"permanent {insert party or affiliation here} majority"

I would be willing to endure much never to hear that phrase again.

...if things go tonight as expected, I highly recommend watching Fox News for some period of time.

I've never known you to advocate for mass public schadenfreude before, Glenn. But I can't really say that I would find it unpleasant.

But really, the only thing I'll watch on Fox these days is the Simpsons or some sporting event. And I haven't watched the Simpsons in years.

One the positive side, this type of idiotic equivalency did inspire one of my favorite protest signs of all time.

{link at sig}

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings {link at sig} brought to my attention this particular travesty of logic and reason, which I think imparts, to those who have not been paying attention, the violence that Bush's reign did to the concept of environmental conservation as government policy.

In 2001, The US government filed a brief to the US District Court (4th Circuit - the DC court) in a case in which a claimant had apparently sued to get the US military to stop using a particular pacific atoll as a bombing range to protect some nesting grounds of rare bird species. The brief was filed by Jim Haynes, who was twice nominated to the federal bench by the Bush Administration, presumably for his legal acumen and expertise. Haynes made the argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the destruction of this one particular habitat had the effect of making the birds more rare, and therefore increasing the value of the times when they could be seen in other habitats, at other locales.

From the judge's decision:

Finally, the Court must note that defendants have

adopted, along with the rest of WLF’s brief, the argument that plaintiffs have suffered insufficient injury because the more birds that the defendants kill, the more enjoyment Mr. Frew will get from seeing the ones that remain: “bird watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one.” See Defs’ Supp. Reply, Ex. A (WLF Amicus Brief) at 16-17. Suffice it to say, there is absolutely no support in the law for the view that environmentalists should get enjoyment out of the destruction of natural resources because that destruction makes the remaining resources more scarce and therefore valuable. The Court hopes that the federal government will refrain from making or adopting such frivolous arguments in the future.

"How Bush made a mockery of ... environmental laws ..." indeed.

First of all -

Glenn, I started reading Unclaimed Territory way back when due to your persistence and eloquence around precisely these issues. Thanks for all your efforts.

Second of all, what kind of crack are these particular village idiots smoking and why hasn't it killed them yet?

Let's take a poll and find out, honestly, what percentage of the public wants "the government" -not "the Bush Administration" and not "the Clinton Administration" and not "the Obama Administration," but "the US Goverment" to be able to do ANYTHING without some degree of oversight, accountability, and liability in a court of law for violations of US statutes.

Is there anyone outside of the beltway tin hat reality defiance zone who thinks this is a good idea? And if so, for heaven's sake, WHY?!?!?!?!?

I suppose this is one possible answer, but it is the opposite of convincing:

... It is ironic that the virtues of loyalty, discipline, and self-sacrifice that we value so highly in the individual are the very properties that create destructive organizational engines of war and bind men to malevolent systems of authority.

Each individual possesses a conscience which to a greater or lesser degree serves to restrain the unimpeded flow of impulses destructive to others. But when he merges his person into an organizational structure, a new creature replaces autonomous man, unhindered by the limitations of individual morality, freed of humane inhibition, mindful only of the sanctions of authority.

-Stanley Milgram, "Obedience to Authority", 1974

link at signature

As anyone who has observed Senate Democrats for any length of time knows, this is exactly how their capitulations and backtracking always begin.

This is as opposed to the Arlen Specter Triple Lindy Backtracking Plan™ wherein one: espouses principled, reasonable stand against horrendous, immoral policies in unambiguous language; then proceeds to vote in complete contradiction to said principles.

I am not sure which is worse.