speaking of the practice of calling anyone you disagree with a terrorist, harry reid calls bundy and the 'militias' that have rallied in his support 'domestic terrorists'. on morning joe this morning, mike barnicle waved around a dictionary, defined 'terrorism' and asserted flatly that reid was perfectly right. barnicle was obviously wrong, even by the inadequate definition he quoted. no one is a terrorist without committing any actual acts of violence, no matter how you cut it. 'they're resisting our government', said barnicle, showing exactly who he is, the goddamn commie. no wait! he's a fascist. he's a monphysite, i tell you, a blanquist, a witch. anyway only an embezzler or a jacobin quotes webster's dictionary in defense of his monstrous positions, like osama with the koran.
this phenomenon of using 'terrorist' completely indiscriminately to mean whomever you don't like is self-consuming: the word is meaningless in these doinks' mouths, and all they are trying to do is manipulate their followers, if any, into a rage. i hear that in dc, people are tossing the term around in marital spats. i'm sure bundy calls reid a terrorist too. we need higher standards both of terrorism and of meaningfulness. if i were a terrorist - and i'm sure i am by barnicle's or reid's or assad's standards etc - i'd be getting pissed off. geez y'all count anyone as a terrorist these days! christ i had to earn that shit by blowing people to smithereens; now all you have to do is wave the wrong sign or get tased. what is the world coming to? we used to have standards.