Re: The Way Forward

1

I suspect that they will engineer a more plausible crisis this time than last time. They can learn from their mistakes.

The pressure will be intense, and half the Democrats will cave in immediately.

horizontal rule
2

The only place I disagree with Atrios is that nothing will happen to Iran. I'd love to be wrong here, mind you.

horizontal rule
3

His protestations in that piece you linked to notwithstanding, I don't trust Kevin not to fold in some important way.

Digby had another take.

horizontal rule
4

Now, bg, why wouldn't you trust him?

horizontal rule
5

Exactly, Weiner.

horizontal rule
6

I just posted a more long-winded thing on TPM cafe. Not appropriate here, but if you ask what will work best for Bush in domestic politics, that's what he'll do. He won't be thinking about military realities and he won't be thinking about long term consequences.

horizontal rule
7

Kevin is the first name that came to mind on the question of caving? ("Caving" may not be the right word.)

horizontal rule
8

Re #6 -- Drum, TNR, and various others, sometimes even including Sausagely himself, will also sometimes speak of major policy questions in primarily electoral terms.

Sometimes you have to do that, and on some secondary and pork-barrel type issues (gun control, artichoke supports) doing so is necessary and relatively painless. But not only is it wrong to decide major issues that way, it looks bad. Whenever Democrats try to talk tough on military questions, they just look weaker and more opportunistic.

One reason why Democratic options are so constricted is that generic public opinion, especially as heard on free media, is center-right or far right. There's been a well-funded 30-year Republican strategy of recruiting opinion-makers and placing their people in influential positions in the media, and it's worked.

horizontal rule
9

Shorter Kevin Drum:

"The Republicans are going to do all they can to control the terms of the debate, and we should totally let them."

horizontal rule
10

I keep wondering what the Israelis will do. Are they going to work in tandem with the administration, on the American election timetable, or take matters into their own hands?

horizontal rule
11

I don't think Kevin wants to concede the terms of debate to the repugs. He's trying to stir up the Democrats to come up with some counter terms.

This is depressing. When is the conversation going to turn to sex like Unfogged threads usually do?

horizontal rule
12

The sex wouldn't be the same without the bursts of seriousness.

horizontal rule
13

What's with the hating on Kevin? His post seems totally reasonable to me. Rather than being giddy that the Abramoff scandal is going to get rid of a bunch of Republicans, we need to be ready for another national security crisis. Given how ineffectual the Democrats have been in coming up with compelling alternatives to Republican fear-mongering, a heads-up seems like just the thing.

As for setting the terms of the debate, well, whoever is President can do that, and Ahmadinejad is helping him out a whole lot.

horizontal rule
14

I...shudder...agree with ogged. Also, the conversation usually turns into sex?! How have I not noticed this? I feel so left out.

horizontal rule
15

So the democrats will cave, and then all us liberals will start going back to having sex with each other, only this time, we'll really move to canada first.

horizontal rule
16

What national security crisis? Is anyone suggesting that Iran has the capacity to strike the US? NO. Just like Iraq, this Iran thing would have nothing to do with national security, sanely understood (i.e., the physical safety of the US mainland).

Israel already has nukes, and on the issue of national suicide, I'm going to assume Ahmadinejad is a rational actor until I get really strong evidence otherwise. The US just needs to back the fuck off.

horizontal rule
17

The core problem is the underlying assumption that "crowd-pleasing" == "some variation on the Republican policy." How about just saying "no"? Look where nuance and seriousness got us last time.

horizontal rule
18

My worry is that Bush really will do something. He's more than stupid enough to order an airstrike. At that point the Iranians might just decide they're never going to get a better chance to stick it to us and they'll do something like send 100,000 troops into Iraq. This could could get bloody real fast.

horizontal rule
19

Emerson, I'd like to read your café piece but I am inept at navigating over there. Link please.

horizontal rule
20

This should be a link to Emerson's comment. The thread isn't bad, although, as usual, completely impossible to follow. If you want a massive link-dump on this issue, go to the top post on my name's url.

horizontal rule
21

Kotsko: Do you really think "The US just needs to back the fuck off" will constitute a "crowd-pleasing answer" reply? It's always nice to think that if Democrats just stood tall and proud and spoke the truth that this would turn out to be a brilliant political strategy, but it seems rather unlikely in that particular instance.

horizontal rule
22

What about, "Try not to be such p**sies." (New word, please.) It's not like we didn't ask Americans to bear the risk of total fucking annihilation for 50 years. And all we got was no nuclear war and peaceful triumph over our enemy.

Maybe we can promise to kick Greneda's ass, again.

horizontal rule
23

Grenada? Are you being satirical?

Are there subjects that have never been discussed on Unfogged?

horizontal rule
24

Hating on Kevin: in the post I linked in 4, it looks kind of like he's saying that we're going to get the choice between leaky and ineffective sanctions and air strikes -- and when you put it that way, air strikes sound appealing. And KD says we have to think seriously about the issue.

Which would be fine, except that KD and others spent so much time thinking seriously about Iraq that they supported the war up till, oh, about a month or two beforehand -- by which time it was too late; when some actual serious thought along the lines of "There's no fucking casus belli, Iraq isn't an immediate threat, and everything the Bush Administration has said gives the impression that they'll be totally unserious about the war" would have led one to oppose the war sooner. (We've been over this pretty much ad nauseum, so if you don't believe with what I just said, pls take it as part of an explanation of why I don't trust KD on this issue.)

In other words, KD has let himself be played before. And I'm pretty sure that any war against Iran would be an absolute and total fucking disaster -- we'd be better off losing outright than winding up with an Iraq-style insurgency. So I'm a bit twitchy about KD saying that we now have to be very serious about the choice between blowing shit up and leaky and ineffective sanctions. If he's going to start a conversation about why blowing shit up won't work and why we need to present some realistic alternatives, that would be great.

Saiselgy may have the right approach in saying that we need to emphasize how badly Bush has screwed up. His comment 21 sounds sort of like speaking of major policy questions in political terms (and I think it is very bad politics for the Dems to seem to be testing the wind on this; our problem is that we don't seem to stand for anything), but we do have to be able to say something about the policy. And maybe an OK one would be "Look, Bush fucked up badly, he'd really like a war now to fix his screwups, but you shouldn't let him have one unless you luuuve how the last one's turned out."

But I'm no political strategist. The only thing I'm sure of: War on Iran almost certainly a horrible idea. Don't get caught in a Beinart-Packer situation in which the only people who are to be taken seriously are the ones who are willing to seriously entertain war even though it's a horrible idea (and even after it's been proven to be a total failure).

horizontal rule
25

I don't read the linked post that way. Kevin's not limiting us to the choices he thinks Bush will present--there's his "hypothetical c"--but saying that we have to take the issue seriously because it will probably define the upcoming elections. Again, it sounds like a caution against complacency to me: don't think you'll get to crow about Abramoff when, in fact, trying to do so will get you painted as soft on national security, again.

horizontal rule
26

And I'm pretty sure that any war against Iran would be an absolute and total fucking disaster

I think that's exactly right. Anyone with fantasies about bombing Iran should stop and think about just how badly it could go for us.

Iran has mandatory military service at 18, and well over 10 million able bodied males aged 18-49. They could pretty easily field hundreds of thousands of infantry, every one of them having already had formal training. In addition, our military is bogged down in cities in Iraq, where our air superiority is of little to no use. This situation has real potential to turn into a total bloodbath.

horizontal rule
27

I don't think the US electorate is ina very jingoist mood right now. Or pro-republican. If they stay united and handle the matter with some skill, it should be a winning issue for the dems. If.

horizontal rule
28

Will republicans in swing seat rally behind the president?

horizontal rule
29

War with Iran is a whole ot crazier than war with Iraq and the natinal mood is different.

I'm not saying Atrios scenario is completelyy unlikely, but I think you're much too pessimistic.

horizontal rule
30

Is any one else weirded out when a major foreign policy issue gets framed primarily in terms of political stage-craft? Maybe it's just taken as read here that the proper response to an Iranian nuclear program is indifference. For me, howevever, the question of what if anything, can be done to limit Iranian nuclear ambitions holds more interest than the qusetion of who win short term political gain in the spin-cycle about Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Also, with respect to Drum, what did he write that is so terrible? He's just trying, it seems, to encourage the Democratic party to develop an Iran policy. That's a good idea. Not too many people define US security interests as the safety of the US mainland. Maybe that's the official Dem view, but if so, probably good to state it. If one doesn't want to state it, either beacuse it's wrong, or because the stupid, stupid electorate won't listen to the truth, then one needs to articulate and promote another positive position. Like Weiner says, it's important to stand for something. Hey, it's great that Atrios wants to predict the roll-out of the "confront-Iran" propaganda initiative in loving detail, but that's kind of a secondary feature, no? The New Deal had a propaganda initiative too.

horizontal rule
31

Damn right I'm weirded out, baa. It's very frightening to have Karl Rove be the second most powerful person in the world.

And of course, since you're a Republican, the fact that this is probably a political ploy doesn't bother you a bit. Because if the trick works, your side will win! If Bush is able to fool 51% of the people all of the time, you'll be happy.

One of the reasons that many ended up not supporting the Iraq war was that they decided that Bush and his team were too dishonest, devious, incompetent, and misinformed ever to do anything right. Those reasons still hold.

Something not mentioned by Drum and not mentioned so far here is the reason why the Bush point of view is going to have more "traction" than ours, and why public opinion might swing his way.

The media will cave first. Anti-war spokesmen will not be on TV. And eventually a lot of people are going to end up thinking "Well, everyone else seems to think that the threat is serious this time". And Bush and his people will not hold anything back in their attempts to terrify the American people and smear war opponents. (The swiftboating of Murtha is already happening.)

The upsetting thing isn;t that people are saying that Bush is willing to start a war for domestic policy reasons. The upsetting thing is that it's true.

horizontal rule
32

the question of what if anything, can be done to limit Iranian nuclear ambitions

What do you think can be done, baa? Osirak-style air strikes don't really appear to be an option here, given that the Iranian nuclear program is reported to be widely distributed in hardened sites across a country nearly 4x the size of Iraq. Plus, our intelligence on Iran is bound to be worse than it was with Iraq, so even knowing where to bomb might be problematic.

the proper response to an Iranian nuclear program is indifference

I doubt that anybody's indifferent, but speaking solely for myself, if Iran decides it's going to become a nuclear state, then Iran is going to become a nuclear state and there's f*ck-all we can do about it, short of drafting all our fighting age men and invading. The West's task is to figure out to deal with an nuclear Iranian state, not entertain fantasies of how we're going to prevent it. When Israel developed nuclear weapons, neighboring states going nuclear became a matter of when, not if, just like Pakistan following India.

horizontal rule
33

I've been expecting something like this ever since Bush's luck started turning. An international or domestic security crisis is the only card Bush has left.

The scheduling of the crisis is what's suspect. Iranian nukes would be a bad thing, and something should be done if possile, but why is the issue coming up now? About a month ago I asked whether there were designated trigger districts used to decide whether the Iran issue is raised for the 2006 election or the 2008 election. Congessional polls have been looking bad for awhile, especially because the Republicans have been shown to be vote-selling, grafting slime, so the calendar has been moved up.

It's a version of Pascal's wager. The odds of Bush being right might be very small, but the threat that he claims (an Iranian nuclear attack) is very large. So if you multiply it out, aren't we better off believing him?

The answer, of course, is no. Anyone who thinks that the answer is yes is a born sucker, but there are lots of them in the electorate, and there are lots of plants with war agendas both in the media and in the Democratic Party.

Alas, I do NOT know how to present this issue to the American people. Bush's whole success and all his skill are in domestic politics, and he's formidable there.

Fool me twice, shame on me. I expect the American people to do another Charlie Brown, though.

horizontal rule
34

Indeedy. If you're weirded out when foreign policy is discussed in terms of political stage-craft, you shouldn't have voted for Bush, unless you like being weirded out.

Maybe it's just taken as read here that the proper response to an Iranian nuclear program is indifference. For me, howevever, the question of what if anything, can be done to limit Iranian nuclear ambitions....

No it isn't. I'm taking it as read that war with Iran is a bad idea. I think that Bush's total fucking incompetence has led us into a situation in which we may not have any acceptable ways to limit Iranian nuclear ambitions -- perhaps this was inevitable anyway, but Bush's massive indifference to nuclear proliferation, except insofar as it could be used in political stagecraft (see on the one hand Korea, North, and on the other gun, smoking, and cloud, mushroom in the form of) certainly didn't help. Perhaps in an absolutely ideal society, we wouldn't be discussing this, but the "don't go to war in Iran" policy needs a propaganda initiative too.

As for Drum, it may be that he's just saying "Democrats need to develop an Iran policy." That would be great and salutary. But Kevin has been a bit too prone to the Packer line on Iraq, the criticisms of which are best summed up here:

He sounds pretty grudging to me in acknowledging that many on the antiwar side were as serious and thoughtful as any of the hawks, AND turned out to be right.

(see also SCMT in the same thread, who from his first paragraph I suspect of being altmouse.)

Cautions against complacency are excellent; calls to develop policy are excellent; I wish I were a little more confident that Drum was starting from a baseline of "War with Iran led by Bush [that clause inserted for reasons of competence, not politics] is a very bad idea unless there are very very very very compelling reasons for it."

Perhaps I should have pointed out Kleiman as someone who's already taking the bait (he also never opposed the war on Iraq).

[I took out a couple of links in this post to avoid being spam-filtered; Ogged, don't approve the other version of the post.]

horizontal rule
35

It's always nice to think that if Democrats just stood tall and proud and spoke the truth that this would turn out to be a brilliant political strategy,

Don't confuse presentation with policy. If invading Iran is a bad idea, then the Dems need to find a way to sell it while looking strong. Right now the strategy seems to be 'let's not stand up for anything because we have the 2006 midterm to think of', which doesn't seem like it's going to fly during the 2006 election.

If the only thing the Democrats can think of is to support invading Iran while mildly protesting, we're done. The Republicans are better at being convincing warhawks.

If the strategy is going to be to refuse to voice serious opposition to the war because they can't figure out how to do it without making themselves look weak, then what's the point of having a Democrat in office anyway?

horizontal rule
36

One reason we should think that this case is as problematic as the Iraq case is that most of worst of the Iraq people are still in place. Woilfowitch has been transferred and Powell, a relative voice of sanity, is out. The Bush Administration's message is that they were right all along and are going to give us more of the same.

If they really think that it's serious this time, they should acknowledge their past mistakes, roll some heads, and give us reason to think that they aren't lying again and won't screw up again. But that's exactly what they're not going to do.

horizontal rule
37

The Democrats' dilemma is that if they and if they oppose war they are made to look weak a different way, but if they give in to the Republicans they look weak a different way. As long as a pro-war consensus can effortlessly be engineered, the Democrats lose. Someone has to meet the issue head-on, and I don't know who that could be.

horizontal rule
38

I'm starting to get the impression that no one defines "national security" as anything at all in specific -- it's just a code word for "something similar to the current Republican foreign policy."

Sausagely, I think the Democrats all need to oppose a war in Iran, unequivocally, from the beginning, and to do everything possible to prevent it from happening. Hundreds of thousands of lives are potentially at stake here.

Why couldn't they just fucking say, "Hey, isn't it weird how whenever Bush's numbers aren't looking good, he plays this national security card? Remember how he lied his way into Iraq? Notice how that's a total clusterfuck?" Why not say, "I'm not weak on national security. This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with Bush bullshitting us, again"? I don't know if it's crowd-pleasing in the sense that crowd-pleasing means Republican-esque, but I don't think that Democrats' attempts to appear strong on national security while being nuanced and all that have really helped at all. No matter what they say, Democrats are going to be painted as peacenik Bush-hating pieces of shit -- why not actually be aggressive peacenik Bush-hating pieces of shit this time around? It's not like the guy's terribly popular at the moment.

horizontal rule
39

There's no way of transmitting that kind of message to the public, Adam. The media are not honest brokers, the Republicans have a powerful machine, and the Democrats have let their communication networks decline.

On top of that, Democratic hawks are hawks first. Lieberamn and Zell Miller were never alone. Scheiber doesn't really think that the Democrats will outhawk the Republicans. He's just giving warning that if the Democrats act like doves, he'll stab them in the back.

The "hawk / dove" dichotomy makes the problem worse, because the way it plays, andone who resists going to war -- any proposed war whatsoever -- is called a granola-eating pacifist.

horizontal rule
40

Bush's popularity is volatile. War trumps everything else, and that's why all this is happening.

Unless there's committed leadership from Democrats, major media people, major people from the foreign policy establishment, and elder statesmen, Bush will probably get his way. "Committed" means "willing to be smeared and willing to have your career ended". The opinion of the general public is not very important and doesn't remain firm.

horizontal rule
41

I don't really think Bush will do anything either.

horizontal rule
42

This thread is extremely worrying. Drum is arguing for the conclusion that Democrats should start thinking harder about Iran, not about the electoral upshot of their failure to think hard about Iran. The appeal to electoral politics is a premise in the argument: the claim is that one immediate reason (among other less immediate reasons) to think harder about Iran is that the White House will use the issue against Dems next fall.

And it's pretty obvious, isn't it, that treating the issue as primarily the threat of the Bush administration, rather than the threat of nuclear-armed Iran, is a way of refusing to do what Drum is advising.

Thinking hard about Iran does not at all mean 'caving' to Bush, or even accepting the Republicans' list of options. Why on earth should it? Thinking hard is thinking about all options -- and, especially, thinking creatively about options that may not be obvious.

What I see here, with only one clear exception (ogged, since I guess baa doesn't count), is nothing but exactly the attitude that Drum is warning against. Cynicism, despair, and petty bickering (as if the enemy is George Packer!).

Sure, war with Iran looks like pure folly (especially as conducted by an administration with their track record), and we probably all agree that bombing short of war (assuming that's a real category) would lead to horrible consequences and probably entail all-out war anyway. But what then do you propose? If you think a nuclear-armed Iran would be acceptable, you'd better start explaining why that's so.

I'm fully aware that I'm not doing this either (yet). But Bush and Bush-supporters are responding to a real issue, however manipulatively. How not to get manipulated by them? First: don't treat the issue as one of not getting manipulated by them.

horizontal rule
43

If you think a nuclear-armed Iran would be acceptable, you'd better start explaining why that's so.

Or maybe, just for a change of pace, you could explain why a nuclear-armed Iran is so much more terrifying than a nuclear-armed USSR (or China or Pakistan or India or...). I understand that simple assertion sounds more manly, but it would be really cool to see the actual argument this time. And afterwards, we can go listen to some Toby Keith.

horizontal rule
44

Um, I wasn't claiming (and in fact I don't believe) that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable. But it is obvious that a lot of people believe that it is. My point is merely that you have to argue why they're wrong.

The 'Toby Keith' reference is way over the line. I used to like this blog, but you people are not worth trying to engage.

horizontal rule
45

Bush is NOTresponding to a real issue. He is picking something off the shelf to demagogue. We're not talking about electoral politics and we're not talking about Iran. We're talking about the way Bush ruins everything he touches.

Drum was suckered by Bush in 2002 and he may be suckered again. He's always believed that the Democrats have to be "tougher on defense", and that's why he got suckered the first time.

Bush has a long-term plan to remake the US and the world. Everything he does is part of this plan. Any given thing he does is chosen for political effect, and very little of it has ever been valid policy.

We're talking about Iran right now because Bush wants us to, and the reason he's raised the issue is because he can restore his sagging ratings that way. And it's generally true, and it's worked for Bush, that this kind of war-fever demagogy works.

The reason you're saying what you do isn't because you're worried about Iran. It's because you're aware that Bush's ploy will be powerful in domestic politics, and you think that "thinking seriously about Iran" upon demand will help the Democrats. That's what people tried with the Iraq war.

The political road is uphill, but as long as people are taking Bush's words at face value, we lose. We need to break his hold on the hive mind, and we can't do that by "thinking seriously about Iran" right when he gives us the cue.

horizontal rule
46

"You people"? Go screw yourself. Can you find the door unaided?

"Thinking seriously about Iran" doesn't mean anything and won't change anything. What the Democrats need to do is figure out a way to approach the general public. If empty slogans work, fine. If meaningful policies work, even better. But the problem is not Iran, it's public opinion. (And remember -- the TNR people calling for "serious discussion of Iran" are dies-in-the-wool hawks and nothing but hawkishness will shut them up. They're not looking for any new ideas. They plan to sabotage the democrats if they don't get their way).

No one here is a Democratic strategist. The strategists don't listen to us, either. We're just talking about the world we live in.

I don't expect an effective Democratic response one way or another, except that the DLC / TNR hawks will be effective in crippling the party.

horizontal rule
47

Um, I wasn't claiming (and in fact I don't believe) that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable.

Fine. I agree that a nuclear-armed Iran is to be avoided if possible, but is not unacceptable. Why can't we just say that, and ask the other side to show their work?

The 'Toby Keith' reference is way over the line.

Retracted. Though it's hard for me to imagine a lighter jab.

horizontal rule
48

Maybe after invading Iran, we can sweep into Pakistan and India to remove their unacceptable nuclear arsenals as well. Or maybe we could plow through Syria on our way to disarming Israel! And after we disarm North Korea, we would have a decent staging ground for taking out China and Russia's nukes.

Let's just go all the way -- now that's some serious shit!

horizontal rule
49

Though it's hard for me to imagine a lighter jab.

Garth Brooks?

horizontal rule
50

Look, there are a few inconvenient facts: the President gets to set the agenda, the press seems willing to go along again on Iran, and Ahmadinejad is giving the Bushies a gift a week. So what everyone needs to do is 1) decide how big a problem Iran is, and what needs to be done about it and 2) how to communicate that to the public.

In this case, even more than with Iraq, you'd like to think that "are you fucking kidding me?" is the proper and sufficient response. But with the President saying "grave threat" and Ahmadinejad saying "get rid of Israel," you're never going to get a debate that starts with the presumption that we should do nothing.

horizontal rule
51

Ted H pretty much nails it -- even if he does break out the Ross Perot "you people" (just kidding Ted...). Like it or not, Iran going nuclear is not an issue Bush invented. Likewise, Saddam Hussein was not an issue Bush invented. Denying the existence of a problem just enables your opposition to define the terms of the debate.

That's what happened to the GOP on health care, and that experience should serve as a cautionary tale. No one trusts the GOP on health care; the issue is a big plus for democrats across the board. Is this because everyone has thought deeply about the problems of 3rd party payment and risk pooling, and concludes that market failure is inevitable? I suspect not, and that democrats dominate on this issue because they, unlike republicans, seem legitimately to care about the health care system. Democrats raised the issue to the national level, and would have been thinking about it quote independent of the momentary needs of political perception. Republicans, by contrast, had to be dragged into the debate, and would drop the topic instantly if they could. It may be the case that Republicans truly believe the way to improve health care is deregulation + benign neglect, but by offering that solution reactively, it certainly does appear that improving US health care is not a big priortity for them. So too, I would argue, there is the impression today that constraining hostile regimes is not a big priority for the democrats. I would also argue that both these impressions are accurate: to a first order approximation the GOP elite doesn't care about health care, and the Dem elite doesn't care about Iran, or North Korea, or China. These are not issues that they like to think about, perhaps because in both cases the uniterested party considers benign neglect the obviously correct solution. Moral of the story, perhaps: think how tough it is for libertarians, who want to advance the benign neglect program broadly.

On the substance, as it happens, I really don't know what good options exist w.r.t. Iran. I would go for aggressive multi-lateral economic sanctions, I suppose [[And please do fall over youselves to note that it is All Bush's Fault that such a approach seems unlikely to succeed.]] Why Drum is the villain here I simply don't understand. He's just offering good political advice to his own party.

horizontal rule
52

First of all, your #2 is the whole problem. It's probably impossible. Recently one of the talk shows had four Republicans on to talk about Alito and the discussion of Iran will presumably be similiar. The anti-war position was almost not heard at all before the Iraq war. What Democrats appear will be pro-war Democrats. Even of the whole Democratic party had the same prowar position, though, they would gain nothing from that.

Second, I'm sure that the Democrats have a position on Iran, and I presume it's as good as Bush's. It doesn't make any difference. Bush does control the agenda, and he's agile enough to make sure that he makes the Democrats look bad no matter what they do. He's not going to let this be bipartisan, because hurting the Democrats is one of the main goals of abything he does.

As I've been saying, the public opinion problem and the political prooblem are what we're talking about. Unless he's stopped, Bush will do whatever he's going to do. Pro and anti are our options, and I think that mistrust of Bush is an adequate reason to be anti. But I doubt we can sell that.

Bush paid no cost for his Iraq failure, and whatever he does in Iraq should be assumed to be continuous with that.

horizontal rule
53

I apologize for the 'you people.' SCMT's comment made me extremely angry, but I should have directly the anger only at him and dispensed it with more grace.

horizontal rule
54

directly=directed in #53

horizontal rule
55

Drum is a villain because of his track record, not only because of what he just said.

There are two reasons why the Democrats can't offer a superior alternative to Bush's. One is that no one really speaks for the party, and the party is not united. So there will certainly be a Democrat to demonize, if only Ward Churchill.

The second reason is that, as Yglesias, baa, and others jave noted, there really aren't many good options. The reason we're being asked to be serious is not because there might be a good policy out there no one's thought of yet. It's because we need to convince the viters that we have a serious alternative.

Criteria for a successful serious alternative? 1. Sound tough. 2. Promise success. 3. Make Bush's plan look bad. 4. Suitable for a sound bite.

there's no honest way to do that. IF TNR and Drum are saying that we have to come up with a cheap, flashy, vivid fake plan to catch the voters' attention, they're right. But that's not what they're saying.

horizontal rule
56

But with the President saying "grave threat" and Ahmadinejad saying "get rid of Israel," you're never going to get a debate that starts with the presumption that we should do nothing.

But this is the assumption that is making many of us so angry. The Republicans say, "We must do something about Iran." Why can't we say, "Why?" Or, "Why does it have to be something dramatic? Why can't we contain the problem until Iran goes democratic? (Which it will obviously do, now that we've established the City on the Hill that is Iraq.)" Why must we concede that they've formulated the problem properly? Especially when they haven't shown their work.

Baa, as our thoughtful conservative, offers a good example. He says, "Not too many people define US security interests as the safety of the US mainland." Fine. But that's not a definition of our security interests. Once he defines our interests, we can decide whether we need to (per Kristol) invade. Or we can decide that, on the whole, we prefer fewer rather than more nuclear powers, and suggest that others in the neighborhood are likely to feel the same. Welcome to multilateralism. But first we should go through the effort of defining the problem. And, as they currently control all branches of the federal government, it's incumbent on Republicans to do so first. It's incumbent on Democrats to make clear that Republican responsibility.

Baa and I agree on the present prescription: economic sanctions. China and Russia, who've been deemed the great obstacles to resolution of this issue, have the best reasons not to want Iran to go nuclear. (See, e.g., Chechnya and Afghanistan.) Call their bluff. Bribe them. Whatever.

horizontal rule
57

The fact that Sargent Slaughter is actually crushing the Colts (dressed in blue) is also pissing me off. WTF?

horizontal rule
58

Congrats to Matt Weiner, for sure. This makes the Patriot's self-destruction last night all the more painful.

horizontal rule
59

Fucking Weiner. The officials try to give it away to the Colts, and they just keep giving it back. Unbelievable.

horizontal rule
60

That Bettis fumble was ... unexpected. Quite a game. And again, from my Patriot-o-centric perspective, it just makes the loss last night harder to take.

horizontal rule
61

Just to keep Emerson happy: Go Panthers! (WTF? I just turned on the game. Two minutes in, and they're already up 7, and have the ball? This truly is a world gone mad.)

horizontal rule
62

Yes, I predict a long afternoon for Mr. Grossman.

horizontal rule
63

Maybe Bush should be a football coach: "The Patriots are a threat. They have to be stopped."

horizontal rule
64

I'm changing teams, Apo. Dungy's gone, Lewis's gone. Can't be three for three. If you were a real Democrat, you'd change and root for the Bears, too.

horizontal rule
65

Julius Peppers, baby!

horizontal rule
66

Knee was down, dammit.

horizontal rule
67

You win that one, ogged. And by the by, has any coach in the "team apparel era" ever looked better on the sidelines than Lovie Smith. He's rocking the leather coat.

horizontal rule
68

The refs is in the bag!

horizontal rule
69

Jeebus. Does Tagliabue have some sort of direct comm link to the officials in the playoffs?

horizontal rule
70

Fuck.

horizontal rule
71

Steve Smith, baby!

horizontal rule
72

Huge stop. If I'm Carolina, maybe I fake the kick.

horizontal rule
73

That was a stout goal line stand.

If you take out the two big passes, the quraterbacks combined to go 4-15 for 21 yards in the 1st quarter.

horizontal rule
74

Yeah, baby.

horizontal rule
75

Urlacher!!!!!

horizontal rule
76

Nice pass, Jake. God, he drives me nuts.

horizontal rule
77

Now that's impressive.

horizontal rule
78

See, Apo: Once you have a black coach, even your white guys can jump.

horizontal rule
79

SCTM, that's all just part of the conspiracy to deny white people their due in professional sports.

horizontal rule
80

Luckiest fumble recovery evar.

horizontal rule
81

A touchdown here would be huge.

horizontal rule
82

Yup. Big play coming up here.

horizontal rule
83

Go for it!!

horizontal rule
84

Smart reach, baby! It's a game!

horizontal rule
85

Nice call Ogged!

horizontal rule
86

Call me Lovie.

horizontal rule
87

So, about Iran, I think Ferguson may have come unhinged.

horizontal rule
88

Hey, not now, eb.

horizontal rule
89

You could always create a football thread, you know.

horizontal rule
90

Hey, I'm watching the game too, I just didn't want to lose the link as I'm prone to do.

horizontal rule
91

You know, Becks, I bet those 15 year old boys are watching football.

horizontal rule
92

You could always create a football thread, you know.

And you were so shaping up to be blogging's Dream Barbie....

horizontal rule
93

I should send the 15 year olds my roommate's Match profile. She's been freaking the fuck out all afternoon.

horizontal rule
94

Tillman!

horizontal rule
95

The Bear's defense is looking pretty damn porous.

horizontal rule
96

Which one is The Bear?

horizontal rule
97

I'll admit my mistake after the game, Carolina boy.

horizontal rule
98

Is the Superbowl on, or something?

horizontal rule
99

Nah, it's halftime, you can talk to us again.

horizontal rule
100

I thought it was some kind of oblique commentary on Iran.

horizontal rule
101

87: The sentence, "This not only gave Islamic societies a youthful energy that contrasted markedly with the slothful senescence of Europe," makes me think that he's channeling Philip Johnson, if you can channel the living.

horizontal rule
102

For whatever it's worth, Ahmedinejad says he is not interested in the bomb.

A nation which has culture, logic and civilization does not need nuclear weapons. The countries which seek nuclear weapons are those which want to solve all problems by the use of force. Our nation does not need such weapons.

horizontal rule
103

Um, Yuri, we only believe him if he says bad stuff. Good stuff is just posturing.

horizontal rule
104

I read an article in The Independent today that tried to paint Ahmadinejad as believing in some kind of Islamic end-times thing:

More worrying for some is that Ahmadinejad is closely identified with the cult of the "hidden imam", the 12th and last of the line of imams revered by Shia Muslims. In a clear parallel with Jewish and Christian visions of Armageddon, Shias believe the imam zaman will return at a time of great turmoil to defeat the forces of evil; recently the president urged Iranians to work hard for this moment. As one commentator pointed out, this was like Tony Blair telling Britons to prepare for the Second Coming.

The most extreme zealots, a group called the Hojjatieh, say total chaos should be created to hasten the coming of the Mahdi, and there have been claims that Ahmadinejad, if not a member, sympathises with them. This explains his reckless attitude, say his critics. If the final triumph of Islam can be brought closer by provoking a nuclear war with Israel or America, why hold back?
Is there any truth to this or just some reporter being hysterical? End-times-ers on both sides of this conflict (I'm counting Bush's far-right Christian allies) would be disturbing. horizontal rule
105

You can't stop Rex Grossman, baby!

horizontal rule
106

The world may end very soon... but not before the Bears get this touchdown!

horizontal rule
107

About Ahmadinejad: it doesn't matter. The mullahs are not suicidal, they've been engaged in pragmatic, if repressive, pragmatism for the past twenty years. Ahmadinejad has the same position that was described over and over as toothless when Khatami held it. He's not dragging that country into war, and if it comes down to battling it out in the streets, the vast majority of people oppose him.

horizontal rule
108

Sorry, didn't know halftime was over. Have fun with your football, boys.

horizontal rule
109

Thanks for the answer, Ogged.

horizontal rule
110

The line that tells you that Ferguson is bloodthirsty and dishonest is the crap about all the young men in Iran being "ready to fight." They're not even willing to take to the streets for a revolution: they're explicit about this: "we've seen enough bloodshed" some of them told me--there's no way at all that they're willing to fight for some crazy religious dude. Ferguson just wants war; simple as that--that article is one of the more sickening things I've read in a while. Ok, back to the game.

horizontal rule
111

I thought Saddam was Hitler -- so is Ferguson telling me that we narrowly missed having two Hitlers in the Middle East at the same time?

horizontal rule
112

No, no - Ahmadinejad is Stalin. Opposed Hitler, equally bad.

horizontal rule
113

I tell you who is ready to fight, though! The Bears defense, that's who!

horizontal rule
114

Too bad Rex Grossman isn't Jewish.

horizontal rule
115

OKaaayyy....?!

horizontal rule
116

Speaking of Hitler, did anyone hear Manning's post-game press conference? What a putz.

horizontal rule
117

Yeah, whatever happened to classy quaterbacks? I know, I'll blame my offensive line! Next year should be a blast in Indy.

horizontal rule
118

Consensus!

horizontal rule
119

God, Smith is killing us.

horizontal rule
120

Where's the bestiality and age-of-consent thread? Isn't this supposed to be it?

horizontal rule
121

"I'm trying to be a good teammate here" -- the football equivalent of the lying sentence?

horizontal rule
122

Pragmatic pragmatism, huh ogged?

Becks, why is she freaking out?

horizontal rule
123

Are you freaking kidding me? How does that happen? (Smith, obviously)

horizontal rule
124

"I'm trying to be a good teammate here"

That's what made it really bad. If he'd just called them out, they might have taken it, but now they just hate him.

Damn it! Damn it!

horizontal rule
125

Can't get much wider open than that.

horizontal rule
126

Maybe the Bears would like to hire a safety?

horizontal rule
127

122 - My roommate? She's a total football fan, of the screaming, stomping and throwing shit at the TV variety. She was rooting for Indiana.

horizontal rule
128

Okay, on the one hand, that sucked. On the other hand, we did get to see Steve Smith hump that large pole. So there was an upside.

horizontal rule
129

I missed it! I just left for thirty seconds! Fuck!

horizontal rule
130

TiVo, Timbot, TiVo.

horizontal rule
131

No sex during the game, Timbot.

horizontal rule
132

You've got something in common with the Bears' corner, Tim.

horizontal rule
133

What's the deal with Pam Oliver's hat?

horizontal rule
134

There are two reasons why the Democrats can't offer a superior alternative to Bush's. One is that no one really speaks for the party, and the party is not united. So there will certainly be a Democrat to demonize, if only Ward Churchill.

JE was making a crucial point here. People speak carelessly about 'the Republicans' and 'the Democrats', as if each party were a corporate entity with one spokesperson reporting an official position. It ain't like that.

I suspect it's one of those group identification phenomena, where those within the group can be nuanced and decide who is really a member (e.g. Catholics aren't really Christians) - but everyone else is one big undifferentiated lumpen, and whatever Ward Churchill says must be archetypical of the beliefs of all Democrats. If only we(?!) could make Pat Robertson the poster boy for all Republicans.

horizontal rule
135

Christ, we're going to run out of players.

horizontal rule
136

That's got to be reviewed.

horizontal rule
137

Are you kidding me on the TD?

horizontal rule
138

It's being reviewed.

horizontal rule
139

"Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption."

And the reader is bound to ask whether or not the value and significance of historical understanding is vindicated by such forays into an unknown and as-yet unknowable future.

horizontal rule
140

Oh yeah! So sweet!

horizontal rule
141

140 to the television.

horizontal rule
142

I'm with you on that, IA. Ferguson seems to have really squandered the opportunity to something useful for history with his fame.

horizontal rule
143

"do something"

horizontal rule
144

Time for the defense to step up.

horizontal rule
145

I have to admit, as I get older, I have a harder time watching football and enjoying the big hits: I end up thinking, "oh, that must really hurt," or just worrying about their careers. Maybe because now they're almost all younger than I am.

horizontal rule
146

He's killing us.

horizontal rule
147

238 yards from scrimmage for Smith.

horizontal rule
148

Nice kick.

horizontal rule
149

Totally agree with you on the big hits. Do you recall Merill Hoge's essay in SI about ten years back? He wrote that at one game post-game breakfast, he forked up some scrambled eggs, and was blowing on them to cool them off. He was blowing, and blowing, and then realized that he didn't have eggs on his fork, but a section of an orange.

horizontal rule
150

I didn't see that, no.

horizontal rule
151

This next series is the ballgame.

horizontal rule
152

They can give up one more short first down, I think, and still have a chance. But this stop would be good.

horizontal rule
153

Woot!

horizontal rule
154

Big stop!

horizontal rule
155

I have to say it: Aikman's a pretty good color guy. Buck remains irritating.

horizontal rule
156

OK, I'll admit it. Despite my better judgement, listening to a bunch of guys talk football - kinda hot.

horizontal rule
157

Of course that's why we do it, Becks.

horizontal rule
158

Huge third down here.

horizontal rule
159

game.

horizontal rule
160

Too bad, Rex.

horizontal rule
161

What happened to the delay of game call??

Well, that's ballgame.

horizontal rule
162

Oh well.

horizontal rule
163

It has to be admitted, Carolina kicked our butt; they totally deserved the game.

horizontal rule
164

Ogged!

You pussy! It's not over. They're going to get the ball back.

horizontal rule
165

Amazingly, it's still not over.

horizontal rule
166

But I've already given up!

horizontal rule
167

No jinx, but cross-posted.

horizontal rule
168

And it would be a complete miracle if they managed to tie it.

horizontal rule
169

Welcome to the desert of the real, pjs.

horizontal rule
170

They lost because Ogged didn't believe.

horizontal rule
171

170: Well, it was definitely a Tinkerbell defense.

horizontal rule
172

139- Ferguson is generally obsessed with counterfactuals, writing those Virtual History books.

horizontal rule
173

Super Bowl predictions?

horizontal rule
174

Yes. I predict there will be one.

horizontal rule
175

I predict I will not watch it.

horizontal rule
176

Becks is banned!

horizontal rule
177

Carolina over Denver.

horizontal rule
178

With luck, one of the team planes will crash not too long before the superbowl, sucking up all the media oxygen and thus precluding the invasion of Iraq.

Preferably it will be the Denver plane. Two goats and nine 16-year-old girls will be on that plane.

horizontal rule
179

Iran.

horizontal rule
180

Oh man, don't joke about plane crashes.

horizontal rule
181

Carolina is looking tough. So is Pittsburgh, but it's tough to imagine a team that banged-up winning again, let alone winning two more. But, there's no way I'm agreeing with Timbot. Carolina over Pittsburgh.

horizontal rule
182

They'll be immortal, like Buddy Holly and the Big Bopper.

horizontal rule
183

Did Emerson just pick Iran to win the Super Bowl? Dude, you are so going to hell.

horizontal rule
184

No, I mean an organic, all-natural plane crash. Anything to stop the Super Bowl.

horizontal rule
185

Jesus Christ. Did Weiner shoot his colon out his backside when the Bus gave up that fumble? I nearly did, and I didn't really care who won.

horizontal rule
186

He hasn't commented, so it's fair to say that he probably did.

In other news, I should really drag my ass to finally see Brokeback Mountain tonight, but I'm so enjoying sitting in my chair, with two burgers (that's right, burgers, bitches) in my belly, and Matrix:Reloaded on the TV and "Assassin at the Gate" promising me knowledge. How does anyone ever leave the house?

horizontal rule
187

You're enjoying Matrix: Reloaded?

horizontal rule
188

If you're all happy and contented and enjoying a post-football glow, I would say stay home. Brokeback will only bring you down. It will still be there tomorrow.

horizontal rule
189

I like the flying monk outfit, and right now the Monica Bellucci scenes are on.

horizontal rule
190

It will still be there tomorrow.

That's the spirit. Of course, that's also the spirit that's kept me from seeing it yet. While I was in NY, I picked up something that said "Carpe Mañana!"

horizontal rule
191

What was wrong with "Carpe cras"?

horizontal rule
192

Nobody says "cras" when you ask them to do something.

horizontal rule
193

Wolfson, WMYBSALP?

horizontal rule
194

No, but you may have heard the word "procrastinate" once or twice.

horizontal rule
195

Furthermore, no one who doesn't actually know Spanish should say "mañana" when you ask them to do something.

horizontal rule
196

Ben, why have you become unfunny?

horizontal rule
197

He was funny?

horizontal rule
198

He's just grouchy that he can't look at the panties.

horizontal rule
199

Aw, it's ok Ben, I'm sure you'll see panties again someday.

horizontal rule
200

Having installed User Agent Switcher, I can now view panties.

horizontal rule
201

Told ya. Anything else you'd like to know about your future?

horizontal rule
202

I'm writing a script to enable me to see panties.

horizontal rule
203

You know, Reloaded isn't bad; or, there are several good scenes. I'm digging the motorcycle going against traffic.

horizontal rule
204

What about the dancing autochthons? How did you feel about them?

horizontal rule
205

Is this that one? I thought that was the third one.

horizontal rule
206

Plus, your doppelganger is in this one.

horizontal rule
207

That's this one, and what doppelganger?

horizontal rule
208

Cornel West.

horizontal rule
209

I'm still waiting for 24 to come on. All these weeks without it have led me to be against torture. I need to see something that makes it ok again.

horizontal rule
210

Ben wears 3-piece suits and french cuffs? Mr. Casual indeed.

horizontal rule
211

I need to go on the record with this: the Architect's dialogue is the worst in the history of American film.

horizontal rule
212

Don't you think it's deliberately bad, for maximum anti-intellectuallism?

horizontal rule
213

Watching the Matrix: Reloaded with other people was one of the more squirmily embarassing three hours of my life.

And ogged, hamburgers? Someone recently linked to a thread where your careful rationing of avocados led into an all-out flame war, and you're eating hamburgers now?

horizontal rule
214

Given the pretentiousness on display elsewhere, no. Of course you know this, but I'm in an earnest mood.

horizontal rule
215

What do hamburgers have to do with avocados?

horizontal rule
216

215--Fat content.

horizontal rule
217

Two hamburgers, Jack, with bacon.

horizontal rule
218

Jack cheese?

horizontal rule
219

216 -- Also they are good in combination.

horizontal rule
220

Jackmormon.

horizontal rule
221

Avocado on a hamburger is rather tasty.

horizontal rule
222

If Jeremy meant 215, I believe we are in agreement.

horizontal rule
223

Wait, never mind me, yes, 216. Bah.

horizontal rule
224

Damn, now I want a bacon, avocado, and jack cheese hamburger.

horizontal rule
225

I'm not a fan of avocado, but burgers with bacon, some nice cheddar, red onions, some lettuce, maybe some caramelized onion too, yeah, I'd eat that.

Jeremy's comment makes sense with both "216" and "215" as the referent, so let's take him at his word.

horizontal rule
226

Sorry, they're all in my tummy.

horizontal rule
227

Did you make them on your awesome new grill pan?

horizontal rule
228

I've seen your tummy, ogged, and I don't believe it could even hold two burgers.

horizontal rule
229

Carmelized onions...yeah, I'd hit that.

(I had a rather unsatisfying dinner, as you might be guessing by now; I'm not hungry, but it wasn't good.)

horizontal rule
230

that's a lot of onion.

horizontal rule
231

Actually, Becks, I got them at the awesome Wendy's drive-thru.

horizontal rule
232

Ben, it's time for an eat-off.

horizontal rule
233

In re food, I am happy to report that the "Hope & Tim's" soup that I just ate, which was called, I think, "summer fresh tomato basil," that I purchased from the store, because I am lazy, was excellent.

horizontal rule
234

Wendy's? How disappointing.

horizontal rule
235

Wendy's? How disappointing.

I had other, "better" options, but I had a Wendy's craving. They were quite perfect.

horizontal rule
236

Agree with Becks.

horizontal rule
237

that's a lot of onion.

A raw red onion slice and some caramelized non-red onions taste nothing alike, so it's cool.

horizontal rule
238

Best fast food burger that I've had anywhere in the US: Western Burger (IIRC), at a Carl's Jr. Other nominations?

horizontal rule
239

I was eating at this restaurant, Real Food Daily, in Santa Monica, which serves excellent vegan food, and the woman at the table next to us was grilling the server about whether each item had any onion and/or garlic in it (both of which she was violently opposed to). Seriously, what kind of existence is that?

horizontal rule
240

Maybe she has a severe sulfur reaction?

horizontal rule
241

Carl's isn't bad, but it's no In 'n Out

horizontal rule
242

I don't think she was allergic, because she finally ended up getting the veggie burger, which was made with onions in the burger itself (but none on top) after the server and I convinced her that the burger didn't have a particularly oniony taste. She just didn't like the taste.

horizontal rule
243

Seriously, what kind of existence is that?

Did she look like an actress?

horizontal rule
244

In'n'Out is what a hamburger's all about.

horizontal rule
245

241: What is the Big Fucking Deal with In n' Out? It seems to be a cult among Californians, and was super hyped up. I finally tried one, and wasn't particularly impressed.

I didn't even think their fries were good - another source of hype.

horizontal rule
246

Maybe you have no soul?

horizontal rule
247

In 'n Out is awesome, escpecially if you're getting the 4x4.

There's also this little hole in the wall place next to the University of Utah called B & D that's excellent.

horizontal rule
248

It could have been that the one time I had In n' Out was in less than ideal circumstances - at some rest stop in the middle of nowhere, with two guys I didn't know (Craigslist rideshare; that was interesting).

horizontal rule
249

My father hates onions so much that he'll sometimes refuse to eat a dish with cooked celery in it, just to be safe. Since every time he left for business or hockey, my mother immediately made a huge vat of onion soup, I associate the smell of cooking onions with gleefully-getting-away-with-something. I use them in everything I possible can, now.

horizontal rule
250

Yeah, I don't really get In n' OUt either.

horizontal rule
251

The thing I find most fascinating about In and Out is that they are supposedly owned by a bunch of Mormons and their expansion is limited by how quickly they breed. Could be an urban legend but I'm sticking with it.

I've only had their burgers twice and they were yummy. Steak and Shake is the best you can get outside of the land o' In-and-Out, followed by Sonic.

horizontal rule
252

Craigslist rideshare? That sounds like a serial killer story waiting to happen.

horizontal rule
253

Sonic. Onion Rings. Mmmm.

horizontal rule
254

Onion rings = good. Chicken rings = bad. Fuck you, Burger King.

horizontal rule
255

How fast is fast food? Driving out west I had a pretty good burger at, maybe, Fatburger? Maybe Fuddruckers? Something like that.

In'n'Out is owned by some religious people but I haven't heard that they're Mormons.

horizontal rule
256

251--I did not know that. Does In and Out serve alcohol, or just burgers?

horizontal rule
257

Chicken rings are a priori bad.

horizontal rule
258

Fatburger is definitely good, so are fat fries. Not many locations; I've only been once.

horizontal rule
259

What in God's name is a chicken ring?

horizontal rule
260

I mean, I've never had one or heard of them until now, but come on.

Jackmormon, here in the US, it's uncommon for fast food places to have licenses to serve alcohol.

horizontal rule
261

Fuddruckers! Interesting fact: there is a Fuddrucker's in Kuwait, and has been since at least 1994. Also, people are obsessed with T.G.I.Friday's in Cairo. This is bad.

horizontal rule
262

Taco Cabana serves alcohol.

That's actually, I think, my favorite fast food restaurant, period. Do they have those outside of Texas?

Also, the Chipotle near my school serves alcohol; not sure if that's true generally.

horizontal rule
263

Chipotle is an outlier. They also serve Niman Ranch pork.

horizontal rule
264

OK, I just looked in Wikipedia and Snopes and I was wrong about the Mormon thing. Evangelicals, yes. Mormons, no. And nothing about the breeding. I'm still going to pretend that it's true in my own little world because it makes me happy. Doo do doo...

horizontal rule
265

Whataburger's pretty good, too.

horizontal rule
266

Now that I think of it, though, it's not so uncommon for mexican-themed fast food places to serve beer. Maybe it's just the paradigmatic burger joints that don't.

horizontal rule
267

I'm sorry, I misspoke. Burger King has chicken fries (not sure if that's any better). It's White Castle that has chicken rings.

horizontal rule
268

Fuddruckers is good, I ate there last night. They actually serve ostrich burgers, though I have never had them (from Fuddruckers, at least).

horizontal rule
269

They do put Bible references on the cups and wrappers, but I think the best indication that they're likely not Mormon is that none of the references are to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, etc.

horizontal rule
270

Ok, even though I don't understand In n' Out, it is beloved by many, so I'm willing to grant that it is objectively excellent in the fast food universe. Run by evangelicals.

Chick-fil-a, also objectively excellent (seriously, so good), is also run by evangelicals, to the extent that they're closed on Sundays.

This implies a theory.

horizontal rule
271

But Domino's Pizza is also run by evangelicals and they suck. There goes the theory.

horizontal rule
272

What kind of communist expects alcoholic with her fast food? That's now how we do it here, Comrade Mormon.

horizontal rule
273

Is it? I thought they just had a crazy pro-life owner or something.

horizontal rule
274

273 - I may be unfairly lumping, but I was counting that as being run by evangelicals.

horizontal rule
275

Also - Domino's Thin Crust is not so bad.

horizontal rule
276

In some brief Dominos research I found this - man, I wish I had known about that at the time. Teh funny.

In the 1980's, Domino's Pizza was well known for advertisements featuring The Noid. Customers were implored to order from Domino's in order to "avoid the Noid." In 1989, the "Noid" campaign was promptly pulled off the air after a man, Kenneth Lamar Noid, who thought the ads were a personal attack on him, held two employees of an Atlanta, Georgia Domino's restaurant hostage for over five hours. After forcing them to make him a pizza, Noid surrendered to police.

horizontal rule
277

Anyway, I guess 273 isn't even correct:

Monaghan [the founder of Dominos] is no longer involved with the running of the corporation, nor does he have a controlling interest. In the past Domino's has come under fire from some liberal groups because of Monaghan's support of conservative and pro-life religious and political organizations, such as Operation Rescue, and affiliated activities.

horizontal rule
278

Duly noted, retracted, corrected, and sat upon.

horizontal rule
279

One of the things people like about In-n-Out, in addition to yumminess, is that apparently there's less crap in their burgers, they pay their employees well, and they cut their own fries and cook them in not-quite-so-bad-for-you oil.

horizontal rule
280

I used to go to In'n'Out and just get fries (two orders) and a coke.

Ah, youth.

horizontal rule
281

And now you're watching your girlish figure?

horizontal rule
282

Like a lech.

horizontal rule
283

What I really crave though is a run to Canter's.

horizontal rule
284

I think I've only ever had macaroons from Canter's. They were, of course, delicious.

horizontal rule
285

1. Not to be picky, but Catholics aren't evangelicals. Maybe we can turn this back into a "why do the Democrats lose" thread!

2. Count me among the In-n-Out faithful. Worst thing about moving back from LA: no In-n-Out, no Apple Pan, no all-night diners. Bogus

3. You all know about the secret menu, yes?

4. Revelation 3:20—"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." That is just a great, great, hamburger wrapper quote, and even souless atheist who hate America admit this.

5. Now I want a burger. Curse you ogged!

horizontal rule
286

Cross post. Gswift, Canters was precisely the all-night deli I had in mind. Corned beef and brisket = nirvana.

horizontal rule
287

The secret menu.

horizontal rule
288

Who is Catholic? As a Catholic, I agree: Catholics != Evangelicals. That's part of the genius of the recent mobilization of Catholics as part of the religious right. Until a few years ago, Catholics hated those people.

horizontal rule
289

Oh by the way ogged, if you switch over from that Matrix Reloaded noise, you can still catch X-men United, now with 100% more Famke Janssen.

horizontal rule
290

The veggie burger is a secret?

horizontal rule
291

And evangelicals are even philosemitic now. It totally rules.

horizontal rule
292

But Criminal Intent is on, and I need to know if they'll catch who did it.

horizontal rule
293

You can't put the secret menu on the web! That destroys the secret!

horizontal rule
294

Criminal Intent sucks.

Also, there's a book in the bible called "Nahum"? Surely that's incorrect.

horizontal rule
295

It's the opposite of a Doomsday machine, in that respect.

horizontal rule
296

Yeah, it's too late anyway. You've missed Ian McKellan's greatest acting moment.

horizontal rule
297

You can also get grilled onions without getting your entire burger animal style. If you're going to profane the temple, at least be thorough.

horizontal rule
298

You've missed Ian McKellan's greatest acting moment.

Which moment is that? He's pretty awesome in the whole movie.

horizontal rule
299

It's like the kitab al azif, Ben W, those who read the entirety of the secret menu will go mad.

horizontal rule
300

I'd kill for an all night deli. Damn Utah. Endless sea of white people = good ethnic food and delis virtually non existent

horizontal rule
301

I feel there is a strange psychology at work behind the "wish" burger.

horizontal rule
302

The true secret menu is not written down.

horizontal rule
303

It's like the vegetarian is dragged in there by some carnivorous friend--maybe some guy she likes who isn't thinking about her needs, dietary and otherwise--and she's looking at the menu and thinking, Why am I even here? Why am I with this person? If only there were a veggie burger. I wish...

horizontal rule
304

The true secret menu is not written down.

Yes!

As for Mckellan's greatest moment -- I think it's the ball-bearing scene, which are a superhero movie high point. You are right, Matt F, that there are many choices for the greatest Mckellan qua actor moment. That's the best McKellan qua Magneto moment.

horizontal rule
305

There's also grilled cheese.

horizontal rule
306

I found the X-Men movies distinctly second rate.

horizontal rule
307

Wow, there really is a book of Nahum. I totally thought that was a misprint. Sister Mary Therese would be so disappointed in me.

horizontal rule
308

Wow. Yeah.

I remember having to memorize all the books of the Old and New Testaments and the Book of Mormon as a kid. Guess I didn't do a very good job.

horizontal rule
309

I managed to ignore almost all of the Book of Mormon. Well, except for 1st Nephi. But that was enough.

horizontal rule
310

I did too, actually. I barely even know the stories. My freshman year the seminary topic was the new testament, and I cut out quickly after that.

If there weren't songs to reinforce some of the names, I probably wouldn't remember those either.

horizontal rule
311

That's interesting -- I figured they would have emphasized the Book of Mormon over the Old and New Testaments. Out of the 8 semesters of religion I had in High School, we spent half a semester on the Old Testament. Almost everything they taught was New Testament. I figured Mormons would have a similar philosophy of "new is better" and de-emphasize the Old and New Testaments compared to the Book of Mormon.

horizontal rule
312

As a testament to my ability to tolerate pain, I submit my two years at BYU. Entire classes dedicated to the B of M. I should have taken up something more pleasant, like cutting.

horizontal rule
313

I had an interesting conversation with my family at Christmas. Apparently, the President of the church suddenly challenged everyone to reread the BoM by the end of the year. One of my cousins had fallen behind and was cramming, my sister had resorted to reading the chapter summaries, and my mother had decided to ignore the whole thing. The BoM is really dull.

Gswift, how did you survive BYU?

horizontal rule
314

The emphasis is on the Book of Mormon. They push members to read it, but it's mind numbingly boring, so a lot of people don't get far.

Mormons are much less familiar with the Bible than the evangelicals.

horizontal rule
315

Oh, the high school stuff contained a whole year on the Book of Mormon. I just wasn't around for that - at that point, I was pretending to go to early-morning seminary, and just going to school and reading (non-religious texts) instead.

horizontal rule
316

Silvana cut class to go to class.

horizontal rule
317

I wasn't able to take BYU. I hadn't really been interested in the church for a while, but the tuition is really cheap, so I thought I could fake it for a while longer. Instead I stopped going to classes, knocked up my girlfriend (now wife), and left.

horizontal rule
318

Well, I cut class to go sit on the steps of school at 6:45 am. And read. Or write crappy poetry.

horizontal rule
319

Well, that would seem to be decisive.

horizontal rule
320

gswift, is it true what they say about women who don't even have boyfriends putting their names on the list for the couples housing at BYU because they know that by the time their name comes up, they'll be married?

horizontal rule
321

Whoo. I had a post ready to go just before noon, and then NFL.com crashed my browser, which is probably just as well. And then it's taken me the last eight hours just to decompress from that game. Haven't had time to read the thread, though it seems to have gone to mostly about football, and um, LDS? Interesting. Anyway, baa, thanks for 58/60, very classy, and makes me feel bad that I was planning to talk trash. The Patriots will be back next year (Colts too).

Hope the Steelers don't come out flat in Denver. What a game.

horizontal rule
322

I never made it to seminary much, I was lucky in that my dad wasn't a member, only my mom. Not near the pressure of some of my friends. I tried it a few times, but basically ended up telling my mom that 3 hours a week of church was already pushing my tolerance, and that getting up at 6am for more wans't going to happen.

horizontal rule
323

Well, I cut class to go sit on the steps of school at 6:45 am. And read. Or write crappy poetry.

Ahh, I'm in love.

horizontal rule
324

very classy

Like Samuel Alito. God, he's so classy.

horizontal rule
325

I'm not sure whether I'm being mocked or flattered. If I'm lucky, both.

horizontal rule
326

#320

It happens. The dating scene is unreal. It's common for guys to get back from their missions, start dating some freshman girl, and they'll be engaged after only a few months.

horizontal rule
327

If I'm lucky, both.

If you start driving early enough tomorrow you can be lucky before the end of the holiday.

horizontal rule
328

I think you're the one with the car.

And tragically, I have no holiday, as my school is taking not a half day, not the whole day, but 3/5 of the day off.

...

horizontal rule
329

#320--That describes one of my cousins exactly. G'night, all.

horizontal rule
330

Congratulations again, Matt. What a great game! Enough to make me (and I suspect a legion of Pats fans) to adopt the Steelers for the remainder of the playoffs.

The Bettis fumble was really, really, one of the most horrifying near misses I have seen in professional sports. It's a good thing the city of Pittsburgh has a day off to recover.

---------

Don't be a hater Silvana, except of the crooked game the man makes us play, of course.

horizontal rule
331

I think you're the one with the car.

Not until Wednesday, I'm afraid.

horizontal rule
332

Well then I remain unlucky until the teleportation device is released, I'm afraid.

horizontal rule
333

The teleportation device is being released on Tuesday?

horizontal rule
334

Am I somehow getting laid on Tuesday? If so, it's news to me.

horizontal rule
335

I'm actually scheduled to spent a good chunk of Tuesday at a prison. Are you skilled in divination? That could be bad.

horizontal rule
336

spend, not spent.

horizontal rule
337

It'll happen by surprise.

horizontal rule
338

I'm not a real lawyer, but I thought that sort of thing was illegal.

horizontal rule
339

Everyone like surprises.

Some of those repressed Mormon chicks really cut loose behind closed doors, although sometimes afterwards they get all remorseful and weepy with guilt.

horizontal rule
340

Hey now, I haven't been a repressed Mormon chick since I was, like, 14.

horizontal rule
341

catching up on the thread... hey gswift, B & D is really good. are you still in Salt Lake? I actually find myself missing Roy Beto's, for 24-hour food (not a deli of course), and for ethnic stuff I suggest the Tibetan restaurant in the avenues (around 4th and D?) and the Afghan restaurant at, um, State and 400 S? and the Red iguana, but you probably don't need me to tell you that. And I wound up at this Italian sandwich place on state around 200 or 300 S a lot for lunch, although it's not exactly a deli, and it's kind of hard to find and I don't remember its name. all my info is two years old anyway.

horizontal rule
342

State and 400 S

I think there's a Harold's Chicken Shack around there.

horizontal rule
343

Thanks again, baa. I have to remind myself that the Steelers should be underdogs against Denver. I promise not to root against the Patriots any more. What an amazing game.

horizontal rule
344

Hey, ogged closed the "Innocence" thread!

horizontal rule
345

Try to keep up.

horizontal rule
346

Sorry, Q.

horizontal rule
347

I probably don't want to know the answer, but Q?

horizontal rule
348

Q!

horizontal rule
349

#341

I'm down in Sandy. Hmm, I've never tried that Afghan place, that sounds good. Beto's is a lifesaver, and there's some place now in Draper called Gual Berto's I suspect is owned by the same people or maybe ex employees of Beto's because the food is almost idenctical. I can't picture what sandwich shop is down at State, Gandolfo's maybe? There's one of those next to the U. now.

horizontal rule
350

I was thinking of Musumeci's, which Google reveals to be at 251 S. State. You have to go into the building and it's kind of in an interior courtyard... I probably wouldn't be making any special trips up from Sandy for it though. I don't remember Gandolfo's at all.

But searching for that I was reminded of Tony Caputo's Italian deli at 3rd West & 3rd South, which might be worth a trip if you're fiending for deli.

horizontal rule
351

The real question for the global community is not, 'what do we do about our "Iranian problem"?' but 'what do we do about our "American problem"?'

horizontal rule
352

Anyone know Giant Hamburger in Pleasanton and various other locations around the Bay Area? They are for me the gold standard of fast-food hamburger. My family's pet name for them is Grossburger. Also Fast Eddie's Meal-On-A-Bun in Modesto is just fine (or was; I don't know if it currently exists.) And who knows, with a name like MOAB, maybe it is also Mormon- or Fundie-owned. (Am I right in thinking Moab is an Old Testament name, not a BoM name? Google says... yes, it appears in Genesis 19:37, "and the first-born beareth a son, and calleth his name Moab..." Probably in the BoM too though.

horizontal rule
353

I can't believe nobody has mentioned the LutherBurger or the Hamdog.

horizontal rule
354

They misspelled my name.

horizontal rule
355

Whizburger. The ones in the Bay Area are fake, though.

horizontal rule
356

353 -- the Hamdog looks like a lame idea on the same order of lameness as the Turducken. Stuffing meat with other meat is in general not going to make it better though I'm sure there are instances of this practice that I'm not thinking of, that are worthwhile. And burger-on-a-doughnut? Not ringing any bells of interest in my brainstem.

horizontal rule
357

I mean why not use a cruller for a hot dog bun? That would at least be a little creative. Though still repulsive from a combination-of-flavors standpoint. I'm trying to think if you could make it better by topping with say sauerkraut or chili or relish; but those all seem like they would make it worse.

horizontal rule
358

I think you are insufficiently dedicated to the path of artherosclerosis, Osner.

horizontal rule
359

328: That's horribly ironic, in the constitutional sense.

horizontal rule
360

The first thing that I thought when Bettis fumbled was:

"I thought the miracle at the meadowlands happened AT the Meadowlands." And then Nick Harper ran into the knif... Rothlisberger.

horizontal rule
361

Stuffing meat with other meat is in general not going to make it better though I'm sure there are instances of this practice that I'm not thinking of, that are worthwhile.

Some would disagree. I'll rely on Apostropher to find the link, but I believe the practice is known as shrimping.

horizontal rule
362

Also, the "Le Boeuf" burger (scroll down) almost made me cry tears of joy, it was so good.

horizontal rule
363

Not exactly what you were saying but 'barding' can be very good.

Back when there were pheasants available I'd skin then and wrap them in bacon to bake. It was very tasty.

horizontal rule
364

Stuffing meat with other meat

Would this include bacon-wrapped scallops? Because if you think that's a bad idea, I'm going to have to write you off as hopeless.

horizontal rule
365

I read part of the Book of Mormon last year. It was half of my penance for all my many sins -- the other half was reading Phenomenology of Spirit. The quality of the stories in the Book of Mormon really falters compared with the Bible, but that's probably because the Bible was gradually assembled over thousands of years, while the Book of Mormon was made up by one guy who thought that you could put the entire text of the Bible onto metal plates.

horizontal rule
366

Scallops don't count as meat, it's seafood. So go forth, and bacon up your scallops with reckless abandon! (that actually sounds rather good).

horizontal rule
367

Scallops don't count as meat

They do in my book.

horizontal rule
368

Really? I always file seafood in a different category than meat, shellfish especially. It just seems like a completely different type of food to me.

horizontal rule
369

Different type of animal, but still made of meat. These definitions are purely my own, though. Your mileage may vary.

horizontal rule
370

John Podhoretz just won a gold medal in the Priss Olympics, btw.

"Fellatial."

horizontal rule
371

Seafood feels like a separate category for me, too. It's meat, but it's MAGICAL meat that is healthy for you.

Except when it gives you mercury poisoning.

Chicken cordon bleu is good, too and that involves wrapping meat around meat. Bacon-wrapped scallops count as meat. (The bacon's magic overrides the magic of seafood.)

horizontal rule
372

Stuffing meat with other meat is in general not going to make it better

My meat begs to differ. ATM.

horizontal rule
373

When I said stuffing meat with other meat is no good, I forgot to specify, that everything changes if one of the meats is shellfish. Shellfish stuffing or being stuffed by meat = ok in my book.

horizontal rule
374

Also some exceptions involving bacon, and (but of course) man-meat.

horizontal rule
375

Ok, I'm way behind (but I plead funeral attendance), but I just want to give a shout-out to Becks way back in 251 for mentioning Steak and Shake. Are you a midwesterner, too?

Stuffing meat with meat is not going to make bad meat good, but it will make good meat better. And there are few (savory) things that don't taste better when wrapped in {bacon,prosciutto,pancetta}.

horizontal rule
376

Thanks, Matt. Yep, grew up in the Midwest, although my part of the Midwest (Ohio) didn't have Steak and Shake when I was growing up. That was a treat limited to visits to my grandmother's part of the Midwest (Illinois).

horizontal rule
377

Ah. I grew up in St. Louis, and Steak and Shake was one of the few 24-hour establishments in town, so my hooligan friends and I would spend many a night eating their uniquely skinny fries at all hours.

horizontal rule
378

Our only 24-hour option was Denny's. I'd take a Steak and Shake black-and-white milkshake instead of a Moon Over My Hammy any day.

(St. Louis, eh? That was "the city" to us when we'd go visit grandma. We'd take trips in to the Italian stores on The Hill to stock up on bread once a week.)

horizontal rule
379

Ah, Denny's were paradise enow! Many are the cups of coffee I have drunk there and at Denny's-clone Lyons, in the wee hours of the morning. There are three Denny'ses in Modesto and only one Lyons and the number of nights we spent at each was roughly in line with this.

horizontal rule
380

I have a feeling that had I not spent a surly adolescence there, St. Louis might have been a cool place to live.

My two non-overlapping groups of friends were split between Steak and Shake and IHOP, which luckily were on the same block. (When we were at IHOP, we felt all outre and non-conformist because most of the "normal kids" hung out at Steak and Shake. And at Steak and Shake, we had decent food. It was a tough call, generally.)

We tended to shun Denny's, though, and that was even before all of their race-related bad publicity. Not sure why...

horizontal rule
381

In Missouri some of the fast food type places DO serve beer, if I'm not mistaken. "Beef n Brew" is the name I remember. Of course, that was about 25 years ago.

horizontal rule
382

Matt, maybe because Denny's is ass?

horizontal rule
383

382 gets it exactly right.

horizontal rule
384

I concur but when it's your only option... IHOP is far superior.

horizontal rule
385

when it's your only option... IHOP is far superior

This doesn't quite parse. If IHOP is your only option how can it be "superior"? It needs to be superior to something, right? To some other option? And if Denny's is your only option then what does it matter, whether IHOP is superior? It is not even an option.

horizontal rule
386

You close your eyes and pretend you're eating at IHOP.

Duh.

horizontal rule
387

Two distinct thoughts, Osner; two distinct thoughts.

horizontal rule
388

To fully parse this for you, Osner, I meant that we dealt with Denny's, even though we knew it was ass, because it was our only option and that Matt was lucky because he had access to the far superior IHOP.

Apo: "In the dark, all eggs are gray."

horizontal rule
389

Oh. Got it -- I can be slow on the uptake sometimes, sorry. That said IHOP does not seem better or worse to me than Denny's though I have not been back to either of them since about 1989. Didn't IHOP totally revamp its image in the mid-90's? Maybe it got a lot better at that point, or better-seeming.

horizontal rule
390

Indeed as I recall the ass-ness of Denny's was almost part of the attraction -- sort of a Ghost World type thrill to parking ourselves there and letting the world revolve.

horizontal rule
391

Waffle House is ass. Denny's is more like lower back. Everything is relative, people.

That said, I love both.

horizontal rule
392

Oh, Apo, you are so, so wrong. Waffle House's assness is intentional, which makes it teh awesome, as opposed to Denny's, which is just ass. When I was a poor college student, my then boyfriend and I drove from Louisiana to NYC once eating at nothing but Waffle House because it was the only thing we could afford. I think food for the entire trip came to something like $20.

horizontal rule
393

After you passed the northern edge of Waffle House territory, did you go hungry for the rest of the trip?

horizontal rule
394

392: First you tell me I'm wrong, then you agree with me.

WH is the ur-ass. Denny's aspires to reach WaffleHousian asstacularity, but they are poseurs. Hence just lower back. And again, I eat at both with gusto, 'cause apostropher loves him some assalicious eggs, especially when served by a waitress unencumbered by a mouthful of teeth.

horizontal rule
395

Denny's is ass because, in addition to the food sucking, it always seemed to be less than hygenic. Kinda like Friendly's.

(I'm overlooking the thin coating of syrup on every surface at IHOP out of love.)

horizontal rule
396

I'll give 394 a "gets it exactly right".

horizontal rule
397

less than hygenic

My motto: "The more germs, the more antibodies. Bring it on."

horizontal rule
398

George Carlin:

"At that time the big fear was polio; thousands of kids died from polio every year. But you know somethin'? In my neighborhood no one ever got polio. No one. Ever! You know why? Because we swam in raw sewage! It strengthened our immune systems. The polio never had a prayer; we were tempered in raw shit!"

horizontal rule
399

He's not kidding:

The key is the unexpected aetiology of polio. The virus is orally communicated, mostly through shit and water, and in ‘the old days' almost all infants acquired an immunising taint as they emerged from the womb, or soon afterwards. But then came hygiene. Soap and water, and diminishing physical contact with others in less crowded dwellings, meant that unprecedented numbers of children had no acquired immunity. Soon it became clear that the polio virus, whose mass outbreaks had once been very rare, was developing a radically new social profile. Unlike all the plagues of the past, it tended to spare the slums and strike instead at the children of the better-off suburbs, places where a new middle class had settled with low-density housing and habits of cleanliness which combined to reduce immunity. There now appeared a large and rapidly expanding pool of children and young people with no immune defences against the disease. As a result, polio began to occur in terrifying and uncontrollable epidemics, especially during and after the 1940s. In its timing, and in its ‘class war' selectivity, polio was the emblematic disease of the middle 20th century.
horizontal rule
400

400!

horizontal rule