What Is A "Friend Of Isreal'?

I've thought of what this really means within the landscape of our modern socio-political culture for quite a few years. The Modern American Right can never clearly define it, but do they really have to? For me, personally, this stems more from a religiously extreme point of view rather than from anything that will truly benefit the Jewish State. But I could be wrong - hence the question. This morning, I noticed that mouth agape Breitbart worshipper Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit had launched one of the first misleading salvos in the attack against Hagel for Defense Secretary. And hyper-partisan hack Ed Morrissey followed suit - only with less bloodthirsty fervor. Links follow accordingly: Iranian Regime Supports Hagel Nomiation For Sec. Of Defense

Iran on Tuesday expressed the hope that Washington’s foreign policy will witness practical changes after US officials announced that President Barack Obama will nominate Chuck Hagel as his next defense secretary. “We hope that practical changes will be created in the US foreign policy and the US officials’ approach will change to respect the nations’ rights,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast told reporters in Tehran on Tuesday. “We hope that the US officials will favor peace instead of warmongering and recognize the rights of nations instead of interfering in the countries’ internal affairs,” he said. “If such a trend is adopted (by the American officials), hatred for the US hostile policies will decrease, although assessment can be made in action,” the spokesman said. Tehran has been under Washington sanctions after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled a US-backed monarch in the country.

Iran Strangely Cheered By US Secdef Nomination And while Morrissey links to the same article, the title alone shows that he is more concerned with disceminating blatant misinformation. After all, being "hopeful" is completely disparate from "support" and "strangely cheerful". To read these headlines, you'd think Iranian leaders would be celebrating - but they aren't. The reason that the Modern American Right utilize such tactics, why they continually point to Iran as to a defining factor, and why they use the Jewish population ( yes, USE THEM - not befriend them ) is to push the wedge in just a little further. They don't want to face the realities of the world around us. They don't want to be honest with their constituents. They want to seem "caring", "holy", or any other adjective that could distort the five seconds in front of someone's face so they won't pay attention to tomorrow, next week, or even next year. So again, here's the question - what does it mean to be a friend of Isreal? Certainly it's not just attending an AIPAC convention, but there's a great deal of that. And I'm not so ignorant to see that politicians have to save face when election time comes around, but what does your support truly mean? This could, in all reality, extend beyond the Jewish State. And it's not even the "original borders" - something that is strictly off-limits to the Modern American Right in terms of foreign policy discussion. While Chuck Hagel wouldn't have been my personal first choice for Sec. Of Defense, he's lightyears away from people like John McCain - one of his loudest detractors - or just about anyone, save John Kerry. And since we are talking about McCain, let's not he was an ardent supporter of James "Fuck The Jews" Baker. Guess he conveniently forgot those years. Suppose it can be said for most, if not all, of us that the past comes back to haunt you. And Israelis have a past that many of them won't immediately recognize. I'm not talking about biblical or even verifiable historic text, but their history of being treated as metaphorical chess pieces in the foreign policy of this country. Do we endanger them as, if one were to say, showing pictures of the coffins of fallen American soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan would put more troops in harms way? Do we assist them in fighting Palestinians in such a way that would ensure a more productive, a more fruitful life? From how I, and many others, see it - No. Who Is A "Friend Of Isreal"? Certainly not those that would continually boast how they are.

Palin Is Like Reagan?

Well.......



You'll notice that McCain, immediately after comparing the two, isn't so eager to say "yes" but is more than willing to call her a "force". So "mavericky" of him, isn't it.

But look for more people in the modern conservative movement to equate the person who can't hardly finish a task her constituency has charged her to with the man who is essentially the conservative version of Jesus. Although, Reagan did offer amnesty to illegal immigrants, tuck tail and run from a terrorist attack on American troops, engage in "back room deals" with terrorists, fund both sides of the Iraq/Iran war, have less than honest dealings with releasing the Iran hostages, have almost literally nothing to do with the emerging AIDS crisis in America until it was literally too late, preside over a massive increase in poverty and homelessness, and see the national debt almost literally explode into massive purport ions.

Is that whom Sarah Palin wants to be equated with?

Love Will Tear Them Apart, Again

With my sincere apologies to Joy Division for hinting at a line from one of their classics in order to illustrate how some on the Right are clawing at each other over Palin's endorsement of McCain, it should be pointed out that this was coming and these people should have seen it.

So much for intellectual honesty and actually holding your supposed political icons accountable.

I'll preface this piece with the fact that I read HotAir almost every day. Not for any form of intellectual stimulation or notion that I will find something of intrinsic value within the bandwidth that they consume, but because it's a pretty good window into how the modern conservative views the socio-political landscape - through the can't angles and fish-eye lenses of Malkin worshiping prattle heads.

Ancillary characters CK Macleod and MadisonConservative are taking what appear to be opposing points of view in light of Caribou Barbie's endorsement of John McCain against lunatic-fringe, birther, J.D. Hayworth.

A side note, anyone notice that he looks a lot like this guy?

The posts themselves aren't what is so fascinating about the debate within the conservative movement in regards to Palin choosing McCain over Hayworth. After all, if Palin was seen cavorting with anyone other than McCain, much less a completely unhinged, vacant-eyed, birther like Hayworth, she would loose enough political capital that it would likely damage not only her future aspirations for office - if there are any - as well as her standing as a Fox"News" pundit.

And while some would argue that the later would more than likely remain the same, I would have to agree. After all, Fox will do anything to make Sarah happy and her image spotless.

To really get a sense of where people that post on HotAir are coming from when it comes to McCain, they primarily see the man the way Michelle Malkin does - laud his service to the country just enough so that you don't come off as some anti-military hack and then completely trash him on everything else. But what both sides of the argument are missing is that fact that they have no real grasp of who Palin is.

She's not the strong conservative that many claim her to be and she most certainly isn't backing McCain because she completely disagrees with Hayworth. Anyone remember her old "palling around with terrorists" talking point from 08? That's pure Tea Bagger if there ever was one. And while it is true that she likely feels a sense of obligation to supplicate the man that catapulted her to stardom, is it really McCain that's getting played here or is it Palin? I'm not going to say that McCain is above using Palin's gimmicky nature a second time around - because he almost has to to even be seen as valid within his party now - but one would think that conservatives would be able to see past that now. Once you know that plot of the film, it kind of gets boring. But look who we're talking about.

In the end, people like Rush Limbaugh will come to her defense ( as was discussed in the comments section ) and Palin will be seen as some avenging angel come to aid the conservative movement while the reality of it all is that their ideology is literally tearing them apart.

Send Him Out On A Rail

Don't you just love how conservatives stifle free speech.



I'm kind of curious as to what this guy said that pissed these people off. Granted, McCain isn't a darling of the Right anymore - after all, as some of you may recall, Glenn Beck calls him a "progressive" - and Palin can pretty much cover herself in runny, green, baby shit and sacrifice a puppy on live TV while Ted Nugent provides backing music and Republicans would call it some of the most compelling television ever.

While there will likely be conservatives across the country that will point to this as proof that Palin can stand her ground against a voice of opposition, she really doesn't have anything in the way of value to offer to the modern socio-political landscape. What precisely was this guy supposed to "stick around and learn".

And while he seemed to be willing to leave, it also looked to get a little physical for a moment. So much for conservatives being willing to listen to the opposition and not trying to censor anyone. When was the last time you saw someone literally dragged out from an Obama rally?

Is there a conservative out there ready to claim that this was a hoax, some kind of plant? Let's say that this guy was a Democrat. It really wouldn't do their cause any good if they were seen physically throwing this guy out, would it? And if this was all staged, it doesn't make McCain or Palin look any better either.

And At Her Own House

I'm honestly not afraid to admit that I've always loved Kathy Griffin.



And just as expected, conservatives are outraged that a comedian would make offensive jokes about women.......well, it's really all about Sarah.

Amazing.

This is what is acceptable to say about a married woman with five children as well as about an esteemed Senator who almost gave his life for our country?

Where are the feminists and the NOW crowd who are always speaking out for women's rights?

After all, the implication is that the only reason McCain picked her was because of this fictitious act.

Is this REALLY where we are as a nation when this is not only acceptable, but judging from the applause of the crowd, considered fine entertainment?

Heaven help us.

What Noel Sheppard doesn't understand is that in comedy/satire, nothing is off limits. He simply thinks that Palin and McCain should be off limits simply because they are who they are. All his disgust is quite misplaced. I'm guessing he hasn't been to the Fox"Nation" page lately or listened to any of Ann Coulter's lengthy diatribes.

Listening To The Commanders

I'm reminded of the fact that this is the second high ranking member of the armed forces to say that DADT isn't necessary and John McCain still refuses to comply with his own statements regarding how he would vote should these circumstances present themselves.



As I've stated before, this is about professionalism, and the Republicans in the House and Senate are actively questioning that professionalism within our armed forces simply because they think "teh ghey is icky". Sounds like they could use a lesson in professionalism themselves.

Think Progress has more.

The Attention Whore Returns

Only this time he wants attention for getting too much of it. Ironic, isn't it.

"McCain was trying to use me," Wurzelbacher said, according to public radio correspondent Scott Detrow. "I happened to be the face of middle Americans. It was a ploy.”

"I don’t owe him s—," Wurzelbacher continued. "He really screwed my life up, is how I look at it.”

In fact, Wurzelbacher's dislike for McCain is so strong that he no longer supports Sarah Palin simply because Palin will campaign for McCain's re-election.

But he still thinks Obama is un-American.

Wurzelbacher's newfound standpoint doesn't say a great deal about this ability to be a bullshit detector, that's for sure. After all, his ideology so blinded him to the reality of what not only the McCain campaign was doing to him, but what the entire conservative movement did - use the man up for all he was worth until something better came along.

And "Joe" loved every minute of it.

This shouldn't have been a shock to him, as conservativism is renowned for their use of "the common man" as a weapon. But this is second only to their use of members of the US Military.

What precisely did "Joe" think he was going to gain from this in the long run? This once again is proof that conservatives are more concerned with the two seconds in front of their face rather than the longview - the one that matters.

In the end, Joe has no one to blame but himself. Remember, "Joe", it's all about personal responsibility and accountability - you know, two of the pillars of conservativism that you obviously didn't follow.

It's All About Communication

I'm wondering if there is any tension now in the McCain household(s) after Cindy posed for this



...and John McCain said this?

Does "Mavericky-ness" work on your wife?

But guess who else is siding against McCain now.

Strike One?

I'm going to call this one early - don't expect Scott Brown to win any more friends or maybe even lose his re-election bid if this the man he will patterns his legislative practices on is John McCain.

Malkin most certianly isn't a fan of McCain ( anymore ) and let's it known as often as she can:

Red Flag Number One: A reader from Arizona informed me the day after the Bay State Bombshell that he had received a robo-call from Massachusetts GOP Sen.-elect Scott Brown. “He basically wanted me to vote for John McCain in November,” the reader said in his description of the automated campaign call supporting the four-term Sen. McCain’s re-election bid. “No wonder [Brown] said he hadn’t had any sleep…he was busy recording phone messages!”

Malkin is one of the most vocal supporters of the Tea Bagger movement ( aside from Beck is more of a "studio-gangster" on that front anymore ) and her opinion, patently absurd as it is, is often taken as gospel.

Ed Morrissey over at HotAir seems rather pleased that key portions of McCain/Feingold have been overturned:

Free political speech is not free if the government can dictate when and where you exercise it. It’s true that CU could have run the movie earlier than 30 days before the election. They felt — not without reason — that their speech would be more effective using the same venues within 30 days of the election. Assuming they break no other laws, what gives government the right to dictate when on the calendar they can exercise free political speech? Apparently, being “rich” is a Constitutional exception through which the government can infringe on rights.

So with reports of the GOP rearranging it's "strategy" to not just include by mirror Brown's, one has to wonder if his plan really is so revolutionary.

Chaning The Game

No clearer picture is given as to what matters in the eyes on conservatives than when they refuse to answer a very simple question and their fanbase rallies around them. Alternately, those same conservatives are often seen with their metaphorical torches and pitchforks shouting that any and every Democrat be held to a different standard when it comes to accountability.

Case in point, once again revolving around the dubious claims in the new book Game Change, we see John McCain being asked by Matt Lauer about some of the claims in the book regarding his campaign and Sarah Palin. It appears that John isn't knows what he's going to be asked and then suddenly....

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As McCain hits Lauer with a double dose of "why you bringing up old shit" coupled with "but what about the troops", one gets the sense that hit other statement - that he simply doesn't care - has more weight to it than one might first realize. And that weight surely is being carried by folks in the conservative blogging realm.

This clip got some buzz this morning because he appears to say at one point that he didn’t know how well Palin had been vetted. I don’t think that’s what he meant, though; he’s simply issuing blanket I-don’t-knows in response to questions about dirt in “Game Change,” but the testiness shines through when Lauer presses him. Is he just bored with the subject, or is there … something more?

That's Allahpundit over at HotAir, who seems to be confusing the word "apparent" with "actually". The spin from that site alone shows the double standard quite clearly, but it also begs the quesiton - are conservatives the ones that are truly afraid of Sarah Palin?

The reason that I ask this is because of the power that she weilds within the modern conservative movement. It's power that she doesn't know how to control. She quite literally, at this point at least, can open her mouth and tell someone that John McCain doesn't belong in the party anymore and suddenly his place in the Senate is in peril. It doesn't work the other way, and it's likely that McCain knows that. Could that have influenced the way he did/didn't answers this question?

Rachel Maddow took on the Palin/McCain allegations in Game Change on her MSNBC program:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Most of us realize that Palin was, and likely still is, unqualified to be VP of the United States. Her true calling, at least until she quits, is that of easily guided mouthpiece at Fox"News". John McCain is doing his best to distance himself from her selection as VP because he knows this as well, but he still needs to keep her at arms length for the sole purpose of tapping her on the shoulder and saying to people, "hey, I know her, isn't she awesome".

The book Game Change, however, is likely to be riddled with many falsehoods, as the authors aren't exactly open to talking about who they interviewed. The credibility of the quotes in the book are most certainly in question, so once again - why no real push-back from Palin and McCain? O'Reilly was literally feeding Palin her responses in regards to the book and McCain had the opportunity to simply say "it's all a lie" but he chose to say he didn't know and that frankly he didn't care.

This book has, and will be, a thorn in the sides of many until some real fact-checking is done. Conservatives and Fox"News" aren't going to do it, there simply going to run with the, as yet, unsourced quotes about Hillary, Bill, and Obama in order to get some face time on the TV. The double standard remains in play.

Shorter John McCain

Someone Seems To Have A Bad Memory

In all my years here in the Senate being all mavericky, I don't recall someone objecting to a few seconds more time. But my far maverickier brain should have reminded me that I was being uber-mavericky back in 2002 when I objected. See, I'm mavericky right now for not listening to my brain. MARVERICKY!

Shorter John McCain

McCain blasts “liberal Democratic group” AARP

I'm Mavericky! Look at me, I'm going to get mad at the AARP and tell people to cut their cards up! Look how mavericky my maverickness is. Nevermind that I called for Medicare cuts during the campaign, I'm a maverick and can do whatever I want! Hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is mavericky!

The Undefinable

Conservatives love to banter endlessly about a variety of subjects with which they are either completely unfamiliar ( ie: climate change ) or do know just enough about to be exceedingly dangerous.

Now that Obama has delivered his strategy address to the nation, it's time for those same conservatives to run around to every show they can get booked on and distribute the latest ream of talking points. Chief of which are ones about "success".

John McCain, the Senator who has graced more Sunday morning talk-shows since the election than just about anyone ever has, has sent in a piece to Mary Katherine Ham of the Weekly Standard blog.

The title of the article ( likely written by staffers and not McCain, hence byline "form the desk of John McCain" - like it's some memo about remembering to send out your Christmas cards ) speaks about how "success" is the real exit strategy.

Success is the real exit strategy. When we have achieved our goals in Afghanistan, our troops should begin to return home with honor, but that withdrawal should be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary deadlines. In the days ahead, I will seek to address this and other questions I have about the President’s policy, including my continuing concern about the civilian aspect of our strategy.

The whole piece is just like that, glittering generalities that we have heard since the beginning. No real meat, just enough filler to make it look like he has some real idea, some real concept that people can get behind. But I do have one question - what is "success".

Ever since Bush dragged our attention and focus away from Afghanistan and said that Iraq is the place to be, there have been multiple definitions of what "failure" is, but no definition of "success". There really hasn't even been a final goal that could be even loosely construed as attainable shown to the American public. It's all been about failure. Every discussion from the Right has been born from the catalyst of failure.

When people like McCain hear "exit strategy" they don't realize that even if there is "success", there would still have to be a strategy on how our forces leave. Were there just going to not worry about that until this illusive and mysterious "success" just happened one day and then worry about how to bring our men and women home? I wouldn't put that past them.

What we need to be asking our elected officials is simple - tell us what "success" in Afghanistan is, and be specific.

Your Ted Kennedy Impersonation Isn't Convincing

Anyone else see where this is going?

In a strong pushback against claims made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, Sen. John McCain insisted on Sunday that the use of torture on terrorism suspects violated international law, didn't work, and actually helped al Qaeda recruit additional members.

More from Sam Stein.

And while it should be stated that McCain does have a rather unique perspective when it comes to torture of prisoners, these statements do tend to smack of that "mavericky" nonsense that McCain is often known for. But as for me, I'm thinking that he's just auditioning for Kennedy's mantel.

Worst In The World v7.7 & 7.8

Randon House

Lou Dobbs

John McCain, Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Bradly Gellard (sp?)

Sean Hannity

Rush Limbaugh

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

An Agency Relation With A Hapless Dupe

Found this piece at WIRED.com today about John McCain's involvement in a lawsuit filed by musician Jackson Browne:

John McCain says he was a puppet for the Republican National Committee and therefore should not be held accountable for a presidential campaign commercial that used the popular song "Running on Empty" by Jackson Browne without permission.

But the Los Angeles federal judge presiding over the copyright-infringement case was not buying it. The judge refused late Friday to remove the Arizona senator from the lawsuit in which he and the Republican National Committee are accused of violating the rights to Browne's 1977 hit.

If the RIAA can go after people for simply sharing music, I think that it is more than reasonable that John McCain be attached to this lawsuit as well - strange that the Ohio Republican Party isn't, though.

The reason that I think so is in the tagline to the ad:

I'm John McCain and I approve this message

Running On Empty indeed.

Absentee Legislation

Perhaps they think that their "no" vote is going to be secured, even without them being there.

John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl were scheduled to travel to Munich, Germany for a conference on foreign affairs over the weekend, said the aide. After the Huffington Post reported the travel plans, aides to Lieberman and McCain dismissed the aide's contention, calling the report "erroneous" and "false." The lawmakers, they said, would remain in town for the vote. Our senior Democratic source insists the men had made clear their intention to attend the conference. Marshall Wittmann, a Lieberman aide, says emphatically that the contention that the Senators would have missed the vote is false.

More here.

The Democratic party should have removed Lieberman from their cuacuses when they had the chance. He's an embarassment.

And as far as McCain is concerned, he has little to no working knowledge of the economy - by his own admission - and will vote "no" on anything Obama or the Democratis offer up simply because he is a representative of the party of "No".

Let's see how quickly McCain, Lieberman, and Kyl turn around and ask for some "stimulation" when this passes.

Petty Palin's Pity Party (or) No Soup For You!!!

Obama seems to be developing quite the dinner-party circuit these days.

Next week, he's hosting some big names - including John McCain - but guess who isn't coming to dinner:

On the night before Barack Obama is sworn in as the nation's 44th President, his inaugural committee will host a series of dinners honoring public servants it deems champions of bipartisanship. To be feted are Vice President-elect Joe Biden, Colin Powell, and John McCain, whom Obama vanquished last November. At the McCain dinner, the GOP senator, who managed to suppress his bipartisan tendencies during the hard-fought 2008 campaign, will be introduced by one of his closest Senate confidants: Senator Lindsey Graham. But McCain's No. 1 booster during the last year will not be among those hailing McCain. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, his controversial running-mate, will not attend the dinner, Bill McAllister, a Palin spokesman tells Mother Jones.

More here at Mother Jones.


To me, this isn't suprising in the least.

Palin doesn't play well with other unless she is the center of attention. But, that is also a double-edged sword. the attention has to be the attention that she craves.
And, the folks at HotAir are happy to offer extra-value-meal portions of that with a side of "we're not sure we like McCain anymore" for dessert:

Palin not invited to Obama dinner for McCain?

Her spokesman claims he doesn’t know if she was or not, but come on.

While the predictable hue and cry from the far-right that this is another in a line of moments that somehow prove that people are "afraid" of Palin is beyond laughable, I find even more hilarity in the fact that they honestly believe that she should be invited to, well, "everything".

That moment election night when Palin was asked who she voted for and said that it was her "right to keep it a secret" keeps coming back to me. Within the context of this dinner, the damning effect of that statement still rings true.

I'm not sure what's worse, Palin not realizing that she was nothing more than political set-dressing, or the people on the far-right that actually believe that she isn't.

Fanboy In Cheif

I've been collecting comics since the mid 80's.

Never did the get the first printings of the Watchmen comics - for which i'm still kicking myself over - but I do have some nice gems in the boxes that rest in that warm and dry space in my closet.

No doubt that fans of Spider-Man, Barack Obama, and even his detractors will be itching to talk about next week's issue #358 of The Amazing Spiderman:

WASHINGTON — Spider-Man has a new sidekick: The president-elect.

Barack Obama collected Spider-Man comics as a child, so Marvel Comics wanted to give him a "shout-out back" by featuring him in a bonus story, said Joe Quesada, Marvel's editor-in-chief.

"How great is that? The commander in chief to be is actually a nerd in chief," Quesada said. "It was really, really cool to see that we had a geek in the White House. We're all thrilled with that."

The comic starts with Spider-Man's alter-ego Peter Parker taking photographs at the inauguration, before spotting two identical Obamas.

Parker decides "the future president's gonna need Spider-Man," and springs into action, using basketball to determine the real Obama and punching out the impostor.

Obama thanks him with a fist-bump.

No doubt this will be fodder for people like Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the Fox and Friends stooges. What these predictable, reactionary, prattle-heads will not likely realize is that Barack Obama collects comics.

He's already been in an issue of The Savage Dragon.

But, McCain hasn't lost out competely in the comics arena:



The question stands though - who would other superheroes endorse? The answers might suprise your or be rather expected.

Nuggets Of Win : Part III

George W. Bush is just like Batman? Really?

Actually, Dick Cheney does sound like "The Penguin".

But that just wouldn't fit into Andrew Klavan's textual handjob to George W. Bush.

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past

The main point that Klavan uses is that, in the film, Batman uses illegal surveillance to find The Joker and his henchmen. What Klavan doesn't seem to realize is that the two are not equivalent, but mutually exclusive.

Batman had actual and reliable intelligence that The Joker was in Gotham and was prepared to have the surveillance equipment destroyed when the job was done. Bush's position was slightly different, to put it mildly.


And there's so much more that happened this year, and the bulk of it happened close to Novemeber:

It's the crazy lady from the McCain "townhall":



Oh, oh, oh.............can we get the cool MTV, John Woo, action film angle on this?



This next one was so incredible, I almost couldn't believe it was happening.

Michelle Malkin got her knickers in a twist when Dunkin Donuts spokesperson, the every lovely Rachel Ray, wore a scarf that offended her delicate sensibilities:

Sigh. You all know I’ve been a fan of Dunkin Donuts for quite some time–and have touted their strong position in favor of immigration enforcement.

Charles Johnson notes, and many readers have e-mailed about, Dunkin Donuts’ spokeswoman Rachel Ray’s clueless sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh in a recent DD ad campaign. I’m hoping her hate couture choice was spurred more by ignorance than ideology.

A terrorist scarf?!



If you care to take a glance through the comments section of the thread in question, you'll get a first hand look at some interesting interactions I had with the lunatic fringe who would likely see the face of evil in an Old Navy fleece pullover if Malkin told them to.