Thursday, May 31, 2007

Sam Brownback, Flip-Flopper

Shorter Sammy Browncrack: "I am for inquiry and facts ... up to a point."

But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.


Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves.


Biologists will have their debates about man's origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion.


While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man's origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Found Comedy

Joe Klein opines:

"David Yepson [sic] on Joe Biden, a profile in courage."

"Broder is right about this, for sure: John Warner will be the key to what happens next."

"A Note of Etiquette: ....

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Great. Another Inbred Internet Enthusiast From Tennesee

Yokelfied cracker Fred Thompson throws his corncob pipe into the ring with a vow to become the first Internet candidate ever:

In an interview with USA TODAY, however, the former Tennessee senator not only makes it clear that he plans to run, he describes how he aims to do it. He's planning an unconventional campaign using blogs, video posts and other Internet innovations to reach voters repelled by politics-as-usual in both parties.


Do we call Fred's supporters Tommiacs or Tommy Babies? Or The Internet Hillbillies?

Cock Tails and Bull Tales

Will disgraced dissemblers Cliff May and Victoria Toerag finally be called to account for their lies about Valerie Plame? Will the Washington Post and CNN and Howie the Putz Kurtz refuse to give the spotlight to shameless liars? Note: For any newcomers to the site, these are rhetorical questions.

Glenn Greenwald has a list of those who lied about Plame in the service of the Administration and I. Scooter Libby. And David Corn has more, including my favorite, from the Pantload:

On September 30, 2003, National Review writer Jonah Goldberg huffed, "Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew that already."

That's not the only thing Goldberg is huffing, David.

Terrorist Dry Hump

I tried last night and again this morning to open the Moonie Times' .pdf of the Department of Homeland Security report on its investigation into the Treehouse of Terror that was Northwest Flight 327. It didn't work either time, but I'll try again later. So we'll just have to look at the Moonie Times article touting the report for now.

Interestingly, the paper's URL for the .pdf is "www.washingtontimes/elections/DHS-IG-Northwest-327...." Not too subtle there.

As I suspected, the air marshals quoted by the Moonie Times as claiming a "terrorist dry run" had no personal involvement in the flight or the investigation, and (apparently) are not quoted in the report. They were called upon to opine by the Moonie rag itself.

The first marshal quoted is P. Jeffrey Black, a current federal air marshal. Interestingly, Pee is reportedly a member of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, whose other members include Siebel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, the guy who wrote "Bush League Diplomacy: How the Neoconservatives are Putting the World at Risk" and a guy who blew the whistle on a covert operation "by Edwin Meece the then US Attorney General." Pee also co-authored an op-ed piece on whistleblowers with Colleen Rowley and others which can be seen on Dennis Kucinich's website.

According to the NSWC website, Pee claims that he "is currently receiving severe and continual retaliation from his agency in response to his whistleblowing disclosures ––retaliation that has caused detrimental changes in his official duties, responsibilities, and working conditions." Think that information might be relevant to the determination of Pee's credibility and potential bias? The Moonie Times sure doesn't. Instead, the paper identifies Pee as someone "who told The Times that he has been involved personally in terror probes that were ignored by federal security managers."

Doesn't Pee's claim that the probes were ignored by federal security managers seem inconsistent with the claim that Pee's been subject to retaliation by his superiors? Never mind.

The second marshal, Robert McLean, is, as the Moonie Times suggests, an individual fired by the TSA who claims whistleblower status and is suing (or sued) to get his job back. He even has his own glowing but scrupuously objective entry on Wikipedia. The Times says the third marshal, Jeffrey Denning, quit the TSA last month. I can't find anything on him through Google; therefore he probably doesn't exist.

The article does note that the actual report states the marshals assigned to the flight observed that "the men were sweaty, appeared nervous and arrived after the boarding announcement." People appearing sweaty and nervous after running to catch a airplane. If that's not terrorist behavior, I don't know what is. All such passengers should be detained, cavity-searched and, of course, shot if they try anything else funny.

Some nitwits (namely, Patterico) are astoundingly impressed by the fact that the Moonie rag found "both current and former air marshals (that's marshals, plural)" to rubberstamp the paper's two-year old conclusions. Let's hope that, in real life, Patterico shows a little more skepticism before he puts witnesses on the stand.

By the way, Fox News is all over the story as well. The mentally-challenged weatherman on Fox and Friends was interviewing Nutbag Annie Jacobson this morning. It was like watching a thumb-wrestling match that was fixed.

Monday, May 28, 2007

Comedy Gold

This is the best parody blog I've read in ages:

Fitz-Magoo is at it again, bending the law's of this country to settle vendatta's and scores with people for personal and political reasons. Between the hiding of evidence, filing false papers to the Appeal Courts and US Supreme Court, and now to making up laws as he sees fits, Fitzgerald is becoming more than a political hitman - he is becoming the law unto himself.


Fitzgerald has quite a few screws lose if he thinks he can sentence someone for a crime he KNOWS they did not commit on the theory he and he alone is omnipotent and knows deep down what Libby was up to (i.e., can read his heart and mind). It is long past time to investigate Fitzgerald and apply the same lose standards of evidence to his motives and coordination with Comey, et al.

The General, Captain Ed and the late Bob Boudelang have some stiff competition.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Shorter New York Times


(Yes, the piece rejects the premise expressed in the first sentence and, no, it's not the paper's editorial. But the suggestion that the press is anti-war and that it was "politicians" alone who misled the public into supporting the war is particularly galling coming from the NYT. The article is just another glaring example of the paper's refusal to take responsibility for the blood on its hands.)

Oh good. Nutbag Annie Jacobson's Flight 327 is back, and the wingnuts are wetting themselves over the non-story.

Comedy will follow.

Added: Okay, let me elaborate. Here's how the Moonie Times bamboozles the rubes, like those Powerline Clowns. The Times writes:

More details on Flight 327 released

The inspector general for Homeland Security late Friday released new details of what federal air marshals say was a terrorist dry run aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles on June 29, 2004.

Two paragraphs later, the article purports to set forth "Excerpts fom [sic] 51-page inspector general report."

Here's the bait-and-switch. The article's headline and first paragraph insinuate that the OIG report includes a finding that there was a terrorist dry run on Flight 327 or, at a minimum, that air marshals on the flight or involved in the investigation asserted that there was a dry run on Flight 327. But the article never says that. The Moonie rag says that the OIG report includes "new details," not that the report states there was a terrorist dry run on Flight 327.

In the later paragraphs purporting to summarize the article, there is no suggestion that the report concluded there was a terrorist dry run or that anyone involved in the investigation came to that conclusion.

I strongly suspect that the air marshals cited in paragraph one are wingnut kibbitzers who have reached their conclusion based on the reports of others (such as Jacobson), and not the investigating authorities actually involved in the case. If the inspector general or marshals actually involved in the investigation came to the conclusion that Flight 327 was a terrorist dry run, the Moonie Times would trumpet that claim in the clearest possible terms. And the air marshals on the flight are already on record debunking the delusions of Jacobson. (More here.)

Perhaps the DHS caved to wingnut pressures and issued a report quoting the conclusions of right-wing know-nothings. There's no reason to believe that all the insane true believers ended up in the Department of Justice. But it seems obvious that if the OIG's report concluded there were terrorist plotters plotting aboard Flight 327, the Moonie rag wouldn't be pussyfooting around with evasive and misleading language.

This isn't a new trick for the Moonie Times, either. Back in 2005, the same reporter was asserting that Flight 327 was "described by many federal air marshals and passengers as a dry run for a terrorist attack" without any corroboration that any air marshal held that view.

I would be remiss if I didn't link to this Janet Maslin's review of Newt Gingrich's latest historical potboiler:

On the basis of that detail, you might expect a high level of fastidiousness from "Pearl Harbor."

And you would be spectacularly wrong. Because you would find phrases like "to withdraw backward was impossible," sounds like "wretching noises" to accompany vomiting, or constructions like "incredulous as it seemed, America had not reacted." Although the book has two authors, it could have used a third assigned to cleanup patrol.

This is not a matter of isolated typographical errors. It is a serious case for the comma police, since the book's war on punctuation is almost as heated as the air assaults it describes. "One would have to be dead, very stupid Fuchida thought," the book says about the fighter pilot Mitsuo Fuchida, "not to realize they were sallying forth to war." Evidence notwithstanding, the authors do not mean to insult the fighter pilot's intelligence — or, presumably, the reader's.


Elsewhere in Hawaii, among the fighting forces, things are typically editor-proof. In a case for James's decoding skills, the book says: "The boys had money in their pockets to burn and fresh in from the West Coast the obligatory photos with hula girls, sentimental silk pillows for moms and girlfriends, and ridiculous-printed shirts had sold like crazy."

Everytime I go into a bookstore, I am amazed by the sheer volume of crap piled within 50 feet of entrance. I'm not saying that I'm capable of writing a readable book, but is it too much to ask that those who write books do so?

Saturday, May 26, 2007

I Am My Sociopath's Son

Blogger "Doctor" Laura Schlessinger answers the question of whether insanity is hereditary or the product of bad parenting. It's both.

Radio talk-show host Laura Schlessinger is appealing to news media outlets to respect her son's privacy amid an Army investigation into whether he is behind a lurid personal Web page that featured cartoon depictions of rape, murder, torture and child molestation.

The posting on drew the Army's attention after the Salt Lake City Tribune reported this month that the Web page was credited to and included photos of Deryk, the 21-year-old son of the outspoken radio personality known to millions as "Dr. Laura." She can be heard locally on KFI-AM (640).

According to the Tribune, the Web page, which has since been taken down, included a photograph of a bound and blindfolded detainee, accounts of illicit drug use and a blog entry headlined by a series of obscenities and racial epithets.

Laura Schlessinger's publicist issued a statement Thursday stating that the Army "is investigating who is the actual author of the MySpace website." Army spokesmen in Afghanistan, where Deryk reportedly is stationed, could not immediately be reached for comment.
If the good "Doctor" is claiming that the author of the website is unknown, why is she appealing for her punk's son privacy? And why is she not condemning the author of the site in advance of the resolution of the Army's investigation? Surely a loving parent would defend her son against false accusations of depravity.

To be fair, it could all be some Islamojihadofascist trick:

Mike Paul, spokesman for Laura Schlessinger, released a statement which said, in part, "We hope all news media outlets will respect his privacy for his safety and the safety of those serving with him." In an interview with The Tribune, Paul suggested that the page could be a fake.

That was a contention echoed by Army spokesman Robert Tallman, who said "it may be possible that our enemies are actually behind this.

"Our enemies are adaptive, technologically sophisticated, and truly understand the importance of the information battlespace," Tallman continued. "Sadly, they will use that space to promulgate and disseminate untrue propaganda."

Yeah, that must be it. I bet our enemies are behind the Mitt Romney page too.

God Is Not Mocked

Jane Hamsher has the extraordinary plea from Irv Libby's mouthpieces for the court to withhold from public disclosure the sentencing letters concerning his criminal client. Sayeth the shysters:

Given the extraordinary media scrutiny here, if any case presents the real possibility that these letters, once released, would be printed on the internet and their authors discussed, if not mocked, by bloggers, it is this case.

Talk about fairweather friends. These heroes support Libby only to the extent their support won't make them the target of ridicule by dorks with computers.

Here's a thought for Libby's cowardly liars: Mocking doesn't mean anything. People can mock me all they want, however they want. It only stings when it's true.

On the legal issue, it's astounding that a court sentencing a convicted criminal would -- or could -- give any weight to matters contained in documents not disclosed to the public. In (presumably) unsworn letters, which could contain all manner of falsehoods, purchased accolades, etc. not subject to cross-examination. In the normal criminal trial, where the defendant doesn't have a lot of friends and co-conspirators in high places, consideration of such extraenous material would work against the defendant in many cases, since the unsworn opinion would come from the alleged victim and/or the alleged victim's friends, neighbors and victim's rights advocates.

In this case, however, Libby thinks that anyone, including persons with undisclosed knowledge of Libby's crimes and those who would indirectly benefit from a light sentence (persons Scooter might rat out in the third year of his sentence, when they're no longer in power, for example), should be allowed to vouch for him without any procedure, in court or out of court, to test the worth of their claims. If there's anything to that's contrary to the traditions of Anglo-American law (post-trial-by-dunking and pre-Patriot Act), it's that. And if Libby doesn't want the letters made public, Judge Walton should recycle them as courthouse bog roll without even opening them.

Friday, May 25, 2007

They've Already Started Greasing Up Each Other's Thighs

Is anyone conceivably surprised by the subject of this Sunday's Chris Matthews Show?

By the way, that's one subject. It's responsible for everything that happened, even things taking place before it existed.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

In Over His Head

Before she and Sampson resigned, Goodling wrote a series of memos summing up the longtime U.S. attorneys she helped to fire. She said that Iglesias was "in over his head," that Carol C. Lam of San Diego showed "a failure to perform" and that Arizona's Paul K. Charlton was guilty of "repeated instances of insubordination."

Today's hearing should be informative as well as entertaining. Christy Hardin Smith will be liveblogging the proceedings at firedoglake.

And you can watch it here beginning at 10:15 a.m. Eastern.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Crime Me A River

"All I ever wanted to do was serve this president and this administration and this department." "Waaah, waaah, waaah."

Make no mistake, the wingnut talking points are already in place. Monica Goodling will be compelled to testify tomorrow and, once she starts weeping on cue, the 'nuts will weave a tale of woe in which Monica is persecuted for her Christian faith by the sexist Dem bullies on the House Judiciary Committees. Look for the bolder bloggers to paint a dark picture of Rep. John Conyers threatening Monica's spotless virtue.

Of course, that's if Monica toes the White House line despite her grant of immunity. If she crosses Bush and his bagman, it'll be further proof that the G.O.P. can't trust women in positions of authority.

Grand Old Police Blotter: D. Uhl Normal Edition

Strife between fundamentalist religious sects* has now led to terrorism on this Nation's shores:

A small group of protesters gathered near the funeral services to criticize the man who mobilized Christian evangelicals and made them a major force in American politics -- often by playing on social prejudices.

A group of students from Falwell's Liberty University staged a counterprotest.

And Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car.

The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News' Pierre Thomas. They were "slow burn," according to the official, and would not have been very destructive.

"There were indications that there were others involved in the manufacturing of these devices and we are still investigating these individuals with the assistance of ATF [Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms], Virginia State Police and FBI. At this time it is not believed that these devices were going to be used to interrupt the funeral services at Liberty University," the Campbell County Sheriff's Office said in a release.

Mr. Uhl's fellow homcide bombers and Sons of Liberty include a soldier and a high school student.

It is now clear that these dangerous radicals known as Baptists cannot be trusted. They must be profiled, they must be excluded from participating in our government and yes, they must be waterboarded.

I AM John Doe!

* I am assuming the protesters were the Phelps KClan. The ABC article doesn't say.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Losers On The Web

Contrary to the G.O.P. snake oil salesmen trying to peddle themselves as geniuses of internet strategy and potential saviors of the party, the reason the Republican Party is losing on the web has nothing to do with its lack of online strategy, or strategists.

It's this.

Sunday, May 20, 2007


Where the shit comes on both sides of the cup:

The Way I See It #224 "Darwinism's impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism's connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty."--Dr. Jonathan Wells, biologist and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

They must figure if you're paying $3.50 for coffee and syrup, there's no way they can insult your intelligence.

That Darn Internet!

(First in a continuing series)

Those nasty special interest groups are expressing their opinions, but radio talk show hosts aren't going to stand for that nonsense.

From today's Reliable Putzes:

[Michael]HARRISON [Talkers magazine]: ... But what's really happening is special interest groups are trying to intimidate advertisers to take their money out of talk radio in general, whether it's satellite, Internet, or terrestrial, and that's the underlying cause of all of this. They are trying to create a moral equivalency between rape porn and political satire. And that's a dangerous, slippery slope. And that's the real story.

KURTZ: I agree that there should be a line there.

And go ahead, Michael Medved.

MEDVED: Well, I think that's exactly right. And the problem with all of this is that, again, listening to Howard Stern, he does a bit called "Miss Black Howard Stern". There is nakedly racist material on the Howard Stern show, and actually he's proud of it....

The difficulty with all of this is that we're all subject to an activist taking -- and this is what happened to Imus. They took not the most offensive part of the Imus show in its history, but just one of many, many components that clearly went over some lines of tastefulness.

KURTZ: Michael Medved, has any of your -- have any of your listeners ever complained about you to the FCC?

MEDVED: Yes. There's one listener who has complained about 70 times because I was critical of very public people who had children out of wedlock, and we did a segment called "Celebrity Bastard Baby".

And this was -- now, thank god the FCC hasn't taken action against me. But when you live in a climate when somebody -- one person can be offended and then make a cause out of it, and you don't know where it's coming at you or what's expected, this is very, very difficult. And it's paralyzing for the industry, and it's paralyzing even potentially for political free speech when there are politicians who are talking about imposing fairness doctrines and cutting off political discussion. That's very chilling.


KURTZ: Michael Harrison, you used the phrase "intimidation," that people are trying to intimidate advertisers. Now, Imus, by the way, through his lawyers, is trying to get back on the air either at CBS or elsewhere. But what you would call intimidation others might say is just people expressing their distaste or their revulsion...


HARRISON: Right, they are. But they are taking something that's in a narrow cast situation and, as Brooke pointed out, amplifying it over and over and over on the Internet, bringing it to a wider audience who are outraged by something that they didn't watch, nor was geared to them originally, which is going to take away diversity.

Everything is now going to -- we're going to go back to the "I love Lucy" days, where they have to have separate beds in the bedroom because the whole country is watching it, when, in fact, these are specialized channels, specialized stations. We're in a modern 2007, 21st century era, and this Internet amplification is turning everything into mass appeal by special interests that are purposefully doing that. And we have to keep our eye on that.

Utopia for Harrison and Medved is a world where they make a nice living from expressing their opinions and no one else gets to express theirs, particularly if that expression amounts to criticism of them. And in their reality, more speech is a threat to diversity.

Their real concern is that the great unwashed, with their crappy little home computers, will take away their perches of privilege. Or at least manage to talk back without interference from their call screeners.

Medved's whining about reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is particularly absurd, since it's government regulation in the first instance which doesn't simply place economic barriers to entry but absolute legal prohibitions to entry. As a result of federal licensing, Medved and his ilk are being subsidized by the citizenry and being protected from competition by licensing requirements. Syndicated hosts like Mikey Medved may have to compete with other wingnuts to sell their programs those who currently own the airwaves, but they shouldn't pretend terrestrial radio is anything like a free market or ideas, or of anything else.

And if Harrison and Medved don't like being revealed for the flatulent frauds they are, they can always bitch to my advertisers.

Friday, May 18, 2007

God And 9/11 Made Me ... Filthy!

A stirring tale of sacrifice on the War on Terror:

One particular day provided some clarity. September 11, 2001. I don't think the English language has yet found the words to describe the pain and anguish we felt that day. And yet we learned much about each other. The bravery of the first responders who went up the stairs of burning buildings. The heroic selfless souls on United flight #93. The patience of tens of thousands of drivers who left the devastated areas in an orderly way.

I have not honked my car horn since September 11 as a gesture of respect to all of them. 9/11 also gave me a whole new insight into my Dad and why he left school in the 10th grade to enlist after Pearl Harbor. I wrote a book affirming his life. It changed my life and my relationship with my father -- and my son -- forever. We now share openly the love and respect and pride we have in each other. A day doesn't go by when other sons and daughters want to share stories of their dad with me. Now that's a journey I never expected, but one which is so meaningful -- perhaps even more important than my "career."

Bottom line. I'm working hard, laughing often and praying with purpose. On with life!

Tim Russert is the Managing Editor and Moderator of Meet the Press and political analyst for NBC Nightly News and the Today Program. He anchors The Tim Russert Show, a weekly interview program on CNBC and is a contributing anchor for MSNBC. His two books, "Big Russ and Me" in 2004 and "Wisdom of Our Fathers" in 2006, were both New York Times #1. bestsellers.

One can only imagine the torturous temptation Tim faces each time he passes a motorist with a Honk If You're Horny bumpersticker. Only a loving and faithful God, and that plexiglass panel between Tim and his driver, could sustain Tim in his darkest hour.

And that prayer with purpose? Oh Lord, the multi-million dollar advance is almost gone. I could really use a new book proposal right about now.

Shorter Tom McGuire: Those remedial reading lessons were wasted on me.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

The Old Farts

If you've ever prayed for the opportunity to hear Bob Shrum opine on a weekly current events program, your prayers have been answered. From an e-mail received today:

The two new weekday shows [on Air America] include (sic)"Lionel" and "The Air Americans" hosted by veteran Mark Riley, with correspondents Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Mike Papantonio, David Bender and Laura Flanders, airing at 8p-12a weeknights. The new weekend shows include "Seder on Sunday" from 4-7p Sunday and "7 Days in America" 6-7p Saturdays, a week-in-review show with Arianna Huffington, Mark Green, Bob Kerrey and Bob Shrum.

Fortunately, the affilliate in my area fills most of the weekends with infomercials about real estate investors and colon cleansers.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

I Hope They Cast A Fat Kid With Asthma And Glasses

CBS plans to broadcast a series this fall based on last night's Republican debate:

"For those of you who accuse CBS of being too conservative, you will feel differently when you see the shows we have lined up," said Leslie Moonves, chairman of CBS Corp.

A new reality show, "Kid Nation," will take 40 children and set them up in an abandoned New Mexico town. Cameras will follow them as they try to set up their own society without adult supervision.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Falwells That End Well

The network news rolodexs are flying at half-mast today.

Time for an update of The Clinton Chronicles, to account for their latest victim.

Update: In related news, John McCain is already interviewing new religious zealots he can pander to.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

The Dark Side of Nativism

In response to Pat Buchanan's claim that "in numbers higher than our native born, some [immigrants] are going berserk here," Eve Fairbanks points out the mini-crime spree committted by inbred drunken Papists named Buchanan.

Inexplicably, however, she forgets the most notorious homicidal loon of the Clan Buchanan:

Chris Matthews' [false] report that Kathleen Willey was threatened in January 1998 by Cody Shearer, a Washington journalist and investigator with close ties to the Clinton administration, nearly had tragic repercussions here on Sunday night.

After hearing the allegation -- first broadcast May 11 on CNBC's "Hardball" -- presidential candidate Pat Buchanan's older brother Hank, a 61-year-old former accountant with a history of mental illness, drove from his Maryland home to Washington to find Shearer.

And he had a gun.

Apparently, Buchanan easily found Shearer's home in a leafy Washington neighborhood....

Buchanan broke into Shearer's garage and slashed the tires of three cars, one of Shearer's housemates told Salon News. When two of Shearer's students entered the garage, Buchanan allegedly took out a gun and threatened them with it, then threatened a neighbor, who was trying to take out his garbage.

Perhaps Ms. Fairbanks omitted this example because she rationally fears that the right-wing lunatic would come after her with a gun. Either one, Pat or Hank.

Real Public Radio

The first three minutes of this week's News Quiz show how it's done.

Saturday, May 12, 2007

The Real Reagan Republican

LAKE GENEVA, Wis. - Tommy Thompson cited a dead hearing aid and an urgent need to use the bathroom in explaining on Saturday why he said at a GOP presidential debate that an employer should be allowed to fire a gay worker.

Tommy said that he had the flu and bronchitis the day of the debate, but decided to participate anyway. He also "told party faithful at the[Wisconsin G.O.P. state] convention Saturday that he can still win." I'm sure Tommy's explanation will inspire confidence in his ability to lead the nation.

Friday, May 11, 2007

Willard, Control Your Woman!

Some wingnuts no longer trust Willard Romney because he didn't smack his bitch up after it was revealed she donated to Planned Parenthood thirteen years ago. RedState philosopher Oly Olafson lays out his indictment of Muffy the Fetus Slayer here:

""Her contributions are for her and not for me," Romney said before a campaign appearance in Iowa. "Her positions are not terrible relevant [sic] to my campaign." Romney volunteered that wife, Ann, is now one of the heads of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a leading anti-abortion group." SOURCE.

"[Kevin Madden] said the check was written from the Romneys' joint checking account, but she signed it and the contribution came from her, Madden said. Mitt Romney has not donated to the group, Madden said." SOURCE.

Count me unimpressed. At the time I reviewed Hugh Hewitt's book, I wrote, "Like Hewitt, were the election held today, I would vote for Mitt Romney, but unlike Hewitt, I am not very passionate about the former governor and have, over time, developed some qualms about him." As late as last week, in email correspondence between friends, I said the same.

I can no longer say that. It is not because Ann Romney gave money to Planned Parenthood. It is because this is the straw that broke the camel's back -- one light piece of straw piled on a mountain of political opportunism and reckless vacillation. On October 7, 2001, President Bush told the nation, " We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail." I can no longer trust that Mitt Romney has a spine strong enough not to go wobbly with it becomes convenient.

Ignore the fact that both Muff and Mr. Muff are both now dedicated to the destruction of reproductive rights. And that Muff's story is that he also was pro-choice back in the day, before he saw the light. And that Muff's not vacillating now. The thing that changes everything for Oly Olafson -- the pudding proof that Muff can't be trusted to abolish human rights -- is that he allowed his woman to contribute family funds to an advocacy group/health care provider, apparently without attempting to have her committed to an asylum. Oly was quite willing to be Muff's man when it was only Muff who changed his mind on abortion rights, but when he heard that Muff's woman possessed an independent mind sometime in the previous century, well, sister, all bets are off!

A true Republican would have demanded Ann's resignation, effectively immediately. After all, a man who can't control his woman is not match for Islamofascist terrorists who can.

Oly's world is now shattered, and only Fred Thompson can restore his faith in the Republican Party by proving that his wife signed a pre-nup and is locked in the attic each Election Day.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Badge of Honor

Shitheel sadist John Yoo, April 18, 2007:

"[Since 9/11] we have had outpourings of new political speech through new methods and means, for example, uh, people I wish never existed -- bloggers...."

Yoo wishes they never existed because, unlike illegally-detained prisoners, torture victims and law school students, bloggers talk back.

(For quote, click on the first link above, then link labelled "Listen to the Edited Broadcast of the Debate," and advance the audio to 12:00.)

What Would You Ask Senator Obama?

I'm not in the business of promoting television news programs, but someone at ABC News took the time to personalize the mass e-mail she sent to me, so I'll give them a free plug. (Plus, ABC shitcanned that idiot Halperin, and progress should be rewarded.)

This Week with George Stephanopolous is soliciting questions for the show's guests to be submittted by cameraphone or webcam, starting with this Sunday's guest, Senator Barack Obama. If this works, they can have viewers videoing themselves reading the newspapers and save the boatload of cash going to Charlie Gibson.

My question is this:

Senator Obama, as you know from the madrassa story, the Republican Party is masterful at working with the corporate media to slander Democratic presidential candidates. Senator John Kerry and his campaign were slow to react to the smears made by Rove's hitmen, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the smears were not debunked by the media. What strategy and resources do you have in place now to counteract Republican lies about you when they're made on This Week and left unchallenged by George Stephanopoulus?

Actually, my question would be:

It's great that you voted against the war in the first place, but what do you intend to do, as a Senator, between now and the first primary to end the occupation of Iraq? And when you will do it?

I don't have either a video cellphone or a telegenic puss, so feel free to steal these questions if you want to break in to showbiz.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Instant Analysis of Yesterday's Newspaper

More right-wing hackery from the Washington Post:

Comparison To Clinton Is Dismissed
French Counterpart Lacked Substance, Senator's Camp Says

By Anne E. Kornblut and Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 8, 2007; A06

There was a time when advisers to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) looked abroad for proof that women can get elected to a top leadership role in the modern world: Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister; Angela Merkel, the German chancellor; and Michelle Bachelet, the president of Chile.

But as presidential candidate Segolene Royal was defeated by a conservative man who had been France's chief law enforcement officer, the Clinton campaign was quick to dismiss comparisons between their candidate and her Socialist counterpart across the Atlantic.

Comparisons, plural. So people have been comparing Senator Clinton to Royal. And who might those people be? Well, Post writers Kornblut and Junior Bacon are reputed to be people and, since the article doesn't identify anyone else making the Clinton/Royal comparison, it must be them.

Or maybe the Clinton "camp" spontaneously contacted the Post to dismiss a comparison that no one's made, just to gin up some negative publicity for their candidate. That could happen.

The article also portrays Senator Clinton's advisers as attacking Royal as an unqualified female, thereby implicitly attacking the Senator's feminist credentials:

Unlike Royal, who emphasized her charm and femininity rather than her strength on foreign policy, Clinton has proven her national security bona fides, her advisers said.

Interestingly, the article doesn't name the advisers who bashed Royal with this remark. The article elsewhere identifies two Clinton advisers (Wolfson and Penn) by name, but doesn't attribute this criticism to either of them. How many friggin' Clinton advisers did the Post need to interview to write this manufactured non-story?

The best bit is this:

Some Republicans saw the Royal defeat as an unexpected ray of hope after the victory of Nicolas Sarkozy, who ran a Rudolph W. Giuliani-style campaign of zero tolerance for criminal or civil strife. At the same time, the Sarkozy election gave a boost to the Bush administration, which has never had an ally in power in Paris.

The defeat after the victory? I'm no expert on French politics, but I thought the defeat of Royal and the victory of Sarkozy pretty much occurred simultaneously.

(I also have trouble reconciling Giuliani's "zero tolerance for criminal strife" with his infinite tolerance of criminality within the N.Y.P.D. and his employment of bagman Bernie Kerik.)

The Post loves the Clinton-Royal comparison that no one else is making so much that it's got another article (from Reuters) on the subject online today. Interestingly, these stories reveal that the Clinton "camp" is remarkably on message.

From Kornblut and Junior Bacon:

"Other than the fact that they are both women, they don't have much in common," said Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director.

From the Reuters article:

"One has nothing to do with the other," said campaign spokesman Phil Singer. "Other than the fact that they are both women, they don't have much in common.

Proof positive that even Hillary's staff is robotic!

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Covering [For] Conflicts

Conflict of Interest Kurtz doesn't bother to inform his readers of Hugh "Jass" Hewitt's conflict of interest with respect to G.O.P. presidential politics. In his latest online column, Howie intros Baby Huey's critique of Fred Thompson as follows:

Was Bob Novak the only conservative disappointed in Fred Thompson's California speech the other night? Well, Hugh Hewitt also kept his socks on:

"Fred Thompson's speech was workmanlike, but given the build-up, underwhelming. With Bob Novak, Carl Cameron, John Fund etc in the room, I was expecting Big Fred to use the occasion to, if not declare, at least show the stuff that has many excited about the prospect of a Thompson race. He may have the music, but he didn't bring the band last night.

"It was a speech that President Bush could have given on substance, though full of some well worn and reliable anecdotes that got the automatic chuckles. I found myself agreeing with those who compare Big Fred's style with that of the vice president's: serious and experienced, using the aside to get a deserved laugh, a man of accomplishment though looking older than I had expected. Is he, I wondered, really running for veep? From six feet away I just didn't see the energy that will be absolutely required to power the next year-and-a-half of daily meet-and-greets, or the display of the sort of grasp of the new and the emerging to keep an electorate interested."

And just who might have the energy, Baby Huey? Got anyone in mind?

Can Mitt Romney be President -- and should he be? Renowned radio personality Hugh Hewitt says Yes!


Mitt Romney's campaign may sink. But if the country gets the debate and the campaign it deserves in the middle of this deadly conflict, the votes will be cast on the basis of the ability to lead, and to lead as an American would lead -- as a Lincoln, a Truman, an FDR or a Reagan led: with optimism and purpose, and a certain conviction of the goodness of the country and the courage and resolve of its people. And that leader, says Hugh Hewitt, is Mitt Romney.

Perhaps Howie the Hack is truly ignorant of Hewitt's endorsement of Muff, as well as Hewitt's financial interest -- in the form of increased sales of his pro-Muff tome -- in extending the life support on Muff's futile campaign. It's not like Howie's paid to critique the media or anything. Or maybe Howie's friendship with Hewitt causes him to cover for Hewitt. (Hewitt claims that Kurtz is a weekly guest on Hewitt's radio show, although I'm skeptical of that claim.) In any event, Howie's doing Hewitt's dirty work in attempting to kill any campaign by a man who, if he entered the race, would kick Muff's two-faced candy ass back to prep school.

Moon Bites Dog

The Washington Times discovers that foreign billionaires are attempting to influence American politics through the use of private, tax-exempt foundations and media enterprises.

Who knew?

I can see why Phil Kent is shocked and outraged by the influence of "unaccountable, tax exempt foundations" which engage in political advocacy. Especially successful ones.

Oh, the injustice of it all! They're copiously weeping into their holy handkerchiefs at the Times right now.

(Link via Atrios.)

Funny, That

When wingnuts think of backpack bombers, they never seem to recall America's most famous backpack bomber.

Surely that has nothing to do with the ethnicity or religious beliefs or targets of the particular terrorist.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Mike Hunt Doesn't Support The War On Iraq

I would have thought Mike would be the first to sign. It's a shame.

Meet Your Newest Target Team Member

As part of its settlement of a class-action lawsuit for fraud, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune has cancelled James Lileks' "humor" column, effective a week from Friday. The paper graciously agreed to keep Lileks on as a reporter. Lileks, however, is ungrateful and urges his fans to rise up as one on his behalf:

Would it matter if you contacted the paper? It very well might. Here's the reader's rep's page.

If I can get my column back and / or a nice big Online gig, that would be a satisfactory conclusion. Reporting on internet start-ups as opposed to joining an internet start-up – eh, not so much.

Lileks also admits he's unqualified for his future job ("writing straight news - clearly, simply, briskly - is a skill I lack").

The man is a shrewd negotiator. Not since Saddam Hussein have I seen such mad negotiating skillz.

I imagine that the volume of complaintswill dwarf that received when the Star-Tribune moved Mutts to the classified section and replaced the Cryptoquote with Sudoko. None of them will come from readers of the newspaper, or of the English language.

Hugh "Jass" Hewitt imagines that Mr. Lileks will receive tens of job offers from savvy media enterprises that apparently felt ethically constrained from making competing offers while Lileks was working as a columnist, but feel no similar compunction now that he's assigned to reporting duties. None of those job offers will come from Hugh himself, or his employers, and the Salem Radio Network, naturally. Hugh also provides the paper's phone number for those wishing to cancel their subscription based on the stunning decline in reportorial standards beginning in about 10 days.

Sunday, May 06, 2007

One Country, One Culture, One Struggle

Marty Peretz on the significance of the French election:

The third will be the initial experiment among the western powers in dethroning the cult of multiculturalism. Majorities have a right--even an obligation--to preserve their own ethics, norms, cultures and histories. They have a right to define the qualifications for membership in and even admission to their societies. This will be the struggle of the 21st century.

This appears to be Marty's application for Minister of Culture in the Sowell regime.

Friday, May 04, 2007

No Ball

From the gruelling interrogation last night:

Mayor Giuliani, how do we get back to Ronald Reagan's "morning in America"?

Senator McCain, most of the public pessimism today has to do with Iraq. How -- what would you need, as commander in chief, to win the war in Iraq?

Governor Thompson, if you're commander in chief and you want to win this war in Iraq, what do you need to do to win it?

I'm just asking, do we have to reduce that temperature of hatred before we win the war, or simply continue to fight the terrorists?

This is a question for Senator McCain. It's along those lines of intervention. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson said that Iran has already committed acts of war. Do you agree? And secondly, as part of that, what's your trip wire for a U.S. strike in Iran?

Should we change our Constitution which we believe is divinely inspired -- (laughter) -- to allow men like Mel Martinez, the chairman of your party, born in Cuba, great patriot, senator from Florida, and Arnold Schwarzenegger to stand here some night?

Let me go to Senator McCain. We're in the house of Ronald Reagan. Every cab driver in America knew what Ronald Reagan stood for: defeat communism abroad, reduce big government at home. Can you, Senator McCain, restore that kind of unity of purpose?

Governor Huckabee, the question is, how do you unify the country the way Reagan did, a good portion of the country?

But you, as commander in chief and chief executive, would you employ Karl Rove?

Okay, let's start with an enjoyable down-the-line, okay? I want each candidate to mention a tax he'd like to cut, in addition to the Bush tax cuts, keeping them in effect.

Senator Brownback, do you find any faults in Mayor Giuliani?

Do you think Scooter Libby should be pardoned? Governor?

Seriously, would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?

Every president, if you look back to Ike, was elected to fill the problem of the previous president. We are of course correcting all the time in this country. It's how democracy works. How will you be different in any way from President George W. Bush?

Make no mistake, Tweety was all poodle last night. Not a question about the candidates' own responsibility for the Iraq debacle, just puffers allowing them to explain how they would magically transform the Middle East if given the chance. Nothing about how to fund the endless occupation, only questions about how taxes would be cut in the next administration. Nothing about the economy or health care costs or Social Security, we've got the constitutional crisis of foreign-born presidents to consider. Forget about the White House's attempts to corrupt and infest the Justice Department, how much of a bitch is Hillary? Isn't Ronnie Reagan simply the dreamiest?

The biggest prostitution scandal this week isn't centered in D.C.; it happened in Simi Valley.

Run Away

Want to find any of the Republican presidential candidates this weekend?

Start with the farthest place from Denver you can find.

Shorter Debate Analysis

I thought the most telling moment was when none of the candidates could explain why they don't offer free checking.

Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to liveblog the debate, due to prior commitment to remain employed. I see from Memeorandum that the wingnutosphere was all over the debate, with most wingnuts declaring that his or her already-chosen favorite (including the absent Fred Thompson) was the clear winner, and that baby-killer Rudy Gee was the biggest loser. And a fair amount of bitching about Chris Matthews' softball questions.

More derision later, as time permits.

p.s. I see the restraining order against Peggy Noonan has been lifted.

Hate From Across The Atlantic

Andrew Sullivan regularly blogs on his opposition to hate crimes laws, and he regularly demonstrates his dishonesty in such discussions. Here's Sully Joe:

There are, I think, two coherent positions on hate crime laws. The first is opposition to the entire concept, its chilling effect on free speech, its undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on. That's my position. I oppose all hate crimes laws, regardless of the categories of individuals they purport to protect. The other coherent position is the view that hate crimes somehow impact the community more than just regular crimes and that the victims of such crimes therefore deserve some sort of extra protection under the law. The criteria for inclusion in such laws is any common prejudice against a recognizable and despised minority. The minority need not be defined by an involuntary characteristic - religious minorities are so protected - and they choose their faith. Nor need the minority be accurately idetified [sic]. If a gentile is bashed because the attacker thinks he's Jewish, the hate crime logic still applies. I disagree with this, but I can accept its coherence.
I've pointed this out before: Hate crimes laws do not protect "minorities," let alone "recognizable and despised minorities." Such laws enhance criminal penalties against persons based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. regardless of the minority or majority status (or perceived status) of the victim. If Sully was pummelled because he was white or a limey, the penalties against his attackers would be enhanced. If Sully was pummelled because his attacker thought he was straight, the penalties would be enhanced.

Let's not pretend Sully doesn't know exactly what these laws entail. He has never identified any hate crimes law which favors "minorities" or enhances penalties of only those in the majority. He is knowingly misrepresenting the content of these laws, and peddling the myth of the legally privileged minority, because it suits his right-wing agenda.

And there's another loathsome bit from Sully. Sully posts the photo of Chris Crain, who he claims was "gay-bashed by Islamists in Amsterdam." Mr. Crain's own description of the incident was that he and his boyfriend were assaulted by seven men, one of whom "had Moroccan features and spoke with a heavy accent." Mr. Crain's account contains no suggestion that the men were Muslims or "Islamists," or that they identified themselves as such. Yes, Islam is the overwhelmingly dominant religion in Morocco, but Sully has no information concerning the religious faith, if any, of any of the assailants, let alone reason to conclude that the one man who looked Moroccan was a practising Muslim or was motivated by religious devotion. This is the same as assuming that an assault by someone with "Mexican features" was committed by a Catholic, or that one by someone with an American accent was perpetrated by a Christian.

Perhaps Sully hates hate crime laws so much because they hit much too close to home.

Update: In a subsequent blog post, Crain confuses matters even more. He now says that all seven men were "Moroccan 20-somethings." He also calls them Islamists, but states they were not "radical Islamists." Apparently, Crain has concluded that the men grew up in an Islamic culture which legitimizes anti-gay prejudice but were not devout Muslims. I'm still not sure how Crain ascertained their country of origin (or, for that matter, their lack of religious devotion) when the only communication was an anti-gay obscenity from one of the men. Nothing Crain says demonstrates he has actual knowledge of the men's national origin or religious affiliation.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Shorter Thomas Sowell

"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."