skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Ooooh, what delightful timing. From this piece over at Section 15, we learn that the Bushista administration is casually dropping the whole "War on Terror" shtick, replacing it with the more pastel "global struggle against violent extremism" or some similar variation. But hold on there.
As I so presciently wrote back here (oh, man, I so love it when I see it coming), once a "war" is officially over, the Geneva Conventions make it clear:
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
So, is the "war" over or not? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Oh, my, what a difference a night makes, as I wake up this morning to learn that la Marsden is not a Postie anymore. So much for the "Rachel Marsden Watch". I guess I'll have to find someone else to pick on. Who could it be? Who could it possibly be? No.
However, as much as I adore Mme. Z, I am going to have to take issue with what she wrote both in her own comments section and here, where she writes:
If you follow his links, you'll see that Canadian Cynic implies that Marsden claims a column that never appeared in the Post did appear in the Post.
No, I didn't.
If you read my piece, you'll notice that I am obviously speculating wildly about what I thought was simply a rather odd incident. I never accused Marsden of deliberate deception. Rather, I described what I found as "curious," openly asked whether it might have been an "oversight," and even that "I could be completely off-base". I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been that I was just thinking out loud so it's a little grating for Mme. Z to write it up the way she did.
I mean, given that I explicitly admit that "maybe I'm reading too much into this," it seems a little gratuitous for Ms. Zerbisias to write "So Cynic, I think you're pushing it too far here." Um, yeah, I think I had already left open that possibility, if you know what I mean. However, let's tie up some loose ends here, shall we?
I still think Rachel sweetie was playing a bit fast and loose when she snuck that column into her list of publications here. Given that she started her association with the Post on June 1 to great fanfare, and that her columns were, after a few days delay, reproduced at her site, in dated chronological order, there's something just a little slippery about, after establishing a clear pattern, suddenly changing it without warning.
Of course, Marsden has every right to do what she wants at her web site. That's not the point. The point is, once readers get used to a certain ritual, it's a little underhanded to quietly change what's happening underneath with no notice. But, truth be told, I really wish I'd finished my thought at the time because, when I spotted this, my first reaction was, "Uh oh, this is the beginning of the end."
As I've already written, the column in question was just so racist and vile, I couldn't believe any paper (even the Post) would have printed it, and that's the only reason I looked a little closer.
Once I noticed the lack of Post publication date trailer, my immediate reaction was, she's on her way out. Once again, speculating wildly, I'm guessing that the Post folks were never overly comfortable with Marsden but, hey, they hired her and they were going to stick with her.
Until that column.
At which point, I'm imagining Rachel's higher-ups at the paper finally just gagging, handing it back and saying, "No." Followed by a discussion during which both parties agreed that maybe this just wasn't working out, sorry, but lots of luck in your future endeavours.
Wild speculation? Sure. Except that I wasn't the only one thinking thoughts like that -- see Matthew's similar thoughts here. And then I wake up to read that Marsden's cleared out her desk. Yeah, it all sort of fits now, doesn't it?
Remember, you read the totally unfounded, wild, talking-out-of-my-ass speculation here first.
Because it is so your turn, don't you think?
Oh, my ... apparently, Kate still has her knickers in a knot, as you can read here (scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to where the fun begins.) In order to truly appreciate the depth of Kate's petulance and hypocrisy, feel free to take a few minutes and read what started the whole thing. Take your time, I'll wait. Really. Dum de dum dum ... OK, to business, one annoying Kate excerpt at a time.
... an anonymous left wing blogger who has published a link to my contact info and home address in a post ...
Kate, honey, sweetie ... your contact info is splashed all over the web here. See? All that stuff under the 36-point header "Contact Kate". It's not like I published, say, your private cell number (as rumour has it you did to Belinda Stronach), or outed you from anonymity. Methinks you doth protest too much. Onward.
... a post that states I "don't like Muslims" ...
That's a subjective evaluation, of course, based on the obvious hilarity you find in the mistreatment of the detainees in Gitmo, to which I linked. Anyone reading my post had the same freedom to draw their own conclusions and decide, if they wished, that I was full of shit. Their choice.
For someone who is pretty much a one-person hate factory, Kate, you're awfully sensitive about criticism. You might want to consider a different career, one in which you don't so thoroughly piss off so many people. But I digress.
And finally:
... counsels others to do me harm ...
Really? I did that? Where? Assuming you're referring to my suggestion that anyone who wanted to do anything about "it" look you up, I could just as easily have been talking about, say, giving you a stern talking to, or papering your front hedge or something.
You do read a lot into stuff, don't you? I mean, it's not like I explicity encouraged violence (which, again, rumour has you did against some CBC reporter). Really, Kate. For someone so accomplished at dishing out abuse, you're awfully thin-skinned.
If some readers think I crossed the line, so be it. If they want to bitch and whine about it, hey, it's a free country and my comments section is open. But a word of warning -- I can put up with a lot of crap, but the one thing I'm not going to put up with is a lesson in civility from Kate McMillan.
P.S.: In a comment slightly further down at that first link above, Kate makes a sweeping generalization about left wing blogs "pushing the envelope way beyond criticism and namecalling." Namecalling? Does that include stuff like, say, linking to doctored, insulting photos of others?
Just trying to clarify the ground rules here.
From over at Washington Monthly:
In a sharply critical ruling, a Nebraska federal district judge said Union Pacific Corp. illegally discriminated against female employees by barring prescription contraceptive coverage from its health plans — even as it underwrote the cost of Viagra and drugs for male-pattern baldness.
....In its briefs, the railroad justified its decision to exclude birth control coverage by arguing that "because fertility is 'normal,' contraception is not 'medically necessary.'"
So ... the railroad's basis for coverage is whether or not a particular condition is "normal"? Maybe it's just me but, the last time I looked, a 4-hour woody was anything but normal.
Well, OK, I just have to be in the mood.
Back here, in addition to a delightful evisceration of Rachel Marsden, we had the added bonus of a good, hard smackdown of right-wing harpy Debbie Schlussel, who is the consummate poster child for the miracle of makeup.
For reasons known only to Schlussel and her therapist, poor Debbie seems positively fixated on lesbianism, writing:
Take a look at the raven-haired, petite Patrick with her long tresses. Then, look at the 7’2” Margo Dydek of Connecticut’s WNBA team—if you dare. Which one would guys rather date? Which one would most young girls rather be like when they grow up?
Hint: They aren’t making a scale version of Dydek Barbie anytime soon. Dyslexic young girls might unscramble the letters of her surname and get the right idea of what the WNBA is really about.
Now, here's the thing. Without the several pounds of spackle and grout, here's what Schlussel actually looks like (she's the one who's not Sean Hannity). And, here's a pic of Dydek.
The defense rests.
An exciting new development in the War on Terror:
In an interview, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said that discussions had begun on a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military.
All in favour of sending the lawyers to Iraq? Yeah, I figured as much.
Good Lord, I never realized how devilishly dishonest those terrorists were. According to one Lorne Gunter:
Seems al Qaeda took a page directly from the old Soviet play book for seized spies: When detained, insist you've been tortured. Then you'll get the world's media and NGOs on your side.
And to think that, all this time, I'd been feeling sorry for this guy. I feel so ... so ... used.
Oh oh.
The next time you visit the website of Microsoft Corp. to download some software, be prepared to let the world's biggest software company have a look inside your computer.
In a determined strike to quell the proliferation of counterfeit software, beginning today, Microsoft will require that all customers coming to its website for upgrades and other downloads submit their computers to an electronic frisking.
Now y'all understand why I run Linux.
Play nice. Don't make me stop this car and come back there.
Someone has their panties in a bunch. I'm thinking that, if you make fun of the inhumane treatment and torture of Muslims, then post your bio all over the Internets, well, gosh, you should be prepared for the fallout. What do conservatives call that? Oh, yeah. Taking "personal responsibility."
EXCITING NEW DEVELOPMENTS: Apparently, the fallout is now falling in, as your humble scribe is now being accused of ... what, exactly? Outing the infamous Kate McMillan by, as one commenter puts it, "giving out her contact info."
Why, yes, by God, that was devilishly clever of me -- linking to her publicly available home page and blog posts. My word, but I am an evil genius. Behold me and tremble! I am Galactus!
No, wait, scratch that. Wrong fantasy. Sorry.
No, I'm not going to eviscerate this piece by la Marsden for the mouth-breathing, hate-filled screed that it is. If you're not suitably offended by it, well, you are so reading the wrong blog. No, that's not what's so curious. Given how thoroughly vile this piece is, I was a bit surprised that it would have made it into print (even in the National Post). Or did it?
Marsden apparently reproduces her Post pieces here (an interesting arrangement) and, starting with her June 1 Post debut ("Don't Call Guantanamo a Gulag"), you can see the apparent dates of Post publication. For each and every one of those pieces, you can scroll to the bottom where you will read something like:
PUBLISHED: NATIONAL POST (June 1/05)
COPYRIGHT 2005 RACHEL MARSDEN
Except for the aforementioned piece. Scroll to the bottom -- no publication date. No copyright notice.
An oversight? Perhaps. I don't have that edition of the Post in front of me, and their web site makes it devilishly hard to track down her previous columns. So maybe I'm reading too much into this.
On the other hand, if that column never made it into print, then Marsden seems to have snuck something over on her readers -- sliding a non-published column into the midst of her published work, perhaps to give it a little more, shall we say, gravitas? I could be completely off-base here, so I'm sure a reader with way too much free time will set the record straight, one way or the other.
AND WHILE I'M HERE ... It's also curious that Marsden isn't listed as a Post columnist here. Everyone else seems to be. How odd.
And for my American readers who are sitting there thinking, "Who the fuck is Rachel Marsden?", well, I can't think of a better intro than this. Enjoy.
Courtesy of Mme. Z, I've just today discovered the eye-opening wingnuttery of one Rondi Adamson. It's hard to believe anyone could actually make Rachel Marsden seem sane but, what the hell, there you have it.
From a May 29, 2005 Star article, we have Adamson:
But the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere, are not defendants, or political dissidents. They are captured enemy combatants. It is not illegal to detain them until the conflict is over, according to the rules of war.
It's sad when someone just doesn't get the memo with the talking points. In the first place, the Bush administration is careful to always refer to Gitmo detainees as "illegal" enemy combatants, thereby depriving them of any and all rights under the Geneva conventions. 'Cuz you see, if they were just regular enemy combatants, well, then, they'd have all these rights and you just can't have that. But that's not all.
Adamson then shoots herself squarely in her argument by stating (correctly, it turns out) that, according to the rules of war, the detainees can be held until the conflict is over. Why, yes, Rondi, sweetie, that's right. And where exactly does that rule come from? Why, the Geneva Conventions -- the very set of rules that Adamson apparently just refused to acknowledge. You know, the rules that kind of say that detainees should be treated humanely and, well, not tortured or beaten to death. Right. Those rules. But wait. We're not done here.
Adamson (correctly, as I've already admitted) states that enemy combatants can be detained "until the conflict is over." Why, yes, at which point:
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities. [Emphasis added.]
Yeah, that's kind of an important qualifier, isn't it? So when exactly does this "War on Terror" officially end? That's a trick question, of course. It doesn't. A "War on Terror" is as meaningful (or, in this case, meaningless) as, say, a "War on Drugs." It never ends, which means Gitmo detainees could potentially spend the rest of their lives behind razor wire, all according to "The Rules."
A suitably snarky ending eludes me. My head hurts.
Clearly, not a sports columnist:
Many Americans have trouble deciphering the Tour's stage format, most not paying enough attention to understand the time gains mountainous stages can bring and the reasons behind teamwork and allowing rivals to win other stages.
Kansas City Star columnist Joe Posnanski admitted: "I don't understand how any of this works. I've been following the Tour de France since Armstrong started winning and I still don't get it. Stages? Time trials? And I'm not the only one who is mystified. Last week, a man called to ask if 'Armstrong had caught that guy Pyrénées for the lead.' I had to say, 'Uh, Pyrénées is not a person. It's a mountain range.' To which he replied: 'Oh, so he did catch him?'"
Posnanski later noted: "Hey, stupid people should be allowed to enjoy the Tour de France, too."
When questioned later, Posnanski replied, "'Irony'? Never heard of it. Why?"
Well, at least this guy does. This guy? Eh, not so much. I can live with the tradeoff.
The official excuse from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:
Asked on CBS why he did not investigate the leak when it first became public, Gonzales said: "This is the kind of issue that I felt that we should wait and see whether or not there would be some kind of criminal investigation. And of course, there was."
Shorter Gonzales: "We were hoping it would blow over."
Confused about the situational ethics of war? Not sure about the inherent complexities of international relations in a time of conflict? No problem. Let Weasel Boy explain it for you:
The "insurgents" don't give medical attention to anyone but their own. They are cowardly, murderous scum. Our soldiers are brave, dedicated heroes.
See how easy that was? Now, go fetch CC some more bourbon.
AFTERSNARK: Uh oh ...
The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war...
"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," said one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq, voicing a frustration now drawing the attention of academic specialists in military sociology...
While officers and enlisted personnel say they enjoy symbolic signs of support, and the high ratings the military now enjoys in public opinion polls, "that's just not enough," said a one-star officer who served in Iraq.
So much for that "dedicated" part.
Shorter Kate: "When they say they hate us because of what the left says, well, then it's the left's fault. When they say they hate us because of an oppressive and imperialistic U.S. foreign policy, well ... hey, how about that Lance Armstrong?"
AFTERSNARK: Apparently, according to some of the more thinking-impaired denizens of the right-wing blogosphere, those nasty, homicidal Islamofascists take time out of their busy days to check in on what we on the left have said or written lately, and adjust their plans accordingly.
I wasn't aware I had such power. What a thrill. Under the circumstances, then, a quick note to all those radical, dark-skinned terrorists: this woman really doesn't like Muslims. Not at all. Not even a little bit. In fact, she thinks Gitmo is a real hoot.
It's not like I'm suggesting you do anything about it. But if you really are checking out my blog on a regular basis, well, she's not hard to find.
In case there was any doubt, Lance Armstrong just annihilated everyone else in the final time trial of the TdF. Just another day at the office.
Following a link from Section 15, I took the "Which Star Trek character would I be?" challenge. Apparently, to my undying horror, I'm Wesley Crusher:
A brilliant learner with a knack for almost everything, you choose to spend your efforts in the pursuit of travels that extend your own potential.
Pardon me while I go space myself out the nearest airlock.
CORRECTION: Apparently, the test is not restricted to just Star Trek characters, but more generally SF/fantasy characters. That just makes it hurt even more. Why couldn't I be Galactus? I really want to be Galactus.
(Written in real-time, stream-of-consciousness -- deal with it.)
Whenever you have a dispute of some kind, there are typically two parties. The party of the first part we can call, say, the "injured" or "aggrieved" party. This is the party who feels it has been wronged and, in some way, wants compensation or justice.
On the other side, we have the party of the second part that we can call the "culprits" who are allegedly responsible for the injustice. With me so far? Good.
Now, in the simplest case, the injured party might just directly confront the "culprits" and ask them if they're responsible. If the culprits 'fess up, well, it's pretty much over. We know who's guilty, they've taken responsibility for it and all that's left is to administer some justice.
On the other hand, if the accused party pleads innocence, this is where one would normally demand an investigation of some kind. In cases like this, the behaviour of the two parties can be drastically different.
It's not unusual for the wronged party to go fairly public with their accusations, perhaps to make sure their story gets out and to gain public sympathy. That's not always the case, but it's common enough. They might be adamant that a wrong has been done, and they're absolutely determined to get to the bottom of it.
The accused party, on the other hand, could just as publicly deny any wrongdoing or, if they're more careful, on the advice of counsel, decide to just say "No comment." In cases like that, they might defend their refusal to comment by saying that it would be inappropriate to comment in the midst of an ongoing investigation but they want to assure everyone that they're co-operating fully with investigators.
You see where this is going, don't you?
The absurdity of the current "Rovegate" controversy is that the parties of the first part and the second part are, in fact, exactly the same party. On the one hand, we have the Bush administration, the alleged victim of having one of their covert operatives "outed," assuring everyone that no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than Commander Chimpy, while simultaneously circling the wagons, refusing to comment yet assuring everyone that they're co-operating fully. Can it possibly get more ridiculous than this?
The absurdity, of course, is that when White House Press Weasel Scott McClellan takes to the podium, he is, in fact, representing both parties at the same time. He will, as the victim, be adamant that George Bush wants to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible while, in the next sentence, switch hats to represent the defendants and tell everyone that it wouldn't be appropriate to comment (which, of course, he has already done and continues to do, on behalf of the injured party, but not the defendants).
The WH Press Corpse are being driven totally bugfuck simply because they haven't figured this out yet. In a very real sense, McClellan is smack in the middle of one of the most bizarre conflicts of interest imaginable. It's as if he's acting as the spokesman for both the plaintiff and the defendant in one of the most sensational criminal trials ever held. How weird is that?
Even weirder, the WH Press Corpse continues to let him get away with it. But wouldn't it be delightful if someone, anyone (hello, Helen Thomas?) were to ask something like, "Scott, when you say you aren't going to comment on this investigation, are you speaking on behalf of the president who claims he wants to get to the bottom of this, or on behalf of the accused White House staffers who are currently under investigation for that crime?"
Even better, perhaps someone should suggest that it's simply time for McClellan (or any other WH staffer) to recuse himself or herself due to a grotesque conflict of interest.
Is any of this making sense?
P.S. I reserve the right to go back and make aesthetic fixes to this article when I'm feeling more coherent.
Most people have undoubtedly heard of conservative apologist Bernard Goldberg's new book, "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken Is # 37)". If you haven't, all you really need to know is, in Bernie's opinion, the most damaging, most harmful individual in America today is none other than filmmaker Michael Moore.
Think about that for a second. According to Bernie, the person who is screwing over America the most is a filmmaker whose films no one is forced to watch, an author whose books no one is forced to read, someone who holds no public office so he has absolutely no legislative power over anyone, and is in no way responsible, even a little bit, for the quagmire in Iraq, the tanking U.S. economy, the mind-blowing deficit, unemployment, massive corporate downsizing and outsourcing, abortions, teenage pregnancies, sexually-transmitted diseases, racism or the current overwhelming corruption and downright criminal behaviour permeating the Republican Party.
Go figure.
Unlike White House Press Reptile Scott McClellan, I have no aversion to hypothetical questions so let me throw out this one. As everyone realizes by now, SCOTUS nominee John Roberts is almost certain to be confirmed as the next Supreme, even by Democrats who are most likely just going to hold their noses and give him a pass.
But what if Roberts doesn't play nice during the confirmation hearings? Everyone expects him to tap dance as much as possible, and avoid all the hard questions. But what if he just came right out and said, "Roe v. Wade? I think that was a horrendous decision, and I can't wait for the chance to overturn it."
Then what? In a more general sense, is there some level of mind-blowing wingnuttery Roberts could demonstrate during the hearings that would cause the Dems to just say, forget it, this guy's a loon? And would openly criticizing Roe v. Wade rise to that level of wingnuttery?
Better yet, is there some level of wingnuttery that would cause even moderate Republicans to vote against Roberts? That's hideously unlikely but you never know.
It's not like I don't have enough Canuckistan stuff to blog about but I'm mightily peeved with the indescribable stupidity of the Democrats -- quite simply, they got thoroughly snookered by Commander Chimpy's recent SCOTUS nominee. As it stands, given that nominee John Roberts has a stunningly brief career as a judge, there's virtually nothing the Dems can do to reject his nomination. But did it have to come to this? No.
If the Dems had had any brains whatever (something that is looking increasingly unlikely with each passing day), they could have prepared for this. Let me explain.
Naturally, over the last several days, the Dems had to put on an act of being ready to work with Bush; of being open to various nominees; of being willing to give any nominee a fair and impartial hearing. They really didn't have much choice there, did they?
However, if they'd had any spine and were willing to take a stand (yeah, right, this is the Dems we're talking about), they could have tried something like this:
"We're happy to say that we've had helpful and productive discussions with President Bush regarding possible nominees to the Supreme Court, and we want to assure everyone that we're prepared to give any nominee a fair and unbiased hearing. However, we want to make one thing clear.
While we're certainly willing to give the president wide latitude to select his nominee, there is one concession we are not willing to make. We want to make it clear that we will absolutely not accept a nominee that has a public and outspoken opposition to Roe v. Wade, and who has made it clear that he or she would be willing to overturn that decision.
We understand that the president is due great deference in his choice of nominee and, while we appreciate that, this is one issue that is simply a deal-breaker. It is not open to negotiation, and we will reject and, if necessary, filibuster any nominee with an open history of opposition to abortion rights."
Naturally, the wingnut demographic would have gone positively ballistic at such an anouncement, so what would it have accomplished?
First, it would have demonstrated that the Dems were willing to take a real stand, and would have put them clearly in the driver's seat with respect to womens' rights. It would have shown that they were willing to fight for at least one issue. But is that all?
Undoubtedly, the same wingnut demographic would have howled about the Dems having a "litmus test" for the nominee, to which the Dems could have responded a couple of ways.
First, they could have pointed out that Bush has his own litmus test for any nominee -- it's unthinkable that Bush would nominate anyone who wasn't a conservative. Not a compelling comeback, but a comeback, nonetheless.
A more effective comeback, however, might have been, "Damn right it's a litmus test. You can call it whatever you want but those are our conditions. We'll be flexible on everything else, but abortion rights are just not on the table, so deal with it." But what would all this have accomplished? In my opinion, plenty.
This approach would have first allowed the Dems to, within hours, reject Roberts as a nominee. As it is, they're pretty well fucked since they have no solid grounds to deny his nomination. But if they had drawn that line in the sand ahead of time, all they would have had to do was refer to Roberts' prior opinion on Roe v. Wade: "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." And that would have been the end of the discussion.
The Dems wouldn't have had to dig around, desperately looking for a rationale to keep this lunatic off of the Supreme Court. They could have just pointed at his words and said, "Sorry, no good. We told you what the rules were. Try again."
In addition, if the Dems had put this particular stake in the ground ahead of time, it would have made Bush look petty. The Dems could have come back with, "Several days ago, we made it clear that, while we were willing to work with this administration, there was one issue that simply was not open for negotiation, and that was abortion. We made it clear that we would not accept a nominee with a history of opposition to abortion rights who would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So it's extremely disappointing that this president saw fit to nominate someone who takes exactly this position."
Rather than being on the desperately defensive, the Dems could have taken the moral high ground and made Bush look like a total dick. Instead, they're pretty well screwed here, simply because they had no clue how to prepare for what they had to know was coming.
How pathetic is that?
COMMENTS ON COMMENTS: While, for the most part, I love my readership dearly, there are times when some of you make life far more complicated than it has to be. Before I reply to a couple of the comments, let me re-emphasize the major point I was making.
In my opinion, at this point, the Dems are pretty well screwed in terms of the Roberts SCOTUS nomination. Most of the news coverage I've seen suggests that, while Dems might give Roberts a good grilling during the confirmation hearings, his confirmation is pretty much a done deal.
On the other hand, if the Dems had taken the time to set some clear conditions beforehand, they would at least have had a fighting chance to reject Roberts. But not having the sense God gave a urinal deodorizer disc, the Dems were simply too stupid to figure out how to protect themselves and they have only themselves to blame. And now, to the comments.
Writes ahistoricality:
Unfortunately, his previous statements on Roe were written in the context of his work, and so it would be entirely possible for the Republicans to ooze their way around that objection, at least publicly, which is what they're doing now.
But this battle is not being fought in the courtroom, it's being fought in the court of public opinion. While this kind of tap-dancing, semantic parsing might fly in a legalistic setting, that's not what matters. There's no way the Dems would even think of trying to derail a SCOTUS nomination unless they felt they had public support behind them. And while the GOP apologists play word games, all the Dems need to do is point at Roberts' prior writings, as I describe above. Which argument do you think would be more convincing to the general public?
(In addition, given that the American public seems to be getting thoroughly annoyed with the semantic shucking and jiving regarding Karl Rove, do you really think they'd put up with even more of it here? I doubt it. I think this is an argument that would have leaned the Dems' way, at least according to the public.)
The jurist writes:
First, as you point out, the Dems didn't have much chance to do anything at all with regard to Roberts or any other nominee. And by taking a hard line like that, they'd have left themselves with absolutely no line of defence against a nominee who's not completely anti-abortion but who's otherwise an even worse Bush hack (Gonzales, anybody?).
Technically possible, but highly unlikely. It's hard to believe that Bush could find a nominee who's a total right-wing nutbar but still respects womens' rights. Possible, but unlikely. But that's not the point.
There's no way the Dems could have immunized themselves against every variation of a right-wing lunatic nominee. But by taking the stand I described above, they could have at least taken a firm stand on one issue. And while they might have taken some flak over it initially, they could have countered that this was a matter of principle and that's that. And, having done that, they could have at least had a prayer of rejecting Roberts or any other vocally anti-Roe nominee.
No, my proposal is not an instant solution. But it would have at least given the Dems something to work with, as opposed to what they have now, which is sweet fuck all.
AFTERTHOUGHT: There's one more point that's worth making. I think the Dems have the right to accuse Bush of reneging on his pledge to pick a "mainstream" nominee.
A recent poll, however, shows that a full 59% of the American public supports Roe v. Wade, which makes someone opposing it, by definition, out of the mainstream.
I would think the Dems might be able to get some mileage out of that. But you already know how smart I think the Dems are.
"Well, related to Karl Rove ... uh, ongoing criminal investigation ... um, we don't want to prejudge ... Hey! Look! Bright shiny thing!"
So let's run through the checklist for Commander Chimpy's recent Supreme Court nominee:
- White? Check.
- Male? Check.
- Thoroughly conservative? Check.
- Opposed to Roe v. Wade? Check.
- Supports prayer in public school? Check.
- Surprisingly short judicial career so as to minimize potential for embarrassing background checks? Check.
- Relatively young (50) so he has the potential to fuck up the Americal legal system for decades to come? Check, check and double check.
If the Dems can't get their backs up over this one, they really are a bunch of pussies. Oh, wait ...
For more detail and less snark, you can start with The Green Knigget.
OK, so we're not a world military power, but our right-wing waterheads don't take a backseat to anyone.
UPDATE: The full roster.
Here we go again -- another prime-time address regarding his next Supreme Court nominee that every network will be stupid enough to carry. So, the drinking rules: whenever Chimpy says:
- "freedom": one shot
- "democracy": one shot
- "mainstream": two shots
- "9/11": stab yourself in the eye with a pencil
Suddenly, Sister Mary Catherine felt the presence of an unspeakable evil ...
In that case, Rachel, sweetie, I'll be glad to oblige. Rachel writes:
As bestselling author and media bias whistleblower Bernard Goldberg told me recently:...
Oh, yeah, Bernie Goldberg -- that paragon of objective media criticism. Sometimes, this is so easy, there's no fun in it anymore.
From this morning's Mope and Wail:
In a new poll conducted for The Globe and Mail/CTV, 55 per cent of Canadians surveyed say the next government should let same-sex legislation stand, while 39 per cent would like to see an attempt made to repeal it. A further 6 per cent said they did not know.
Not to mix international metaphors or anything but when can we expect the same people who described Bush's 51%-48% victory over John Kerry as an overwhelming victory giving Bush a "mandate" to start downplaying the significance of a 55% majority?
And, yes, that's a rhetorical question.
... and then, because this fan was such a dick, they let the team cars drive over him as well.
Amuse yourselves. I'm going howling.
Canadian wingnut Damian Penny, touting the miracle cure of Commander Chimpy's tax cuts, quoting from the New York Times:
For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.
On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.
Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.
Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."
The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.
Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year.
And the continuation of that article, precisely where Penny stopped quoting (emphasis gleefully added):
That was similar, though much smaller than a sharp rise in tax revenue during the stock market boom of the late 1990's, which was followed by plunges in revenue when the market bubble burst.
But many independent analysts cautioned that the improvement, though notable, could prove ephemeral and that it did little to eliminate much bigger fiscal problems just over the horizon. "Lawmakers who allow themselves to be lulled into thinking that the economy is growing its way out of the deficit," wrote Edward McKelvey, an economist at Goldman Sachs in New York, "are unlikely to support the painful measures needed to reach a more lasting solution."
For one thing, analysts note, federal spending has continued to climb rapidly, about 7 percent this year. Despite cutbacks in many domestic programs, spending has surged for the war in Iraq as well as in certain benefit programs providing health coverage.
In addition, while a lot of the increase in tax revenue flows from the improving economy and higher incomes, part of the jump stemmed from a special factor: the expiration of a temporary tax break that allowed companies to write off their investment in new equipment much more rapidly than normal.
That tax break reduced revenue by about $61 billion in 2004, but it merely postponed taxes that companies would have to pay once their equipment was fully depreciated.
You see, boys and girls, why it's so important to follow the links and read the original. Otherwise, you'd think Mr. Penny was being honest and forthright, and we can't have that, can we?
AFTERSNARK: In what seems to be an attempt to appear fair and balanced, Penny follows his lengthy, carefully-snipped quote with an apparent caveat:
The tax cuts are not the only reason revenues are rising, as the Times report makes clear, but neither have they starved the government as Paul Krugman suggests.
Now, given that that last link is labelled simply with the name "Paul Krugman", you'd think it was a link to, you know, Paul Krugman, who'd probably have a different opinion on the efficacy of Admiral Bunnypants' tax cuts.
But, no. In fact, it's a link to the NRO's Donald Luskin, easily one of the stupidest human beings on the planet, who is criticizing Krugman. Fair and balanced? Yeah, I got your fair and balanced right here, buddy.
CNN's viewer question this morning:
Karl Rove: Real controversy or partisan politics?
Coming soon from CNN:
Dragging black men to their death behind pickup trucks: An unspeakably grotesque and horrific example of bigotry and racism, or just good ol' boys letting off a little steam?
From a commenter over at Digby's, the bumper sticker:
WHO DO YOU HAVE TO BLOW TO GET A PRESIDENT IMPEACHED AROUND HERE?!
Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks CNN anchors are a bunch of waterheads.
And the General goes to town.
Well, you knew the response was coming:
Legal experts say the predictions by Canada's top Catholic Cardinal that opponents of same-sex marriage will be prosecuted for publicly denouncing the unions are unfounded -- and at least one labels the prophecy "rhetorical hysteria."
Rhetorical hysteria? From the Catholic Church? This is news?
All Stephen needed were the police officer and the construction worker and he was seriously ready to party.
(Credit where credit is due.)
If you have the stomach for it, I recommend this Wall Street Journal editorial. It's entitled "Karl Rove, Whistleblower." Seriously. I couldn't possibly make up something this surreal.
Oh, lord.
Canada doesn’t have designated tabloid newspapers like the National Enquirer, but obviously we don’t need one. Some journalists are keen to scoot over and fill that void.
I swear, if I had a weaker heart, the irony would kill me.
And in a depressing display of unfortunate timing, we have (following a link from AmericaBlog) the following piece which demonstrates nicely what might happen when people really are that violently opposed to homosexuality:
Thought Toddler Gay, Dad Kills Son
(Tampa, Florida) A 21 year old Tampa man is charged with murder after his 3-year old son was pummeled into unconsciousness and then died.
Ronnie Paris Jr. went on trial for his own life this week in a Tampa courtroom. The toddler's mother, Nysheerah Paris, testified that her husband thought the boy might be gay and would force him to box.
Nysheerah Paris told the court that Paris would make the boy fight with him, slapping the child in the head until he cried or wet himself. She said that on one occasion Paris slammed the child against a wall because he was vomiting.
Well, that's one way to stop him from ever getting into a same-sex marriage, isn't it? I'm sure Cardinal Ouellet is breathing a sigh of relief even as we speak. Better dead than wed, right, Cardinal?
I just found this one I rather like.
Oh, man, I might just sit here and giggle myself into senselessness. Y'all remember those tough-talking, patriotic Young Republicans back here, no? The ones who think military action is just peachy as long as it doesn't muss their hair or intrude on their party time.
Well, apparently, that last little upscale shindig of theirs didn't work out so well:
Nevada's chapter of the Young Republicans has basically imploded, leaving its chairman with up to $25,000 in personal debt and allegations that he mishandled money.
All but three people have resigned from the statewide group, but the fallout could prove increasingly embarrassing to the entire state Republican Party.
Today, the chairman of the group, Reno resident Nathan Taylor, plans to hold a press conference attacking three of the state's party leaders -- Sen. John Ensign, Rep. Jim Gibbons and Rep. Jon Porter.
Taylor argues that the state's Republican delegation should have helped him fund the national Young Republican convention held last week at Mandalay Bay.
"I've got bills at the hotel I can't pay," said Taylor, a 29-year-old political science senior at UNR who said he had to quit his food service job and drop classes to plan the convention.
Taylor estimates that the convention, attended by about 600 people from around the nation, is at least $10,000 -- and up to $25,000 -- in the red.
As the chairman, he said he'll personally have to cough up the cash.
And how is it that Taylor could have buried himself in so much debt? Gosh, it couldn't be because he chose to have his little soiree at the goddamned Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino instead of, say, the Ramada, could it?
At the risk of a neck-snapping change of subject, this I think explains why the halls of higher academia really are a bastion of left-wing, liberal thought. Because conservatives are so fucking stupid, that's why.
AFTERSNARK: Poor Nathan gets TBogged. No, not "teabagged". "TBogged". Honestly, sometimes, you people ...
AND THERE'S MORE: Following a link from a TBogg commenter, it appears that really stupid, arrogant, youthful Republicans are pretty much par for the course. Jesus, do they take a course to be this dense?
According to a recent MSNBC poll, a full 41% of the American public still views George W. Chickenhawk as "honest and straightforward." Who are these people?
Regardless of how down you're feeling, you know you can always count on the Catholic Church to lower even further your opinion of your species. From this morning's Mop and Pail, we have Canada's top Roman Catholic cardinal, Marc Ouellet:
Once the state imposes a new standard affirming that homosexual sexual behaviour is a social good, those who oppose it for religious motives or motives of conscience will be considered as bigots, anti-gay and homophobes, and then risk prosecution.
Yeah, and how unfair would that be? To be considered an anti-gay bigot just because you're, well, bigoted against gays. How cruel.
To be fair, though, I think maybe it really is time to follow the Church's lead and return same-sex relations to where they rightfully belong -- between priests and their altar boys. Ah, for the good old days of traditional moral values.
Hey, folks! Are you currently pissed with the American government? Do you have some really nifty, top-secret, super-duper undercover information on, say, some CIA spies you'd love to spill without getting into serious shit, like felony charges of treason? No problem.
Apparently (according to the latest GOP-inspired spin), White House hitman Karl Rove didn't really commit a crime because, you see, when he outed Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, that was OK since he didn't actually refer to her by name.
Yes, apparently, that makes all the difference. So, rather than ridicule this self-serving spin for the utter codswallop that it is, why not take those lemons and make lemonade out of it? Let us declare open season on covert CIA operatives, who you can now out with impunity as long as you don't actually use their names.
Don't say, "John Q. Smith works for the CIA." That would be oh so wrong, and you would get into a world of trouble. Instead, say, "The man who lives at 1234 Main Street and claims to work at World Travel is a covert CIA operative." See how easy that is?
Don't say to the assembled press, "Fred Jones over there is a deep-cover, Middle East spy." No, rather say, "See that man over there? The one just coming out of the building, wearing the trench coat? No, not the blonde, the dark-haired man next to him. Yeah, that one. CIA spy. Trust me." And so on.
You get the idea, it's not hard. And, most importantly, don't listen to those gloom-and-doom whiners at the CIA who will probably just go on and on and tediously on about how you're jeopardizing the lives of loyal American citizens. Hey, you're not the one who proclaimed open season on them, are you? They can thank the White House for that.
(By the way, it might be fun to ask Scott McClellan at the next gaggle whether this sort of behaviour is within the law but, last time I checked, he really wasn't talking about it. Pity. I'd bet he'd really want to discourage this sort of thing but, hey, it's pretty much "No comment" for him these days, isn't it?)
Orange alert! Military recruiter in the building! Evasive action!
(Picture link stolen shamelessly from Steve Gilliard.)
It's not like I want to flog this decaying corpse of a horse any further (well, OK, sure I do), but here's a delightful bit of McClellanese from back in 2003 that any journalist should be able to use with which to club Scottie into unconsciousness:
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this is -- the issue here -- what is the issue here? Did someone leak classified information? Is that the issue?
Q It could be about changing the tone, too.
MR. McCLELLAN: All of a sudden now, we're trying to change the topic in this room.
Q There's a legal issue, there's an ethical issue, too. Going after a man's wife is unethical.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it. So let me be very clear...
That's right -- what was once li'l Scottie being "very clear" is suddenly grounds for no comment. I think it might be useful for someone to point out McClellan's 2003 words, then ask him what it means from now on whenever McClellan claims he (or President Chimpy, for that matter) are being "very clear."
Apparently, it's all the fault of us academic, political and cultural liberals, as we read here:
Specifically, here's what [Rick] Santorum wrote about the church pedophile scandal on a religious website called Catholic Online. ''When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."
So, when it comes to Catholic priests abusing and molesting children, well, I hope all you folks over there at MIT are hanging your head in shame. Who would have thought it was really your fault?
After the last couple days of Rove-a-palooza, it's hard to imagine there'd be anything to say about White House Press Weasel Scott McClellan's overwhelming hypocrisy that hasn't already been said, but let me take a shot at it.
Over here, we see the WH Press Corpse finally showing some spine, beating up on poor Scottie and Scottie simply hiding behind the now-robotic response of "I'm not going to comment on an ongoing investigation." Even the most innocuous questions are blown off with this lame rationale. But hold on. Look carefully about halfway down the page, at this exchange:
QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.
Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?
MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.....
Um ... hello? McClellan's response to the accusation above is, in fact, commenting on the investigation, isn't it? Not surprisingly, McClellan wants to have it both ways -- refusing comment when reporters are tearing him a new orifice, yet quickly (and most likely unthinkingly) leaping to Rove's defense when he thinks Rove has been unfairly accused.
It's hard to believe that no one in the room picked up on that. At this point, if McClellan wants to be consistent, he'd have to keep his mouth shut about absolutely anything and everything Rove-related but, as you can see, he's not up to the job. At this point, reporters could ask Scott if Karl Rove did indeed put out a Mafia-style contract on Plame's husband Joe Wilson and McClellan would have to just weasel out with a "No comment." Any substantive response would make it clear that McClellan is willing to comment, but only when it suits his purposes.
If the media want to screw Scottie over, all they have to do is pay more attention to what he's saying. How hard can that be? Oh, right. We're talking about the White House Press Corpse here. What was I thinking?
(Via Pharyngula), about this annoying:
United States: A South Carolina Druid couple have filed a complaint against a police officer who used a traffic stop as an excuse to try and convert them to Christianity.
I particularly like this part:
A full account of the incident is given on the Emerald Sanctuary Druidic Church web site, including the fill text of Officer Stewart's letter, where he admits he only works for the Police because of the witnessing opportunities it provides.
Here's a suggestion: why doesn't Stewart enlist? Then he can try converting Muslims in Iraq. I'm sure that would go over really well.
UPDATE: A more complete description of this can be found here.
It's not like there haven't been enough folks commenting on this latest idiocy from the Catholic Church (or, at least, one of its more ignorant emissaries):
EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith...
Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature...
Now, others have already bitch-slapped this stupidity more than adequately, so there's not much point in my piling on. I mean, come on, this is the Catholic Church -- of course they're going to be assholes. What were you expecting?
What's not getting asked, however (as far as I can tell), is why the New York Times gave this imbecile an entire op-ed piece to promote this scientifically illiterate rubbish.
Now, let's be clear -- a highly-placed member of the Catholic Church dissing biological evolution is certainly news, and most certainly should be covered as such. It's probably even front-page news, even at the Times. But that doesn't mean that it deserves an op-ed piece.
If the Catholic Church suddenly decided that the only proper role for women was to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, that would also obviously be news, but it's hard to imagine anyone at the Times giving some cardinal a full op-ed piece to defend his misogyny.
So what's the deal at the Times? Who made the decision to run that piece, and how are they defending it? And, to put a Canadian spin on this, if anyone out there is involved in the Canadian mainstream media, can you elaborate on whether that op-ed piece would have been accepted by any major Canadian newspaper? (I mean, besides the National Post. Or the Western Stunned Herd.)
Perhaps I'm just over-reacting, but I would have thought that there had to be some minimal journalistic standards for op-ed pieces, even at a paper as currently trashy as the Times.
Now this is getting a little more interesting the more I look at it. As Weasel Boy himself points out back here, it's not just the GOP that have been abusing the ".gov" domain name registration process. Apparently, the Dems are similarly sleazy, given the existence of the site democrats.gov. So what exactly are the rules here?
Well, according to just one of many online sources, there are pretty strict rules for registering a ".gov" domain name:
Restricted. May be registered for U.S. government sites - for example, whitehouse.gov, senate.gov, loc.gov/ (Library of Congress), usgs.gov (US Geological Survey)
Note the requirement for being a "U.S. government site". And, as hard as it may be to believe, I'm pretty sure that a political party doesn't constitute an official "U.S. government site," regardless of whether they're running the country or not. It strikes me that, according to the rules, neither of those two submissions should have been approved when they were first made. But the fact that they were does seem to open up a whole, messy can of worms.
If the Repubs and the Dems can get their own ".gov" domain names, why not other official political parties? Under the circumstances, shouldn't the Libertarians simliarly be allowed to register "libertarians.gov"? What about "greenparty.gov"? Or even "communistparty.gov"?
It's hard to imagine how the registration process could accept the first two names above, then reject everyone else. If someone's feeling ambitious, perhaps they'd like to try to register one of those latter names and see what happens. At the very least, I have to imagine it would be worth the entertainment value.
And, no, I'm not done with this whole issue yet.
A couple of days late but, really, an interesting tale of how to attract major industry:
Why Toyota chose Canada over Alabama/Mississippi.
(From the diaries. More evidence that an educated workforce and government-subsidized health care are the best forms of economic development -- kos)
They got a $125 Million is subsidies from the Canadians. But that wasn't what sealed the deal, because several southern states offered nearly double the subsidies. What sealed the deal was the quality of education that their potential workers in Canada possesed.
The extra subsidies offered by the U.S. state would have been eaten up by the need to train and educate the workers in those states to the standards of a modern mechanized and digitized automobile plant.
Read it all. Apparently, just throwing money at foreign corporations isn't enough anymore.
It's almost too easy.
A delegate from Florida, 27-year-old David Fletcher, said he participates in the Young Republicans because he thinks it's important for young people to get involved in politics.
But while Fletcher said he fully supports the war in Iraq, he said he has not enlisted and doesn't have plans to enlist.
When asked why, he said, "I'd rather not answer that question."
Pity. I'd think a reply like, "Because I'm a perfectly normal, young Republican, gutless, chickenshit coward who wants other people to fight and die for me." would make such great copy.
I'll just bet you've been wondering, "Where did Weasel Boy go? And how has he been filling his time now that he can't drag Terri Schiavo's persistently-vegetative body around anymore while weeping crocodile tears and flagellating himself"?
No fear, campers. I give you, the return of the wit and wisdom of Weasel Boy. Gaze in awe and be amazed.
A milestone of sorts -- this site hit 20,000 visits today, which proves only that there are way too many of you with no taste at all. Or perhaps just weird taste. Yeah, that's the ticket.
This will probably be of interest to only my American readers, but it seems that the Bush administration has been pushing the envelope with respect to registering and using Internet domain names that are technically reserved only for official government use.
As an example, there is the perfectly legitimate Social Security site www.ssa.gov, which is (to the best of my knowledge) the official online web page for Social Security. On the other hand, there is the clearly partisan (that is, Republican) Strengthening Social Security site, which would seem to violate the spirit, if not the actual letter, of the restrictions for registration of ".gov" domains.
Another apparent violation is the blatantly Republican site gop.gov, and the latest outrage appears to be an inappropriate registration of a ".mil" domain -- America Supports You, which is again pretty clearly GOP-oriented, at least from my reading of it.
Would anyone like to comment on what is and is not technically acceptable usage for the ".gov" and ".mil" domains in the U.S.? And if the GOP wants to play games like this, why don't the Dems do the same thing? How about registering domains like "fiscallyresponsible.gov", or "fightingterrorism.gov", or whatever else they can come up with?
If the Repubs are going to be this sleazy in terms of absconding with official government domain names and the Dems can't stop them, they might as well get just as sleazy.
In his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken describes a Saturday Night Live skit in which there is a rumour that the American president was exposed to radiation and was now 100 feet tall.
Responding to this, a (fictional) White House spokesman emphatically and categorically denied the rumour. When asked, however, whether the president was more than 90 feet tall, that same spokesman suddenly refused comment. At this point, Franken suggests, one can safely conclude that the president is somewhere between 90 and 100 feet tall.
So what can we conclude from this excerpt from Dan Froomkin's recent WaPo column:
Carol Leonnig reports in The Washington Post that Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, in an interview yesterday, "said Rove was not the source who called Cooper yesterday morning and personally waived the confidentiality agreement."
But Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball suggest on Newsweek.com that maybe it was Rove after all -- just not by phone.
"Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told Newsweek today that Rove 'did not call Cooper' prior to today's court hearing, nor had the two of them 'spoken' about the subject of waiving confidentiality.
"But Luskin would make no other comments, including whether there had been any other form of communications between Cooper and Rove."
In other words:
Q: Did Karl Rove make a phone call and personally waive confidentiality?
A: Absolutely not. That was emphatically not my client who made that call. No way.
Q: Did he perhaps communicate in some other way?
A: Um ... no comment.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
"Bring them on," Commander Chimpy said. And, lo, when it comes to taking it to the Coalition countries, they do appear to be bringing it on, so the last thing I want to hear is any crying or whining about it. You asked for it. You got it. Funny how that works, isn't it?
I will admit, though, that it is somewhat tacky and classless to target civilians and innocents that arbitrarily. Really, like telemarketing, you have to be more focused, more selective. Here's a suggestion -- how about these folks? They're all gung-ho for American imperialism and big supporters of Chimpy's crusade. I mean, from everything I've read, they're all a bunch of serious, in-your-face ass kickers, so I'll bet they'd be just tickled to get the chance to live up to their bragging.
And they're there until the 10th so, if you hurry, you might still make it.
P.S. I'm from Canada. We had nothing to do with that invasion. Just sayin'.
UPDATE: Yeah, that "terrorist flypaper" theory seems to be working just fine.
Given more than enough to do in terms of work and some vacationing, unless something really major catches my attention, I'm going to leave the fast-breaking news in the hands of the rest of the blogosphere for the next few days. Back sometime next week.
And on a totally-unrelated note, I've finally run out of patience with Eschaton and am tossing it from my well-worn list of bookmarks. It may be just a Firefox browser thing but I'm tired of being perpetually redirected to Atrios' classifieds page. There's only so much time I'm willing to invest in someone's annoyingly-designed web page.
Very first bike ride of the year, 97 km in mercifully moderate NC July weather. Apparently, you can't make up for lack of activity all at once. Go figure.
It's not like there's any shortage of these cowards, is there? Nathan, meet Paul. You two should have plenty to talk about.
For the next week, I will be in the delightfully liberal oasis of Chapel Hill, so blogging will be light, while drinking will be heavy. It's one of those win-win situations.
What with the left-wing blogosphere being all a-twitter over Karl Rove being linked more and more to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, it's entertaining to see what the right-wing wankers have to say about. So let's just pop over to PowerWankBlog and see, shall we? And, as of 6:15 p.m today, we do a browser search on the simple string "Rove" to find ... squat. Zip. Nada.
Michelle Malkin? Again, nothing on Rove as related to Plame. Apparently some folks just don't want to talk about it. Go figure.
Live 8: the world watches, and the best Canada can do in terms of hosts is Dan Aykroyd and the execrable Tom Green, who has just said the word "awesome" for the 3,817th time. I want to hide.
Oh, dear. Payback might just be a real bitch here:
Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.
Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:
"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.
"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."
Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.
Let the spin begin.
BETTER AND BETTER: Here.
Regarding the weaselly Republican chickenshit we met back here, let's remind ourselves once again what he said:
If I was asked by my country to join the military in order to preserve these great traditions we share, I would do so in a heartbeat.
Well, if that's the case, I'm not sure you can get asked any more plaintively than this:
WASHINGTON - The Army, already likely to miss its recruiting goal this year, may have even more trouble filling its ranks next year, the service's chief of staff said Thursday.
"We've got enormous challenges," Gen. Peter Schoomaker told the Senate Armed Services Committee...
Pentagon officials repeatedly asked committee members Thursday to stress the importance of military service.
"It's very important that you and your colleagues use your considerable influence to explain to the American people and to those that are influencers out there how important it is for our young people to serve this nation at a time like this," Schoomaker told the senators...
The appeal to lawmakers is part of an administration effort this week to ask adults - parents, teachers and coaches - to encourage the younger generation to sign up.
On Tuesday, President Bush urged more people to enlist. A day later, Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said parents should let their sons and daughters who want to join the military follow their patriotic instincts...
The services have added recruiters, boosted enlistment bonuses and reworked recruitment strategies. Bills in Congress would add other incentives.
So, Paul, what part of the above begging for recruits don't you understand?
AFTERSNARK: There's some real entertainment value in reading some of the comments at Paul's site. Here's a gem from one of his defenders, "Lady Jane":
This is insane. Paul does not have to join the military just to validate his support of the war. After all, would you all volunteer to be aborted (or euthanised) just because you support abortion (or euthanasia)? There are many ways to support the war, other than joining the military.
I'm not going to bother responding to that middle analogy since there are levels of insipid illogic even I won't waste my time eviscerating. But let's consider Lady Jane's contention that there are other, equally valid ways to support the war effort, shall we? Are there really? If you read the salient parts of the excerpt above, I'm pretty sure that everyone in the chain of command is being pretty unambiguous as to what they want folks like Paul and Lady Jane to do. Sign up. Enlist.
I don't see these leaders asking for volunteers to do, oh, canvassing. Or putting together care packages. Or giving public rah-rah speeches. No, what they clearly want is those young Republican lads and lasses down at the recruiting center and, after that, humping that pack in 135F temperature across the Iraqi desert. I don't think there's much room for misinterpretation there, do you?
And, if you're really curious, there's the bonus of following the link to read a little about "Lady Jane", where we learn:
I graduated from GU with a degree in history, a minor in English, and my teaching certificate. I have a dog named Dani. I absolutely love to study and read about the time period in English history called the Regency. I'm a very Conservative Republican and enjoy being active in the party. I also like to watch movies. My favorite actor is Ioan Gruffudd (Yo-an Griffith) from Wales. I absolutely love tea (especially Twinings) and having a proper Tea.
Yeah, I'll bet dodging bullets and trying to avoid getting a limb or two blown off by IEDs would really cut into that "proper tea" time, wouldn't it? I'll bet a bunch of these folks would have preferred some proper tea rather than what they ended up getting.
Once upon a time, White House Press Lizard Scott McClellan assured us -- yes, he did -- that President Smirky's upcoming speech was going to have some new goodies (all emphasis lovingly added):
Scottie: Tomorrow, the President will also talk about the strategy for success. He will talk in a very specific way about the way forward. There is a clear path to victory. It is a two-track strategy: there is the military and political track. On the military front, it's important to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces so that they're able to defend themselves, and then our troops can return home with the honor that they deserve. And then there is the political track. The Iraqi people are showing that they're determined to build a free and democratic and peaceful future, and we must continue to do all we can to support them as they build a lasting democracy.
So the President looks forward to speaking to the American people tomorrow night. You will hear from him in much greater detail, but I wanted to give you a little bit of a preview to begin with. And with that, I'll be glad to go to your questions.
Q Scott, are there new details in the strategy for success? Is there a new direction, or is the President basically summing up what he has said before?
MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, this is a new speech. And the President will be talking in a very specific way about the strategy for succeeding in Iraq. And he will talk about the two-track strategy that we have in place. He touched on it a little bit last week; he's touched on it in -- many times over recent weeks. But this is going to be the President talking about it in a very specific way, about where we are for succeeding and where we are in implementing that strategy.
Q Well, I guess what I'm asking is, are people going to hear things they haven't heard the President say before? Are there new details?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think many Americans have not heard much of what the President has to say tomorrow night. And the American people are rightly concerned about where we are in Iraq. That's a top priority for this country; it's a top priority for the President of the United States. The American people want to see our troops return home, but I think they understand the importance of succeeding in Iraq. And the President will talk about that in his remarks. I think we all want to see the troops come home sooner than later, and the way to get our troops home is to complete the mission.
Our troops, as General Abizaid was talking about over the weekend, understand the importance of the mission that they are working to complete. This is critical to winning the war on terrorism. A free Iraq will deal a major blow to the terrorists and their ideology of hatred and oppression.
Q The question is, is there a new direction, though, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: You're going to hear from the President tomorrow night. I think we have a clear strategy for success. He's going to be talking in a very specific way about what that strategy is. It's an opportunity for the American people to hear about the strategy. We've all seen on the TV screens the images of bloodshed and violence. They are disturbing. The President is disturbed by those images. The terrorists have inflicted great suffering. There have been tremendous sacrifices. But the cause for which we are in Iraq is an important one, and there is great progress being made on the ground.
The terrorists' only alternative is to spread violence and chaos and destruction because they know that when a free Iraq takes hold, a democratic Iraq, that it will be a major defeat for their ambitions. You've heard terrorists talk publicly about the importance of trying to stop the progress that is being made in Iraq.
And more blah blah blabbity blah. Which suggests that, at the next possible opportunity, someone in the gaggle should really pin Scottie down and ask him precisely what Bush said that represented anything even remotely original. They won't get an answer, of course, but by now everyone understands the rules of the game -- it's just a contest to see who can make Scottie squirm the most.
I hope you can appreciate the irony over here when they write:
Until now, however, nobody has tackled media bias in a head-on, hands-on way.
Oh. You guys know someone, then?
Following up on this post from Timmy the G, the notion of pouring all of your troops into the Middle East to act as "flypaper" for insurgents and terrorists so you could face them on your terms is logically equivalent to (as one 'Net wag once wrote) building a really, really filthy hospital so you could attract, and face on your terms, as many germs as possible.
I trust I don't have to explain that analogy to anyone except, perhaps, Peter Rempel.
It's not like you need any more examples of gutless, little members of the chickenhawk 101st Fighting Keyboarders but, really, following the link from DC Media Girl, this weaselly little shit really does represent a smug new low for even that class of reprobates.
As with Media Girl, I'm not sure what it is but, really, there's just something about him that makes you want to slap him across the face with a ballpeen hammer, isn't there?
AFTERSNARK: I particularly like the part where Paul Q. Chickenshit writes:
If I was asked by my country to join the military in order to preserve these great traditions we share, I would do so in a heartbeat.
Consider yourself asked.
DOUBLE AFTERSNARK: Just in case you didn't quite connect the dots, let me re-emphasize Paul Q. Chickenshit's unambiguous offer:
If I was asked by my country to join the military in order to preserve these great traditions we share, I would do so in a heartbeat.
Thus, if any reader has knowledge of Paul's geographical location, would they please contact the nearest military recruiter and give them Paul's contact information? At the very least, military recruiters can e-mail Paul using this online e-mail form. And remember, he promised and, as we all know, you can always count on a Republican to keep his promise.
