This week was actually a bit thin in vulgar displays of mediocrity, so I’ll attempt the impossible and endeavor to be brief.

And this week’s non-dietary biggest losers are…

1. Hillary Clinton- Guess who? Doesn’t take an adept honing of clairvoyant prescience to forsee this repugnant shrew’s continued presence on the list week after week. This time its for exercising the raw temerity required to sustain her long-decomposed campaign, a sorry spectacle that has trespassed beyond the mere realm of the pathetically amusing to the outright revoltingly nauseating. Its gotten to the point where even the most servile liberal stooge is sickened at the sight of her, and the proliferation of Clintonian conspiracy theories in the mass media has become commonplace, speculating as to the covert agenda underlying the demented hillbilly couples escapades actually means.

Its a virtual mathematical impossibility that Clinton’s sordid vie for power will succeed. The only possible campaign failsafe measure she has yet to dispense, the so-called “nuclear option”, entails the flagrantly fraudulent, undemocratic, mafia-esque usurpation of the nomination through two equally unbelievably brazen and opportunistic politicking vehicles.

First, she seeks to steal the crown by means of rendering the delegates of Michigan and Florida, two states who’s delegates she had already affirmed should not be counted in accordance with the admittedly skewed and convoluted rules of the DNC, thereby completely disenfranchising Obama’s stake in the race as he had actually followed the rules and dropped out of both states; as one might have guessed his conniving antagonist by comparison did not and defaulted as victor in both states, keeping their votes as last resort secret weapons for her darkest hour, a moment like this. This is blatant and shameless circumvention of the party establishment, and if the unthinkable happened and she actually achieved her objective of banking in on her asset states, the Democratic leadership really ought to give themselves of a serious flogging for being the most incompetent bueaucratic goons on the face of the planet, as if they hadn’t already long deserved such a dishonor.

Secondly, and even more viciously, Clinton seeks to coerce the remaining “superdelegates” (I mean really, isn’t this a hilarious little formulation? Since when has a political minion ever been “super” at anything, let alone a Democratic minion?) whom haven’t already pledged their allegiance to Obama, and thus their respective constituencies that voted for them, and conscript them as prostituted Clintonites. Some believe that Hillary “wouldn’t go there”, that she knows full well that snatching away Obama’s rightfully-earned nomination would generate a political cabal and internecine implosion of unprecedented proportions, but these people are just naive. This insidious bitch will do anything to get herself and her boorish hubby back into the White House to play president again, even if their party, let alone their country, goes up in flames in the process.

In any case, both of these avenues of conspiratorial political ascension will most definitely fail, Howard Dean might be an insufferable progressivist idiot, but he knows where to cross the line. The Democrats aren’t quite stupid enough to allow the carpet to be torn under them, Clinton’s campaign is on life-support its condition will continue to disintegrate until it flatlines in a couple of weeks.

So this begs the question, why is Hillary still running? There are only two possible scenarios one could envisage to answer this question:

a. The Dick Morris Perspective- She doesn’t care the least about 08′ or the chances of a Democrat in the Oval Office this year. She knows full well she won’t be able to win, and is only in it for the mortifying prospects of an astrologically apocalyptic 2012 candidacy. She actually wants Obama to lose, so that McCain will wear out the next four years and step down in old age, leaving a void for incumbency allowing for her to launch a new, re-invigorated campaign. To this end, she will mercilessly propagandize against Obama, operating as a secret McCain proxy political machine, solidifying his electoral probability and thus ensuring her spot on a 2012 ticket. This theory is actually relatively salient, on one hand you would think that the Clintons aren’t smart or patient enough for such long-term political warfare. Then again, you can’t see anything past a Clinton.

b. The Lunacy Perspective- The years of cerebral and psychological denigration have finally reached their climax, all tethers to reality have completely dissolved, she’s descended into the rifts of total delusion and madness. Facts, statistics, reason, rationality, these basic pieces of cognitive equipment have been completely relenquished in exchange for complete and utter subscription to egomaniacal drive, attainment of all wildest dreams by any means necessary, even if it results in self-annihilation and the annihilation of all misfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire. This is a very likley scenario.

Whatever the case turns out to be, hell, maybe its a combination of the two, Hillary Clinton remains an abject failure.

2. Stephen King- Ahh, what a guy. I’m somewhat reticent in completely unloading on the fellow, because I can’t deny he’s written a couple marvels amongst the rank sea of mock and the two-dimensional bargain-bin airport literature piffle. The Stand, The Dark Tower, IT, amongst a couple others, stand as superb feats of the English language, the man should be recognized for it; they almost compensate for the aforementioned sea of linguistic waste he churns out every couple months.

However. prior creative achievement does not exculpate one from expressing inexcusably abhorrent and repulsive political commentary today. Video has been leaked of King speaking to a high school at some sort of public speaking circuit seminar, regurgitating one of the most dumbfoundingly vile leftist cultural axioms ever conceived: that joining the army is for illiterate drop-outs and deadbeats. This is a conventional idiom of the left, that those dressed in uniform are somehow brutish uncultured phonetically-disabled phillistines compared to the high-brow sophistication of the liberal intellectual corpus.

Now, I have to say, there are few ideas more scurrilously obscene and uncouth and profanely reprehensible than that which professes the desecration and defamation of the names of the bravest human beings on the face of this planet, people whom allow their bodies to be the target of the most severe of natural elements and barbarity the planet has to offer, all for the preservation of the inherent right of equal human dignity and freedom the world over; freedom which is enjoyed by sniveling, sneering, latte-lapping, impotent intellectuals the likes of King, slobbering Nation-subscribing sophisticated nihilists whom spit on the name of the unthanked benefactors who tirelessly grant them such rights.

The notion that people as tremendous and impressive and the United States Army and Navy are being impugned by vapidly inconsequential authorial hacks who don’t have the brains to wield a writing pen correctly most of the time, let alone the fortitude to suit up against foreign militants in defense of liberty, is just sickening to the core, and what’s worse, is that its been adorned with the mantle of legitimacy by mainstream figures in the liteary community. For casting his lot with these savages, King is most certainly a failure of the worst dye.

And that’s that. See you next week, keep on succeeding everyone.

(Oh, and of course, a very happy Mother’s Day to all those whom deserved it. So of course Hillary is exempted from such an honor, I’m afraid.)

Not quite as much failure-fodder for this week, but let’s get at it.

And this week’s non-dietary biggest losers are…

1. Jack Thompson- I’ve already thoroughly berated this ignominious miscreant, and while he doesn’t deserve this, I’ll go ahead and give him a reprieve and not exacerbate my onslaught any further, for now. If you wish to read my crucifixion of this primate in all its vengeful verbosity, I direct you to the aptly titled editorial below this one.

2. The Online Liberal Community- Isn’t it repulsively ironic how the left fancies itself the last bastion of “freedom of speech” against the evil “right-wing fascists”? Isn’t it disgustingly amusing that the left has adorned itself with the mantle of the First Amendment’s ever-vigilant defender, yet has consistently proven itself as the greatest force against free speech in existence?

Case in point: Hillary Clinton this week sat down to a heated interrogation by Bill O’Reilly. Now, full disclosure, I’m not exactly the world’s biggest O’Reilly fan, but I harbor no particular animus towards the guy. Sure, he’s pretty goofy and periodically expresses incredibly stupid-sounding and asinine sentiments, but ultimately he’s a solid guy with his heart in the right place and often actually does “tell it how it is”. He’s considered some sort of monstrous neo-Nazi by liberals, yet its quite evident upon mild inquiry that most of his vicious detractors have never even watched his show, thus is the depth of liberal objectivity and openness.

So, I was actually somewhat impressed that Hillary mustered the fortitude to agree to an engagement with O’Reilly, in so doing becoming the first active Democratic presidential candidate to ever do so; all the rest were too mired leftist allegiance, or outright cowardly to enter the bear’s, or as Colbert might say, “Papa Bear’s” den. Undoubtedly the barrage of unrestrained and penetrating questioning Clinton was subjected to constituted one of her most tense and scrutinizing moments in the televised spotlight since the Lewinsky debacle. Of course the interview was muddled by O’Reilly’s idiosyncratic silly and bumbling showman posturings, but as an aggregate whole it was quite refreshing seeing Clinton actually being called out as a fraud, at least tangentially, on national television, its about damn time.

But now the leftist blogosphere is generating a clamorous and acrimonious din of tremendous proportions; they already revile Clinton because she’s not their ideal anarchist peacenik, but appearing on O’Reilly? That’s just a bridge too far, the left is fully content with Obama having a cup of tea with Ahmadinejad, but appearing on the Fox News Channel is just an appalling an inexcusable political gesture: the left does have its standards.

Its a complete disgrace that our culture has deescalated to the point where the flagrant fascists that make up the core of the American liberal political faction have been granted the wholly undeserved aegis of “champions of free speech”. Clearly, they only uphold the constitutional right to free expression as long as it complies with their perverted and demagogic creed of masochism, statism and unmitigated debauchery. NewsCorp is the most powerful and successful media platform on the face of the planet, and happens to have a relatively conservative/libertarian gravitation, although far less punctuated than David Brock might want people to believe, not to mention the fact that Fox is much less conservative than the New York Times or MSNBC is liberal. The crux of the matter is that Fox is a widely-subscribed and fully legitimate news outfit with scholarly contributors as diverse and representative of the whole spectrum as could be imaginable; everyone from Walid Phares to Juan Williams to Andrew McCarthy to Geraldine Ferraro regularly opines on FNC, a spectacle that could never transpire on any other network. Its a serious group, and while the slogan is annoyingly over-emphasized in the bumpers, Fox is actually “fairly well-balanced”, far more so than the competition in any case.

But ultimately it bears a right-leaning tilt, contrary to the tide of openly liberal media outlets spewing garbled Democratic party babble incessantly. And since its a deviant opinion inverse their own, liberals abhor it, they can’t stand it, it revolts them to the core. They admonish it with scary pseudo-intellectual post-modernistic jingoisms the likes of “Orwellian fascists” and “neocon Nazis” and the rest, wistfully unaware of the staggering, hypocritical irony underlining every word of their infantile diatribes. So now they brutally lampoon HIllary for having the blind audacity of frolicking with the “enemy”, declaring that she has now earned their permanent reproach and will never again receive their “crucial” political support. Further, and more detestable they exhort, nay, catagorically demand that Obama not even enter the proximity of Fox News headquarters, lest he wishes to suffer their godlike wrath.

These totallitarian thugs would actually be something to fear and reckon with if they actually wielded any power. Luckily, monkeys aren’t menaces, they can throw crap at you but it doesn’t mean it deals any damage. If the most political traction one can wield is leaving vulgar and sophomoric toilet-trash comments on laughable online tabloids like the Huffington Post and DailyKos, then these people truly are absolute failures.

3. Barack Obama- America’s perception of this man has undergone a total metamorphosis the past several months that has been nothing short of remarkable. He first broke onto the scene as a total invisible man who’s principles, values, objectives and motivations were completely unknown and concealed from the public eye. Those of us whom had inquired into his background were not terribly consoled by what we found; a spiritual advisor whom was not only a fundamentalist theocrat and radical leftist, but also a figurehead of the despicable, socially-regressive scam racket that is the industry of black victimhood, weird ties with unscrupulous figures ranging from unrepentant 60s’ domestic terrorists to Louis Farrakhan. His extremely slim Senate record was characterized by undifferentiated hard liberalism exemplifying one of the most adamant, unapologetic, basically extremist proponents of abortion, anti-second amendment and anti-military legislation in American history. He was a master at driveling incredibly didactic, transparent platitudes and piffle to profoundly credulous and servile masses, and to some of us this suspicious international man of mystery seemed to be a well-contrived political insurgent; a faceless Orwellian progressive fascist in disguise, and it distressed us that apparently no one had the critical-reasoning cerebral faculties agile enough to pierce through this fellow’s elaborate ruse.

But now, after an over-extended and simmering political campaign, most, if not all of Obama’s shielding bubble of messianic anachronicity has all but evaporated. What was once to most a handsome political outsider,a visionary exuding with charismatic flair and promising a campaign of hope and change and a whole assortment of other fluffily meaningless adjectives is now an insufferable panderer and devious rhetorical craftsman who’ll endeavor tirelessly to manufacture a whole mesh of lies, red herrings and quasi-philosophical rubbish to masquerade the truth to his own liking.

When the facts about Obama’s unsavory theological upbringing came to surface in the mass media, seriously offending and alarming most Americans, Obama elected prudent not to apologize for his crass recklessness and ignorance and incompetence for allowing himself to be the suppliant of such grossly reprehensible dogmatic filth for 20 years, nor to reprimand his pastor for spewing such rancid and vitriolic invective about his country. No, instead Obama seized the opportunity to initiate a silly little “race relations” speech, thereby exalting himself as the supreme authority on race in America and completely oscillating the dynamics of the political atmosphere from public recognition of his racist anti-American religious education to more monotonous preachy moralisms. Obama charged that to condemn Jeremiah Wright would be to “condemn the black community”, by implication expressing the outright untruth that Wright was a singular representative of all African Americans. He further went on to say that “I can no more condemn Jeremiah Wright than I could condemn my white grandmother”, thereby actually personifying the old adage that “politicians are so sleazy the’d actually sell out their grandmothers as vehicles for political expediency”, a saying that is often proliferated by never actually demonstrated; no politician has yet been such an unbelievable fraud to do such a thing, that is until Barack Obama.

It would have seemed as though Obama had escaped from the snares of his shadowy past, as the American populace’s transient memory and susceptibility to fabulist intellectual superficialities began to take its toll and his poll numbers began to creep back up; he must have smiled smugly to himself “I’m so clever, I fooled these bumpkins again”.

That is until the Wright firestorm was rekindled last week when the retired racketeer began his speaking tour, evidently intended to “set the record straight” in response to the media taking his sermons “out of context”. What followed was not only the regurgitation of the same slobbering ravings we had all become accustomed to, but also the immensely curious charge that Obama was “just a politician”, and didn’t actually take dispute with any of Wright’s preachments, and only attempted to create distance between himself and his church as a political maneuver. Now this remark finally angered Obama, triggering him to recite an unbelievably artificial and disingenuous load of dribble, even my his own mediocre standards, flatly denouncing Wright’s statements.

This, beyond all else, most emphatically crystallizes Obama’s persona as a phenomenally adept and obsequious practioner of political duplicity, distortion and open deception; there are third-tier used car lot supervisors deserving of more credibility than this wholesale charlatan. What kind of unabashed, egomaniacal mendacity is this distasteful political mafia-boss equipped with that he thinks he can get away with neglecting to rightfully ostracize and in fact exculpating from villification an insane religious zealot and traitor the likes of Jeremiah Wright one moment, and then indignantly lambasting him another after he gets called out for being a crafty politician who doesn’t espouse any substantive positions or principles and simply does what he does because it is expedient for him to do so? There was no evolution in Wright’s rantings, they remained essentially the same, if even a bit tamed; was Obama impelled to make his shallow denunciations only after being personally insulted? Afro-centrism and unapologetically anti-American noise is acceptable as long as Obama’s sensibilities aren’t personally infringed upon? What happened to all that drivel about “attacking Wright would be tantamount to attacking black people, or my grandma”, so is Obama now prepared to give granny in Hawaii a flogging over the phone?

It is cosmically ironic that the charge that sunk the final rusty nail into Obama’s legitimacy’s tombstone happened to be one of the few expressions of truth uttered by Jeremiah Wright; that indeed Barack Obama is a typical, ideally-schizophrenic political engineer whom simply aligns himself with whatever or whomever is most useful to him at any given time for his means of achieving electoral supremacy. For all this, Obama is definitively a failure.

That’s a wrap. Keep the stupid coming guys.

Another week brings another unhealthy sprouting of failures. This time the insanity was so over-saturated that it took me till Monday to post the update, but enough with the digression. Time to slay the stupid.

And this weeks non-dietary biggest losers are…

1. The ACLU- Ahh yes, the Assembled Coalition for Liberal Undesirables, the epitomizing rallying point and vanguard of the swarmng intellectual pestilence that is leftism; an unashamedly unscrupulous outfit who’s mission has always been, essentially by self-admission, the total and unrestricted erosion and subsequent progressive-fascist re-configuration of all the institutions that constitute the framework of the American social and political system. They’ve set the standard for liberal wickedness and mediocrity, they are the benchmark from which all other homebred, covert attacks upon the United States Constitution operating within the parameters of a political entity are to be compared. So in a sense its a bit redundant to express that the ACLU is the biggest failure of the week, because just by existing they’re basically the biggest failure every week; this is a mafia run by the utmost of scoundrels; thugs and liars that have the temerity to defend terrorists, racists, and a whole assortment of other openly hate-mongering villains, and what’s more they defend them with blustering indignation. The ACLU is the equivalent of taking every stereotypical, caricatured, money-grubbing sleazy lawyer, placing them in a high-tech office building, and putting them to work advancing a seditionist agenda. You can’t see anything past these bastards, so you might ask, what’s the point of putting them on the dishonor roll this week? Clearly they must have done something to seriously offend the natural balance and the essence of the American Way in order for their default vulgarity to be afforded unique observation. And so they have.

Early this week the ACLU made public its unbelievably sinister and repugnant intention of legally supporting the theocrat fascist colonists of the FLDA in their psychopathic demands of reclaiming the 400-odd children whom were rescued from the death cult in the preceding weeks. Now, out of all the astonishingly reprehensible perversions of the American legal system the ACLU has instigated, this must be one of the most flagrantly evil, and absurd. This insane, fundamentalist rogue-state was a domain of festering child-rape, male-supremacism and violently oppressive misogyny, and most importantly its presence within the border perimeters of a constitutionally secular nation with an undefiable dichotomy seperating church and state makes its very establishment and perpetuated operation indisputably illegal. The gruesome and creepy Stepfordian wives manufactured by this hellish polygamist internment camp were clearly psychologically marred, perhaps beyond full repair, and its not just a matter of moral imperative that they were forcefully divorced from their children, as clearly they’re incapable of protecting them and in some cases couldn’t even recognize their own kids (because they had so many and had neglected them all), but the overlying crux of the matter is that this cult has no constitutional grounds to even exist, thus the innocent children, the blameless victims of the sins of their deranged fathers, must be removed fromt the custody of the ghastly society that bore them.

And yet the ACLU, the alleged last bastion of secular values in America, is not only allying itself with a theologically-totallitarian that has no constitutional right to exist, but is also attempting to return newly-emancipated, blameless little kids back into the dirty hands of revolting child-molesting Mormons. How dare they? Don’t even try to blithely tell me the mothers have the “right” to their children: these sadistic hillbillies relenquished each and every one of their priviledged rights whent they set up their disgusting little 18th century Stephen King horror-story village in the only country in the world with a binding document proudly declaring this sort of ilk will not be tolerated. The fact that the ACLU has the audacity to stick up for such scum belies any notion of ethics of law, two principles these ethics-based lawyers astoundingly no nothing about.

2. The Clintons- Much like the ACLU, the Clintons have traditionally been such an unparalleled force of social, political, and moral degeneracy in the world that it becomes a bit asinine to consistently reprimand them for their crimes, its just something to be expected out of them naturally. There’s a point where one just becomes desensitized and is incapable of being surprised or appalled at anything these abysmal machine bosses do, the only response really anyone can have at this point to the latest example of F.A.W.C (Functioning and Active While Clinton) is to heave a sigh and shrug, “there they go again”.

But hell, some things are simply too incomparably intolerable to avoid delivering their deserved lambasting. Earlier this past week, Bill Clinton made the stunningly, almost sacrilegiously fatuous assertion that the Obama campaign “pulled the race card on him”. This is just unacceptable, people can’t let him go for this. This is a couple enamating with such a cancerous psychological compsure of simultaneous cosmically aggrandizing self-righteousness and unbelievably pathetic self-pity. A couple that has been able to make those unfortunate enough to fall into the trajectory of their insidious propaganda corps victims of the gener card, the race card, the (literally etymologically defined) sex card, as well as a whole plethora of other cards that only they would be callous and shameless enough to use, or even be aware of. And now they’re trying to besmirch the Obama campaign for using the race card? Even if this is true (which it is), what makes the Clintons thing they have the right to make such an allegation? Only the most diabolical of demagogues could percolate with such crass rectitude.

What was really amusing was their 9 point margin victory in Pennslyvania. What’s significant about this is that its not enough of a victory to shift the algorithm of this race, its still virtually mathetmatically impossible for the Clintons to win the nomination. But its enough of a victory for the Clintons to continue to co-opt the braindead rubes that make up their constituency into perpetuating their ill-conceived campaign of egoism, further miring the party in internecine strife and making John McCain’s task all the easier. Keep it going Hillary, you and your hubby pimp can keep on churning the elaborate nostalgia experiment that is your sordid campaign, keep on lambasting your inevitable candidate, keep doing what you best” screwomg things up. Because this time, your existence is actually useful.

3. The Jeremiah Wright Phenomenon- The narrative of this deplorable theocratic tyrant really is something remarkable, not especially because of what the man says; its hardly anything unique, its straight from the handbook of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and is echoed by leftist professors all over the country. Its how people treated him in the media, and his reaction to all of it. Liberal broadcasts adorned themselves with the mantle of Wright apologetics, and the inconceivable drivel that was streamed as a result was just staggering.

Firstly, this nonsense about Wright’s words being “taken out of context” in “soundbites” is just ludicrous. Its tantamount to someone saying “Bin Ladin’s words are just out of context, he’s really a nice guy” or “Mao Zedong was really brilliant, you should actually read the whole Little Red Book before you make outrageous assumtions”. I challenge the Obama campaign and the rest of his sycophantic militiamen in the media and elsewhere whom have been charging that Wright’s words have been skewed to provide the deeper, profound contextual implications of the following:

“Drugs were invented by the white man to oppress black people!”

“AIDS was invented by the white man to oppress black people!”

“Goddamn America, the US-KK o’ A!”

Go ahead, we’re all waiting explain how those of us whom were offended by these remarks, us neanderthal philistines, have missed the broader intellectual implications of such contentions. While on that note, please enlighten us as to deeper motivations underlying Wright’s ambassadorial visit of comradery to a warmongering fascist the likes of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya alongside an insane Islamist theocrat like Louis Farrakhan who openly desires the replacement of the Constitution with the Qur’an and the imposition of Sharia law on America, a rabid racist, anti-Semitic racketeer whom espouses the belief that whites are the diabolical byproduct of an evil genetic experiment conducted by a mad scientist named Dr. Yacub, an unconscionably stupid nightmarish fairy-tale that would make L. Ron Hubbard blush. Please, provide us with the crucial context for understanding this sort of conduct.

The crickets are chirping because it can’t be done. Patent fabrication and treasonous behavior cannot be explained away, lies and untruths are objectively what they are, one is not required to spend years observing sermons to come to this conclusion.

Secondly, the charitable operations of Wright and his church are often employed to excuse the wickedness of his remarks. Well, while its very much true that Wright has done some admirable work in this regard, to exculpate him for his abhorrible preachings is the equivalent of stripping HIzbollah from blame because they’ve re-built homes (that they themselves triggered the destruction of) in South Lebanon. Wright is not necessarily an evil man, but he is a dangerous figurehead of the corrosive elaborate scam that is the black victimhood industry, as well as representing an avatar of the innately anti-American culture of leftism; his Samaritan work does not excuse his vicious and inexcusably toxic political commentary.

Finally, it seems that no one beyond talk-radio has had the cohones, let alone the moral or intellectual fortitude, to take Wright to task for his rabid rhetorical invective. Obama simply labels him as “controversial”, as if this somehow frees him from any public responsibility in catagorically denouncing his former pastor. “Controversial” isn’t a pejorative, Martin Luther King was controversial, Gandhi was controversial, Nelson Mandela was controversial. Jeremiah Wright’s political capitulations are deranged and stupid. The rest of the media has either elected to shy away from attacking Wright, or even worse, outright adorned him with accolades, as evidenced by the revolting spectacle of CNN correspondents insinuating Wright’s “brilliance”, and the even more disgusting exhibition that was committed leftist-lackey Bill Moyers infatuous schmoozing up to Wright on Friday, neglecting to ask a single penetrating question and instead expounding a glorifying and pandering biography of the preacher.

Truly it does great disservice to what journalism is supposed to be that the press is so mired by lethargy that they are not only uncompelled to pose seriously probing analytical questions to this, a religious fraud and charlatan and the two-decade spiritual advisor of a potential next president of the Untied States, but in fact genuflect in awe to his pseudo-philosophical didactic moralisms. Jeremiah Wright, and the braindead sheep of the American press core, have seriously failed.

4. The Cult of Miley Cyrus- I don’t know what’s sadder, that the latest Disney Channel tween exploit propped up as a mediocre actor turned pop star was being envisaged as a “role-model” for young girls untill her soft-porn posturing pictorials were leaked on to the internet, or the fact that this artifically-contrived and wholly inconsequential poseur shares the name of one of the greatest Persian commanders of all time. All jokes aside, I really find the whole “Hannah Montana” phenomenon just absurdist to the point of the farcical. I mean, is America’s memory really that short-term? Don’t people ever learn?

Contrary to the increasingly annoying tabloid advertising platform that is Oprah (she’s a tremendous humanitarian, but that doesn’t mean I have to like her show), there is nothing special about Miley Cyrus, she’s hardly an anachronism or timeless gem of popular culture. She’s just the newest installment of Disney’s wicked and deplorable tradition of yong girl exploitation, reaping them of their so-called “squeaky-clean” pre-adolescent nature for a couple years, giving them silly little sitcoms and even more laughably contrived movies, fulminating with revoltingly sub-standard record deals, all while the fad lasts. And when the last bit of sparkle is finally gleamed, and the cash-cow is no more, when there’s no more money to be had and everyone’s forgotten about the whole squalid affair, they’ll drop them faster than Obama drops a bowling ball on his foot. And once they’ve been abandoned, they’ll end up in rehab or what have you, its an endless process, Cyrus is in the league of other such adored Disney princess abortions media darlings as Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Hillary Duff, and the most recently imploded Vanessa Hudgens. While it really gives me no satisfaction in saying this, since she seems to be a relatively solid person (by Hollywood standards), Cyrus’ future is not bright while it remains within the not so magical Disney express.

What really disgusts me though is that Hannah Montana is supposed to be purported as an etheral idol for young girls, this testifies to the absolute moral denigration of our culture. Yeah, little girls shouldn’t be looking up to female neurosurgeons or lawyers or diplomats, no, they should be looking up to the spoiled daughter of a sub-par (even by country standards) music star who was given a ridiculous little TV program and concert tour by Disney Channel because she has a (somewhat) celebrity for a father. Yeah, that’s what girls have to look forward to nowadays right? Oh, untill little miss princess posed in her underwear and dispersed the image throughout the web, now she’s just unnacceptable right?

Miley Cyrus, and parents of America whom placed her on a pedestal within a cult of personality as a role-model for their daughters, fail.

5. Time Magazine- We’re entrenched deep in a war right now. A war against an antagonist that seeks the complete obliteration of our civilization, a war we cannot hide from and must act pre-emptively to prove victorious.

This, is the War Against Global Warming.

Or at least that’s what Time Mgazine thinks. In the last century there was a temperature fluctuation of approximately one degree increase, and in the last 8 years the temperature has slightly cooled. Now, the unbearable magnitude of this threat seems to Time to be unignorable, to the point where the clever little primates in their Photoshop office decided it prudent, profound and enormously witty to alter the iconic and prolific image of the U.S. Marine Corps. raising the American flag over Mount Saribachi, Iwo Jima, replacing the flag with a tree as some sort of gesture of environmental awareness.

I can think of few things more objectively shameful and repulsive than to maim and rape such a eternal and historic monument to a war of such tremendous dialectical implication, a war that required such unimaginable self-sacrifice and personal constitution, a war that has shifted the course of human civilization irreversibly, shifting the dynamics of America’s role in geopolitics from an isolationist power to a force against fascism and genocide and tyranny….to take a freeze-frame of a real war where real people suffered and defecate all over it by transforming it into an imaginary one, is gutless and detestable beyond words can express. The epicene, hydrogen-headed Prius liberals who came up with this garbage are even bigger failures than the illusory eco-fascist campaign they are emissaries for.

There you go. Keep on succeding people, lest you wish to suffer my wrath.

Welcome to the inaugural edition of “This Week in Failures”, where we’ll compile and excoriate all the biggest demonstrations of precocious, blundering human idiocy of the past seven day cycle. I intend on maintaining and endeavoring on this feature with regular and expeditious frugality every week, so you can be rest assured that even if there aren’t daily updates for a while, stupid-doers will not be able to escape my wrath. But enough with the protracted overture, let’s get to the show.

And this week’s biggest non-dietary losers are….

1. Jimmy Carter- Already my nominee for the worst president in American history (for his callous, shameless, disgraceful and unbelievably imbecilic betrayal and selling-out of the Shah of Iran, which resulted in the fall of secular free-market Iran, the United States biggest ally in the MIddle-East (even arguably bigger than Israel at the time) and subsequent insurgent of the Islamic Revolution and the rise of the Islamic Republic, the greatest enemy of the free world today and epitomizing bar none the most damning geopolitical miscalculation of the 20th century, an unforgivable gesture of gross ineptitude on Carter’s part), this senile old toad is now as we speak in warm talks with the leadership of the genocidal zealots of Hamas.

This absurd little publicity stunt is purported to being an attempt to open avenues of “diplomatic relations” with the Palestinians, but its plain as day what’s actually at play here: Carter is a long-time Islamist apologist and collaborator whom gleefully anticipated the insurrection of the “visionary and humanitarian” Ayatollah Khomeni, and has long expressed his disdain for Israel and has instead sympathized with the causes of such venerable statesmen as Yasser Arafat.

This latest manifestation of shoddy Carterian statescraft is just another extension of his inherent anti-American, anti-Israeli sensibilities. And lets be clear here, Carter doesn’t really give a damn about the plight of the Palestinians, by cirvumventing talks with moderates like Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and instead electing to collude with Hamas, the figurehead of Palestinian radicalism, Carter discredits and undermines the very people who are the only chance of a reasonable settlement in the lands of Jerusalem. This isn’t diplomacy, this is self-righteous, treacherous egoism, some more final sputterings by a deranged and squalid old fool seeking to sustain what importance he may attribute to himself. Jimmy Carter, the persistent international man of mediocrity, and today’s Biggest Failure of the Week.

2. J.K. Rowling- I have to say, I’ve always held a sort of admiration for Rowling. Not for her books per se, they’re entertaining but hardly anything to sensationalize about. But its precisely this factor that makes her so remarkable, as she was able to catalyze a body of fairly conventional childrens fantasy fiction into a sprawling, $4 billion hegemonic global media empire, going from an impoverished cafe-shop manuscript composer on welfare to one of the richest women in the world with an aggregate wealth far surpassing even her own Queen of England. Of course only a sycophantic Potterhead would dare suggest that the literary excellence exuded by the series is of such a high-caliber level to fully deserve the unparalleled wealth its attained. But that being said, she got two generations of kids reading again, and hers is the epitomy of the upward-mobility “rags to riches” success story, and htere’s something to be commended about that.

But this respect that I had long held for her has sharply plummeted as of late. J.K. Rowling has filed a legal injunction against one Peter Vander Ark, an ex-librarian and schoolteacher and the webmaster of a site by the name of “Harry Potter Lexicon”, one of the oldest and most widely-circulated Potter fansites in existence; it serves as a cumulative non-Wiki operating Potter online encyclopedia. The circumstances of the injunction capitulate a copyright infringement allegation, as Ark was intending on publishing his own book entitled “Harry Potter Lexicon” which would consolidate the information on the website’s databse into a hardcover reference index, an action Rowling deems illegal. She claims that is is her intention to release her own encyclopedic volume in the future, and the presence of Ark’s book would not only trespass upon her copyright-protected domain and curtail her sales, but also even completely stultify her creative faculties. As a matter of fact, Rowling was literally sobbing in New York court on Monday, woefully ruminating that Ark’s actions have rendered her writng capabilities incapacitated, preventing her from writing her next novel.

Now, this sounds like the stuff of a Pythonian absurdist sketch, that’s how nonsensical this is. There are two dimensions to this story that must be fully realized before truly appreciating the stark ridiculousness of Rowling’s conduct:

a. The Ethical Imperative- You have one of the most powerful literary moguls on the face of the planet threatening to impeach the character and free-speech rights of the quintessential unbeknownst “little guy”, the world’s most frothing and obsessive Potter fan, and all for publishing a piece of supplementary companion literature, what’s essentially a 400 page extension of devoted patronage. By Ark’s own admission the book is merely an “unofficial fan tribute”, simply arranging all the canonical material of the series into a compacted reference guide. And he is being besmirched for this?

The Legal Imperative- But more importantly than the shamefulne4ss of Rowling’s behavior is the sheer fact that she has no case. There is simply no such thing as intellectual property right monopoly, and this is precisely the sort of jurisdiction Rowling is attempting to wield. No court has ever given sanctioned this sort of copyright-authoritarianism, there’s no precedent for it, no case to be had. What we do have is a long history of ancillary companion compositions functioning as supplements to various literary texts, dating back centuries to days of Coleridge and Wordsworth and beyond. Anyone can stroll into a bookstore or library and find countless tomes acting as unofficial reference tomes for bodies of fiction: atlases for the worlds of Tolkien, indexes archiving the chronicles of Star Trek, the list is unending. These works are an established component of the literary macrocosm, and if Rowling’s ill-conceived legal maneuvers succeed (which I suspect they won’t, she’s got history and an elite team of Stanford Law mercenaries against her side), it could potentially consequent in the contravention and resulant utter dissolution of an entire sub-genre of fiction.

I know that many have charged in the past that Rowling’s effects on literature as a whole have been corrosive, that she has but these contentions pale in comparison to the terrible, almost sinister business she has now entrenched herself. Decided in her favor, the casualties incurred by these legal proceedings would not merely include Peter Vander Ark, but the entire framework of literary publication as a whole. Ms. Rowling needs to take a deep breath, bless God for the exorbitant and highly over-accentuated good tidings the world has delivered her, observe some code of humility and austerity and cease with her repulsively contrived and unprovoked and unconvincing blubbering, desist with this nonsensically frivolous legal gesture, return to Edinburgh and get back to the writing desk where she belongs. Until then, this whole laughable affair will forever remain on her record as a blemish of failure.

3. BitterGate- First, I have to say I find it hilarious how the word “gate” is so insouciantly employed as a suffix nowadays, basically attributed to any “controversy” of tepid magnitude. In any case, this whole business with Obama blathering on about small towns “clinging to their guns and religion out of bitterness” was less of an issue than the context from which it arose. Many are now adorning the mantle of “elitism” to Obama for these comments, and I can understand that, although the man is deserving of far more severe indictments at this point. Most people hold affiliations with their church because of the perceived sense of community, tradition, and moral cultivation. And people want to hold on to their guns because they have the constitutional right to do so, it’s as simple as that. Neither of these phenomena have anything intrinsic to do with resentment arising from economic downturns, and clearly Obama attempt to foment a salient correlation that isn’t there was just another demonstration of his opportunistic and manipulative nature. To be fair, it would be flagrantly fallacious to charge that there wasn’t an iota of truth embedded in Obama’s drivel, there surely are a number of people whom seek solace in religion out of disillusionment with the problems of the real world, but that’s about it in that regard. As for the talk about guns, that was self-evidently just more goonish pandering to the ever unimportant liberal anti-NRA vote bracket.

Further, its positively outrageous and the display of the height of the hypocritical that someone like Barack Obama, whom has maintained a 20 year affectionate relationship of comradery with insane, despotic religious fascists and frauds the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is now able to be placed on a pedestal, slobbering didactic drivel criticizing the religious practices of others. Another exemplification of the grand and gratuitous cosmic paradox that is liberalism.

Its also worth pointing out the mostly ignored, and probably most peculiar third arm of Obama’s babble, that small-town Americans are “harbor an attitude of antipathy and anti-trade”. This would be really curious if it wasn’t so ironically asinine an utterance. Sure, some small towns oppose free-trade, but who’s the biggest arbiter of anti-commerce mentality and legislation? Who can always be counted on to rally against Walmart’s presence in rural America, even though its been catagorically proven to be an overwhelmingly positive source of economic boon? Who is it that has struggled against NAFTA, even though its uncontestably been a vehicle for rescuing people from the thralls of poverty and overall economic enhancement? Who is it that has historically been the offical “anti-trade party”? That’s right, liberals. So what the hell is Obama talking about? Is anyone even listening to him? Does he even listen to himself?

But what’s really significant and revealing about this whole episode is not Obama’s words themselves, as stupid as they were, but to whom they were spoken to. Obama was entertaining his true flock, delivering platitudes to an audience of San Francisco latte-lapping liberal losers, high-society pseudo-intellecutal poseurs and sophisticated nihilists that comprise of the pathetic echelon of openly communist leftist wingmen that make up the core base of the Democrats, the loyalist wingmen whom are scarcely seen on national television for fear of the tumultuous media blowback that would be inflicted, but secretly puppeteer the entire operation of the party. The Marxist Mafia, the monkeys behind the curtain, these are the boorish, ravenous cannibals that Obama secretly is catering to and has the most affinity with.

It must be fully recognized that this occurrence was not explicitly staged or intentional, not the generic Obamaspeak substantively-devoid soundbites for the sheeple masses we are so accustomed to by now. This was recorded at a closed, untelevised meeting deep in the bowels of Californian neo-anarchist bohemia, the opposite of a deliberate press stunt. For once, we actually heard what Obama really thinks, speaking to people who think like him. The fact that so many Americans, even Democrats, were hurt by his comments only further exemplifies the fact that Americans don’t have the slightest clue who this political insurgent is. But as his meta-narrative of a racist, hard-leftist terror sympathizer becomes more and more illuminated, his prospects of electibility become more and more vaporous. Keep it coming Barack.

The most amusing thing about this whole development though was the unbelievable crassness and fabricated response of the Clinton campaign, wherein Hillary Rodham pretended as if she was deeply offended by Obama’s remarks because she was raised a small-town girl and cared greatly about the “rich traditions of gun ownership” in America, even though she was raised in an ivy-league family and has spent over 15 years campaigning against the right to bear arms. I guess in lieu of her vicious lie about Bosnia, where the lives of countless people were concerned, this latest convulsion of pathological untruth seems much more banal by comparison. But I guess her lying has gotten to the point where we’ve been desensitized, we can’t really see anything past this unscrupulous moron anymore, or leftists in general for that matter.

Phew, damn, that was quite an enumerated condemnation. Why are there so many failures? Why must I be the only one fighting the good fight?

Well, its a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it. And this was only the first installment, let the fun begin.

Over the past few weeks, its been an exercise in intellectual constitution and cerebral endurance to observe the curious hybrid of psychological torment and unmitigated farce that has been the primary season pundit commentary and “analysis”. Night after night, I forced myself for the sake of retaining my personal status in the mainstream socio-political “mode” to be witness the freakish human exhibition of squabbling, bickering, incoherent, unintelligible monkeys in suits blathering on about the “latest numbers” and “breaking viewer feedback info”, touting the inane and wholly meaningless projections of some randomly generated, factually-devoid and inconsequential poll as tantamount to the empirical data presented by a leading research study.

Dick Morris, Frank Luntz, and all the rest, they make up a circus cast of so-called ”political analyists” and “strategists”, and they’ve been occupying the airwaves ad nauseum this political season, and their trademark inherent normative audacity reverberating with an undeserved sense of accomplishment is in full bloom. These mendacious goons are invited to every network as “experts” on public policy matters and the hard mathematics of campaign management. They slobber out meaningless statistics from some obscure conducted 5 minutes prior to the program going on the air, or even worse, they employ the ridiculous spectacle that is the “Luntz Meter”, a nonsensical little gimmick that gauges the trigger-happy responses of a bunch of nobodies apparently snatched from the street to jingoistic buzz-words spat out by presidential-hopefuls. Its not clear if this ludicrous little thing is supposed to be a self-evidently satirrical joke, an exercise in gauging the susceptibility of the average drone to innately propagandist slogans or that they actually don’t understand how stupid and non-impacting the whole concept is.

The proposition that a group of bantering doofuses on a cable news network can actually predict determine with even relative accuracy the outcome of an election is almost as asinine as liberal half-wits at a Greenpeace herbosexual convention claiming they can adjudicate global climate figures a century from now. This accuracy is actually quite potent; much like the environment, the socio-political climate and how it interfaces with a largely uninformed, reserved and uncaring citizenry is an incredibly undecipherable codex to tackle. America’s political atmosphere is tumultous and in a state of constant fluctuation and disarray, no one can predict it. The fact that a dressed-up bureaucrat can actually make a lucrative career pretending that he can is just insulting.

That all being said, I too made a mistake in my calculations on the developments of Campaign ‘08. I instilled too much trust in Rudy Giuliani’s critical thinking faculties, or perhaps even in his capacity to think rationally at all. The notion that anyone can be under such a grossly false perception to believe that they can just casually skip Iowa, new Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina, and just place all bets in Florida illustrates a clear serious failure in analytical prowess on Giuliani’s part. I don’t know if he just became fat with overconfidence in his tremendous front-runner margin only a few months ago, or if he just became lazy, but Giuliani managed to perform a nearly unprecedented feat in status relenquishment, and I’m pretty sure at this point he’s out of the running.

Which leaves the space open for only one more tenable canddiate in book, John McCain. I’ve always liked the guy quite a bit, he was the loudest proponent of the surge in Congress, he banked essentially his entire career on it and his determination and devotion to it payed quite off for him, as well as demonstrating a great formidability in character. I do disagree with him on some things, namely his rhetoric in regards to global warming, which I see is given a bit too much urgency in my view, as well as his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, but in all fairness he was opposed to them because they weren’t coupled with equal spending reductions, and he was actually quite right on the mark there. But in general I respect and admire Senator McCain a great deal, he undoubtably holds the greatest foreign policy experience of the lot, and is certainly infinitely more desirable than a village idiot-hick preacher turned village idiot-hick turned politican like Mike Huckabee or a snivelling, unprincipled cultist like Mitt Romney, both of whom are completely untakable. As for Fred Thompson, it never even appeared to me like he even acted as though he wanted to become the next president, pun intended.

But I’m not going to be making any more formal endorsement banners or anything, the Giuliani one has been removed and you won’t be seeing the emergence of a new one unless McCain or Giuliani (or both, as running-mates, which isn’t entirely unlikely) actually win the nomination. The seas of American politics are rough and nearly intraversable, I won’t pretend to be a fortune-teller in regards to its various gravitations, in direct contrast to the rambling bimbos of the media, I’ll leave all the patently inaccurate and improvised election forecasting to them.

Sometimes I wonder, when an evengelical lobbyist indignantly utters some inane and patently ludicrous charge against someone or other on television, or when a Catholic racketeer babbles on about some self-concocted injustice or imagined societal scapegoat, all famed within a moon-faced demeanour just lucid with a squalid, undeserved sense of accomplishment, I wonder, are they really to blame? Is it their fault? Are the slobbering goons on the Christian right physically capable of higher cerebral contemplation? Do they posess the cranial capacities for non-conformist thought or probing exercises in intellectual-delving, free inquiry, objectivist comparative analysis?

I seriously ponder, as they blathering charlatans and profiteers sputter about on their bully pulpits to their compliantly unthinking masses ripe with credulity, as they indiscriminately pontificate undiluted lies about people and idealogies of which they know nothing about, is it all rooted within a physical impediment? Is it a case of mental impairment that causes these dogmatic fools to say, be completely ungrasping on the abstract literary concept of irony?

This appears to be the only logical solution to the astronomically preposterous reactions the film adaptation of Phillip Pullman’s timeless overture to the His Dark Materials trilogy, The Golden Compass, has elicited from the usual suspects of the Bible Belt Brigade. The unscrupulous and ridiculous spectacle of a human being that is Catholic League president Bill Donohue has organized a boycott of the film, claiming that it seeks to undermine religious values and is essentially a heretical instrument of evil. This is to be expected, but whats more interesting is the reaction from United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which suggested that, in lieu of a preferred boycott, good, intellectually nurturing Catholic parents can “talk through any thorny philosophical issues”.

Now, these preachments simply beg the question: are these regressivist Catholic scam artists mentally incapable of ironic perception, or are they fully aware of the implications of their words, and are actually intending to emulate the fascistic, demagogic theocratic magnate the Magisterium whom seeks to abolish every last spark of inquisatorial thought or scholastic independence that threatens to break their hegemonic stranglehold on the minds of their beleagured and brainwashed populous, which is all depicted in the fantasy canon they are shamelessly attempting to censor?

The former is perfectly comedic, the optimal recipe for a delicious realpolitik farce, the latter truly insidious and horrifyingly sinister, yet requiring a degree of intellectual aptitude that these hate-mongering propagandists are obviously not equipped with, although it would appear that the revolting Ann Coulter is actually attempting to mirror the life of the series fictional villain of the same name, Marisa Coulter. If this demented aspiration is intentional, she’s succeeding in this regard, and I certainly wouldn’t see such an sociopathic stunt past the deranged Christianist broad.

I’ve seen the film, and its quite a marvelous piece of work. The CGI effects are just pristinely gorgeous and exumed artistic mastery, the all-star cast acted with commendable virtuosity, and the performance of the young newcomer Dakota Blue Richards in the protagonist role was especially impressive. As the antithesic inverse corollary to C.S. Lewis’ distinctly Christian Narnia series, its rather fitting that this film was quantum leaps and bounds ahead of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe film in every aspect. I’d even go as far as to say its in many ways on par, if not superior to The Fellowship of the Ring, and that is quite a magnificent feat to accomplish.

The film contained no overt mention of religious organizations or dogmatisms, contrary to the books from which it is based, wherein the secularist argument is explicit and unconcealed in its message and sharpness. Some groups uncompromisingly faithful to the original works have criticised the film rendition for its dilution of the declaratively pronounced anti-religiosity agenda, and I can understand these charges.

However, considering that New Line was running on a hefty $180 million budget, and the film was to be fashioned in such a way that it could be appreciated by children and the populous at large as a financial blockbuster, it can be forgiven that some of its more fierce literary components were toned down. But its a wholly fatuous proposition to suggest that the film relenquished the anti-religious tradition of its namesake; it just pursued it in a more incipient, subtle, philosophical way, juxtaposing the ideals of free choice and free thought with unquestioning obedience and suspension of disbelief, all cerebral vibrations which, while not overtly framed in the language of secularism, undoubtably gravitate children towards the ideals of reason and inquiry versus totallitarian mysticism. Director Chris Weitz also stressed his ambition that the film will inspire children to go read the books, another thing the Bible-bashing baboon spear-chuckers should be concerned about, and something the secularist corps should be positively ecstatic about. While I know some on our side are frustrated over some of the cuts, in the long run the release and success of this film is a great victory for the good cause.

Well, The Golden Compass was #1 at the box-office opening weekend, making it one of the most successful advertisements for an unapologetic anti-theocratic manifesto in recent memory, to the furious decries of the religious right. But thats such an over-used term, “religious right”, perhaps we can be more creative?

In the His Dark Materials canon, we actually exist in an infinite multi-verse, spanning an endless ocean of paralell universes. So ostensibly, the same entities exist throughout the worlds, with variations, but ultimately based off the same principle templates. So that being said, let it be hereby resolved and pronounced throughout the lands….

DOWN WITH THE MAGISTERIUM!

There are so many things just perfectly ironically funny on so many levels in regards to the left’s reaction to the latest National Intelligence Estimate briefing on the Iranian nuclear armaments program. But before we can ravenously divulge into the humor, a little primer on exactly what this NIE release capitulates is in order.

First and foremost it must be sternly recognized and established that the NIE’s findings are not pretexually grounded in empirical research, statistical evidence, or any other comparative logistical data. They’re opinions, and from what has been suggested by some analysts some of these opinions are maintained by people who harbor a specific, anti-hawk agenda. So while their pontifications are to be respected and contemplated, they’re not factual declarative pronouncements backed by the substantial staying power necessary to “end the debate”. If you haven’t already reached for the salt-shaker, do so now.

Moreover, even if we are to take their findings as full-proof and infallible, which they very well may or may not be, it tells us nothing. Basically the report claims that Iran suspended their atomic weaponry production frameworks in 2003. Thats about it, and as soon as someone hears this formulation, several essential inquiries should be immediately posed in response:

2003 marked the onset of the Iraq war, and the US was at the height of its “aggressive credibility”. Libya had just terminated their WMD program and the rest of the world knew America was a force to be reckoned with that could not be questioned, wouldn’t it make sense for Iran to put into stasis their already clear, irrefutable, and manifested atomic ambitions?

How does this in any way prove that in the half-decade since the purpoted “nuclear hiatus” and in the midst of a political climate far less favorable towards American global outlook and credibility that a messianic psychopath tyrant like Ahmadinejad hadn’t cunningly re-initiated the program, cunningly anticipating a report of this brand to emerge, consequently generating an aura of innocence around his apocalyptic machinations? Wouldn’t that be far more likely to any logical observer?

So already its quite evident that the NIE’s conclusions contain some serious logical fallacies at best, and are outright sloppy, geopolitically foolish and politically severely disadvantageous. But in a sense, it can be granted reprieve, they’re doing their jobs and reporting an event that may very well have transpired, however ultimately irrelevant or clumsy a foreign policy gesture it was to disclose it.

But what cannot be forgiven is the ludicrously truculent and hysterical reaction the report has incited from the left, whom have used the briefing as fodder for their long-held slobbering conspiracy theories and accusations of treasonous war-mongering they’ve charged against the neoconservative ranks for years. They cite the NIE’s report as definitive proof that the Bush administration was fabricating its evidence of a belligerent Iranian nuclear program, but this line of argument in itself functions as a staggering false antithesis. When Bush followed the universal consensus of global central intelligence agencies that Saddam posessed stockpiles of biological and nuclear weaponry, the left decried him as a liar. Now that he’s skeptical of far more dubious and fallible intelligence in regards to an Iranian nuclear program, he’s still a liar. This is contradictory stupidity that even a liberal could perceive after 3 seconds of thought, but maybe thats asking too much.

Furthermore, the whole basis of the anti-interventionalist liberal argument on the information provided by the NIE report serves as a huge non-sequitor genetic fallacy. As stated earlier, it doesn’t matter if Iran allegedly suspended their nuclear program half a decade ago. The non-rebukable fact of the matter is that they had a nuclear program, and have likely re-activated it as a response to evolutionary atmospheric political trends; the world is in a constant state of change and motion, and so is information. The fact that liberals can cling on to a single shred of evidence pertaining to the global climate 5 years ago and use it to proactively engage in serious debate on contemporary issues is just absurd and asinine, but again liberals generally aren’t sophisticated enough for multi-leveled, complex analytical thinking.

I’m not an Iran war hawk, it is my solid and impassioned conviction that the country posesses an extremely educated, secularized and youthful population that can be tapped into to ferment a serious insurrection and establish a pro-American democracy in its wake without the need for an invasion. However, anyone who believes that the Islamic Republic is not a serious threat is a delusional imbecile, and even more so if they actually believe that the threat posed can be casually truncated by a little bureacratic regurgitation. The left has to step out of its little fantasy bubble wherein Bush-Cheney is tantamount to the antichrist and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a beleagured renegade hero, this is foolishness that any actual Iranian could tell you, as well as anyone with an IQ over 60.

But then again, maybe that high of an intelligence quotient is a bit too high to expect from a liberal.