Scott Thomas: more crap to keep stupid people's minds occupied

Every now and then, a story comes out that I find boring, silly, and a waste of time. However, since 99% of the political bloggers in the world seem to thrive on this pointless s**t, I read about it.

Now, the "right" is all abuzz about a New Republic writer who just became un-anonymous (if that's even a word). Here's the brief version: He wrote some crap that made the "sheep" on the right pissed of -- they criticized him and called him a liar -- he identified himself -- and now they're still calling him a liar. Yes, the people must have NO lives of their own.

You know, I could post quotes from all the crazy people that are either intentionally missing "Scott Thomas's" point or are just too stupid to understand basic English, but I won't. You can read the silliness from Michelle Malkin, or the Weekly Standard, or the National Review Online. If you haven't fallen asleep yet, you can read OPFOR:

Now we have to go about fact-checking his stories, which I suspect will turn out to have been grandly embellished.

How's that for good ol' American values? "I don't have any facts about the matter, but I'm going to say he's guilty anyway". Yep - these are the people I share a country with.

Here's the truth: The one thing the Left can legitimately hold over the Right's head is the anti-war position. It's now the majority opinion of US citizens, and it's growing daily. But instead of reexamining their wrong-headed beliefs and see the Iraq quagmire for what it is, the Malkin's of this world would rather target insignificant people like "Scott Thomas". On some level, I understand that... because it's not easy accepting that you're wrong. It's a lot easier just shifting your focus onto other things that, in the long run, will have no impact on anything.

update: Andrew Sullivan writes MUCH better than I do on the subject. Why is the British dude smarter than 90% of Americans?:

So far, the hysteria says far more about the hysterics than about TNR.

Is it me, or does Ed Morrissey seem a little gay?

It can't be easy sharing the same name as one of the gayest gays that has ever gayed. But in his critique of New Republic article, he seems to have found insinuations that I had trouble finding:

In reading the entire article, it becomes apparent what Cottle and TNR want to say with this article. They want to imply that conservatives suffer from some latent homosexuality, and that the enthusiasm for Thompson's run exposes it.

To start with, the article he's talking about is about as interesting as a dog taking a dump on the sidewalk. Meaning - not very. Sure, Cottle throws in some subtle (as a brick in the face) digs at Thompson, but Morrissey seems to be way more affected by those digs than he should be. For example this critique:

She derisively refers to him as "young Freddie Thompson" when reviewing his high-school life...

Well actually, it wasn't "derisively" as much as just "refers". It seems Morrissey is offended by Cottle's attempt to show Thompson in a less-than-masculine light. Or this critique:

Cottle writes somewhat derisively about how his first wife had to help him mature...

Again, it wasn't "somewhat derisive" at all... she just stated "Sarah has long been credited with starting Thompson on the road to personal maturity and professional direction". Ohhhh! Cottle BURNED HIM with that one!!! What?!?! And then it seems like Cottle is absent any kind of humour:

Cottle also reveals a certain lack of humor when discussing an Internet post that joked, "If Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called 1." Had Cottle had a sense of humor, she would have realized that the joke pokes fun at the sweeping enthusiasm surrounding Fred.

And if you were to read the actual article, you find this:

My favorite bit of macho Fred-worship making its way around the Internet is a widely circulated joke about the title of the recent film 300, in which a small troop of Spartans holds the line against the massive Persian army: "If Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called 1."

Notice how she used the word "joke" in her article. If she had said something like "a totally serious person on the Internet said this", maybe Morrissey would have a point. And the site where the comment comes from is about as chest-thumpingly Republican and "masculine" as can be. Either way, that line can really only be considered "humor" if the definition of "humor" is changed to "the complete opposite of funny". In that case, then it's the most humorous thing I've read all day.

So to finalize, a silly article about a silly potential Presidential candidate/actor is critiqued by a silly blogger, over things the silly article doesn't say. That just seems a little gay.