at July 27, 2006 08:58 PM

Since I live in the 21st Century and am surrounded by religious fanatics, here is an invitation to the majority the rest of the world to crawl out of the Dark Ages and join me here. In an age when technology is much smarter than the people utilizing it, maybe our present foreign policy should be much less interventionalist and much more tolerant based on the following suggestion from someone wiser than us all:

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."

I guess this statement makes George Washington a supporter of Hezbollah.

Posted by: americanintifada at July 28, 2006 12:15 AM

I recall my anthropology class many moons ago and one thing that stuck in my mind was when the anthropologist told us that entire countries can be insane.

I think I would revise that to most of the world is insane.

Those are two of the most depressing documents I have read in a while, insanity is always so depressing, and they reinforce my dislike of tribalism in all its manifestations.

Here is a link to a recent Molly Ivins column related to the insane topic of insanity plus a snippet of said column for your edification and enjoyment.

"From the first day of 24/7 coverage, you could tell this was big. By the time Chapter 9,271 of the conflicts in the Middle East had gotten its own logo, everyone knew it was huge. I mean, like, bigger than Natalee Holloway. Then anchormen began to arrive in the Middle East, and people like Anderson Cooper and Tucker Carlson-real experts. Then Newt Gingrich-and who would know better than Newt?-declared it was World War III. Let's ratchet up the fear here-probably good for Republican campaigning.
By then, of course, you couldn't find a television story about the back corridors of diplomacy and what was or, more important, what was not going on there. Between Anderson Cooper and Tucker Carlson, it was obviously World War III, and besides, there were a bunch of American refugees in Lebanon who couldn't get out, and so elements of the Katrina story appeared. Thank God Anderson was there.

Meanwhile, people who should have known better were all in a World III snit over Chapter 9,271. Actually, they all knew better, but it was a better story if you overplayed it-sort of like watching a horror movie that you know will turn out OK in the end, but meanwhile you get to enjoy this delicious chill of horror up your spine.
What if it really was The End? I mean, any fool could see it could easily careen out of control, and when George W. Bush is all you've got for rational, fair-minded grown-ups, well, there it is.

If I may raise a nasty political possibility: One good reason for the Bush administration to leave Chapter 9,271 to burn out of control is that this administration thrives on fear. Fear has been the text and the subtext of every Republican campaign since 9/11. Endless replay of the footage from 9/11 has graced every Republican campaign since. Could it be that 9/11 is beginning to pall, to feel as overplayed as Natalee Holloway? Fear is actually more dangerous than war in the Middle East. For those who spin dizzily toward World War III, the Apocalypse, the Rapture-always with that delicious frisson of terror-the slow, patient negotiations needed to get it back under control are Not News."

And as Molly Ivins goes on to point that FDR said
'We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Regardless of what ever peoples opinions of FDR are he got that one right.

Posted by: rob payne at July 28, 2006 01:30 AM

Each of the three great religions present in the Middle East have all at some point in their history been oppressed. Each has also perpetrated great violence and evil. That is the point I take from this post.

Put simply, it's evil fighting evil, both in the name of God. It's the innocents that get caught in the crossfire that we need to be worried about protecting. And that can't be done if we take one side or the other, because protecting those innocents isn't about that.

Iraq and Lebanon, who are supposed to be our friends, our new bastions of democracy, are refusing to ask Hezbollah to stop, and the US is refusing to demand that Israel cease its reckless attacks.

Both are to blame, but as the leader of the free world, we ought to be able to at least speak to both sides. But, as Hezbollah puts it, "to negotiate with the enemy is to legitimize it."

The only language our administration really knows how to speak with any coherence is military force. And they are clumsy at that.

We have lost our moral authority to even talk about conflict resolution. Diplomacy will not be restored until our leadership is changed here at home.

Posted by: Teacherman at July 28, 2006 01:34 AM

...I live in the 21st Century and am surrounded by religious fanatics...

They don't have to be religious fanatics, any ideology will do.

Including, unfortunately, those talking mostly about pluralism, tolerance, freedom, human rights, etc. Because, you see: you can't tolerate those who aren't tolerant enough, they have to be obliterated, killed or captured.

Posted by: abb1 at July 28, 2006 02:24 AM

"To negotiate with the enemy is to legitimize it."

Notice that is exactly the same basis for American diplomacy utilized by Bush and his little band of global gallopers. He has used it with Iraq, Iran as well as North Korea and is in fact no diplomacy at all. Bush wants the rest of the world to bow to his will and negotiating has taken on a new meaning which is every one else should see things his way. Israel is using the same form of diplomacy with the same botched results.

Indeed, there will be no diplomacy as long as Bush is president.

Posted by: rob payne at July 28, 2006 02:24 AM

I should also have clarified that organized religion is based upon the fear and ignorance of the many controlled and manipulated by the cleverness of the few.

Posted by: americanintifada at July 28, 2006 03:09 AM


Indeed, there actually is diplomacy being utilized by the Bushanistas, but it is the old-fashioned late 19th Century 'gunboat diplomacy' only with state-of-the-art technology.

There is an article in the Christian Science Monitor regarding 87% of Lebanese being pro-Hezbollah and much is revealed in this comment by Dr. Ghassan Farron:

"Look what America gives us, bombs and missiles. I was never a political person and never with Hizbullah, but now after this I am with Hizbullah."

In that context, Bushanistas are very diplomatic! They are also deeply religious. Their God is gold and their mantra is "All praise the Almighty D'Allah!"

Posted by: americanintifada at July 28, 2006 03:47 AM


Certainly we are not making many friends over Middle East way while we continue to increase the number of people that hate our guts.

I suppose this is all part of that welcoming with flowers and open arms, hugs and kisses.

Dallah be praised.

Well you know I always thought the American flag really should be the dollar bill, what do you think?

Of course with inflation maybe the flag now needs to be a twenty dollar bill.

Maybe the republicans will nominate a one hundred dallah bill in the next election, their own version of Bill Clinton. The vice presidential candidate could be a certificate of deposit and they will promise voters a 5.5 APY for their returns.

Let me look at my crystal ball – hmm, I see an increase in the dow jones and terrorist activity right before the November elections perhaps an October surprise with a few orange alerts thrown in for good measure. You know it is bad luck to change parties during a fake occupation and imperial expansion. Just as England because the sun just set.

Maybe the democrats will nominate a parrot that keeps repeating never question the president over and over. Squawk, squawk. I hear if Hillary is nominated she will be campaigning in combat boots and smoking a cigar and her running mate will be a wooden Indian statue from a cigar store.

I can't wait to see who Hillary is going to invade. Maybe she could drive the British out of the Falkland Islands or something like that. I understand the Falkland Islanders have WMD and are a grave and gathering threat to world peace. Pundits will be discussing the pros and cons of democracy in the Falklands for years to come.

I think invading the Falklands is the only sane thing to do.

Posted by: rob payne at July 28, 2006 04:41 AM

C'mon, Rob!

Keep your Falkland hands off of those Falkland Islands! Try invading Grenada again instead. Not only will it guaranty victory instead of a hopeless quagmire, it will give old Clint Eastwood a chance to make another pro-war movie before he croaks.

When Hillary takes over as Prez, that's a fantastic idea to have her issue the new $100 with 'First Husband' BJ taking the place of hundred dollar Ben. It truly will be a hundred dollar Bill!

If the Dems get back in bed with one another, her wooden statue running mate will be Joe Lieberman. After the inauguration, the firmly re-established Hill and Billy can issue a proclamation from the Whiteman's House. It will authorize a new version of the American flag with the same old Red and White stripes, but change the dark blue/white stars to the flag of Israel.

Run that up the Democratic flagpole and see who salutes it!

Posted by: americanintifada at July 28, 2006 05:25 AM

Can I enroll as an aging graduate student at Stutts?
Pretty please?

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 08:53 AM

abb1: intolerance can be obliterated by awakening; it's not such a violent process. i'm not so sure i have ever encountered anyone who wanted to kill for tolerance. violence tends to cause more sleepwalking, which is something even the moderately awake despise.

the intolerant, however, have a need to subjugate or even kill the tolerant. it's difficult to force people to be less open and aware without using violence.

Posted by: joe_christmas at July 28, 2006 12:15 PM

i do see intolerant people talking about tolerance and killing those viewed as intolerant, which is likely what you're talking about, abb1. it's early, and perhaps i'm not awake enough to be in this thread...

Posted by: joe_christmas at July 28, 2006 12:18 PM

It's OK, normally I'm not quite sure what I'm talking about myself.

Posted by: abb1 at July 28, 2006 03:54 PM

When Jonathan Farah keeps talking about radical Islamists as "the beast," and this struggle with emerging Islam as the penultimate good-evil post-Christianity struggle in all of history, do you think this is deliberate "dog whistle" politics for the end-timers?

Or is he so deep in this worldview that he doesn't even realize he's essentially calling for Armaggedon and casting Mohammed (peace be upon him) as the anti-Christ in this Revelations-style wet dream?

Posted by: Whistler Blue at July 28, 2006 05:15 PM

Farah is identical to his radical Islamists. They are two peas in a pod. Tribalism is so depressing in its mindless madness and tribalism makes Farah part of the problem not the answer.

Posted by: rob payne at July 28, 2006 06:29 PM

Whistler Blue:

I think the right are coming to realize that when you exclude all them durn commie imtanalectuals from the policy process, the outcome tends to be predictably fucking stupid. So you factor in that most intellectuals cherish the values of the Enlightenment (if not all of it's products), and out comes another attempt to paint the extreme right (clerical as ever) as defenders of the Enlightenment against the savage hordes.



"I saw a black cat, and then another one just like it."

"How much like it? Was it the same cat?"

Posted by: James Cape at July 28, 2006 06:58 PM

"...we must recognize that Lebanon is the latest flashpoint in a broader struggle between freedom and terror that is unfolding across the region"

al-Zawahiri, Bush, Nasrallah or Olmert?

Posted by: abb1 at July 29, 2006 10:10 AM

In the interest of sanity and clearing the muddled claptrap spewed by Farah here is a very informative post by Larry Johnson concerning attitudes held in Washington on Hizballah as viewed by Ray Close.

A few days ago, I received a report from a friend in Washington who has very close connections to high-ranking intelligence analysts at the Pentagon. I will omit the names of the individuals identified, but will summarize the information that this excellent source provided to me. (Please note: This source is NOT the one who told me a couple of days ago that the US would indeed be prepared to send a contingent of American troops to serve in southern Lebanon as an incentive to others, if necessary, to join an international force to impose and then help maintain a ceasefire between Israel and Hizballah.)

My source confirmed in detail the fact that intelligence being produced for the Bush Administration by the Pentagon strongly supports the thesis that Hizballah operations are directly controlled and closely managed from Teheran. My source considers this an exaggerated picture of the real situation. He believes that this assessment contributes to an unhealthy and even dangerous mindset in Washington, leading to potentially serious miscalculations and errors of judgment by President Bush and his closest advisors at this very critical time.

I was equally upset to hear this view repeated unanimously (and identically) by a variety of people on national TV yesterday, coming from Senators McCain, Schumer, George Allen and John Warner as well as official spokespersons from State and the NSC. It was as if they were all reading from the same artfully crafted briefing sheet handed to them by some staffer who got it straight from either JINSA or the Washington Institute
It is a dangerously one-sided point of view that furthers Israel's long-standing objective of luring the US into a violent confrontation with Iran. The ultimate consequence could be that everyone in the USG --- Democrats as well as Republicans --- from the President on down --- will, by such dangerously oversimplified logic and careless rhetoric, accelerate America's momentum toward:

(1) officially defining and treating Hizballah's actions against Israel just as if they were atrocities by international terrorism aimed directly at the people of the United States, and thereby:

(2) making it almost inevitable that both political parties in the US will talk themselves into a "moral" commitment to aggressively confront those who encourage, support and harbor Hizballah terrorists (i.e. Syria and Iran), and thereby:

(3) making impossible the establishment of any constructive dialogue with either Iran or Syria in which other critical issues, such as Iraq and nuclear proliferation, for example, might be dealt with by means short of violence. In other words, this widely-supported urban legend is rapidly becoming another potentially disastrous conflation of biased intelligence analysis, simplistic political bombast and lunatic fringe right-wing Christianity that could drive us toward another major military confrontation --- whether or not that was really our carefully considered and intelligently reasoned objective.

Posted by: rob payne at July 29, 2006 01:57 PM

It's all about payback for some perceived past/future ill, BUT then again nothing----NOTHING brightens one's day like a damn fine rationalization. FINALLY an almost plasuable excuse to invade Iran. ( I suppose the atom bomb thingy fell through)

Posted by: Mike Meyer at July 30, 2006 03:21 PM

Ahh, plausibility, is there such a thing in Bushland?


I agree this does not brighten this day or any other day and though it does not empower us to know something of what is happening it at least relieves the burden of being plowed under with crazy conjecture and misinformation. However I find little comfort in that and less and less as days go by.

I fear Israel or at least their government has gone bonkers for clearly they will achieve no good goal in this endeavor. They will not succeed in defeating Hizbollah nor will they achieve any kind of lasting security.

Israel has seen the failure of force in Iraq which is continuing to disintegrate before our eyes and what is emerging is certainly nothing remotely like stability in the Mid East so I think the driving force of Israeli aggression is pure stark fear.

Posted by: rob payne at July 30, 2006 11:08 PM

Israel does what it's PAID to do. (don't we all?) One often hears the theory that American policy is dictated by Israel when quite the opposite is true. Billions of dollars buys a hell of a lot of government, anywhere. Makes me wonder why am I still paying these people.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at July 31, 2006 12:25 AM

Yeah, I am inclined to agree with you that it is the U.S. that is calling the shots. We certainly are providing Israel with weapons as well as gobs of money. And quite probably the end results will be the same which ever way it is as the Arab world believes the U.S. is behind the violence and who can blame them.

I found this over at the Truthdig website:

Israel just murdered 37 children in Qana. But does their government regret it?

"Israel expressed deep regret for the incident but vows to continue its campaign for 10 days to 2 weeks."

Not really and Bush still continues to refuse to call for a cease fire.

Posted by: rob payne at July 31, 2006 12:41 AM

Mike Meyer,

Billions of lobbying dollars indeed buys governments and the US Congress acts accordingly. AIPAC is but one of multitudes of lobbyists. These people own Congress. The insurance companies have so much power that they have made their particular extortion racket mandatory by law, especially with car insurance.

In addition to lobby money from lawyers and pharmeceutical companies, Americans will never see affordable health care. To paraphrase Adlai Stevenson: 'In a democracy you get the kind of government you can afford.'

Posted by: americanintifada at July 31, 2006 12:54 AM

Aparently we can only afford the cheap corrupt kind. Politicans who can't think.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at July 31, 2006 01:14 AM

Ah, but they CAN think, Mike. Unfortunately for us, it's with their wallets! If you're an American with an income so low that you're below the poverty level, you can avoid paying for all of this insanity. However, we, the taxpaying working slobs, are going to be stuck with an enormous tab, so make sure you leave a generous gratuity and have a nice Crusade!

Posted by: americanintifada at July 31, 2006 01:25 AM

Looks more like armed robbery than a crusade. It's just the TAXPAYER gets to buy the gun and ski mask used in the crime. And yes, the TAXPAYER IS the intended victim. Hold the gun to the Iraqi's head, steal the shirt off AMERICA'S back.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at July 31, 2006 01:47 AM

But then on the other hand it is the rich who are not paying taxes, congress keeps giving them tax break after tax break. And one does not have to have the ability to think to be greedy. Bush has shown that he is completely ignorant of even some of the more basic facts concerning the Middle East. I have long held the theory that one does not have to be smart to be rich rather a complete lack of conscience is all that is required. And while I have sympathy for the disappearing middle class my thoughts are by far more turned to the 37 children that have just been murdered. And the price America will pay will be counted in much more than dollars.

Posted by: rob payne at July 31, 2006 03:34 AM


Could you possibly be referring to taxation without proper representation? Seems as though this was an important subject once upon a time. Only more attacks on American soil will make people here see and feel the reality of that fomented rage created by BushCo's terrorist policies which have been funded by looting the treasury.

It may take rioting in the streets to stop this war-profiteering gang of thugs, along the lines of the LBJ and NixxOn eras. Or maybe even a modern day uprising to take back our republic. 'Intifada' means 'an uprising' and right now we need one here at home to stop the repression from our current American Inquisition. You know, sort of like an American Intifada.

I think I just committed an act of terrorism. Sure felt good, though. See ya'll in gulag on Diego Garcia!!!

Posted by: americanintifada at July 31, 2006 04:17 AM

Btw, who said this, when and what was he talking about:

"And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children."

Answer here:

Good luck to all of us.

Posted by: abb1 at July 31, 2006 07:21 AM

The political reality of 2006++++> if you want REPRESENTATION ON YOUR TAXATION then you'll just have to represent yourself. NOBOBY else is going to, especially not Congress.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at July 31, 2006 10:27 AM

Represent myself? Is that anything like a mass debate?

Posted by: americanintifada at August 1, 2006 12:21 AM

It's exactly what your doing right now. Your name on your opinion on how you want your money spent.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 1, 2006 11:42 AM

Mike Meyer,

I have been a chronic letter writer to Congress and all previous presidents suggesting a tax reform program that would allow provisions in the IRS forms as to how we, the taxpayers, could distribute those extorted funds. I have no problem paying taxes as long as the division is fair. Stop corporate loopholes and stop allowing organized religions a tax-free status. We would also have a 'pro-war' or 'anti-war' box to check instead of donations to political parties. That would enable me to clear my conscience somewhat of the war crimes committed by the good old US gub'ment, knowing that it was not my tax dollar paying for this insanity by these ignorant crusading x-tians!

Posted by: americanintifada at August 2, 2006 06:29 AM

Your relieing on the Prez and Congress to listen to you. Unless you are a MAJOR contributor, a lobyist with party favors, or a blood relation it's just not going to happen. You just stated annicdotal proof yourself telling about your letters as I believe you are an AMERICAN TAXPAYER. Your remedy is to join with your fellow AMERICAN TAXPAYERS(and it doesn't take all that many), your recourse is PETITIONS AND SIGNATURES. It takes time, it takes effort on the part of many people, (one person can't do it alone, believe me I've tried) but mainly it takes SIGNATURES, SIGNATURES, SIGNATURES. It's pure First Admendent and it's that simple. (or difficult) It works. 19000 signatures removed the tax on food in Wyoming July 1 2006. It helps the poor more than the rich although its fair and equal, in an all republican state, that raised up trained and educated, and brought forth the joy to the world that is Dick Cheney. If it can be done in Deadeye Dick's home base, it can be done anywhere in AMERICA, even where you live. You have your friends, your neighbors, the internet. (many of the signatures were gathered on line) It's a one item one step at a time process to be sure but if you think a little bit about it and are dedicated (99% persperation) you and your fellow TAXPAYERS WILL WIN.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 2, 2006 12:47 PM


I have been writing to these clowns since my days in school when I was a little bitty 'fada, so it's a hard habit to break. I know these jerks don't care, but it makes me feel better. I have also been on the 'grassroots' circuit with petitions, the last time in '95 to get 3 initiatives on the California ballot: no fault car insurance, caps on attorney fees for settlement cases, and the corporate class action lawsuit restrictions.

Those same people we call the 'informed electorate' completely forgot the importance of those initiatives, since all three were defeated come election time. They saw all of those political commercials funded by attorneys and insurance companies that claimed all three initiatives were backed by the evil attorney/insurance company combine that we were actually fighting against. Go figure!

I collected thousands of signatures and registered hundreds of voters on many campaigns, but it still takes money to run even the smallest of grassroots campaigns. In words more valid today than back in 1905 when Mr. Tammany Hall himself, George Washington Plunkitt, spewed them forth: "Money is the mother's milk of politics."

And you can call me 'a' since it's shorter. (Ya doesn't have to call me Johnson!)

Posted by: americanintifada at August 2, 2006 02:44 PM

It's a contest and you can lose, sure. My friend once taught me "If you bang your head against the wall long enough, pretty soon you won't feel a thing." When you get to the point your numbed out is when you win. If you've noticed, in politics, it's the sensible people who lose.( I give you our present administration for an excellant example.) A sad comment about life on Planet Earth, if you're CHICKENSHIT enough you will get what ever you want. Maybe a petition that is a direct shot into the Legislature instead a ballot initiative will get you what you want. Elected officials tend to worry about their jobs and perks longer than the 30 second sound bite of public attention. Never give up, never say die, and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER BE SENISIBLE ABOUT THESE THINGS. P.S. Don't be afraid or ashamed to ask for the lots of money it will surely take to win. After all it goes to help your FELLOW AMERICAN and the Citizens of YOUR State have a better, happier life.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at August 2, 2006 07:17 PM