Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 27, 2007

BRAVE NEW WORLD....One of the more annoying qualities of the Bush White House's policy on stem-cell research the last several years is its incoherence. It's not just that the president has blocked potentially life-saving medical research, it's that his rationale for doing so ends up contradicting itself.

As Bush sees it, embryos are people, and should therefore not be subjected to medical testing. The White House, at one point last year, went so far as to argue that it's literally "murder" to conduct research on these embryos.

At the same time, however, the same White House brags about the president's support for privately-funded stem-cell research, and touts Bush's support for IVF clinics, where "people" are stored and destroyed all the time. If any of this bothers the president, he could ask Congress to intervene. He hasn't.

I've long wondered how Bush came to embrace such a bizarre position, and assumed he was just winging it, making up a rationale as he went along. As it turns out, that's not the case -- the president was influenced by a dystopian sci-fi novel. Actually, he was influenced by portions of a dystopian sci-fi novel, which someone read to him.

In the new issue of Commentary magazine, former Bush advisor Jay Lefkowitz explained how he helped convince the president to oppose public funding of additional stem-cell lines: he used "Brave New World." (via ThinkProgress)

A few days later, I brought into the Oval Office my copy of Brave New World, Aldous Huxley's 1932 anti-utopian novel, and as I read passages aloud imagining a future in which humans would be bred in hatcheries, a chill came over the room.

"We're tinkering with the boundaries of life here," Bush said when I finished. "We're on the edge of a cliff. And if we take a step off the cliff, there's no going back. Perhaps we should only take one step at a time."

To be fair, Lefkowitz's article doesn't suggest that reading from Huxley was the only thing that convinced the president to take a bizarre position on the issue, but based on his piece, reading "passages" from the Huxley novel had an effect.

It suggests the White House, for all its rhetoric, was taking the policy debate about as seriously as it takes any substantive discussion -- which is to say, not at all. Taking a step "off the cliff"? We're talking about a controversy in which medical researchers would use embryos from IVF clinics that would otherwise be discarded. This bears no resemblance to "a future in which humans would be bred in hatcheries" -- unless someone is just looking for an excuse to block the research in the first place.

Steve Benen 1:09 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Yet, oddly enough, it's the ability of incredibly young premies to survive outside the womb in what are, for all intents and purposes, hatcheries, that has inspired many anti-choice advocates.

And the instrumental view of women which underlies the anti-choice world view is in a way the view that women are just little hatchery machines, with no input into the fetuses growing inside them.

So it's the Right that is rather enamored with the hatchery idea; odd that the passage from Huxley failed to make them realize that.


Posted by: lampwick on December 27, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

"We're tinkering with the boundaries of life here," Bush said when I finished. "We're on the edge of a cliff. And if we take a step off the cliff, there's no going back. Perhaps we should only take one step at a time."

Umm, if you're on the edge of a cliff taking only one step will have the same effect as taking several steps -- you're still over the edge and picking up speed.

Posted by: Stefan on December 27, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you're talking about people (conservatives) who can't tell the difference between a fictional story and reality. This has been the case since Reagan.

They think it's a feature of their movement, not a bug.

Posted by: Danno on December 27, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

"At the same time, however, the same White House brags about the president's support for privately-funded stem-cell research, and touts Bush's support for IVF clinics, where "people" are stored and destroyed all the time. If any of this bothers the president, he could ask Congress to intervene. He hasn't."

What would be the source of Constitutional authority for a federal law that would prohibit private funding of stem cell research? Off the top of my head, I can't see what Article I grant of power the Constitution gives to Congress that would provide a basis for such a law.

Posted by: Chicounsel on December 27, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Umm, if you're on the edge of a cliff taking only one step will have the same effect as taking several steps -- you're still over the edge and picking up speed.

But who wouldn't replay aWol over and over and over, caught with that "Wile E. Coyote" look on his face.

Hell, I would be glad to hand him the anvil!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on December 27, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

I gotta agree that an embryo are about as much a person as Al.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on December 27, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

I gave Herman Hesse's Siddartha in audo book form as gifts this year to different people, who also happened to be W. Bush Americans. I had not considered that would lead to more mosques being destroyed in India, but now I think it probably will.

Posted by: Brojo on December 27, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

I don't for one second believe that Bush has a strong opinion on the matter one way or the other. What he was trying to do was search for a compromise position between two of his strongest constituencies, evangelicals and the AMA/Big Pharma.

What he did was prevent tax-payer money from being used on research, and remained laissez-fair as to privately funded research. He was obviously searching for a split the baby position and this is where he landed. Of course, someone should remind him that the whole point of the Solomon story is that half a baby isn't worth much to anyone.

Posted by: jacob on December 27, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel: I agree there's not a specific constitutional text dealing with embryos, but surely Congress could regulate the market in embryos, like other markets, under the Interstate Commerce Clause? I mean, there's also not a specific constitutional text authorizing Congress to pass drug laws, but they did that.

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on December 27, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Embryos are more important than 50 million americans without health insurance. I don't think Aldous covered that.

Posted by: Gandalf on December 27, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps, Georgie Porgie was the first human bred in a hatchery--we just haven't been told that yet.

Posted by: Mazurka on December 27, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

I think someone may have put alcohol in GWB's blood surrogate. That would explain everything.

Posted by: CT on December 27, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen,

I agree with your assessment of Bush's stem-cell policy, but regarding Jay Lefkowitz, bear in mind that his principal agenda is probably to promote Jay Lefkowitz -- in this case, by suggesting he has a great deal of influence, whether or not that is in fact true. I just think more skepticism is warranted.

Posted by: Shelby on December 27, 2007 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

You'll notice that Krauthammer has explicitly used the same cockamamie reasoning -- and so, I think, does Sullivan, although he's a lot fuzzier about his rationale. None of them seems to realize that there is a huge developmental safety margin between experimenting on embryos, and experimenting on fetuses developed enough to have any degree of consciousness -- and that a strict borderline forbidding the latter could be easily established legally and (if necessary) constitutionally.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on December 27, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Yet, oddly enough, it's the ability of incredibly young premies to survive outside the womb in what are, for all intents and purposes, hatcheries, that has inspired many anti-choice advocates.

...So it's the Right that is rather enamored with the hatchery idea; odd that the passage from Huxley failed to make them realize that.
Posted by: lampwick

Uhhh, no. Non sequitur. The fact that the premies can be sustained at such an early age indicates they are viable, not that there should be hatcheries. Anyway, this will all be OBE as soon as they refine the method of accessing stem cells from non-embryos. I'm assuming that once we can do that, you guys won't want to use embryos.

Posted by: SJRSM on December 27, 2007 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

I'm assuming that once we can do that, you guys won't want to use embryos.

Oh no, we still will. Just...for other uses.

Posted by: Stefan on December 27, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

I'm assuming that once we can do that, you guys won't want to use embryos.

And I'm assuming that once we can do that, you guys will finally start picketing IVF clinics and demanding they stop trashing embryos.

Since you'll have all that new free time and all.

Posted by: MSRJS on December 27, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Remember that to the Repukeliscum Party you are due the rights of man if you are pre-born or post-intellect-loss. It's only if you are post-born and pre-intellect-loss that you have no rights as a human being. If you remember that, it's all consistent.

Posted by: POed Lib on December 27, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

The latest in presidential reading:

"My Pet Stem Cell."

And, SJRSM, the scientists behind the possible new cloning method have already said nothing is guaranteed and that this in no way obviates the need for stem cells.

Put that in your IVF pipe adn smoke it.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on December 27, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

It is stunning that a thuggish goon - who spent most of his career dropping bombs on actual, fully formed human beings, rendering them into bloody, lifeless, chunks - would pretend to be concerned about embryos. Sure, those "lives" are innocent, but then when you cowardly drop ordinance from the safety of an airplane there is no certainty that your victims are all villains.

Typical asshole Republican - murder real adults but cry over potential life.

As to the use of IVF stem cells, sorry, don't care. The fact is, they are pretty much all destined for destruction. So, throw them away as the idiot Republicans want, or use them for research? Hm...only a moron would choose the garbage can.

Posted by: heavy on December 27, 2007 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

heavy, your pals thank you for your support. Without people like you, they couldn't do things like this. AQI sympathizer...

Whatever the truth of that particular incident, the Taliban have certainly learned the value of American mistakes. Around the same time as the checkpoint shooting, coalition air strikes killed seven Afghan children at a mosque compound in the southeastern part of the country. Reaction was predictably outraged, but almost lost in the outcry was the testimony of survivors. They allegedly told coalition forces that before the air strike al-Qaeda fighters in the area—who undoubtedly knew they were going to be bombed—had beaten the children to prevent them from leaving.

“We had surveillance on the compound all day,” a nato spokesman explained. “We saw no indication there were children inside.”


http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/01/afghanistan200801?currentPage=4 Posted by: SJRSM on December 27, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Firstly, there is the offensiveness of using one of my favorite novels to justify their stupid policies.

Secondly, they don't even get the point of the novel, which is critical of regimentation and conformity; i.e., the home-school, school-vouchered, v-chipped future that the Republicans want to give us where everyone knows their place and never leaves it and never thinks about what their betters in political office are doing.

Thirdly, the human race very likely will have to end up being bred in virtual hatcheries (or, OK, at IVF clinics on an outpatient basis) because of the inevitability of sterility among human beings, since male chromosomes are slowly, or comparatively quickly depending how you look at it, shrinking away to nothing.

Posted by: Anon on December 27, 2007 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

And, SJRSM, the scientists behind the possible new cloning method have already said nothing is guaranteed and that this in no way obviates the need for stem cells...Put that in your IVF pipe adn smoke it.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly

I'm familiar with the literature.

The new technique, while far from perfected, is so promising that the man who managed to clone the world's first sheep, Dolly, is giving up his work cloning embryos to focus on studying stem cells derived from skin cells.

"The fact that (the) introduction of a small number of proteins into adult human cells could produce cells that are equivalent to embryo stem cells takes us into an entirely new era of stem cell biology," said Ian Wilmut, the Scottish researcher who first created a viable clone by transferring a cell nucleus into a new embryo.

One of the greatest advantages of the new technique is its simplicity: it takes just four genes to turn the skin cell back into a stem cell.

This, unlike the complex and expensive process developed by Wilmut, can be done in a standard biological lab. And skin cells are much easier to harvest than embryos.

"It's an explosion of resources," said Konrad Hochedlinger, of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

..."This new research is just the beginning -- we hardly understand how these cells work," said James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who led one of the two teams which made the simultaneous discoveries.

The use of skin cells will eventually allow doctors to create stem cells with a specific patient's genetic code, eliminating the risk that the body would reject transplanted tissues or organs.

Researchers have already shown this is possible when they cured sickle cell anemia in mice.

They used skin cells taken from the tails of sick mice, transformed them into stem cells, manipulated those stem cells into healthy bone marrow cells and then transplanted them into the sick mice.

And since the new cells came from the sick mice, there was also no need for dangerous immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection.

"It is not the time to abandon stem cell research," Thomson said, adding that embryonic stem cells will remain the "gold standard" by which other research is measured.


OK, so how many more embryonic stem cell lines do we need, since skin-derived stem cells from a patient are obviously going to be the future path? As soon as we get that wired, the number of stem cell lines will be unlimited.
Posted by: SJRSM on December 27, 2007 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

They allegedly told coalition forces that before the air strike...

What cannot be alleged were the dead chilren killed by Americans.

Posted by: Brojo on December 27, 2007 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

They allegedly told coalition forces that before the air strike...

What cannot be alleged were the dead children killed by Americans.
Posted by: Brojo

Oh, think maybe AQ isn't that evil? Wouldn't dare endanger children? Hell, they don't just hide behind them, using morons like heavy to provide their overseas support. They target them directly.

Afghanistan: Suicide attack killed 59 children...The 59 schoolchildren had lined up to greet a group of lawmakers visiting a sugar factory in the northern province of Baghlan on Tuesday when a suicide bomber detonated explosives.
Posted by: SJRSM on December 27, 2007 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

SJRSM: I don't think anyone is in favor of AQ brutality, but the mere fact that it exists does not excuse OUR activities.

Being "better than Al Qaeda" is not how I measure my morality.

Not dropping HE on other countries would do a lot to eliminate the needless deaths that our country is responsible for.

Before you criticize my patriotism, I am a US Army veteran who put on a uniform and took my chances during a previous insane war. I'm betting that you have no intention of putting yourself in harm's way, while demanding that others do so.

Posted by: Repack Rider on December 27, 2007 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Being "better than Al Qaeda" is not how I measure my morality.

Nor I. When the enemy hides children in obvious targets in order to exploit their deaths, who is really responsible for their deaths? Our friend heavy is responsible for being AQ's tool state-side, to the point of using a post on stem cells to argue their point once again.

I'm betting that you have no intention of putting yourself in harm's way, while demanding that others do so.
Posted by: Repack Rider

You're new here. I flew and was shot at in GW1 and Bosnia and Southern Watch. Been there, done that. That's why heavy hates me so.

Posted by: SJRSM on December 27, 2007 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

I think SJRSM would like to put himself in harm's way. But they need him for that very important job of...well...um...what do they need you for, Jingo?

Is anyone else starting to wonder if "heavy" is Jingo's psychosis emerging in a neat little cartoon sockpuppet, giving Jingo's bilious rants meaning and focus and allowing him to make hilarious statements about heavy "saying what all the left secretly thinks"?

Posted by: shortstop on December 27, 2007 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

[That was about as crass as you have ever been in this forum, I don't have to tolerate it, and I won't. Clear enough for you, Mike? --Mod]

Posted by: SJRSM on December 27, 2007 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

No worries, unlike the sociopathic Goon, I have never killed anyone. As for "putting himself in harms way," Mary merely helped drop bombs from a great height as far from the action as you can get and still be personally responsible for slaughtering human beings. Then there's the asinine assertion that I, the one advocating that we not murder people, am friendly to any terrorist organization - sorry Goon, the death of innocents is your bag.

As for why I loathe you - you can't even get that right. It isn't that you were in combat. It isn't that your bombs were almost certainly responsible for the deaths of innocent people. It isn't even that you have deluded yourself into thinking that you were doing something, anything, that was in even the tiniest way related to national security (none of the places you claim to have served were ever a threat to US national security).

Nope, what makes you a target is that you have killed people for money and loved it. So much so that you are appear to be always on the lookout for ways to increase the number of dead. You aren't just okay with the slaughter of innocents - you get your SJG from your comparison of the death of an innocent woman and child to a particularly nasty "venereal disease."

That a cult of death member like you would presume to lecture anyone on the morality of using otherwise likely to be discarded tissue is beyond offensive.

Remember, I am not "the left" and you are not "the military." I am an individual who loathes murder and you are a coward who thinks that putting on pretty clothes differentiates you from your brother head-choppers in AQ.

Posted by: heavy on December 27, 2007 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

Brave New World is far more than "a dystopian sci-fi novel."

If someone based their opposition to warrantlesswiretapping based on a reading of portions of 1984 (portions? slacker!) would it be right to roll out the rhetoric about relying on fantasies of paranoid ex-communists"?

And what's with emphasizing portions? Would your opinion be changed one iota if it turned out Bush read the whole book? If not, then why is that he listened to only portions relevant?


Posted by: mike on December 27, 2007 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

Goodness, somebody got his little buttons pushed. Pavlov's pooch rides again.

SJRSM: Shortstop, don't you have some embryos to destroy?

LOL--what a very Charlie-ish comment. And given that my remark to you was my first in this thread, it's apropos of...what, Jingo, other than you losing your fucking mind and desperately flailing at shadows the second you're mocked? I hope you had a little more self-control back when they actually let you have weapons.

No way anyone from your side of the street would ever stalk someone ala heavy.

Oh, hell, yeah, we've got our weirdos. Rarely do they always conveniently show up right when their supposed nemesis is getting pounded, and even less rarely does said nemesis try so heavyhandedly--and so ineffectively--to make them poster children for the entire political opposition. heavy gives you a reason to rave on here, and while we ought to be grateful to him for keeping you away from some of your likely even more harmful pursuits offline, as a political Punch and Judy act it lacks depth and flavor.

While you're at it, ask the moderator/thought-policeman. He sees the IP addresses.

Yeah, "he" does. Sorry about him spanking you just now. Again.

Posted by: shortstop on December 27, 2007 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

suggesting someone who sees an embryo as a lab experiment go destroy one?

Cite. Now. Let's see it.

That either means you tacitly agree with him, or you're just pretending you want to debate ideas and are actually just here to take pot shots and play at talking about important stuff.

Or it could mean I don't think he's for real...and that much to my and most other folks' utter revulsion, I think you are.

Posted by: shortstop on December 27, 2007 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

[No. That will have to suffice. Your penchant for "sport arguing" as you so charmingly referred to it a while back is what set the standard I hold for you. For the record - one can edit comments, but can not post comments from the moderator screen. --Mod]

Posted by: SJRSM on December 27, 2007 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

SJRSM: No, you're right. I was lumping you in with the other posters...

Gosh, this is a pretty good start (although late; you missed my previous warning that you were barking up the wrong tree), but it's lacking a word, a common word, that belonged in there before you rushed to change the subject...what the hell is that word...it starts with an S...help me, Mod.

[Could the word you are looking for possibly be "Sorry"?]

Hmmmm. I don't think heavy's for real. I'll leave it at that.

And as for my referring to your alleged forced retirement, those comments came in the context of a number of people, including me, telling you that you were spinning out of control, acting like someone in crisis whose rage was inappropriate and getting worse. You've been a little more rational lately, and that's good. But tonight you showed that same say-anything-in-fury loose cannonism. Not good.

Look, Jingo, this puffing-out-your-chest-then-crying-like-a-little-girl act is getting old, and it doesn't speak well of your stability. Either you're the tough guy you love to say you are or you're very easily wounded in political wrestling matches. You can't come onto blog comment threads peopled by liberals and progressives, say the things you do, and not expect to get nailed for them, nor can you dish out outrageous insults and then credibly cry about how mean a few nuts like heavy are to you.

It's not my responsibility to remonstrate with heavy any more than it's my job to argue with every insane remark made by every troll of every political stripe on this site. If I'm a hypocrite for not making a critique of heavy for every time I call you out, then I'm also one for not bashing mhr as many times as I mock ex-liberal, and so on and so on. You're caterwauling because the person you most dislike isn't getting moderated. Well, join the club--everyone has a different most-disliked poster, and you rarely see anyone else demanding the person be deleted.

I go to winger blogs and, on the few that actually allow progressives to post, I get assailed from all sides. You will never hear me whining like a weakling that they're not being as hard on their own people--including the craziest of the bunch--as they are on me. Why the hell should they be, on a right-wing blog? Why don't you get this?

If you think you're badly treated here, leave. If you love the fight, stay. But for god's sake stop fighting and crying at the same time. It's just embarrassing to watch.

Are you the mod?

Nope.

Posted by: shortstop on December 27, 2007 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

SJRSM: There are limits, and randomly accusing someone of murder ought to be on the far side of it.

Oh, come on. You fought in wars and you can't handle someone like heavy throwing that kind of tired crap at you as a military person? Haven't you ever met anyone like that before? How sheltered you must be.

If heavy really is for real, why not stop instantly jumping like a trout at every single piece of bait he throws at you? Try not reading him; I rarely do.

Mod: [Could the word you are looking for possibly be "Sorry"?]

That's it! Guess that didn't make Jingo's list of 200.

Posted by: shortstop on December 27, 2007 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Jingo, think about what you just said. I just finished telling you last night that I visit winger sites and take the back-and-forth like a big kid, never complaining that I'm being picked on or singled out. Geez, I'd die of embarrassment if I sank so low as to whine online about people being mean to me, especially on a site full of the political opposition.

How the hell did you get through all that action with such a thin skin and so little self-control? Are you this much of a crybaby in real life?

Posted by: shortstop on December 28, 2007 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

[As your only purpose appears to be to whine about mean ole liberals and derail discussion, I'm deleting all your stuff, so long as your MO remains unchanged.]

Posted by: SJRSM on December 28, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

I expect better from a liberal/progressive website then to partisanly thought-police their own forum, and I am continually surprised and dismayed with the willingness of you and others to accept it.

No matter how many times you get busted hysterically lumping posters together without doing your homework, you keep making the same mistake. You really don't ever learn, Jingo.

I've shared my own views on moderation many times on this blog. You won't have any trouble finding them if you know how to google. After you've read my several comments disagreeing with the foundation of the PA moderation policy, you'll spot my acknowledgments that this is a private site, that KD and his staff are entitled to run it however they like, and that if I don't like it I'm not required to read or post here.

Meanwhile, you blather on tearfully, expecting so much more from liberals and progressives than you do from...well, from yourself. Pretty telling--the story of your world view as told in your posts.

Your old, thoroughly comical "I tried to be civil but you louts pushed me too far" argument has been transformed into the equally risible "I tried to have a serious discussion, but you people couldn't handle it," huh? Good luck trying to convince someone that you've ever done anything much but troll here.

As for "you asked for it, you got it"--well, that's up to the mods, isn't it?

Posted by: shortstop on December 28, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I see Mike isn't getting any love today, but I will answer the serious question he posed:

I have no problem at all with stem cell research. Maybe because I have seen too many people with no hope suffer,deteriorate and die horrible deaths.

That, and a blastocyst is to a fully developed human as a cookbook on the shelf is to a seven-course meal.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on December 28, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

I'm curious, Jingo - what personal ethical code allows you to be so very concerned about a few cells in a petri dish, yet so callous about a formed fetus that became collateral damage? To the point that you wish you had dropped the bomb that killed the mother and her unborn child?

Posted by: Volatile Compound on December 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for asking, useful idiot. I would gladly have killed Zarqawi, as his single death resulted in thousands of deaths of innocents avoided. Since you are sympathetic to his views I understand why this angers you. It is terrible that his family was killed with him, but at least you are able to use that fact in your anti-war crusade, and so continue to support him.

Hey, Jingo...Show me a cite where I have ever said I "support Zarqawi" or that I am "sympathetic to his views" you bloodthirsty, warmongering jackass. You can't because I never have. Nice motive ascription on your part, tho.

And for the record, I'm not necessarily anti-war - but I am anti illegal war, and think the president whose dick you can't suck hard enough should ought to hang. And have his corpse left for the buzzards to make an example of his useless ass.

Thanks for proving once and for all, tho, that you have a binary worldview. Dipshit.

Posted by: Volatile Compound on December 28, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

It is terrible that his family was killed with him

I do believe that this is the first time I have ever heard you say that the deaths other than the target were tragic.

I'm gonna call that progress. And they say their is no hope for sociopaths!

Posted by: Volatile Compound on December 28, 2007 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Santa,

I know you passed over my retirement home because you were mad about me calling for genocide in Iraq under another handle and then having the nerve to complain about Heavy calling me a murderer, but next year I will try to be a better boy. Please bring me anger management courses and an iPod to drown out the voices in my head.

Thank you,

Posted by: Jingo Bells on December 28, 2007 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

[That will be quite enough, I'm turning off the comments on this thread. Mike - continue with your humiliating public meltdown, and your IP will be banned. Which would really be a shame, because you used to be one of the conservative voices that wasn't a troll.]

Posted by: al-heavy on December 29, 2007 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly