67 Responses to Good News (Savor It)

  1. NatashaFatale says:


    I seem to recall, maybe wrongly, that you sometimes like spy stories. Here’s some of the backstory for a pretty good one.

  2. bluthner says:

    From Nat’s article:

    …the truth is that “collusion” with the Kremlin doesn’t have to be criminal to be dangerous. If the Trump campaign received offers of assistance from Russia, and they did nothing to discourage that help (or even encouraged it), they are indebted to a foreign adversary whose national interests are opposed to those of the United States. You can be sure that at some point, Putin will come to collect, if he has not done so already – and when it comes to protecting our democracy the administration will be a puppet of a foreign adversary, not our country’s first line of defense. While the potential criminal aspects of this case need to be investigated, we need to take a good look at what we already know. The national security threat is staring us right in the face.

    Which is precisely what Fox and The GOP and Sarah the Huck don’t want people to understand.

  3. KevinNevada says:


    I had a friend in my London days, a pharmacist (“chemist”) from Belfast who despised the radicals of both sides up there.

    He was Protestant, and so could do a pitch-perfect imitation of the good Rev. Paisley.

    His finest, delivered in several pubs, was to declaim one of Paisley’s best:

    “The people of Narthern Ireland are never going to stand idly by and be mardered in their beds!!”

    (Envision militantly alert Natharn Irelanders standing alertly on guard upon their mattresses.
    We were inspired. Great stuff. Another round, please.)

  4. NatashaFatale says:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, aka the CDC, have now been forbidden to use seven words and phrases: vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, evidence-based, and science-based. The prohibitions have come with helpful suggestions for much better ways to communicate. For instance, instead of the arcane and difficult “evidence-based,” they’re encouraged to say “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.” No substitute for “fetus” was offered, but I’m quite sure that “baby” would be acceptable.

  5. bluthner says:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, aka the CDC, have now been forbidden to use [the phrases]… science-based [and evidence-based*]

    *from the NYT report

    Such a relief that we’re taking a break from those fucking usless progressives. Haven’t we had enough science-based and evidence-based policy? About time some pure ideological faith-based gobbledygook gets a look in! That shit is always right, isn’t it? Hayek? Mao? Stalin? Jim Jones? Those are the guys who really knew what was what. So glad we are finally giving up on the whole science shmience nonsense and getting down to really solving some problems here.

  6. NatashaFatale says:

    The NYT plagiarized me? Wow.

    It’s interesting to note that so far this prohibition is confined to budgetary documents – i.e. requests for money to spend. Let us try to identify the sub-constituencies served by this edict.

    “Transgender” – hard to see how this one deft stroke doesn’t almost, in itself, get the CDC out of the business of serving trans people.

    “Fetus” – as I said above. The other shoe will be mandating its replacement by “baby.”

    “Diversity” – possibly a narrower focus, overturning internal programs (which hitherto have existed in all federal agencies) aimed at bringing diversity to the workforce? Or just a general impediment to studying/addressing the health threats to diverse populations?

    “Entitlement” – this one’s for you, Mr Speaker.

    “Vulnerable” – the most intriguing of the lot. The budget of an agency called The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would naturally aim funds at populations vulnerable to particular health threats. This alone won’t prevent that but it could sure make it tougher to say so clearly.

    “Science/evidence-based” – a pure and easy sop to the two constituencies: the fossil-fuel crowd, and those who like to confine their research to the Pentateuch. Unlike the others, this will have little real effect: scientists don’t actually use these terms in their work, only when explaining that work to the public. But saying them can score troublesome debating points, so they’re best censored. I suppose the aim is to reduce public debate to a kind of perverted game of charades in which one side can say what they mean and the other can only hint at it.

  7. bluthner says:


    somehow I missed ‘evidence -based’ in your list, andt thought it was additional in the NYT list. And didn’t want anyone to think I was just tossing it in there to doulbe up (what could ‘science-based’ mean except ‘evidence-based’?)

    So if I’m at the CDC and discussing anti-biotic resistant tuberculosis, one of the great disease threats of our time, which at the moment is only showing up in vulnerable communities, I guess I have to call those communties feckless or immoral or weak-willed or illiterate or some other term more pleasing to the Pentatuechracle ear.

    And of course any one of those terms, if you are Mike Pence or Roy Moore or float on top the same ideological bucket they tend to froth in, would also serve for Transgender.

  8. NatashaFatale says:


    Not quite as off-topic as it may seem:

    I am reliably informed that before my time here, you wrote a series of impressive posts about the Dominionist movement. (Disclosure: Rushdoony has always been one of my very favorite villains. People satisfied by The Joker and his kind have no idea what they’re missing.) Anyway, it has been suggested to me that you should be encouraged to post links to them, the better to prepare us for President Pence. And also for the delectation of those who, like me, were still hoping that the sow”s ear that was CiF in those benighted days would turn back into the silk purse of ancient memory, and therefore missed them.

  9. bluthner says:

    I remember those posts and would also appreciate a link or reposting. Because some bad Dominionist times am a’comin’- ain’t no way t’dodge ’em yet.

  10. Expat says:

    Most of the regulars here have posting privileges. Log in, go to Posts and scroll to the last couple of pages.

  11. KevinNevada says:

    Thanks for the history lesson. The induction of one President Pence is looking more than remotely-possible now.

    The hysteria in the general interwebs, expressed by conservatives, is reaching a fever pitch this weekend. The loss in Alabama has rocked them, and now Mueller has thousands of emails from the Trump Transition Team. Thousands.

    The whining that “The FBI is biased”, “Fusion GPS is a huge scandal”, and such, is intense right now. I was on an FB thread today, conservative pals of a friend were unhinged.


    Expat, I witnessed the growth and poisonous nature of the Religious Right up front in a conservative corner of California (yes, they exist!), in the 1990’s. By the mid-90’s the takeover of the Republican Party, at club and county-committee level by the religious nuts was essentially complete.

    That is why the GOP isn’t relevant in California any more. They marginalized and radicalized themselves out of serious competition for state-level offices, and for most House seats too.

    But that was California, with a population that isn’t vulnerable to the religious message, and is too diverse to be easily programmed.

    Their schtick works quite well in other markets.

  12. KevinNevada says:

    Further on the Seven Banned Words and Phrases:

    What is even more chilling, as reported by WaPo, is this:

    In some cases, The Post reported, alternative phrases were suggested. Instead of “science-based,” or “evidence-based,” The Post reported, “the suggested phrase is ‘CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.’”

    OK, that is clear: from now on, scientific evidence is to be subject to local superstitions.
    That ‘suggested phrase’ is code for

    “Don’t you dumbass scientists go and upset any preachers or the Catholic bishops, any more, y’hear??”

  13. KevinNevada says:

    PS – I just read back up this thread, and saw that Natasha beat me to that punch – as usual.

  14. Expat says:

    The hysteria in the general interwebs, expressed by conservatives, is reaching a fever pitch this weekend.

    I was about to say the same about my left leaning friends.

    Funny old world.

  15. Expat says:

    ….and check out the baking and recipe posts. Those were the days!

  16. KevinNevada says:

    Expat, the regime and its apologists are very obviously winding up the Great Justification for the most blatant “obstruction of justice” by any administration, since Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre.

    To recognize this isn’t hysteria, just simple prudence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Enter the answer in digits. If you are registered and logged in, this silliness will go away. Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.