Recuse Me?

Nino Scalia should recuse himself from a lot more cases, if you ask me. But he still deserves substantial criticism for his conduct in the compulsory Pledge of Allegience case. Followers of judicial hypocrisy will recall Scalia's position on judges who oppose the death penalty on moral grounds.

Scalia, who insisted he was �judicially and judiciously neutral� toward capital punishment, said that he did not find the death penalty immoral. �I am happy to have reached that conclusion,� he continued, �because I like my job and would rather not resign.�

Earlier Scalia had said, �In my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty.�

But Scalia is guilty of the same misconduct as the hypothetical judges he criticized.

From today's New York Times:

The Supreme Court's action today had several unusual elements that could have an impact on the eventual outcome. One was the decision by Justice Antonin Scalia not to participate in the case, an evident if unacknowledged response to a "suggestion for recusal of Justice Scalia" that Mr. Newdow sent to the court last month.

Mr. Newdow cited news reports of remarks the justice made at an event in Fredericksburg, Va., last January that was co-sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic organization that a half-century ago played a leading role in persuading Congress to add "under God" to the pledge. According to the reports, Justice Scalia's speech at "Religious Freedom Day" pointed to the Ninth Circuit's decision in this case as an example of how courts were misinterpreting the Constitution to "exclude God from the public forums and from political life."

Mr. Newdow, who is a lawyer and medical doctor who has represented himself in the litigation, told the court that the remarks indicated that Justice Scalia was not just expressing general views on the Constitution but had formed a conclusion about the case itself, providing grounds for disqualification. The code of judicial conduct and a federal law that incorporates it both provide that judges "shall disqualify" themselves in cases where their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Scalia knew that the Ninth Circuit case might -- and likely would -- come to the Supreme Court when he spoke those words. Despite that knowledge, he chose to criticize the Ninth Circuit ruling at a Catholic event. By his conduct, Scalia disqualified himself from being able to review the law applied by the Ninth Circuit. When Scalia was faced with the choice between speaking out on an issue of importance to him and fulfilling his judicial duty to rule on all cases to come before the Supreme Court, he opted for the former. He didn't resign, as he suggested other judges must do in such circumstances, he gave himself a pass for just one case. (Could not anti-death penalty judges opt to recuse themselves from death cases and draw their salary hearing antitrust and tort cases instead?)

Scalia and his supporters might claim that he is doing the right thing because he certainly would have voted for compulsory inclusion of God in the PofA, and is willing to put an impartial resolution above his own personal desire as to the outcome. To which I would respond: bullshit. Scalia knew what his job required when he accepted it, and deliberately chose to act in a matter which would required recusal. He committed misconduct when he spoke, and his later recusal doesn't change that. If he was unwilling to give up his right to prejudge cases he shouldn't have taken the job. And if he voluntarily places himself in a position where he cannot fulfill all of his job duties, he should resign.

Ripped From Today's Headlines

"Law-enforcement sources tell NEWSWEEK that Limbaugh�s exposure as a pain-pill addict began when Wilma Cline, 42, who had worked at Limbaugh�s $30 million Florida estate from 1997 to July 2001, showed up at the Palm Beach County state attorney�s office late last year eager to sic the cops on her former boss."

Limbaugh says he is still addicted. So who sold Rush his drugs between "late last year" and earlier this month? Does Rush's cooperation mean he's going to turn in his suppliers?

Reading the BushBlog So You Won't Have To

Today's pine-scented pearl of wisdom:

The Rocky Mountain News editorial board weighs in today with a piece urging Congress to pass legislation to grant the federal government additional tools to address the problem of unnatural fuel buildup in our forests. President Bush�s Healthy Forest Initiative focuses on reducing the risk of catastrophic fire by thinning dense undergrowth and brush in priority locations.

"Unnatural fuel buildup?" Is Bush saying that God is committing unnatural acts -- like a sodomite? Shades of Reagan's polluting trees!

The President believes that Healthy Forests is an American issue that requires consensus to do what is right to preserve and protect our national forests.

Geez, talk about dense undergrowth. That is one bloated and borderline incoherent sentence. Someone needs to clear out the deadwood who's writing the BushBlog.

Don't Fear The Hacker

Now that the Predator has been elected Governor, surely Mickey Kaus has something to live for. Yet Kaus makes this creepy confession in his blog:

A second NYU student has died after jumping off the 10th floor blacony of the Bobst Library's dramatic internal atrium. When I lived in New York, I was terrified of using Bobst for just this reason--fear of succumbing to the urge to jump (or worrying that others would succumb). It's now clear that this isn't just an eccentric phobia--the space is an invitation to suicide, a form of architectural malpractice. To construct such a space on a college campus filled with moody and inebriated kids seems particularly negligent. It's all the more inexcusable because there's a model for a skylit atrium that doesn't create such risks--the historic Bradbury building in Los Angeles....

I hate to tell Mick this, but there are probably 70 million places -- bridges, windows, balconies, roofs, etc. -- in New York City from which a person could jump to his or her death. And many more ways to kill yourself without jumping. Closing down structures that Kaus is afraid of is not the way to lower the suicide rate. Certainly a man so enamored of "tort reformers" like the Predator and Bush would never endorse litigation against architects who fail to make their buildings suicide-proof.

And Mick reveals his fear of "blacony"s -- is that a Kausian slip?

Lott Sacked Again

The Moonie Times has picked of Johnmary Lottrosh's National Review buffoonish piece on media coverage of quarterbacks by race. The Moonies even corrected the typo I pointed out.

Interestingly, another professor has done a more comprehensive study on the issue and found no bias based on a QB's race. As described, Professor Niven's study sounds much more reliable, as it involves a whole season's worth of coverage (rather than four weeks) and none of the idiotic cherry-picking of Lott's study, which only looked at articles containing one of 23 "positive" and/or one of 23 "negative" adjectives to describe the QB. It doesn't appear that Niven performed his study in response to Lott's, but it sure looks like he sacked Lott anyway. Perhaps Lott can waste a few thousand more hours having his flunkies demonstrate that his approach was superior to Professor Niven's.

Another Limbaugh Under The Influence (Of Stupidity)

When Ann Coulter praises a book as "copiously researched," you can bank on a story like this to follow:

Author David Limbaugh apologized for mistakenly including a Tupelo school in his new best-selling book about incidents he calls anti-Christian.

In his book "Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity," Limbaugh describes the removal of explicitly Christian references from Christmas songs at an unidentified Tupelo elementary school, and students being led in chants of "Celebrate Kwanzaa."

Limbaugh's source was a November 2000 news release from the Tupelo-based American Family Association Center for Law and Policy. It carried a Tupelo dateline "and I mistakenly inferred the incident occurred in Tupelo," Limbaugh said in the letter.

In fact, the news release was about a dispute in State College, Pa. The American Family Association had asked an appeals court to reinstate a lawsuit alleging that a 1999 holiday program at State College's Corl Street Elementary School presented Christmas as a "celebration unworthy of respect."

Limbaugh, an attorney and columnist who is the brother of radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, apologized for the error in a letter published in Thursday's edition of the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal.

As predicted by this site weeks ago, Limbaugh's "research" involved rewriting press releases from various wingnut organizations and, as it turned out, not even bothering to read them, much less determine their accuracy. Shoddy research is the hallmark of the Limbaugh brothers. And poor, persecuted Davey can't even blame it on the household staff.

Reading the Bush Blog So You Won't Have To

It's nice to see that the folks running the Bush Blog are as capable as the man they work for. Today's offering starts:

The Alameda Times-Star (CA) editorial board takes a look at the economy today and concludes that all signs point to a strong recovery.

And the link actually says:

Scripps Howard News Service Editorial.

Close enough for Republican work.

Check back later in the week as the Bush blog quotes Auto Trader on Bush's mastery of foreign policy and The Pyschic Connection on Bush's vision for the future.

Traitorgate

An interesting document:

Office of the Attorney General
Washington, DC 20530

October 15, 2002


The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

The President and I place deterring, detecting, and punishing unauthorized disclosures of U.S. national security secrets among our highest priorities, at all times, but especially in this time of war against terrorism of global reach. There is no doubt and ample evidence that unauthorized disclosures of classified information cause enormous and irreparable harm to the Nation�s diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities. They impair, especially, the Intelligence Community�s ability to provide essential support to U.S. national security policymakers and our military�s ability to provide for the national defense. We need an effective Government-wide program to curtail these damaging disclosures and to hold the persons who engage in unauthorized disclosures of classified information fully accountable for the serious damage they cause to intelligence sources and methods, military operations, and to the nation. Those who would break faith with the American people and disclose classified information without authority to do so will face severe consequences under the law.

...

Although there is no single statute that provides criminal penalties for all types of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, unauthorized disclosures of classified information fall within the scope of various current statutory criminal prohibitions. See United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1988). It must be acknowledged that there is no comprehensive statute that provides criminal penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information irrespective of the type of information or recipient involved. Given the nature of unauthorized disclosures of classified information that have occurred, however, I conclude that current statutes provide a legal basis to prosecute those who engage in unauthorized disclosures, if they can be identified. It may be that carefully drafted legislation specifically tailored to unauthorized disclosures of classified information generally, rather than to espionage, could enhance our investigative efforts. The extent to which such a provision would yield any practical additional benefits to the government in terms of improving our ability to identify those who engage in unauthorized disclosures of classified information or deterring such activity is unclear, however.

Regardless, the vital need in protecting national security secrets must include rigorous investigation of unauthorized disclosures of classified information to identify the individuals who commit them, and vigorous enforcement of the applicable administrative, civil, and criminal provisions already available.

...

The responsibility for correcting the problem of unauthorized disclosures of classified information falls squarely upon the shoulders of all Government officers and employees who are privileged to handle classified Government information. Department and agency heads have substantial authority to address the problem of persons who engage in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information within their own organizations through suspension or revocation of clearances and procedures to terminate employees in the national security interests of the United States. They have limited authorities with respect to unauthorized disclosures outside their own organizations. In most of the few cases in which a person who engaged in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information has been identified, the sanctions applied have been relatively inconsequential in comparison to the damage caused as a result of the unauthorized disclosure. In most cases, identifying the individual who disclosed classified information without authority has been difficult, at best.

The risks of unauthorized disclosures of classified information associated with the large numbers of people with access to such classified information must be managed intelligently, appropriately, and effectively. Managing this risk requires strict enforcement of the principle that no individual should have access to a particular national security secret unless the person has the requisite security clearance and access approval and needs to know the secret to perform the individual's official duties. Discipline with respect to the extent of dissemination of particular classified information will help reduce the opportunities for faithless individuals to engage in unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and will underscore for individuals who have the privilege of access to classified information that they have personal accountability and legal liability for the protection of the information.

...

RECOMMENDATIONS

First, the Executive Branch must activate a wide range of administrative measures to significantly improve our capacity to stem the practice of unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

Second, all departments and agencies that originate or handle classified information must take aggressive steps and use all appropriate means at their disposal � individually and collectively � to identify and impose sanctions on those who reveal classified information without authority.

Third, policy and legal officials in the Departments of Defense and Justice, and the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) for the Intelligence Community, must work together to improve enforcement of existing laws. Likewise, these officials must work closely with Congress to ensure that we have the necessary legal authorities to enhance our ability to deter such unauthorized disclosures and to identify and hold accountable those who, without authority, reveal classified information, both for violations of their duty to the United States and for any violations of law. Until those who, without authority, reveal classified information are deterred by the real prospect of productive investigations and strict application of appropriate penalties, they will have no reason to stop their harmful actions.

Thus, specifically, I recommend that:

Departments and agencies that originate, disseminate, or handle classified information should continue to use their authorities to undertake immediate and aggressive investigations of unauthorized disclosures of classified information utilizing all appropriate and available investigative tools and techniques to identify the perpetrators.

Departments and agencies should continue to report these crimes to the Department of Justice under established reporting requirements, and should not delay their internal investigations pending the Department�s prosecutorial decision on the matter, unless the Attorney General directs otherwise in a particular case.

...

Upon identification of a person who engaged in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information, the agency concerned should refer the matter to the Department for a prosecutive decision.

The Department of Justice will be prepared to prosecute all cases where the evidence and circumstances warrant, and, as appropriate, provide regular status reports to the affected departments or agencies.

Departments and agencies should promptly notify the Department of Justice when a current or former employee or other person with a contractual or other legal obligation to the Government to protect classified information engages in an unauthorized disclosure, and the Department of Justice should vigorously pursue civil enforcement actions against such individuals.

...

The Executive Branch should continue to engage Congress, the media, and the American people, to increase awareness of the damage to national security resulting from unauthorized disclosures of classified information and the need to improve the federal government�s classified information security practices and enforcement of laws concerning unauthorized disclosures.

The non-disclosure agreements signed by all persons who are granted access to classified information should be amended to include a provision that sets out liquidated damages, when appropriate, based upon a judicial finding that the person breached that contract by having engaged in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information; and to require that the individual, upon request of a duly authorized official during the course of an unauthorized disclosure investigation, execute a certification under penalty of perjury that he or she has not engaged in a specified unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

...

CONCLUSION

In sum, to protect its diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities, the Nation must combat unauthorized disclosures of classified information effectively, through aggressive administrative enforcement of current requirements, rigorous investigation of unauthorized disclosures, and vigorous enforcement of the criminal laws that make such disclosures a Federal crime. Clearly, that only a single non-espionage case of an unauthorized disclosure of classified information has been prosecuted in over 50 years provides compelling justification that fundamental improvements are necessary and we must entertain new approaches to deter, identify, and punish those who engage in the practice of unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Although there may be some benefit from a new comprehensive criminal statute, such a statute standing alone would be insufficient in my view to meet the problem of unauthorized disclosures of classified information in its entirety. Accordingly, I am not recommending that the Executive Branch focus its attention on pursuing new legislation at this time. Should Congress choose to pursue a criminal statute that covers in one place all unauthorized disclosures of classified information, however, the Administration would, of course, be prepared to work with Congress.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration�s program.

Sincerely,
John Ashcroft
Attorney General


cc: The Honorable Dick Cheney
President of the Senate
United States Senate

The interesting part is Asscrack's assertion that the White House has the authority to conduct its own investigtion into the identity of the leaker(s), and is not required to turn the investigation over to the Justice Department, particularly before the leaker(s) are identified. So if Bush truly "place[s] deterring, detecting, and punishing unauthorized disclosures of U.S. national security secrets among our highest priorities," why has the Administration simply turned to matter over to the Department of Justice with a lame promise to "cooperate fully"?

Rule of Law Hall of Fame

In light of the Limbaugh allegations of illegal drug use, which Limbaugh has all but confirmed, and the right's continuing support and apologies for Limbaugh, I thought it would be a good time to compile a roster of wingnut icons who symbolize the right's fraudulent claim of dedication to the rule of law.

A final conviction is not necessary for a spot in the Hall, nor is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, although something more than a mere allegation is required. (For example, Bush's DUI/DWI qualifies him for entry into the Hall as a full Janklow Fellow; his desertion of National Guard service is sufficiently documented to warrant inclusion in the UCMJ Wing; but his alleged cocaine use is not sufficiently documented, to my mind, to qualify him for entry.) Inclusion also requires continuing adulation or acceptance by right-wingers after the criminal act was committed; thus, since Republican Mayor and Senate Candidate Joseph Giordano no longer enjoys popular support among his fellow right-wingers, he does not qualify for a seat.

Starting with the Excrement In Broadcasting Wing of the Hall, we have Lieutenant Criminal Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy.

And among current or former members of the current Administration, we have Elliott Abrams and John Poindexter as well as L. Jean Lewis.

And the Reverend Moon award for Unsurpassed Excellence in Criminality and Hypocrisy goes to .... the Reverend Moon.

More to come.

More Proof That Kaus Is A Moron

Here's an golden oldie from 1998:

Nevertheless it was charm, not politics, that kept [Jonah] Goldberg's media stock running high. "He's an honest, straight-ahead guy," says Newsweek contributing editor Mickey Kaus. "And he's undissembling, even at the risk of saying, 'I made a fool of myself.'"

And he's got more credibility than Whoraldo, Ollie North and Fred Barnes combined.

Via Buzzflash, the Guardian reports that Roger Ailes & Co. have been beefing up their lineup of foreign correspondents with some experienced government hands.

Diplomats and other officers of the former Ba'athist intelligence apparatus claim that the return to active duty of members of Saddam's security services extends to the former head of the mukhabarat himself, Tahir Jalil Haboosh.

They are not the only apparatchiks deemed worthy of rehabilitation. Almost all of the bureaucrats at the information ministry have done very nicely for themselves since the war. The government minders who spent their days reporting to the intelligence services on foreign reporters or doing their best to obstruct their work have gone on to well-paid jobs - for the same foreign news organisations they once hounded.

The second-in-command at the information ministry, who spent his days reading the reports the minders wrote about visiting foreign journalists, has been employed by Fox News.

Okay, it doesn't say that he's been hired as a correspondent. Maybe he'll be a Fox News Analyst instead.

Reading the Bush Blog So You Won't Have To

Big news from the Bush Blog.

[October 10, 2003] Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman will discuss the latest campaign developments at 5:05 PM eastern time today on the Ken Hamblin Show. Click here to listen live in Windows Media.

Ken Hamblin is still alive?

Hello.
Is anyone still list'ning?
Just nod and keep on drooling.
Is that a freeper on line one?

Come on, friends.
You say that I'm a felon.
Can't you feel my pain?
And the doctors are to blame.

Relax.
I'll spread disinformation first.
Just like all the hacks.
Reading Karl's last blastfax.

There is no deficit, no soldiers bleeding.
Your glorious leader's smart and brave.
All you junkies should be jailed.
You want to shoot up smack yet you can't afford Roy Black.

When I was eighteen I had an anal cyst.
My ass blew up like two balloons.
Now I got that feeling in my brain.
I can't explain; I'd be in jail.
And Roger Ailes won't make my bail.
I have become....
Illegally numb.

Ok.
I'm just a rightwingprick.
You can still tune in --- O'Reiiiiilllly!
But you may feel a little sick.

Can you FedEx me a thousand?
I do believe they're working. Hee.
They'll keep me going for the show.
Though my hearing's bound to go.

There is no bigotry, no soldiers dying.
Your glorious leader is not lying.
You should be grateful, you wage slaves.
You can't afford health care, but I've got drugs enough to spare.

When I was a child I had a conscience,
Though it was smaller than a fly.
But now I have an agenda.
I cannot get my conscience back.
Because I sold it for some crack.
I have become ....
Criminally numb.

More Crap from Easterbrook

Gregg Easterbrook continues to embarass himself. In Slate, Dahlia Lithwick tears to shreds Easterbrook's comment on rape and sexual consent. And Easterbrook is still letting his hatred of Police Chief Charles Moose get in the way of rational thought. He writes:

Key datum on the latter: After federal investigators deduced the license plate number of the Caprice, they wanted to release it immediately and appeal to the public to watch for the car. They felt that, since news channel helicopters were hovering over John Muhammad's firing range outside Tacoma, it would be only a matter of hours until he realized he had been fingered and abandoned his car; thus the license-plate info had to be used immediately. But Moose wanted to keep the information quiet, perhaps until he concocted a story in which he got the credit. Apparently federal agents released the plate number over Moose's objection; it went out at about 11 p.m. on newsradio, and 90 minutes later the Caprice was spotted. Had Moose gotten his way, Muhammad and Malvo might have seen the reports from their firing range before the license number was released, and left the Caprice in the woods somewhere.

Now which is more likely to lead to Muhammed abandoning his Caprice, a description of the Caprice and its plates or news that the FBI found his house in Washington State? Both pieces of information tell him the Feds know his identity. And if both pieces of information are public, it's almost impossible Muhammed would hear one and miss the other, since they're both part of the same story. But only the car identification story tells Muhammed they know what vehicle he's driving. If the Feds don't release the car story, Muhammed wouldn't know whether they've identified his car.

Was releasing car information to the public (and to Malvo) a good idea or a bad one? I don't know. But it certainly wasn't a good idea for the reason Easterbrook claims.

Notice also that Easterbrook assumes, based on zero evidence, that Chief Moose's motive was impure: Moose wanted to withhold the car information "perhaps until he concocted a story in which he got the credit." Easterbrook is actually suggesting that Moose had a unconscionable disregard for human life. And why would Moose think he could take credit for i.d.ing Muhammed when he knew that the Feds had discovered the Washington State residence and the Caprice? Easterbrook attributes not only malice but also extreme stupidity to Moose, without any basis whatsoever.

Another reason to disregard the new new New Republic.

Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler is taking a sabbatical for an indefinite time, apparently after next week. He will be sorely missed. He is an inspiration for and to this site.

The Democratic nominee would do well to consider Somerby for a position as a senior media consultant (or higher). No one cuts through the B.S. like Bob. Each Howler is like an incisive legal brief, only actually brief. And funny. Somerby is probably too independent to consider such a gig, and not willing to be dragged into endless debates regarding the state of the Dem's shirtsleeves with the media whores.

Whatever Bob does, it will be incomparable.

Free Drugs or Drug Free?

"This Medicare legislation says that everybody will get free drugs, and somebody is going to be paying for it."

"I'm disgusted by the large number of congressional Republicans who support this massive new government-run entitlement, the prescription drug bill, and I've said so in the past. The whole thing makes me mad." -- Rush "No Generics, Wilma" Limbaugh, October 9, 2003

People who can't afford prescription medications can suffer and die. Sounds like rehab's gonna be a bit more pricey than someone thought.

Toad to Joy

Camp follower Rich Lowry expresses some girlyboy-style enthusiasm over his proximity to members of the Marine Corps.

"Anyway, it's always a joy to be around the Marines (the only thing like it is speaking to a Young American Foundation audience or any audience in Texas). They gave me a Marines hat and t-shirt ("pain is weakness leaving the body"), and many NR fans in the audience had kind words. Special thanks to great patriot and wonderful guy Major Jerry Wiffler for inviting me. (I mention him every year because it gives him a thrill and make his little brother Dan insanely jealous...)"

Rich only refrained from joining the Marines out of fear he would overdose on joy.

Enquiring Minds Want to Know

So who are the fill-in hosts: Tony SNOW? Michael MEDSved? PILLis Schlafly? Will they read from a SCRIP or make do without, as Rush did? Maybe Matt DRUGS can POP in with the latest DOPE.

When will the folks who smeared Wilma and David Cline as unreliable witnesses apologize for their gutter tactics?

Who have you prayed for recently, Rush?

But, seriously -- here's a question. If what Limbaugh claims was true, he originally was prescribed medication by a doctor. This means either (1) Limbaugh reached a point where he couldn't get a doctor's prescription or (2) he was buying unprescribed medication in addition to the prescribed medication. Which one was it? Either way, he had to know that he was engaged in life-threateningly dangerous behavior -- the use of medication without the benefit of proper medical advice. Not too smart.

WorldNutDaily picks up the torch:

COMMENTARY:


Holocaust against Christians?
By Joseph Farah

That's just the link title (see sidebar here). The actual title of the commentary is "Persecution?"

Are there any conservatives left who don't compare themselves to Holocaust victims?

I'll Pay Back

What a surprise! Who turns up on the Predator's transition team but the Predator's second biggest apologist, Susan Estrich.

And his third biggest apologist, Tammy Bruce. That's right, two out of the 65 members of the Predator's transition teams are outspoken apologists for the Predator's decades of vile misconduct. Also: Ivan Reitman, of Ghostbusters fame.

Keep your chin up, Mickey, maybe the Predator will get you a job at the DMV for all of your fine service.

Insert Animation of Flashing Police Light Here

A major scandal is delevoping. George Bush is paying bloggers .... to post crap like this.

Matalin on Imus Now

Mary Matalin is currently on Imus in the Morning on MSNBC and local radio. Be sure to tune in!

Posted by GeorgeWBush.com at 08:46 AM

I'll get right on that.

The New Holocaust

Grover Norquist's meme is spreading. (Am I using that right?) Welcome Judson Cox or, as I like to call him, the Hillbilly Virgin Ben. Young Judson has seen persecution, and has paid a heavy price:

"First they came for the movement conservatives, I did not speak out because I was an establishment republican. Then they came for the evangelicals, I did not speak out because I was a libertarian. Then they came for the neo-conservatives, I did not speak out because I was a paleo-conservative. Then they imposed speech codes and banned conservatives from college campuses, I did not speak out because I was not a college student. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

And then I pasted together a column full of bogus allegations from right-wing websites, and I became "one of the most popular and influential voices of his generation."

So how do you get to be the victim of persecution and one of the most popular voices of your generation at the same time, Young Master Cox? This dimwit probably thinks he's persecuted because he hasn't already gotten a syndication deal and a slot on MSNBC.

Hillbilly Ben is modest too:

His fiercely independent style and pugilistic wit make for a column that is always entertaining, often inspiring and frequently "laugh out loud" funny. With a humor akin to P.J. O'Rourke and Dave Barry, and a plain spoken southern wisdom that matches Charlie Daniels, his confrontational style lies somewhere between Ann Coulter and Merle Haggard.

Yee-haw! Somewhere between Ann the Man and the Okie from Muskogee lies.... Obsession.

But someone should tell him that Merle's not drinking the Kool-Aid anymore.

I will admit that "Cox" "is" "'laugh out loud'" "'"funny."'"

(Thanks to mw for the link and the VB comparison.)

Hey, I Can't Get This Bulldog Piaf My Magic Books!!!

"Fischbacher spoke inside the 'Jungle Palace,' one of his Las Vegas homes that's dotted with exotic animal statues and filled with magic books.

"No exotic animals were visible, just some house cats, a black palm Cockatoo and a 10-year-old French bulldog named Piaf." -- Associated Press

Can there be any worse job in journalism than having to write an article about the content of a television interview with Siegfried?

Rosh, Rush

Update:Uh... Jesse Taylor has already disemboweled Mary Rosh. Read him instead, or first.

Mary Rosh and Rush Limbaugh share something more than screwing themselves through the use of e-mail. They are both mortified that P.C. America no longer allows for uninhibited discussion about race in sports.

And even though Rush never defended Mary when s/he was under the gun, Mary has leapt to Rush's defense. Sure, it's a stupid defense, but what else would you expect?

Here's Rosh on Rush, in National Review:

To measure positive news coverage, I quickly put ten research assistants to work on a Nexis search, which is a computerized search of newspaper stories across the country. They looked at the coverage received by the 36 quarterbacks who played during the first four weeks of this season. (The articles were from the day of their first game to the day after their last game during the period.) To try to make the categorization of news stories objective, 23 phrases were picked to identify positive descriptions of a quarterback and 23 phrases for negative ones. Positive phrases included words such as "brilliant," "agile," "good," "great," "tough," "accurate," "leader," "intelligent," or "strong arm." Negative phrases included "overrated," "erratic," "struggling," "bad," "weak arm," or "mistakes." Obviously the media involves more than newspapers, but this is measurable and it is not clear why newspapers would be so different from the rest of the media.

Right away, the stupidity is stunning. Rosh has 10 researchers s/he can quickly mobilize to run Nexis searches on adjectival descriptions of quarterbacks? What conservative idiots financed this boondoggle?

Then there's the insipid premise of the survey -- that selecting 23 adjectives of praise and 23 adjectives of condemnation at random will yield an objective or accurate result of press attitudes. Certainly there are hundreds of other adjectives of praise and criticism, even in the vocabulary of sportswriters, and those articles go uncounted with no way of knowing whether more pro articles or con articles were omitted.

We then identified news stories where these phrases appeared within 50 words of a quarterback's name. Each story was read to check that the phrases were indeed used to describe the "quarterback" and to make sure that the word "not" did not appear before the different phrases. Depending on whether positive or negative words were used to describe the quarterback, stories were classified as positive, negative, or falling into both categories.

If you're going to read all the stories anyway, and only take a four week sample, why not read all stories addressing quarterbacks and see if they include a positive or negative characterization?

The evidence suggests that Rush is right, though the simplest measures indicate that the difference is not huge. Looking at just the averages, without trying to account for anything else, reveals a ten-percent difference in coverage (with 67 percent of stories on blacks being positive, 61 percent for whites).

We also collected data by week for each of the first four weeks of the season on a host of other factors that help explain the rate at which a player is praised: the quarterback's rating for each game; whether his team won; the points scored for and against the team; ESPN's weekly rank for the quarterback's team and the opponent; and whether it was a Monday night game. In addition, I accounted for average differences in media coverage both in the quarterback's city and the opponent's city as well as differences across weeks of the season.

And what the hell did Rosh do with all of these variables? Did Rosh decide whether the negative or positive description was warranted? If so, what was the criteria for her determination? The rate at which a QB is praised is explained by whether he played in a Monday night game? This is so completely unscientific it's laughable.

Accounting for these other factors shows a much stronger pattern. Black quarterbacks' news coverage is 27 percentage points more positive than whites. And that difference was quite statistically significant � the chance of this result simply being random is the same odds as flipping a coin five times and getting heads each time.

The quarterback ranking, scoring, winning, and higher-ranked teams playing against each other all increase the percentage of positive stories.

Huh? What the hell does that mean?

For example, each additional point scored by the quarterback's team raises the share of positive news coverage by about one percentage point. Being in the only game played on a particular day lowers the how positive [sic] the coverage was by about 12 percentage points, as more newspapers outside the home area cover the game the next day.

So how did Rosh use these factors in determining whether the black QBs were overpraised? Beats me. Rosh certainly doesn't explain it.

Without giving this stupid article more time that it deserves, it is sufficient to say that Rosh's statistical gibberish doesn't show that "the media" overrates any black QB, let alone that it overrates any black QB because of his race. And that was Limbaugh's claim. In the end, Rosh provides Rush zero vindication.

I sure hope Rush gets a better defense from Roy Black.

More Anti-Catholicism in Hollywood

Why aren't Mel Gibson, Brent Bozell, Nooners, K.Lo. and the rest of the Catholic Victims League bitching about this anti-Catholic feature film.

I don't see much difference between what Gibson, Bozell and their ilk wants the Catholic Church to be and what the title character of this film fought against.

Ah.... Apparently, Brent is too busy transcribing shock jock bits to take note.

p.s. 1: My favorite scene from the film: "Dammit, these off-campus housing listings are all weeks old!"

p.s. 2: Bozell's column demonstrates the absurdity of FCC censorship regulation of radio content. Bozo prints the offending material verbatim, paraphrasing only one word. (That word is almost certainly used every day in evry newspaper in the country.) Shouldn't Bozo then be fined 55K as well?

Governor Predator

Here's a campaign promise that the Predator can keep before he's sworn in.

"Schwarzenegger said he would go into the specifics of the allegations 'as soon as the campaign is over.'

"'I can get into all of the specifics and find out what is really going on,' he said. 'But right now, I'm just really occupied with the campaign.'"

Campaign's over, big guy; it's time to step up to the plate. (You too, Brokaw.)

Privilege or Smokescreen?

I had a detailed post on this Mark Kleiman analysis of Bush Administration delay tactics in the Traitorgate investigation. Fortunately for lovers of brevity, the post lost when my computer froze, and it's too late in the evening for me to recreate it.

In short, I had two questions about the position taken by the White House in the article Mark cites:

1. How does the White House claim executive privilege with respect to documents pertaining to leaks if the putative executive, Bush, knew nothing about the leaks and still claims ignorance of the leakers' identities? Executive privilege applies to communications between the executive and his or her advisers, not leaks from presidential advisers, no matter how senior, to third parties. (Not to mention the fact that if Bush truly wants the "criminals" (his word) caught, he could simply waive any claimed executive privilege in the interests of justice.)

2. According to this report, a White House counsel cannot invoke the attorney-client privilege "to withhold information relating to a federal criminal offense." Doesn't that mean Gonzales and his staff can be forced to testify about any information in documents withheld which identify the leakers, since those identities are neither a matter of executive privilege (as stated above) nor of national security?

Those seem like good questions, although I could just be loopy from the lack of sleep.

What's Going on for Wednesday, October 8, 2003

President Bush is at the White House where he will make remarks on domestic violence prevention at 3 p.m. and sign a Proclamation for Domestic Violence Awareness Month. In the evening, he will attend the 2003 Republican National Committee Presidential Gala at the Washington Hilton Hotel.

Mr. Bush will be introduced at the afternoon event by Don Sipple, a former campaign adviser to Mr. Bush.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice will deliver remarks at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations at 12:00 p.m. (CDT) in Chicago, Illinois.

Ms. Rice will read an executive summary of her remarks after delivering them, time permitting.

Around the administration, Secretary Ridge is in St. Louis, MO, for a Council of Excellence town hall meeting to highlight a new initiative designed to involve citizens in homeland security. John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, is in Boston, MA, to host the New England Governor�s anti-drug summit.

John Walters will be introduced at the meeting by Rush Limbaugh. Mr. Walters will deliver the keynote address: "Why the Bush-Cheney Campaign Staff Believes New England Has Only One Governor."

Congratulations, Governor-Elect S.

Now you can make the case for all those reforms you care so deeply about and have thought about for so long. No more of the frustration that comes with being a critic on the sidelines; you've got actual responsibility now. You'll have ample time to address the numerous sexual battery allegations, as you promised. You'll get to spend much more time with Maria. And no more movie sets -- or post-production facilities, restaurants, hotels, gyms, offices, etc. -- where people expect you to behave like a vulgar and abusive cretin, in violation of your dearest principles.

And you can make Mickey Kaus bark like a dog whenever you want.

California Recall Election Thread

Post any comments, observations or opinions in the Comments box below.

To kick things off, here's a comment from annie, in response to an earlier post.

"I can see the North is going to save the sorry ass of the South again. I just voted in and out -five minutes in fabulous downtown Guerneville along the beautiful Russian River. Good turn out and I did a little exit polling -no on the recall all the way around. Polling here already indicated opposition to the recall but with a large block of undecideds -it looks like they have all said ok Gray can stay. I think the no on recall will exceed 70% in Sonoma County. We use optical scan counting and expect no problems[.]"

(Note: Time of post changed to keep on top; original time was 11:19:57 AM.)

Swim Out Past The Breakers/Watch The World Die

Can it get any worse? Tom Tomorrow reports:

The stupidest thing I've seen on cable news...

...since the reporters in the hurricane: Chris Matthews and his guests are sitting around one of those talking head desks--out on the beach, with the Santa Monica Boardwalk in the background.

See, it's the California recall. So they're out on a beach. Get it?

Lord.

Are there any dolphins in the vicinity? This could be a ratings bonanza for MSGOP.

Screw Hotmail, He Explained

Fuck it. I'm not screwing around with hotmail any more. I've had it up to here (indicating) with e-mail from Mr. Madu Johnson, Esq., Bigger Willy and AZuwm1bPObrKdt. I don't need to wash away pounds, eliminate credit card debt or gain three more inches. The junk mail is now consistently exceeding the legitmate e-mail.

Any recommendations for a good, net-based free e-mail other than hotmail or Yahoo! would be appreciated.

I'll keep the hotmail address. Once I get the new address, I'll set the hotmail account to delete all junk mail immediately, which means some legitimate mail will get lost if it's sent to that account. (And that most of the junk mail will still get through.)

The Day Of The Locusts

The biggest group of pests since the 1980s Medfly invasion is set to infest the Golden State:

CHRIS MATTHEWS returns for all night coverage of the vote at 9 p.m. ET, with live reports from the leading candidates� campaign headquarters and will be joined by a panel of expert political analysts including: former Reagan speechwriter and MSNBC analyst Peggy Noonan, Newsweek�s Howard Fineman, MSNBC Senior Political Analyst Lawrence O�Donnell and former Nixon speechwriter and comedian Ben Stein.

And they're set to start two hours before the polls close, unsurprisingly.

Does anyone have some Malathion handy?

Torture Ward Connerly

California residents only, please.

From MWO:

"He didn't beat them."

- Peggy Noonan, on Schwarzenegger's crimes

Not black and blue. That would be Arnie's media strategist, according to both of his ex-wives.

BushBlog Brands Cheney A Liar

From Bush Blog, quoting a WSJ ed.:

As to Saddam�s nuclear program, the report says that �the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials� makes clear that �Saddam Hussein remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point.�

From Meet the Press, September 15:

[Russert:]....Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed �not authentic� after carefully scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the U.N. Security Council. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors. �There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities,� ElBaradei said.�

Eight days after that, you were on MEET THE PRESS, and we...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...talked about that specifically. Let�s watch:

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you�ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree.

And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq is concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don�t have any reason to believe they�re any more valid this time than they�ve been in the past.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show weapons capability. We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.

Even with Pumpkinhead Russert spoon-feeding Cheney his "correction," Cheney still asserted that Saddam had a "reconstituted nuclear weapons capability." According to the BushBlog, Saddam "would have" attempted to develop nuclear weapons "at some future point," presumably right after he cleaned out the garage and alphabetized his CD collection.

Cheney's office might want a little more input in the BushBlog in the future.

Evenflow

Via Jesse Taylor at Pandagon.net, news of a blog that's presumably more to Dave Winer's liking.

It even explains what a blog is:

A blog is a free-flowing online journal that�s constantly updated with the latest news from throughout the Web. This blog will serve as your personal guide to the campaign to re-elect President Bush, with breaking news, grassroots updates, and posts from campaign leadership.

And here's the latest news from throughout over upon the Web:

Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman is traveling to Pennsylvania to announce the state's Bush-Cheney '04 campaign leadership. (Campaign staff hopes he returns with an ample supply of Hershey bars.) Joining Mehlman will be Senator Rick Santorum, the chairman of the Bush-Cheney '04 Pennsylvania leadership team. Serving as co-chairs will be Senator Arlen Specter and David Girard-diCarlo. Check www.GeorgeWBush.com later today for event highlights.

President Bush is scheduled to meet with his cabinet at 10:45 AM.

Flow on, oh mighty blog.

Vote Early, Not Austrian

Official results here.

Quantity vs. Quality

The New Republic's reputation for crappy blogs with crappy names is intact. First, &c.; now, Easterblogg. I guess it's a good thing that TNR doesn't try to match the sheer volume of crap put out by National Review's The Corner.

A Sudden Change of Heart

The Bush Justice Department has seen the light about subpeonaing reporters' notes and records. Hmm.... I wonder what could have caused that?

Some news organizations received a chilling letter from the FBI last month telling them to preserve their notes, files, e-mails and photographs involving one Adrian Lamo. "Failure to comply with this request may subject you to criminal penalties," the letter said.

Lamo is a 22-year-old charged with hacking into the New York Times computer system; he has acknowledged this in interviews, including one with the Web site SecurityFocus.com. And even journalists who have merely written about the case, but never interviewed Lamo, have received such requests.

A Justice Department official says the FBI agent "acted out of turn" by not seeking approval from the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan and Attorney General John Ashcroft's press office. "The agent did not follow standard procedures," the official says. "We're just not going to pursue it. It is the policy of the Justice Department to exhaust all other means before seeking information from members of the media."

I'd like to think it's the attention that this blog brought to the story last week. But I'm guessing there was a different motive at work.

Crap Blogger Of The Month

Locating a blogger who's worse than Kaus or Sully is hard to do, but I think I've found a good candidate: Dave Winer.

Here's Winer on Howard Dean and his presidential campaign:

Several times, in different contexts at BC, I said that I don't care for the Dean weblog. I explained, when I go there I don't find anything that interests me. I see stuff that probably makes sense to people who support Dean but I'm not one of those people. I think the guy's an actor, and he tweaks a certain kind of person's optimism, but not mine. And get this, even if he did, after what I've seen in politics in my 48 years, and especially this year, I'm not believing anyone without a lot of questions answered in a way that add up for me. I think Dean's supporters, many of whom I admire, are selling out too soon and for too little. Dean is taking their money and giving it to Viacom, Disney, General Electric, Clear Channel, Fox and Time-Warner, just like all the rest. That's who owns him, not you. Now tell me something new on that blog, something honest, or even interesting, and I'll say so. But so far, zzzzz.

And get this, if Winer finds the Dean campaign blog boring, who I am to argue? But to criticize Dean for using campaign contributions on broadcast and cable ads is just moronic. Like every other candidate, Dean needs to buy television time to run a viable presidential campaign. He can't get his message heard on a whistle-stop train tour or by painting his name on the sides of barns. And he can't compete with Bush through buying blogads and with webchats.

Find me one internet contributor to Dean who thought Dean was going to plow his or her entire donation back into the web. That person doesn't exist. Suprisingly enough, Whiner, the people who contributed to Dean did so because they want him to become President. They know what Dean needs to do to get his message to the most voters -- national advertising. And they know that Dean (if he gets the nomination) needs to fight Repubican smears in the same forum they are made.

Of course, whining about media conglomerates while handing the election to Bush will just get you four more years of Michael Powell or his equally vile replacement, and more outlets in the hands of Murdoch, G.E. and Clear Channel. But you wouldn't want to use the power of the media to solve that problem, now wouldja Saint Dave?

p.s. to the Dean campaign: Of course, the internet is a valuable tool for getting information to supporters, bypassing Republican hacks like Tim Russert and, yes, raising contributions. And Roger Ailes, the weblog, is part of any savvy -- and thrifty -- pol's new media buy. E-mail me, Howard, and I'm sure we can do some business Davey will look upon with great favor.

p.s. to Dave: What the hell does a photo of a nurse have to do with the New York Times? And if campaign blogs are so fucking boring, why would the Times want or need a blog to cover them?

I'm Going to Rehab, I Swear

Just one more on Rush, and then I quit. I promise. I want to go out with a bang, if you get my drift. Hee hee hee.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you one giant sack of shit, from his forthcoming book "I Want To Tell You":

"Based on some things that I have read, things that people have written - and I understand it, what people have said - let me try one more time, ladies and gentlemen, on the story about me and drug use. When I said Friday that I didn't yet know what I was dealing with and that when I did I would tell you everything, I meant exactly that. Some people are interpreting that to mean, well, in fact, let me just be blunt. People are saying that I'm being Clintonesque, that I'm waiting until I know everything I have to deal with so that I can figure out what I have to lie about. That's what I said that Bill Clinton always did when we were waiting for him to come forth.

"Ladies and gentlemen, that's not what is going on here at all. I am waiting to find out just exactly what I am facing legally. And until I know that, I'm not going to say anything, I can't. But as I said Friday, I asked you to trust me, and I'm asking you again to trust me now and today. When such time comes, fear not; what there is to be known will be known, and I will tell you. But until it is permissible and makes sense for me to tell you that, I can't, and I won't. But I'm not holding anything back, and I'm not determining what it is that down the road I'm going to have to lie about. Believe me, I don't even have any desire to do that, and I haven't. So this is simply a matter of waiting until it is permissible. And when - as I say - until I know what I'm dealing with, I mean exactly that." (Quoted in full; I'm not linking to this sack's website again.)

Of course, not a single word of this is true. If you're not going to lie, Flush, why wait to find out what you're "facing legally?" If you're going to tell the truth, what does it matter what the legal consequences are? You're not holding anything back? -- you're not saying anything! Nothing is stopping you from telling the truth. Silence is the smart move legally, but even your dildoheads know you're lying when you say you can't talk.

You're not Clintonesque; you're Limbaughesque.

Find Your Polling Place

If you're a Californian, that is.

Tomorrow I will have an open thread for California residents (and anyone else, really) to discuss personal experiences, observations and news about the recall election.

One Last Shot ... And Then I Go Cold Turkey

"The court has also accepted cases that raise other civil rights and civil liberties issues.... An Arizona case turns on the rights, under the Americans With Disabilities Act, of an employee fighting drug addiction. By the time the court is done filling its docket, it may add term-defining cases on civil liberties in post-Sept. 11 America." -- New York Times editorial, October 6

Maybe Rush could file a friend of the court brief, accusing the employee of "find[ing] some greedy lawyer to buy [him or her] a ticket for the big-money lawsuit gravy train." And send it up to his friend on the high court, Clarence Thomas, tucked inside some porno mags.

I wonder if Bill Rehnquist will recuse himself on this one.

Brother, Can You Paradigm Shift?

"I told Doc tonight at dinner that I think we're at the cusp of a communication revolution with shifts in power as great as those at the end of the 1980s."

And then Issac brought me another Sex on the Beach, and I tried to feel up Captain Stubing's niece, you know, the one from Annie. I think I saw the Landers sisters too.

TIME reports that the Traitorgate investigation is led by one "Inspector John Eckenrode, a seasoned veteran of leak probes and other sensitive investigations."

Anybody know anything about him?

Should Rush Limbaugh ever make it to steps 4 through 10 of NA, here's some comments from the past 12 months he might want to reconsider:

"All [Maureen Dowd] has now is bourbon for mouthwash, and it's showing on her columns." -- October 21, 2002

"To Ted Kennedy, whose liver is said to be shaped like a Chivas Regal bottle, what Bush said and what's best for America and the Iraqis doesn't matter." -- September 23, 2003

"In the audio link below, I go into detail about these non-thinking talking points that 'you can't tell people what to do with their bodies' and 'you can't legislate morality.' First of all, we tell people what they can do to their bodies all the time - no cocaine, no prostitution, no throwing yourself off a building. Second, laws are nothing but defining morality!" -- June 27, 2003

"In a recent speech to the American Bar Association, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy complained about mandatory-minimum sentences. He claimed that sentences are too long and punishments are too severe.... [Paras.] Someone needs to remind Justice Kennedy that it's the legislative branch, not the Supreme Court, which makes law. Mandatory minimums are totally constitutional. And these tough sentencing laws were instituted for a reason. The American people, including liberals, demanded them. Don't you remember the crack cocaine epidemic? Crack babies and out-of-control murder rates? Liberal judges giving the bad guys slaps on the wrist? Finally we got tough, and the crime rate has been falling ever since, so what's wrong?" -- August 18, 2003

I will be posting links to the Democratic Presidential candidates' blogs in the righthand column shortly (which means sometime prior to the '04 election).

From the official campaign sites, I can only locate official blogs for Clark, Dean, Edwards, Graham and Kerry. If there are any good unofficial blogs for the remaining candidates -- or if I am mistaken -- please let me know.

Offer void in Canada and wherever Lyndon LaRouche is located.

Choose the Headline

A. "Schwarzenegger Bus Named 'Predator One;' Kaus Praises Arnold's Refreshing Honesty"

B. "Arnold Says: I'm Not A Nazi, I Just Admire Their Tactics"

I lean toward B, based on this quote:

As they were handing them out, the emcee revving up the crowd for Schwarzenegger asked the audience to welcome the media to town. With one exception:

�Who�s the guy with the LA Times?� the host asked. �Find him and beat him up, will you?�

And if she's a woman, grab her breasts and shove her up against a wall. For Sully's sake.

Kaus's Hero, Andy's Eagle, Deb's Old News

From the Los Angeles Times:

A 51-year-old woman who said Schwarzenegger pinned her to his chest and spanked her shortly after she met him at a West Los Angeles post-production studio in 2000.

Tamee Smith, 46, who said Schwarzenegger followed her into a bathroom on a studio lot and grabbed her breast during work on the movie "Predator" in 1986.

Jan Prinzmetal, 50, who said Schwarzenegger reached under her skirt and grabbed her bare buttocks outside a Venice gym in the mid-1980s.

Elizabeth Rothner, 45, who said Schwarzenegger lifted her sweatshirt at a popular Santa Monica bar in 1979, exposing her bare breasts before a crowd.

The Times provided details of each of the new allegations to Schwarzenegger's campaign Saturday. The candidate's spokesman, Sean Walsh, said Schwarzenegger had said that the accounts of three of the women were untrue. Walsh said Schwarzenegger had no recollection of the alleged Venice gym incident.

P.S. to Deb: Are the 00s now off-limits too? Let us know.

More Worthless Than A UT Law Degree

Jesse Taylor at Pandagon features a Glenn Reynolds post that is 10 times more stupid than the one featured below. And he dissects the hell out of it.

Here's the sum and substance -- or nub and nubbin -- of what passes for coherent thought in Tennessee higher education:

One comment that I made in passing earlier, and that seems more and more relevant as I think about it, is that the White House has a lot to gain by subpoenaing reporters who know about the Plame leaks. Doing that serves several useful purposes. First, once the press clams up and starts going on about protecting sources, it becomes extremely hard for it to claim that the White House is covering things up. "Who's stonewalling now?" can be the response.

Second, the press's complaints will look like special pleading (which they are). "If you leak this you're a traitor, but if we publish it, we're being great Americans," won't wash.

Jeez! And Jesse just annihilates Reynolds.

For Reynolds' sake, one can only hope that there was a severe carbon monoxide leak in his Cambridge hotel room, or that he was doing 'shrooms and angel dust with Dave Winer and Chris Lydon.

Also, I must apologize to the Cranes. Compared to this, you folks are Nobel prize winners.

Fischbacher & Horn

Certified public accountants?

CIA front company?

Abercrombie & Fitch without the pseudo-porn?

Submit your guesses in the Comments section, but don't reveal the answer if you know.

(The answer is here.)

How To Be A Hack

Learn from the master.

Step 1: Post a story which you claim supports your bias. In Figure 1, we have Tennessee Dim, the Instacracker, linking to a story reporting that Polish soldiers found 2003 model French missles in Iraq. Instapimp leaves out most of the paragraphs in which the French government denies the charge, although he does retain the denial reported in the second paragraph.

Step 2: Leap to a conclusion not supported by the story. Here, the Tennessee Hack concludes: "It's as if the French don't care about international law." But the story reports both the Polish allegation and the French denial. Which is correct? The story doesn't say, and the Cracker doesn't know, but he makes up his mind anyway.

Step 3: When forced to make a correction, misrepresent the facts. No surprise here, but the Cracker is wrong. In an "UPDATE" (not "Correction") to Figure 1, Reynolds states: "Here's a story saying that the Poles are wrong." But the story (Figure 2) actually says that the Poles admit they were wrong. That's not the same thing as "a story saying the Poles are wrong."

The story says:

Iwinski [an aide to the Polish Prime Minister] said the matter has been settled. "It was wrongly said that the rockets were produced in that year," Iwinski said by telephone from the summit. "President Chirac has accepted Prime Minister Leszek Miller's explanation."

The Poles did the honorable thing and admitted their error. The Professor refuses to do the same.

What I Know

The facts are changing from hour to hour, and I don't know everything I'm dealing with here. It's an emerging situation. But here's what I do know.

I've never purchased prescription drugs without a doctor's prescription.

I've never asked anyone to give some of their prescription drugs to me, or buy me prescription drugs for which I didn't have a prescription.

I've never e-mailed anyone about prescription drugs for which I didn't have a prescription.

I've never exchanged money for prescription drugs at an Amoco station or the parking lot of a Denny's.

I have not gone to detox.

I have not cleared any of the foregoing statements with my lawyers before making them.

But that's just me.

Even The Mooniofascist Washington Times

In the Nobles & Knaves column:

Knaves: The leaker (or leakers) who revealed the name and CIA employment of the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV.

An unknown number of secrets have been compromised and an unknown number of patriots have been jeopardized as a result of that selfish act.

The leak was a deliberate and malevolent act. There is no excusing, and there can be no rationalizing it. It may have been intended only to discredit Mr. Wilson, but it could destroy many others. It already has stolen time from administration staffers and pilfered precious minutes from President Bush. The leak might even kill, if Mr. Wilson's wife were more than an analyst.

After all, because of the compartmentalized nature of the intelligence business, the leaker would have had no idea what secrets or lives would be endangered by the disclosure. The individuals in one intelligence department do not know the identities and the duties (much less the contacts or the secrets) of operatives in other departments. Nor should they. There is greater safety for all in darkness. To see most clearly, intelligence agents must stay in the shadows.

The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act provides appropriate penalties for those who pierce that protection. This considered act clearly falls under that statute.

There is neither safety nor honor in the company of a felon. Once the identity of the leaker is discovered, he or she must be prosecuted to the full extent of the statute; he or she must be punished to its most severe degree. Mr. Bush must take the appropriate action when the identity of the leaker is discovered.

And here too.

Do the Moonies know who the leaker is?

Wingnut Logic

Whether or not the allegations of drug abuse against Rush Limbaugh are true, it would seem that, if true, he has come to his senses and gotten clean. Leftists never will.

The Cranes

And it took at least two people to come up with that!

Every Chart Tells A Story

At Shock & Awe, Kynn Bartlett lays out the timeline on the Limbaugh drug allegations. If the allegations pan out, the timeline eviscerates Joe Farah's argument that Rush took the pills due to the pain caused by a cochlear implant. The timeline is also consistent with the theory that the drug abuse caused the hearing loss, although of course they would not prove causation.

Meanwhile, at UggaBugga, Quiddity provides a helpful chart of which hacks are using which Administration talking points on Traitorgate.

Press Box Hack

In Slate, Jack Shafer, media columnist turned master of legislative intent, spins like a top for Karl "K-Traitor" Rove and/or whoever else disclosed the identity of covert operative Valerie Plame to Bob Nofacts. Shafer asks "Exactly what law did Robert Novak's leakers break?" Then he says, "the biggest problem will be proving leakers broke the law."

Well, proving a violation of the law is usually the biggest -- and only -- "problem" in a criminal prosecution, but in this case it's not as a big a problem as Shafer argues (hopes?).

Shafer offers future defense counsel and Admin. apologists some "talking points":

The problem with the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is that it doesn't appear to apply to the Novak case. To win a conviction, the law requires, among other things:

1) That the individual has or had "authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent." If Novak's administration sources had only unauthorized access to the information about covert officer Plame, learning about her identity and her mission, say, in a hallway conversation from a visiting CIA officer, the law wouldn't apply here. Perhaps they might go after the hypothetical CIA officer, but they'd run in to a slew of other legal problems sketched out below.

Shafer insinuates that prosecution would have to prove that the leakers learned of Plame's status in the course of an authorized conversation or briefing. But the law quoted only says the leaker has to have authorized access to the information. If they were authorized to have access to the information, it doesn't matter if they learned of the information during an "unauthorized" conversation. (I'd even argue that the leakers had authorized access to the information based upon learning it in a hallway conversation, unless they were expressly forbidden access to such information.)

2) That in addition to having had authorized access to the information about the covert agent, the individual must have "intentionally" disclosed it to an individual not authorized to receive classified information. This clause protects the government employee or member of Congress who might accidentally blurt out the name and identity of a covert agent....So, in addition to the other tests, a prosecutor would also have to prove the leaker's intent to blow the agent's cover. This poses a huge problem in the Novak case because the vague language of his column doesn't identify Plame as covert, but as a "CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction." It's plausible that Novak's source didn't know�as we now know�that Plame was "undercover."

Wishful thinking Jack! Nobody blurted out anything. And if the Plame wasn't undercover, why would the leakers need to tell Novak? There's no need to show any malicious intent, the act of making a statement itself establishes an intentional act.

3) That the individual knew he was disclosing information that identifies a "covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." ... So far, we have no evidence that the United States is taking "affirmative measures" to protect Plame's identity.

Ah, but we do -- the CIA told Novak not to disclose the name. The statute doesn't require the CIA to assassainate Novak to keep the information concealed, any act by the CIA to conceal the fact will do. The mere fact that the CIA identified Plame as a covert agent is an affirmative measure to conceal the relationship. The mere fact that the CIA established a cover to begin with is an affirmative act. And the fact that others may have know Plume's status -- if you believe someone like Cliff May -- doesn't mean that the CIA was not taking measures to conceal the fact, it means the measures weren't entirely sucessful.

Shafer's hed is "Stop the Investigation!," and there's no doubt it reflects his desires. But when does law enforcement stop an investigation of crime because it doesn't have all the evidence necessary for a conviction at the beginning of the investigation?

Update (10/5): At Corrente, Tresy makes the point that Shafer didn't bother to read the entire statute he was supposedly interepreting. So Shafer should have called his article "Stop the Investigation, I've Got A Short Atten .... Is That Pudding?"

Information Wants to Be Twee

I shouldn't make fun of BloggerCon. I'll let it do all the work by itself:

To simplify the convergence I am seeing: Adam Curry comes now to the summit of blogging from The Netherlands and show business, with a head full of ideas about practical technology to liberate expressive international artists. Dave Winer is a genius programmer and blogging pioneer who wants to use the human voice to focus and spread the blog gospel. I'm a political journalist and talk-radio jockey who wants to use the free, global range of the Internet to extend the magic of good conversation. So here we are at BloggerCon, scratching each other's backs, learning fast and expecting to make something happen. Here's my first encounter with Adam.

And, courtesy of Disinfotainment, I'll let Andrew Orlowski, have a crack at the head Con man:

I found myself reading the $500-a-head man's own website yesterday. And then it all made sense.

"Whatever happened to singing around the campfire, or family singing at holidays? Just because a handful of people do it so perfectly, does it mean that the rest of us should be deprived of the pleasure of self-expression," [Dave Winer] wrote.

Surely no one is depriving Winer of the pleasure of self-expression, any more than we can resent a dog licking its own balls.

Oh, and checkout the webcast. Technology at its finest.

Update: Heh.

Update 2 (10/5): The Con seems to have gotten its tech (webcast) problems solved. The content, I'm not so sure.

And a clarification: My bashing is directed at the self-important and deluded organizers, not the participants. I have a great deal of respect for some of the speakers and participants, including Joshua Marshall and Oliver Willis. I'm listening to the panel moderated by Jarvis, and the participants seem sensible. Jarvis comes off as a bit of a pratt, but is willing to let others speak.

Update 3 (10/3): Oliver Willis got in for free (see Comments). My respect for him continues to grow.

Real Dems Not Wanted

Bob Somerby nails it in one -- one sentence, that is:

Estrich, of course, is a �Fox News Democrat��is even more likely to trash her party than the �Hardball Dems� seen on MSNBC.

Homeschooling For Dummies

Cornfed media analyst Kyle Williams makes the case against homeschooling by offering an example of his own limited writing and analytical skills.

Rush has always been surrounded by controversy, and he is hated by many. I'm sure that goons at the National Enquirer and dozens of other media outlets have been looking for dirt on him for years. And after being on the air for over a decade, this accusation has beaten all others. [What the fuck?]

Somehow, I have to believe this was manufactured. If Rush really did have such illegal and substantial problems since 1998, as the housekeeper claims, it would have been reported long ago by a more reputable source.

Kyle should fire his teachers immediately.

Wesley Clark's campaign has an official blog, called Generally Speaking.

Keep an eye out for the new Bush '04 blog, Just Deserters.

Free Legal Advice

If you're ever on trial for murder, lose any nicknames with the word "Murder" in them.

Hell-Hole Kitty

Kitty Parker, dimmest of the dim, writes:

Limbaugh's pill-popping allegation is without factual basis at this point.

Well, it might turn out to be false story, but it's got plenty factual basis, namely, two accusers and an alleged paper trail leading right to and from rprivate@eib.com. And, of course, no denial whatsoever.

Here's how to tell the difference, Kitty: Your story about hunting women with paintballs in Las Vegas has no factual basis at this point; the Limbaugh story.

And it's not Limbaugh's allegation either.

Wankers, Start Your Engines

Only the fortunate, anointed few will learn at the feet of Jeff Jarvis and Adam Curry. And go home $500 lighter.

Anyone who believes Bush talks like this in conversation, raise your hand:

President Bush expressed support of radio star Rush Limbaugh in conversations with top staff on Thursday, a senior administration source told the DRUDGE REPORT.

"Rush is a great American," the president said of the beleaguered host, who has championed the conservative movement for decades. "I am confident he can overcome any obstacles he faces right now."

Rush doesn't want to talk about it until he learns all the facts.... So already this is a learning experience.

Rush Transcripts

Not surprisingly, various sources are turning up quotes from Rush Limbaugh in which Rush demands jail time for those using drugs illegally. ABC has this quote:

Back in 1995, Limbaugh told his audience on the syndicated Rush Limbaugh, The Television Show that people who are obtaining drugs illegally should be held responsible.

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," he said to his audience during the broadcast.

And here in Newsday, Rush is quoted as follows:

"What this says to me," he told his listeners that day, "is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

Now these quotes predate his alleged illegal drug use by three years.

But Rush's lack of sympathy for the addicted is very current. Three months ago, he wrote this commentary (presumably either a script prepared for his program or a transcript from it):

Drunks Sue Big Booze

July 21, 2003

Last week, I brought you the junk science study making the absurd claim that fast food is as addictive as heroin....

Now this from UPI: "Glasgow, Scotland - A dozen alcoholics ranging in age from 18 to 60 are going to sue drink makers for not warning them about the dangers of alcohol.... Attorneys representing the group said they will employ tactics used by attorneys representing cancer victims in suits against tobacco companies in the United States."

I just don't believe it! Attorney Jim Price said, "Alcohol is now promoted in the same way that cigarettes were in the 1950s. Manufacturers want us to believe that drinking alcohol is sexy and trendy.' Yeah, Captain Morgan is the new Joe Camel. You know, there's this problem of not accepting responsibility for what you do. Somebody else is always to blame for the decisions you make. It's just maddening, this mentality to blame someone else for your thirty-seven adult beverages a day, and then find some greedy lawyer to buy you a ticket for the big-money lawsuit gravy train.

Maybe some good can come out of this story, apart from giving me such an easy target. Such as greater public support for drug law reforms. Is there any great benefit to jailing people for drug use, except maybe to keep them away from the drugs (assuming they can't get drugs in jail)?

Joe Farah and Lucianne Goldberg are vowing to stand behind Rush Limbaugh.

If you ask me, Rush, you're better off with the narcotics.

Remember Back In Eighty-Two....

Deb Saunders imposes a three-year statute of limitations on criticism of Arnold:

Debra Saunders, a conservative San Francisco Chronicle columnist who says she is troubled by Schwarzenegger's treatment of women, called the Times story "vile" and said "it makes our profession look horrible."

"To look at something that's 20, 30 years old, that's just not fair and not relevant," Saunders said. "If you have to go back to the '70s, '80s and '90s to make your point, maybe it's not a point."

Somehow I can't imagine Deb applied such a time limit to, say, Whitewater or President Clinton's activities during the draft. Or that she would apply it to assault committed against herself.

Indeed

TBogg gets it right:

And, Jesus Christ, I hate people who use the word meme to give their writing that gloss of inch-thick fake intellectualism. It's like people who use paradigm. You just want to whack them with a five-pound bag of horseshit.

Governor Farrakhan

It's a relief that Mickey Kaus didn't find Arnold's admiration of Adolf Hitler as "refreshing" as Arnold's acknowledgement of sexual battery. That would be sort of awkward. Still he does manage to get a few giggles out of it.

Maybe someone could translate some of the Nazi Party's slogans for Mick. I understand their identity politics make La Raza look like ... well ... a peaceful, progressive student organization.

Try Looking Under Saddam's Mattress

_ On biological weapons, a single vial of a strain of botulinum, a poison that can be used as a weapon, located at the home of a known biological weapons scientist.

_ On chemical weapons, multiple sources told the weapons hunting group that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled program after 1991. There had been reports that Iraq retained some of its old chemical weapons but Kay said none had been found.

_ On nuclear weapons, Kay said in his statement to Congress that despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, "to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material."

_ But on missiles, Kay said the team had "discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements."

Better luck next time.

Pathetic

And, no, I don't have an opinion on the Limbaugh drug scandal. I just hope that criticism of Limbaugh isn't motivated by prejudice against people with disabilities....

What disability would that be, Professor? Hearing loss -- no, the alleged drug use predated the hearing loss. Drug addiction? Criminality? Anal cysts? Congenital lying? Congenital bigotry?

You do have an opinion, Professor, it's just a half-assed one.

It's Foolproof! She'll Never Go Anywhere Near There

Cline said she found a new supplier for Limbaugh and worked out a way to hide the pills from his wife, Marta, by stashing them under his mattress.

If that doesn't have the ring of truth, I don't know what does.

A Public Service Announcement From Roger Ailes (The Blog) and the U.S. Ad Council

Nick: Okay, so it's true.

Norm: What's true?

Nick: Drug money funds terrorism.

Norm: It is true.

Nick: Okay...!

Norm: Okay...?

Nick: Look, let's say I buy some dope.

Norm: Let's say.

Nick: Hypothetical.

Norm: Let's say.

Nick: Now how much of my money actually makes it to the bad guys' hands? A couple of bucks.

Norm: A few bucks.

Nick: A few bucks! That's it. Peanuts.

Norm: So what you're saying is that it's okay to support terrorism... a little.

Nick: Did I say that?

(Via Naked Tiny and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Rush Could Name Names, End Controversy

Atrios has CNN's take on the Limbaugh story:

It appears that Limbaugh is a part of a drug investigation, but they're targetting the suppliers and not the buyers.

Sure is nice being a rich white illegal drug user.

Rush should take his own advice:

Media & Wilson Could Name Names, End Controversy

October 1, 2003


Robert Novak's latest column sets straight all the distortions the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the press have used to blow this Mrs. Joe Wilson story up 300 times what it is.

...

Why doesn't the media voluntarily say what it knows? That way, the government's not forcing them to reveal their sources. The media is stoking this into a scandal. They could totally shut this down, but there's not one word to Novak to do so because they want the investigation. The effort here is to pin some illegality on Bush personally so that they can create a scandal. They think that he's had a three-year free ride where everything he said was believed, because he could always cite 9/11. Now the press is saying, "Wait a minute. We're not going to be cowed by this 9/11 business or the war on terror. We're going to demand some answers." Fine, but how about demanding answers from their own? (Emphasis added.)

Good advice, Flush. Why wait for the authorities to come to you "in the future"? You should step forward and assist them in their drug trafficking investigation. That way, the government's not forcing you to reveal your sources. And you can clear your good name in the process.

Is That A Denial?

Rush Limbaugh, on his contacts with Bush Administration officials regarding Valerie Plame.... or something:

"I am unaware of any investigation by any authorities involving me. No governmental representative has contacted me directly or indirectly. If my assistance is required in the future, I will, of course, cooperate fully." -Rush Limbaugh

(From his website.)

I'm not wild about compelling journalists to reveal information, but if Novak is going to spin the story and characterize his sources' purported intent, then let him have it with both barrels.

All I Want For Christmas

So why would Rush Limbaugh link to a story about a Santa robbing a pharmacy of its OxyContin?

I wonder what Rush had to say about the story on his program, if anything. The link is dead, but this appears to be the same story.

Hillbilly Heroin

"In one missive, Limbaugh pushed Cline to get more 'little blues' - code for OxyContin, the powerful narcotic nicknamed hillbilly heroin, she said." -- New York Daily News, October 2, 2003

Self-Promoting Idiot Refers To Self In Third Person, Pretends People Give A Shit About Her Opinions

Update: Sovereign Eye correctly points out that the press release doesn't say it was written by said SPI, but I'd certainly bet it was. The SPI is already posting "responses" to the press release in her blog.

p.s. -- If had had the technical proficiency, I'd do a "Separated at Birth" with SPI and either Mike Meyers or that guy from the League of Gentlemen.

Update (10/2): Blog link fixed. Enjoy.

Mickey Kaus' Hero!

Smirk your way out of this one, Little Mick:

Six women who came into contact with Arnold Schwarzenegger on movie sets, in studio offices and in other settings over the last three decades say he touched them in a sexual manner without their consent.

In interviews with The Times, three of the women described their surprise and discomfort when Schwarzenegger grabbed their breasts. A fourth said he reached under her skirt and grabbed her buttocks.

A fifth woman said Schwarzenegger groped her and tried to remove her bathing suit in a hotel elevator. A sixth said Schwarzenegger pulled her onto his lap and asked whether a certain sexual act had ever been performed on her.

...

[A spokesman] said Schwarzenegger himself would have no comment.

None of the women approached The Times on her own, and none was identified by Schwarzenegger's rivals in the recall race.

Ah... that locker room humor that Kaus so enjoys!

Kaus, who has all but endorsed the Batterator, was bragging earlier today about his speed vs. the edited Weintraub. Yet this article's been up an hour and he has neither a link nor a comment. (He does have a reference to Drudge, but he hasn't commented on the story.)

Advantage: Non-Hack!

The California Republican Party must be very proud.