Is ours a world of too many names and not enough wisdom?

Admittedly I am a late-blooming blogger who regrets waiting so long to become active but everyone must start somewhere. I'll start with myself. You see, I wasn't responsible because of my acronym. - Scared and Helplessly Yearning (SHY) Upon learning the term DINO (Democrats In Name Only) at DU I've created a few other acronymes...


First of all, liberal bloggers that can't find the time to actually make a sign and protest with Cindy Sheehan, who had a VERY meager turn-out this weekend, need a name: Protesters Expecting Typing Success - (PETS)


Then there is the patriotic sign carrying protester who might actually awaken a few sleeping sheep-lees best described as a Working On Lost Freedoms (WOLF)

Long ago a gaunt Wolf, almost dead with hunger, happened to meet a trained dog in his travels.
"Ah, Cousin," said the Dog. "I knew how it must be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get food regularly given to you?"

"I have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only get a place."

"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with me to my master and you shall share my work."

So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way, the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog's neck was worn away, so he asked him how it happened.

"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only a place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to the chain."

"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master Dog."



Also leading Republicans that engage in or support criminal activity need a new handle Conservatives Operating National Scams (CONS)



Then we have top of the Hill Democrats who only cluck when the chicken-hawks attack them personally called Letting Other Senators, Especially Republicans, Steal - LOSERS



Last but not least we have our less than illustrious media that many still call "liberal" although the name no longer seems to apply. Lazy Idiots Accepting Republican Solutions (LIARS)



Online I found a particularly hard hitting piece called:

A Rebellion Around the Edges

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, March 17, 2006; 12:03 PM

So Republicans in Congress are telling President Bush they're sick and tired of being pushed around and aren't going to take it anymore?

So we hear. And yet their rebellion is only around the edges. Sure they forced Bush to back down on a deal that would have put port operations in the hands of the United Arab Emirates. But where's the oversight?

The Republican Congress's response to Bush's wildly unbalanced budget? Unbalance it some more.

The response to Bush's domestic spying initiative, which is by most reckonings a violation of Congress's own statutes? Figure out a way to make it legal.

And when it comes to the many controversial and still mysterious issues at the heart of the Bush presidency -- among them, why he went to war, how abuse and torture became a widespread military practice, why the war has been so costly in lives and money, etc. etc. -- the Republican-controlled Congress remains not only unrebellious but actively and intentionally incurious.

About That Rebellion

Jim VandeHei writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush's troubles with congressional Republicans, which erupted during the backlash to the Dubai seaport deal, are rooted in policy frustrations and personal resentments that GOP lawmakers say stretch back to the opening days of the administration."

VandeHei writes that, privately, many lawmakers have long "felt under-appreciated, ignored and sometimes bullied by what they regarded as a White House intent on running government with little input from them. Often it was to pass items -- an expanded federal role in education under the No Child Left Behind law and an expensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare -- that left conservatives deeply uneasy. . . .

"Congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein has written that the recently vented anger, after being suppressed for years out of loyalty or fear, might be seen in psychological terms. He called the condition 'battered-Congress syndrome.' "

Former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan, writing in the Wall Street Journal, is shocked to realize that Bush is not at heart a fiscal conservative.

"Is that what Mr. Bush meant by compassionate conservatism?" she asks.

"That's not what I understood him to mean. If I'd thought he was a big-spending Rockefeller Republican--that is, if I'd thought he was a man who could not imagine and had never absorbed the damage big spending does--I wouldn't have voted for him."

Liberal blogger Brad DeLong is not impressed: "Peggy Noonan and the rest of the plastic Republican chattering teeth did not think back in 2000 that Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' meant that he was a spender, they thought it meant that he was a liar--and that they were in on the con. . . .

"Now they are surprised--and shrill--to learn that George W. Bush was lying to them too."

And what is the Republican Congress's response to this discovery?

As Dana Milbank observes in The Washington Post this morning: A "Vote-a-Rama" in the Senate yesterday, where members raised the federal debt limit to $9 trillion, then "did their darnedest to empty the Treasury."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html