There's dumb, and then there's the Washington Post.

Matthew Yglesias points out that the people who run the Washington Post are really, really, fucking stupid. Or dishonest. Maybe that.

BONUS TRACK: For those of you who need a refresher course in simple American lawmaking, there's this:

Then there's the abridged version:

And if you're in a hurry ...

Well, THAT was predictable, wasn't it?

So I says to myself, "Self," I says, "if I write a piece on laptops and porn and civil liberties and intrusive searches and legal ramifications, what are the odds that some worthless dumbass of a Blogging Tory is going to follow up with a post yapping about how CC is a pervert and likes his porn?"

Behold the dumbassitude.

In other news, the sun will still rise in the east tomorrow morning.

Laptops, pornography and the right to privacy.

(And now, for something wildly different ...)

Given that I'm a) playing with setting up some encrypted filesystems on my Linux laptop, and b) travelling to the U.S. next week, I was reminded of something I read some time back about a man who, while going through customs, was asked to turn on his laptop, at which point a couple of customs officials proceeded to run a forensic analysis on it. To which my immediate reaction was ... what the fuck!? Which brings us to the topic of this post -- just what the hell are my rights these days?

Let's start with a couple case studies, shall we, like this one:

... Mr. Furukawa was being processed through United States customs upon arrival on an international Northwest Airlines flight from Tokyo, Japan. He was waiting in line for a routine inspection after being been referred from passport screening to "baggage control secondary" based upon a computer screen alert indicating that he may have purchased access to a Internet site that contained child pornography. [Um ... how did they determine that??] The referral was made by Customs Officer Bulov...

The officer then proceeded to examine Mr. Furukawa's checked and carry-on luggage and found that the defendant was carrying a laptop computer and an external hard drive. Officer Schmidt promptly opened the laptop, booted up the computer, and asked the defendant to sign in and enter his password. The officer designated the Windows 2000 operating system and the defendant entered his screen name and password without objection...

After gaining access to the designated program, Schmidt began a search for video and picture files which are construed as merchandise for customs purposes. The officer discovered a file list and thumbnail photos which included materials that were suspected to be pornographic.

You can read the whole thing, but my first question is: does this constitute reasonable grounds for search? Do customs officers need any grounds for this type of search? But let's head on to the next case study:

In July 2005, after a nearly 24-hour, coach-class flight from the Philippines, Michael Arnold arrived at Los Angeles International Airport. He collected his luggage and stood in line to go through the customs checkpoint. US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) Officer Peng asked a few routine questions and inspected Arnold’s luggage and carry-on bag, which contained what many travelers today have in carry-on bags: a laptop computer, a separate hard drive, a memory stick, and several CDs. Officer Peng made the customary request that Arnold turn on the computer to verify that it would operate. She then transferred the laptop to a second CBP officer who noticed numerous icons and folders on the display screen, including two folders labeled “Kodak pictures” and “Kodak memories.” (The term “Kodak memories” is part of popular North American parlance and appears in testimonials by Americans and Canadians on Kodak Web sites, such as www.kodakgallery.com/oprah_bigadventure/ and wwwcaen.kodak.com/CA/en/motion/publication/onFilm/jcLabrecqueQA.jhtml.) Purporting to act on those allegedly suspicious labels, the CBP officers clicked open the folders to view the contents. Among the images, they found one of two naked adult women.

Again, read the whole thing, but let's appreciate two facts here: first, there is nothing suspicious about folders named "Kodak pictures" or "Kodak memories" and, second, the last time I looked, regular porn was still legal, so pics of naked adult women still doesn't seem to constitute grounds for continuing the search. And the case studies keep piling up:

In January 2004, Stuart Romm traveled to Las Vegas to attend a training seminar for his new employer. Then, on Feb. 1, Romm continued the business trip by boarding a flight to Kelowna, British Columbia.

Romm was denied entry by the Canadian authorities because of his criminal history. When he returned to the Seattle-Tacoma airport, he was interviewed by two agents of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division.

They asked to search his laptop, and Romm agreed. Agent Camille Sugrue would later testify that she used the "EnCase" software to do a forensic analysis of Romm's hard drive.

That analysis and a subsequent one found some 42 child pornography images, which had been present in the cache used by Romm's Web browser and then deleted. But because in most operating systems, only the directory entry is removed when a file is "deleted," the forensic analysis was able to recover the actual files...

The 9th Circuit refused to overturn his conviction, ruling that American citizens effectively enjoy no right to privacy when stopped at the border.

So here we have an American citizen, being denied entry to Canada and, upon return to U.S. soil, having Homeland Security dig into his laptop. How odd.

[As a side note, it was my understanding that, if you were denied entry to a country and were forced to return, you technically never left the first country. So I have no idea what grounds Homeland Security would have for searching Mr. Romm since, technically, he never left the U.S.]

Which all brings us to the obvious question: What right do border officials have to tear apart someone's laptop, and how much do I have to co-operate?

Regarding the first question, there are two places where you might be searched: at security when boarding, and at customs after deplaning. I would think that the first location has no right to poke around looking for stuff like illegal porn. Their job, it would seem, is to guarantee passenger safety, and I think it's safe to say that my personal well-being at 30,000 feet is in no way jeopardized by child porn on someone else's laptop. (Unless it's the pilot's, but let's not go there, shall we?)

On the other end, if I'm returning to Canada, I'm a Canadian citizen, so if I refuse to allow any sort of examination of my laptop's contents, what are they going to do? Refuse to let me back in? I'm a Canadian, I have a right to enter the country, one would think. But here's where it gets amusing.

Just how effective is this forensic search strategy going to be? If I seriously wanted to import naughty pictures, I can encrypt them. Or misname them. Or put them in hidden folders. Or just not bring them at all, and get them later via e-mail or from a web site. I mean, Jesus Christ, the possibilities are endless. Really, you'd have to pretty stupid to get caught smuggling porn on your computer. But that's not the best part.

My laptop doesn't run Windows. It runs Linux. And with that comes all sorts of roadblocks I can throw up if someone wants to boot my system and start digging around.

First, maybe I'll have a BIOS password. Then a bootloader password. After which those poor fuckers will be presented with the graphical login screen, which requires a username and yet another password. Am I supposed to be helping them along this whole time, typing one password after another?

So I let them log in with my non-administrative account, at which point they're prevented from having access to protected directories on my system. So do I give them yet another password -- the superuser password?

And maybe I'll keep all those naughty pics in an encrypted filesystem or, better yet, in an unmounted filesystem so that it doesn't even show up in a regular forensic scan, which assumes they even have software that can search a Linux system. (Of course, maybe I'll have a dual-boot system that boots harmlessly to Windows just so they can amuse themselves. So many options, so much amusement.)

In any event, what this all boils down to is, without due cause, what do these imbeciles have the right to do? I'm happy to turn on my system just to show them that it actually boots (since, as we all know, there's no way anyone could hide a bomb inside a working laptop. Uh huh.) But, beyond that, I think that asking for anything more than that is going to get us into some ugly social dynamics.

My laptop. My data. And you can have the root password when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

THE LEGAL SHIT: Here.

AFTERTHOUGHTS: "grog" suggests the following:

Fundamentally, where US Customs and Immigration are concerned, you have no rights at all.

If they decide to take a crowbar to your laptop, there's SFA you can do about it.

Note, though, that in one of those cases (Romm), the U.S. officials proceeded to search the laptop of an American citizen, after he was already back on U.S. soil. Does this suggest that border guards have more law enforcement power than, say, police officers? Because if an American citizen was walking down a street in the U.S., I'm fairly sure a police officer has no right to just walk up to him and demand to search his laptop. But the argument that's being made here is that customs officials have exactly that power, which I find odd.

And note that that legal decision doesn't really clarify anything:

Lawyers throughout North America are trying to come to grips with the fallout of a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. The opinion of the Court, which held that computer devices and the data they contain can be thoroughly examined at the border, opened the floodgates to more thorough border crossing searches. However, even as the ink on that decision was beginning to dry, another opinion released by a court in the Central District of California, in the same Ninth Circuit, reached the opposite conclusion, adding to the confusion of an otherwise settled doctrine of border searches of persons and their goods.

"anonymous" also comments, but he's just being an asshole.

AND THE GAMES CONTINUE: Backseat Blogger gets all shrieky when he comments:

But, by all means, play around with the customs officers.

But don't plan on seeing the light of day anytime soon if you do.

In the first place, I have gotten my way with American customs officials. On one occasion, when passing through the security screen, I sent my laptop through the X-ray machine, and walked successfully through the metal detector.

At that point, an official asked me to step to the side for a random search of my person -- shoes, belt, etc. I said, sure, and started to walk over to get my laptop first. The official told me to just leave it where it was, at which point I made it abundantly clear that I wasn't leaving the X-ray conveyor area without my computer and, no, that wasn't open for negotiation. After a second or two, she relented and I got my computer.

And as for not seeing the light of day, BB, I gather you don't get out very often. The worst U.S. officials can do is refuse to let me enter the country. It's made perfectly clear to all travellers that, at any time, you can simply leave the inspection area and return to Canada.

But nice try, BB. I see being wrong is still a force of habit with you.

Here, let me tweak that for you.

From over at the Blogging Tories' echo chamber, Dissonance and Disrespect warns us in increasingly shrill terms about the creeping brown menace:

While conservatives often bewail the Islamicization of Europe, not all of them have been paying enough attention to the growing problem of Mexican irrendentism within the southwestern United States and in southern California in particular.

But I'm thinking the very next paragraph can do double duty, with just a little creativity:

It is now entirely possible for persons of Hispanic descent conservative ideology to be born, live, and die within an entirely Hispanic cultural milieu there advanced western civilization, without having to learn a word of English shred of science or make any other accomodation to English-speaking American society actual knowledge.

No problem ... always happy to help.

BONUS TRACK: I find it interesting that many of the same people who are horrified by the creeping Mexification of California seem quite unconcerned about the increasing Cubanification of Florida.

But, of course, that's different.

Dear wankers: About that "giggling" ...

It can't be much fun being a wanker these days, what with freshly-baked, neo-con talking points crumbling into dust almost immediately after they're removed from the oven. Case in point: the hysterical screeching over poor Sen. John McCain being badly treated by journalists at a live press conference in Baghdad -- a claim that morphed rapidly downwards from outrageous "heckling" to simple "giggling." Oh, the humanity!

And, sadly, even if there was giggling, it appears that John "Straight Talk" McCain has only himself to blame, by trying to pass off an account of his open-air stroll through a Baghdad market so dishonestly that anyone who didn't giggle must have damn near ruptured themselves trying to keep it in:

If Sen. John McCain’s campaign for the GOP nomination gets seriously derailed by his dangerously absurd visit to Baghdad market on Sunday he can blame the press for that. Unwilling to play tourist during McCain's open-air stroll, reporters quickly revealed the extraordinary security that surrounded this purported "typical day" at the Shorja market.

Then, over the next two days, they went back and interviewed some of the merchants, who have thoroughly repudiated the sunny accounts of the visit offered by McCain and his congressional sidekicks.

But wait -- it gets better:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in a '60 Minutes' segment coming on Sunday says he misspoke in comments he made about security in Baghdad earlier this week and admitted that heavily armed troops and helicopter gunships accompanied him when he visited a market there...

In two interviews before the Army took McCain and 60 Minutes on the heavily guarded visit to the al-Shorja market last Sunday, the senator said security had improved in Iraq. Upon his return, he also told a news conference he had just come back from a neighborhood one could walk around in freely.

The remarks made headlines and he now regrets saying them. "Of course I am going to misspeak and I've done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future," says McCain. "I regret that when I divert attention to something I said from my message, but you know, that's just life," he tells Pelley, adding, "I'm happy, frankly, with the way I operate, otherwise it would be a lot less fun."

That's right, kids ... even McCain now openly admits that he was full of shit, at which point I think any journalist who knew what was going on had every right to giggle. Or snicker. Or chortle. Or guffaw. Or just burst into uncontrollable, tearful laughter.

But all this is history, of course. It's all so ... so ... several days ago, and you know it's just a matter of time before the wingnut stenographers known as the Blogging Tories will have a whole new talking point, sadly beginning with, "According to Matt Drudge, ..."

Give it time. You know it's coming. Right, Brian?

INTO THE WAYBACK MACHINE, SHERMAN. From the archives, a piece about that whole "misspeaking" thing. Man, but that gets tiring after a while, doesn't it?

Different day, same dumbassitude.

Poor Brian ... no matter how many times you smack him with a rolled up newspaper, he just doesn't learn.

BONUS TRACK: Even the WaPo's own columnists are bitch slapping their editorial board around the room over this one.

Cue Mr. Lemon promising that, if this turns out to be a bogus story, he'll delete the post. You know ... like the way he did that with the last one.

BY THE WAY, for those of you who don't remember history ...

AND THE HITS KEEP ON COMING: The Carpetbagger Report covers this nicely, including the following gem of a comment:

If you really want to have some fun, go read the comments to the editorial [available here], particularly those from the shrieking sedentary one-handed militants of WingerWorld. Why is it these people always manage to prove themselves sixth-grade dropouts with their ability to use the English language? I sometimes think posts by Wingers must really be part of a lefty disinformation campaign, to show them as the halfwitted illiterate trailer trash they are.

Q: How do you make a wanker look like a moron?
A: Quote him accurately.

Funny you should mention it, Chucker, my boy.

Blogging Tory "chuckercanuck" announces his own personal jihad against the phrase "tin foil hat," because of its annoying and tiresome overuse. Ah, the irony.

Sometimes, this job is just too easy.

That gosh-darned Christian "persecution."

Christians are constantly whining about how their religious freedom is being perpetually infringed upon, and how they are so woefully persecuted in the workplace. So would it count as religious persecution if you told this lamebrained airhead to put a fucking sock in it?

I'm just curious.

A shocking meeting of the minds.

To everyone's surprise, the BT's Backseat Blogger is all about law-and-order:

A mother kills her 2 year old child through neglect while she is out partying and what’s her sentence?

JUST THREE FUCKING YEARS!

And with mandatory release she’s out in TWO YEARS!...

I don’t care what the case law says. I don’t care what the mitigating factors were.

If you take a life you should be looking at a starting point of twenty five years to life in jail with no parole or mandatory release.

Fuckin' A! And I know just where I'd start.

Who says the Blogging Tories are always imbeciles? Every so often, one of them has a terrific idea. You know ... blind pigs and acorns and all that.

If I was a betting man ...

Well, there's this:

An Administration's Epic Collapse

The first three months of the new Democratic Congress have been neither terrible nor transcendent. A Pew poll had it about right: a substantial majority of the public remains happy the Democrats won in 2006, but neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has dominated the public consciousness as Newt Gingrich did when the Republicans came to power in 1995. There is a reason for that. A much bigger story is unfolding: the epic collapse of the Bush Administration.

To which I think we all know the automatic response: "But ... but ... but ... Nancy Pelosi ..."

Because reality is hard werk.

There's always some entertainment value in watching a member of the Blogging Tories being, well, just wrong. I mean, really wrong. Or, as Arnold Rimmer would say, "brimming over with wrongability."

Teke "neo conservative" here, who shows he's more than a bit dense as he amuses himself with a story of the Americal Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defending (Heavens to Betsy!) gun owners. Well, how about that, gasps neo, bogus astonishment practically oozing off the screen and doing ugly things to your keyboard, proving only that poor neo doesn't have the proverbial clue.

Regular readers of this blog may recall that it was less than a month ago that I pointed out the ACLU's regular efforts to protect religious freedom in the United States.

One might also appreciate how the ACLU, even after years of being insulted by right-wing drug addict and serial husband Rush Limbaugh, came to his defense in a matter of privacy rights, a rather inconvenient truth for neo's wide-brushed intimations about the ACLU. But that's not the best part.

No, the best part is how the ACLU, being perpetually smeared by the Right as having some sort of leftist, liberal, pro-gay, anti-Christian agenda, occasionally defends the constitutional freedoms of those groups that are about as right-wing, nutbar as you can get:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defending the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Living in a free society is a benefit as well detraction. In our country the First Amendment of the constitution gives us freedom of speech. However this right to free speech comes with the sacrifice of having to hear opinions that are repugnant to the majority. So we have the incongruous situation, like oil and water, of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defending the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

For which, of course, the ACLU is pilloried in the Dumbshit-o-sphere:

Once created, the ACLU provided legal protection to Communist infiltrators in the U.S. Since then, the ACLU has been the legal arm of the Collective Left (Communists, Socialists, Progressives, and Liberals) anarchists, radicals, and members of the Ku Klux Klan and NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association).

Poor bastards, those ACLU folks -- they just can't win. When they represent liberals, they have a radical, leftist agenda. On the other hand, when they represent Bible-thumping, white supremacists, well, Jesus, they're protecting the Klan for fuck's sake! Heads, they lose; tails, they lose.

None of which appears to matter to neo -- he seems adequately happy in his echo chamber, living with his delusions. Pretty much the Blogging Tories in a nutshell, isn't it?

Blogging Tory wankitude in two easy steps.

1. The wankitude.


2. The real world.

You're welcome.

EWWWWWWWWWWWWW. From the third comment at that Media Matters piece:

I didn't get to check out this story until just now (9pm), but I heard [Hugh] Hewitt after work(about 5), and he and Mark Steyn were practically going down on each other over this.

I'm going to need an ice pick to remove that imagery.

Really stupid "Christians," take two.

As a followup to the earlier post on Christian dumbassitude, we learn that Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee really doesn't grok his Ten Commandments:

"I'm a 'grace' Christian," Huckabee told me over lunch recently, "not a 'law' Christian. The Second Commandment--do unto others--is the basic tenet of my faith.

The Rev. explains the dumbassitude therein.

Civility of discourse, Bill O'Reilly style.

Once upon a time, Blogging Tory "neo conservative" had a good deal to say about your humble scribe:

Raging leftbot blows a gasket

It seems CC likes to dish it out... but he sure can throw a hissy fit when it comes to taking it...

We can, I'm sure, all relax and wait for neo's timeless wisdom on this bit of gasket-blowing, I'm sure:


Take it away, neo.

(H/T: Oliver Willis.)

BONUS TRACK: It's moderately amusing how sensitive hacks like neo insist that any anonymous commenter who happens to agree with me must be me, and continues to insist on that even after he's been corrected.

It's as if these people can't possibly imagine that there's more than one person who objects to their illogical rantings. That's just weird, bordering on pathological.

I recommend pharmaceuticals.

EVEN MORE FREE SNARK: TRex does Bill O'Falafel. At this point, does anyone seriously think we'll be hearing about that "unhinged, deranged moonbat" Bill O'Reilly? Or whether anyone over there in the Dumbshit-o-sphere is now going to coin the phrase "Immigrant Derangement Syndrome?"

And, yes, of course that was rhetorical.

Playing with paper clips and wall outlets.

You know, you'd think that, having allegedly grown up in Winnipeg, this Blogging Tory would know better. I mean, as someone who spent my formative years in that neighbourhood, I learned there were some things you just didn't do, like sticking your tongue to a metal post in January, that kind of thing.

So when the Tories have been flat-out busted covering up the RCMP pension fund scandal, the proper response from any Blogging Tory with sense would be to simply avert your eyes. That is, do the BT shuffle, turn away, pretend you have no idea that it's going on and spend your time writing about, oh, Stephane Dion or something until it all blows over. Just ignore it, that's what you do.

What you don't do is jump face-first into the story and try to salvage the unsalvageable, as Carolyn does, with hilarious results:

Apparently, the Grits have decided to use this issue to discredit the Conservative Party.

Um ... yeah, Carolyn, that's kinda the point. When you've been caught being hypocritically sleazy and howlingly corrupt, you really should expect a little bitch slapping. That's sort of the way this game is played. It's called "politics" -- I'm sure you've heard of it.

As discussed on Mike Duffy on Wednesday, the Conservatives had voted against allowing RCMP officers to testify and kept this issue from coming forward sooner in committee.

Attagirl, Carolyn ... you're still following the trail of bread crumbs. So far, so good. I'm proud of you.

Many feel that this was some kind of cover-up on the part of the Conservatives, and is being spun as negative.

Yes, yes, oh yes ... by George, I think she's got it! You go, girl! What can possibly go wrong?

I beg to differ on this one.

Oh, shit ... and Carolyn was doing so well. So what sort of madness down this road lies? Let's read on:

Though I do not have all the facts on this issue, ...

No matter ... don't let that stop you, sweetie. Force of habit and all that.

... as an outsider hearing about what the Conservatives did in Committee, I feel that it was a wise decision.

Of course you do -- around here, we call that "drinking the Kool-Aid." But I digress. Onward:

Considering Zaccardelli was too cozy to Chretien, I fail to see why the Conservatives would then try to save him or other RCMP officers within the executive for partisan reasons. It doesn't make sense.

Ummmmm ... considering that Zaccardelli has been implicated in this latest fiasco, it's difficult to understand why the CPoC would want to sit on this. You're right, Carolyn -- it doesn't make sense, but not for the reasons you think. But let's not interrupt Carolyn's train of thought as it careens out of control:

Then there is the other logical reason the Conservatives did what they did.

Oh, be still, my beating heart. What rapier-like logic awaits? Oh ...

I believe the blocking measure taken at committee was only temporary to allow for the government to double check its facts before allowing something damaging as this to come into public scrutiny. Knowing that the Conservatives are all for transparency and accountability, it makes no sense to suspect them of never allowing this issue to come forward and be dealt with. The key, was to ensure it will be dealt with properly.

Well, of course, that must be it -- the Cons were just being patient, rigorous and meticulous, getting all their neo-con ducks in a row, despite what that National Post's Don Martin wrote (emphasis added):

A one-vote margin of victory on a last-ditch in-camera motion finally allowed RCMP officers to spill the beans in public last week to trigger a national ruckus and an independent investigation. Had the vote gone the other way, the code of RCMP silence would have covered Parliament Hill indefinitely.

Apparently, that's not a coverup, it's just being "careful." Because, as we all know, it takes years of cautious prep time before you can do something as horribly irresponsible as ... what was it? ... oh, right, allow documents to be entered into the public record. You really don't want to rush that kind of thing, right, Carolyn?

You know, I try to avoid stereotypes but, I swear, I feel a blonde joke coming on. Someone, please, stop me.

Dear Brian ...

... still waiting for that correction/retraction/apology.

What comes after "double negative?"

"I'd like to apologize for that apology I made apologizing for my first apology ... whoa, wait a minute ..."

I believe this is the situation for which the phrase "Get a fucking life" was designed.

SCRAPE ... SCRAPE ... Yes, that sound you hear is goalposts being moved. Recall, if you will, the original hysterical, breathless accusations against CNN's Michael Ware (emphasis added):

During a live press conference in Bagdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware’s conduct “outrageous,” saying, “here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments.

Note first that those original accusations mentioned both McCain and Graham as being the targets of the heckling, but every single article since then has mentioned only McCain. Apparently, Graham's name was thrown in just to make it seem even more outrageous. But that's not the real crime here.

Note well how those original accusations of outrageous heckling, mocking and laughing have slowly morphed into the suggestion of, at best, "a mocking comment in a stage whisper, just loud enough for fellow journalists to hear it, but not loud enough to be picked up by microphones directed at McCain," perhaps meant only "from [sic] private consumption."

Yes, the Dumbass-o-sphere just isn't going to let this go, despite the fact that the original accusations have been watered down to the point of utter vacuousness. But don't let that stop you, guys. There has to be a pony under all that manure somewhere, right?

Dear George -- how's that "surge" working out for you?

Oooooooooh ... not so well, I see:

EXCLUSIVE: Soldier In New Friendly Fire Case Did Not Get Full Training

Two soldiers killed in Iraq in February may have died as a result of friendly fire, Army officials said Wednesday, not from enemy fire, as the press reported...

One of the soldiers died just hours after arriving in Iraq -- and was one of those troops rushed to the country in the "surge" who did not receive full training.

Don't worry, George -- just another nameless grunt. Plenty more cannon fodder where that came from, right?

THE KIND OF DUMBASSITUDE THAT COULD COME BACK TO HAUNT YOU: Poor Tony -- I really hope someone asks him about this:

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
Feb 28, 2007
...
Q There was also a report this morning that two Army combat brigades are being sent to Iraq without desert training -- the Associated Press has a story out today -- and that it's because they're being rushed to Iraq to help get the surge in place.

MR. SNOW: Again, let me stress, what happens is, a lot of times you will also do training in theaters, as well as equipping in theater. The generals have made it very clear, and military commanders have made it clear, nobody is going to go into combat activity without proper equipment and training. Period. So if things --

Q But the story flatly says that two brigades are going in without desert training in California. So that doesn't sound like --

MR. SNOW: All right, I understand.

Q -- they're getting the training.

MR. SNOW: Well, but they can get desert training elsewhere, like in Iraq.

Unless they're killed within hours of arrival. That kind of puts a crimp in the preparation, wouldn't you say?

Oh, and don't forget -- it's we liberals who don't "support the troops." Just in case you'd forgotten.

I'm starting to like Don Martin.

The National Post's Don Martin letting us in on another Stephen Harper flip-flop (emphasis added):

Tories ban lobbyists from campaign HQ

In what can only be spun as the token cleansing of a guilty conscience, the federal Conservatives have decided to ban lobbyists from their campaign war room.

That’s serious ingratitude for a government that depends on lobbyists to salvage its controversial messages and lousy media relations, but there are clearly some bedfellows too strange when voters are being wooed for a majority mandate...

Gone are the days when Mr. Harper smeared lobbyists as seedy influence peddlers commanding too much sway over Liberal government decision-making.

Why, it was only 16 months ago he was talking tough against the species. "My friends, and I'm serious about this, politics will no longer be a stepping stone to a lucrative career lobbying government," he pledged in a speech. "Make no mistake, if there are MPs in this room who want to use public office for their own benefit or if there are Hill staffers who dream of making it rich by trying to lobby a future Conservative government, if that's true of any of you, then you'd better make different plans or leave."

Well, look who’s lobbying now.

Yes, it's good to be a lobbyist in Stephen Harper's Ottawa, isn't it?

They are everywhere now: 5,265 of them have registered, and thanks to a curious bout of government footdragging in enshrining the Accountability legislation and lobbyist clampdown into law, tougher rules governing their conduct have not become legally binding...

Tune in CTV's Question Period or Mike Duffy Live or the daily CBC Politics show with Don Newman and you’ll find the friendly faces of gregarious lobbyists Tim Powers, Goldy Hyder or Geoff Norquay staring back as Tory toadies of the moment.

Changing the channel won't change the optics — with the Conservatives in power, lobbyists are as pervasive and persuasive as they ever were under Liberal rule. Only the names have changed in the old school behaviour of Canada’s New Government.

Cue Canada's wankers, screeching about that darned liberal media bias. At the National Post.

It's just Joel being Joel.

Intellectual discourse, Joel Johannesen style. Tune in tomorrow when Joel addresses the Stephane Dion/Vimy Ridge controversy by referring to Dion as "a big doodoo head," and then tells a fart joke.

Tough choice ... lemme think about it.

Hmmmmmm ... President Bush or ... the clap. Grapple, grapple ...

But ... but ... but ... the Liberals ...

Oh, this is just delicious. While a number of Blogging Tories have been whining on and on about how the Liberals are somehow entangled in the recent RCMP pension fund scandal, the National Post of all folks has some interesting new developments (all emphasis tail-waggingly added):

Block party?
Martin: No clear explanation why Tories obstructed RCMP whistle-blowers
Don Martin, National Post
Published: Tuesday, April 03, 2007

It was all an act. The shock and horror displayed by MPs after whistle-blowers implicated RCMP brass in an alleged pension fund scandal last week was indignation faked for the cameras.

Unless they were willfully ignorant, the MPs knew everything months ago. All of them.

RCMP whistle-blowers had been trying since the fall to drop their bombshell on the public record, but the public accounts committee voted repeatedly to keep them off the witness stand and their documents suppressed from the public record.

A one-vote margin of victory on a last-ditch in-camera motion finally allowed RCMP officers to spill the beans in public last week to trigger a national ruckus and an independent investigation. Had the vote gone the other way, the code of RCMP silence would have covered Parliament Hill indefinitely.

And if you’re looking for the most bizarre acts of obstruction and interference, look no further than Conservative MPs, possibly acting under orders from above, who voted as a block to sweep the accusations under the rug.

Oh, yeah ... read it all there. Because you sure as hell won't read any of this over at the Blogging Tories. I'm guessing they're all too busy tracking down the giggling journalist.

UPDATE: As of this moment, the only mention of this new development at the Blogging Tories is in the BT forum area -- there is not a single main page reference to it. Colour me totally unsurprised.

BONUS TRACKS: POGGE and CFSR are all over this as well.

Michael Ware: Here we go again.

Jesus Christ, it just never ends. At this point, every time I think of these worthless, lying, neo-con hacks, all that leaps to mind is the first 15 seconds of this clip:

I'm sure you know what I mean.

THE CASE OF THE GUILTY GIGGLER. Apparently, it's a slow news day in the Dumbfuck-o-sphere, as their brightest minds (snicker) are now determined -- DETERMINED, I TELL YOU!! -- to track down the giggling journalist, armed with no audio or video evidence whatsoever, but only with the uncorroborated evidence and hearsay of nameless and unnamed sources.

By God, where's Steve Janke when you need him?

P.S. Make sure you read the article by AFP's Jennie Matthew, to truly appreciate how little journalists in general think of that whole John McCain/Lindsey Graham photo-op.

But ... but ... that's DIFFERENT!

Has anyone else noticed how all of those wankers who stroked themselves to a sputtering ragegasm over an alleged journalistic "heckling" of a clearly-lying John McCain -- a "heckling" for which they had no substantiation, corroboration or evidence and that they all admit is not even visible in the video records of the alleged incident -- are mostly the same right-wing blowhards who seem monumentally uninterested in the gloriously public trashing and humiliation by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly of a 29-year veteran of the United States military on national TV?

But remember ... it's CNN's Michael Ware who "deserves your vomit." 'Cuz that's just how things work.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales ...

... he's a uniter, not a divider.

That gosh-darned "liberal" CBC.

Via Talking Points Memo:

New York Times Doesn't Report Bush's Criticism Of GOPers' Syria Trip -- Only Mentions Attack On Pelosi

... in its account of the Syria portion of the presser today, The New York Times not only fails to mention that Republicans went on a similar trip, but also failed to even report Bush's acknowledgment that this involved members of his own party. Instead, the paper only reports Bush’s criticism of Pelosi’s trip -- it describes Bush's remarks only as criticism of Pelosi...

THE PRESIDENT: We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals -- signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad. And by that, I mean, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror...

And wouldn't you know, the CBC's 11:00 a.m. news this morning did exactly the same thing, going so far as to replay President DryDrunk W. McChimpster's actual words without mentioning the howling omission.

My annoyed e-mail is already winging its way through the Internets. And, sure, feel free to play along.

BY THE WAY, if I was the Chimpster, I'd be awful careful about throwing around accusations of photo ops, if you catch my drift.

I use a better brand of troll repellent, that's why.

Poor Paladiea --- apparently, the "Why can't we have a civil discourse?" mouth-breathing subhumans on the Right are dumping steaming turds in her comments section, to which one of those subhumans, Blogging Tory Kevin Millard, responds thusly:

If your [sic] upset with the types of comments you are receiving maybe you should look at the type of thins [sic] you post. Insults beget Insults.

Whoa ... so that's how it works: An onslaught of angry commenters is merely the justifiable reaction to utter crap. Is that what you're saying, Kevin? Are you sure that's what you're saying?

Hey, Brian ... are you paying attention?

Bible study. Emphasis on the word "study."

When I was but a wee lad, I spent a few days at a Bible study class run by a local elderly couple and, hard to believe as it may be, I won the award for best little Christian based on my ability to, in one evening cram session, memorize over 30 Bible verses, which I obediently spewed out the final day of the course to collect my prize.

This, as I'm sure you can appreciate, had nothing whatsoever to do with Bible "study." It was simply Bible regurgitation, which is in fact what you find nowadays. All of those pious hypocrites who wander around being sanctimonious are, in fact, hideously ignorant about actual Christianity -- their sole talent comes in being able to quote chapter and verse, even when they have no clue what any of it means. And, sometimes, they have trouble even with chapter and verse:

• 75% of adults believe the famed Benjamin Franklin saying “God helps those who help themselves” is one of the Ten Commandments.


• 10% believe Joan of Arc was the wife of Noah from the Book of Genesis.


• 50% of high school seniors believe Sodom and Gomorrah were married.


• 17% agree that Ramadan is the “Jewish day of atonement.”


• Most believe Saint Paul led the Israelites from their enslavement in Egypt.


• Only one in three Americans can name the four Gospels, while less than half can even name one of them.


• A majority couldn’t identify the preacher of the “Sermon on the Mount.” (Hint: The Bible says it was Jesus.)

And for pure, unadulterated Christian dumbassitude, who could forget Stephen Colbert's interview with Congressman Lynn Westmoreland? Ah, good times, good times.

So when someone suggests that what America needs is actual Bible study in its public school system, it might surprise you to learn that I am so all behind that idea, as long as it's done correctly:

One solution to this civic problem is to teach Bible classes in public schools. By Bible classes I do not mean classes in which teachers tell students that Jesus loves them or that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but academic courses that study the Bible's characters and stories as well as the afterlife of the Bible in literature and history. Last week, the Georgia Board of Education gave preliminary approval to two elective Bible courses designed to teach religion rather than preach religion. As long as teachers stick to the curriculum, this is a big step in the right direction.

Damn straight. I think this is a terrific idea, and so should you, since it would be such a relief to suddenly have a religious population that actually had a fucking clue about their own religion, rather than the mouth-breathing trogs we have now who are invariably dumb as a sack of wet hammers. (Hello, Jinx McHue.)

Bible study in the public school system? You bet. I'm all for that. And make sure they learn the Ten Commandments. All of them. Especially the one about cooking a goat in its mother's milk. I'm betting a lot of Christians are really slacking on that one.

A day late and a dollar short.

Blogging Tory Fred suddenly seems terribly concerned about ...

... the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria--which happened in the last few decades-- ...

Welcome to the party, Fred, although we leftists have already been here for a while.

Careful, Wayne -- that child pornography is dangerous stuff.

Sadly, it has come to my attention (via an unattributed source, naturally) that one of my occasional readers is a regular consumer of child and animal pornography. Now, Wayne, it may be that that barnyard stuff is legal in Canada, but the stuff with children -- well, the RCMP doesn't look kindly on that kind of nastiness.

And given that Wayne brags about his current position as a Town Councilor, I'm wondering if any of his councilor colleagues might be just a wee bit interested in what he does in his spare time. If any of them read this blog, they can always just ask him, I guess.

So the next time you run into Wayne, feel free to ask him about his video collection. And tell him I said "Hi."

IN RETROSPECT, A WASTE OF TIME. In the comments section, Scotian is not quite sure what the point of this post was:

Is this serious? Or are you making a point about something like how easy it is to make stuff up and get it spread about someone online? Because otherwise I completely missed the point of this post.

Yes, the point was to show how trivially easy it is to smear somebody with no evidence whatsoever, but it was particularly to give Wayne a good smack since, after the savage pummeling that Blogging Tory Brian Lemon has taken in his own comments section, Wayne had the lack of sense to leave this comment:

Brian did nothing wrong, I don't know what the big deal is.

He should make a page 3 correction like the Leftist MSM do, when their wrong all the time.

Keep up the great work Brian.

To be fair, Wayne is not an evil person. He's simply the most mind-numbingly clueless person I have ever witnessed. How else do you describe someone who can wade through everything that's been written about this right-wing smear and still have the lack of awareness to write, "I don't know what the big deal is."

And the sad thing is, Wayne is being entirely honest. He really doesn't know what the big deal is. He is totally, utterly and completely without clue, so picking on him this way was really uncalled for. It's sort of like beating a dog today for having taken a dump on your new carpet some time last week. All you're going to end up with is one confused dog.

Is it "heckling" if you just roll your eyes?

Regarding one of the later developments in the right-wing Michael Ware smear job, the latest wanker talking point is that, well, OK, the video shows clearly that Ware was not "heckling" Sen. John McCain. But that doesn't mean he wasn't, you know, mocking or laughing or something like that. Sort of what poor Brian is suggesting here in a desperate attempt to save face:

Ware carefully denies heckling and speaking. He was NEVER accused of either heckling and speaking. [False.] Video could not prove that he didn't laugh and mock, only if he did.

Let's take a closer look at McCain's nonchalant stroll through the streets of Baghdad, shall we?

It was clear to all assembled that the trip to Thieves Market in Shorja yesterday was a carefully orchestrated event by the U.S. military and Senator John McCain but many did not know it was specifically for CBS's 60 Minutes. Kirk Semple of the The New York Times went back a day later to discover that it was all a sham.

“They paralyzed the market when they came,” Mr. Faiyad said during an interview in his shop on Monday. “This was only for the media.”

... The junket wore body armor and was surrounded by over 100 members of the armed forces. Sniper patrols bristled from surrounding rooftops, six helicopters flew overhead and the "diamond" instead of being 4 people was 30 deep. In a classic psyops move, the entrourage [sic] was told to take their helmets off and even General Petraeus put on a forage cap.

So, having ventured forth under the protection of a phalanx of heavily-armed guards and rooftop snipers, plus a small contingent of gunship helicopters, McCain later had the nerve, at the aforementioned press conference, to respond to a journalist's question about McCain's prior claim that there were areas in Baghdad that were safe to walk around in with, "I just came from one."

Under the circumstances, could you possibly blame any journalist in the room for perhaps rolling his eyes quietly in disbelief? How stoic and self-possessed would you have to be, upon hearing that, to not want to just smack your head against the wall a couple of times to make sure you weren't just having a really, really bad dream?

I don't think it's a question of whether Ware might have made a face or two at that point. Rather, I think it's a question of whether it was physically possible for him not to.

Poor Brian ...

... things weren't supposed to turn out this way, were they? Of course, you just know that the end result of all this will be simply to prove that we leftists are a bunch of angry, deranged, unhinged moonbats who are utterly incapable of participating in civilized discourse.

Just wait for it -- you know that's what's coming.

Jesus. Freakin'. Christ.

DEEP THOUGHTS: Commenter Robert makes a reasonable point:

To be fair, we could probably do the same kind of segment using Canadians and get some equally embarrassing stuff.

I have no doubt that there are countless, embarrassingly ill-informed Canadians (hello BTs). But it's particularly unforgivable to be that clueless when you're so thoroughly hip deep in neo-con imperialism and a Global War on Terror™. I mean, you have to believe that there are Americans who are all gung-ho armchair warriors who want to nuke the "Axis of Evil," yet who don't even know who the "Axis of Evil" is.

It's acceptable to be that geographically ignorant if you don't give a shit what's happening overseas. It's not acceptable when you have 140,000 troops over there being killed on a regular basis, and you keep howling frantically about the need to "support the troops" when you couldn't locate those troops on a world map if your life depended on it.

That's embarrassing.

It's good deed time: Get out your credit card.

One of the stalwarts of the Canadian progress-o-sphere, Liberal Catnip, is having to relocate, and she's asking for a little help:

I and my two cats are currently living in a shared accommodation situation in Calgary and have received a notice to move by July 1, 2007. Since I live on a low (disability) income and rental costs have skyrocketed in this city in a very tight rental market, I thought I'd put up my own "accomodation wanted" post on my blog to see if that might increase my options of finding a suitable place to live...

I will be posting a Paypal donation button on my site later this week once the account is verified in order to raise money for a security deposit ...

Read the whole thing, then stop being such a prissy tightwad for just a few minutes and prepare to pitch in. Because LC is one of my regular daily reads, I'm going to set the bar and send $50. You don't have to match that, but do what you can. It's for a good cause. That case of beer can wait.

Time to get over it and move on: The Brian Lemon edition.

And for your reading amusement, the latest installment in the ongoing Brian Lemon meltdown, where he so desperately wants to close the book on this hideous embarrassment to his now non-existent credibility:

... Short of an admission by the reporter, or complete video evidence of his entire attendance at the event, no conclusion one way or the other can be made.

Similarly, I can't prove that Brian Lemon has carnal relations with 12-year-old male Thai street hookers and barnyard animals but, then again, he can't prove he doesn't. Stalemate, I guess. Better reserve judgment on that one.

Reporters shouldn't ever be in a position to "Be the news". And this is yesterday's.

Um ... Brian ... the only reason Michael Ware was "the news" was that you and the rest of your right-wing, craptacular journalist wannabe hack colleagues made up shit about him and made him the news. Do you see how that works?

In short -- Brian's position is: no retraction, no correction, no apology and let's all please forget that this ever happened. I mean, it's all so ... so ... 24 hours ago, know what I mean?

In unrelated news, Brian desperately wants to talk about what happened "in the later Chretien years."

That's a good little right-wing stenographer, Brian. Here. Have a biscuit.

You might want to rethink that invitation, dude.

Recently, your humble scribe got the following invite:

Hi:

I just stumbled across your politics blog, and you do excellent work, ...

I like to think so.

... but I noticed that you are getting few to no comments.

Hmmmmm ... you say that like it's a bad thing. I have no problem with that. I mean, when you present your case with irrefutable logic, unassailable facts and devastating wit, what's to comment on?

I'd like to invite you to write for http://politics.wikia.com. Wikia, started by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, aims to highlight the world's best and brightest ideas.

Ummmmm ... and by the "best and brightest," you mean stuff like this?

Does CNN's Michael Ware Have PMS?

Yeah, I'll pass, thanks. If I need my fix of that kind of dumbassitude, well, I know where to find it. Best of luck, though.

P.S. Now if Firedoglake came calling, well, then ...

Lie down with dogs ...

It's not that Instadumbass Glenn Reynolds fell for the Michael Ware smear, it's this delightful nugget near the bottom of that piece of offal that's so mirthmaking:

MORE: Ware denies the heckling, and he's got video. Looks like Drudge got burned, as, to a lesser degree, did those of us who relied on him.

"Relied on him"? Jesus, Mary, Mother of God, just how pathetic a pundit do you have to be to admit that you "rely" on Matt Drudge?

No, no, don't answer that. I really don't want to know.

BY THE WAY, note well the total lack of accountability here, as Reynolds describes both Drudge and himself as having been "burned," as if they are somehow the victims of this disgusting, drive-by smear rather than the perpetrators.

It's someone else's fault. It always is, you know. I'm guessing the drive-by smear fairies have been busy or something.

That logical disconnect from reality.

On the one hand, you have your typical, deluded, American, right-wing, dumbass motherfucker (not to be confused with Brian Lemon, who is Canadian):

Walberg defends statement that parts of Iraq as safe as Detroit

DETROIT (AP) -- A first-term congressman from Michigan is defending statements he made comparing parts of Iraq to Detroit and Harvey, Ill.

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, said Thursday that Detroit and Harvey, just outside Chicago, were just two examples of communities where safety and city services are comparable to 80 percent to 85 percent of Iraq.

Walberg said on Detroit radio station WJR that U.S. troops in Iraq tell him the military is achieving successes.

And then you have the real deal:

The aging war hawk [John McCain], proving that security is returning to Baghdad by walking into a market encased in body armor, surrounded by rooftop sharpshooters and enveloped in a [shield] of a hundred soldiers, helicopters (Blackhawks), helicopter gunships (Apaches) and all after another group of soldiers went in for a pre-jaunt security sweep which, in the words of Larry Johnson, "searched for explosives, sent informants into the crowd, set up a perimeter, and secured the area before the Senators showed up with their 100 armed guards."

There's a reason they call us the "reality-based community." Really. Think about it -- it'll come to you.

Michael Ware, down the memory hole.

Awwwwww ... the good folks in the Dumbass-o-sphere are always so cute when they're caught with their nads hanging out. From the shrieking cementheads at Hot Air:

Update: As of 1:50 p.m., the McCain/Ware items have disappeared entirely from Drudge’s front page.

Yup. Nothing to see here, drive-by smear's over, let's go, move on. Any bets on how long it's gonna be before Brian quietly deletes this bit of embarrassing excrement and pretends it never happened?

Thank God for screenshots.

Shoe, Foot, Other.

In an opinion piece sure to make a Bushie's head explode, Terry Jones speaks to issues of prisoner treatment. The piece ran in The Guardian. Oh, and that would be Terry Jones, Python.

"For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.
It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated."

The entire article is definitely worth a read. Go on, we'll wait. That is, unless you're Bill O'Reilly. If you're Bill O'Reilly, you are far too busy screaming at a distinguished veteran of the armed forces. Retired Colonel Ann Wright has a conscience and she speaks her mind. She served 16 years in active service and 13 more years in the reserves.

She went on to serve her country working in the State Department from 1987 to 2003. In March of 2003, she resigned her position with the State Department on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. She retired in protest for four reasons:

"I disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq
I disagree with the Administration's lack of effort in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
I disagree with the Administration's lack of policy on North Korea
I disagree with the Administration's policies on Unnecessary Curtailment of Rights in America"

Since retiring, she has become a peace activist. O'Reilly gave her a lukewarm introduction and then tried to lead her along a rhetorical garden path toward the evils of Iran. Bill was on his high hobby horse, humping the horrible* treatment of the British captives being held in Tehran. She spoke her mind, that all sides of conflict, including America, should treat all prisoners justly and with dignity. That's when the O'Reilly leapt onto the hood of the station wagon, tore off the aerial and disabled the windshield wipers. Bellowing and gesticulating, the O'Reilly climbed off the hood of the car onto a branch, from which he pelted the vehicle with feces. Then he cut off her mic.

It is a performance of fair and balancedness for the ages, starring Bill O'Reilly as a scurrilous baboon. Ann Wright has served her country for nearly three decades. Bill O'Reilly has only ever served himself. I can only imagine the heights of outrage, the blandishments and agonies the right would have celebrated had a liberal teevee host behaved in such a manner with a hawkish retired officer. This was a clear case of a conservative hawking up a phlegm ball and spitting at a veteran.

As our good friend Snoop Dogg says, "Fuck Bill O'Reilly."

* that be aliteration.

Oh, dear God, you won't believe this.

And the Brian Lemon train wreck continues to unfold before our very eyes, as we read his recent "Update" (all subsequent emphasis added):

Update:
Hot Air covers Ware's Denial. Contrary to comments herein there is absolutely nothing more than a denial here (I did not have sex with that woman). Ware carefully denies heckling and speaking. He was NEVER accused of either heckling and speaking...

Why, sure, and let's quote the very first sentence of Brian's original post, shall we?

During a live press conference in Bagdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware.

You just can't make this stuff up. And, since I'm in on my way out the door, let's just jump to the bottom of Brian's brain-damaging idiocy:

If (and I say if) this story is proven to be wrong (or Drudge apologizes), I will delete this post.

No, Brian. We don't want you to delete that post. We want it left where it is so future browsers can appreciate what kind of truly asinine and dishonest hack you really are.

Where else can you get this kind of entertainment this cheaply?

THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF LEMON-SOAKED DOUCHEBAGGERY: Since Mr. Lemon referred to the right-wing site Hot Air, let's check out what they have to say. Oooooooh ... look (emphasis added):

Video: CNN reporter denies heckling McCain; Update: Press conference video appears to support Ware

At this point, I think we can safely expect Lemon's post of infinite dumbassitude to conveniently disappear down the memory hole, with any future references to it being met with a puzzled, innocent look and a reply of "Post? What post?"

P.S. Would someone like to keep me up to date on whether we see a genuine and heartfelt retraction and apology from Canada's Crazy-Assed Pathological Lunatic™? Strictly for the entertainment value, of course.

FREE AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: TBogg doesn't actually mention Mr. Lemon by name, but it's not like he'd be out of place in this beatdown.

Hit him again ... he's still moving!

And let's go to the videotape. I wonder how Brian's holding up so far. Ooooooh, not so good.

P.S. Note well in that second video at Raw Story how a foreign journalist asks McCain flat out about which neighbourhood he was safely walking around in, and note well how McCain rambles on without answering that journalist's question.

I think my job here is done. But I'm also thinking that I might have one wrap-up post left in me to bury Mr. Lemon good and deep. Think of it as a public service.

JUST WHEN YOU THINK IT CAN'T GET ANY BETTER, let's all remember that Blogging Tory and gullible hack Brian Lemon quoted this part of Drudge's dishonesty, implying that Ware was, in some way, an alcoholic:

Michael Ware has also publicly expressed his views on the war last year in an interview with Bill Maher, saying, “I've been given a front-row ticket to watch this slow-motion train wreck … I try to stay as drunk for as long as possible while I'm here … In fact, I'm drinking now.”

Then let's all go here to watch the actual video of Bill Maher interviewing Ware, and draw our own conclusions, shall we?

God, but I've so thoroughly debunked Brian's idiocy, I feel like Steve Janke. Without the mental retardation.

Let's all play the Brian Lemon Pinata game.

Poor Brian -- hoist by his own petard. In defending his quiet deletion of a critical comment I mentioned in my previous post (of which, despite what Brian would have you believe, I was not the author), Brian shows the same whiny, thin skin as his Canadian right-wing colleagues:

Re Deleted Comments - If you hadn't used the words Stupid and Bitch, they'd still be there.

Sadly for Brian, the Internets have a long memory ...
Here ...:

Don Moors of Grits -brings up Reynolds / Ottawa's Mayor's race. HOW STUPID IS THIS.

... and here ...

I am a big critic of the Indian Act and government policy toward aboriginals because it has proven to be stupid, ineffectual, asinine, racist and incompetent.

... and here ...

Ohhhh, It's about the Election, Stupid.

... and here ...

All You Need to Know About the Stupidity of the CBC

... and ... well, I'm sure you get the idea.

Finding everywhere Brian used the word "bitch" is left as an exercise for the reader.

P.S. Note well how hard Brian is working at making this personal so he can avoid having to deal with the actual issue that his post is unsubstantiated, dishonest crap. It's kind of what the word "predictable" was invented for.

P.P.S. If that original anonymous commenter wants to reproduce, on this blog, the comment that gave poor Brian a case of the moralistic vapours, we can all see for ourselves just how over the top it was. But, to be fair, it needs to be reproduced exactly as it was posted, and not just from memory.

Gullible dumbass of the day: Brian Lemon.

[TAIL WAGGING UPDATE: Not half an hour ago, as I was linking to Mr. Lemon's blog post, I noticed that an anonymous commenter had left a comment on that post referring to the same DailyKos post I link to. That comment is now gone. Apparently, some people just can't handle criticism. However, just to play it safe, I took a screenshot of that blog post, in case it mysteriously changes or disappears.]

Yes, it's a followup of a post from earlier this morning but, golly gee, this is just too entertaining not to pounce on.

As we reported earlier, Blogging Tory Brian Lemon was just plain peeved about CNN's Michael Ware allegedly giving Sen. John McCain a hard time, as Brian quotes from reliable news source Kate McMillan:

During a live press conference in Bagdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware’s conduct “outrageous,” saying, “here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I’ve never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter.”
“I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.”
Michael Ware has also publicly expressed his views on the war last year in an interview with Bill Maher, saying, “I've been given a front-row ticket to watch this slow-motion train wreck … I try to stay as drunk for as long as possible while I'm here … In fact, I'm drinking now.”

Let's disembowel Brian's dumbassitude one piece at a time, as first we learn that the source of that accusation is (brace yourself) Matt Drudge:

During a live press conference in Baghdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware’s conduct “outrageous,” saying, “here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I’ve never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter.”

And you'd think that being Matt Drudge's stenographer is embarrassing enough. But, no, Brian's dumbassery continues. Again, quoting verbatim from Brian's piece, note how he seems to be suggesting that the following text is somehow continuous in the original article:

During a live press conference in Bagdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware’s conduct “outrageous,” saying, “here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I’ve never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter.”
“I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.”

But, oh look ... let's read the actual text from Drudge, shall we, with the carefully-excised verbiage highlighted:

... Senators McCain and Graham flew into Iraq and drove into Baghdad, making stops at an open market and a joint Iraq/American military security outpost before appearing at the press conference.

This is not the first time Michael Ware has taken issue with Senator McCain’s comments about early progress in Iraq. Last week, after Senator McCain told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he needed to catch up on the news coming out of Iraq, Michael Ware responded, saying:

“I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.”

Well, how about that? Despite what Brian is suggesting, Ware's quote about "Neverland" could not possibly have constituted "heckling" at a "live press conference" since it was uttered last week. To Wolf Blitzer. During a TV interview.

And the capper? How about asking if any of the above actually happened (emphasis in quoted article)?

Soledad: Let me ask you a question. There was a report that said you were heckling and you were laughing during the Senator's press conference. Was that true?

Ware: Well, let's bear in mind that this was a report that was linked by an unnamed official of some kind to a blog, somewhere on the internet. No one is going to put their name forward. We certainly haven't heard Senator McCain say anything about it, or has any of his staff come forward to say anything about it.

I did not heckle the Senator, indeed I did not say a word. I didn't even ask a question. In fact, when I raised my hand to ask a question, the press conference abruptly ended. So what I would suggest is that everyone that has any queries about whether I heckled, watch the video tape of the press conference.

Let's follow this story for a while, shall we? I don't think we're done with Brian just yet.

BONUS TRACK: Poor Brian can't even claim that he was led astray by pathological screech harpy Kate McMillan, as here's a screenshot from SDA, in which you can clearly read the text that Brian so carefully removed:

And if I were feeling particularly cruel, I could point out how that accusation from Drudge is totally unsourced and unattributed. But that would be cruel. And I'm not cruel.

You say po-TAY-to, I say po-TAH-to ...

Today's episode is brought to you by the letter "p", for "perspective", in which Canada's Deranged Catholic™ Kathy Shaidle brings you the following headline:

Catholic socialist MP wants lower age of consent for anal sex

in which Kathy almost certainly wants you to read it this way:

Catholic socialist MP wants lower age of consent for anal sex

whereas it would seem equally fair to tilt your head slightly and read it this way just as easily:

Catholic socialist MP wants lower age of consent for anal sex

Sadly, that second reading would seem to have more historical rationalization. If you know what I'm sayin'.

I could swear there's some irony in there somewhere.

From the spittle-flecked lips of Deranged Catholic™ Kathy Shaidle:

"Some call it art. Other call it blasphemy. A new piece of art showing Senator Barack Obama as Jesus Christ is now on display at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago."

***
My objection to this is that, like 95% of all post-modern art, it is crudely rendered and literal minded, an image illustrating a one-note joke.

And if anyone's an expert on one-note jokes ...

Two minutes with the Blogging Tories.

Your soon-to-be-regular series of BT intellectual atrocities:

• Jarrett, Fred and Darcey (and, one suspects, other BTs) are terribly, terribly upset about Muslim pressure to ban certain sensitive topics from the public school curriculum.
  
  Yeah, that sort of cultural blackmail has to suck. I'm sure all those BTs will be all over this other appalling development any minute now. Yessir, any minute now. Just you wait ...


• Jonathan suggests that Newt Gingrich is the man to deal with the current British hostage crisis since, as we all know, the Newtster is a veritable fount of good judgment.


• Brian is livid at the idea of journalists treating politicians with a lack of respect. Yeah, I've heard that happens from time to time.
  
  And it's not as if McCain has done anything recently that just screams to be ridiculed or anything. Well, OK ... except for that.


• Biebs is a little put out by that unseemly left-wing hero worship and unqualified adoration. In totally unrelated news, of course ...


• Dr. Roy suggests that Stephane Dion is overdoing it with the word "unfair" since, as we all know, there's nothing more irritating than someone who can't give it a freakin' rest.
  

... but then when you lift up the barrel ...

It's hard to believe that anyone can make you long for the days of intellectual discourse involving Adam Daifallah, but TVO's "The Agenda with Steve Paikin" is working on it:

Deranged Catholic Kathy Shaidle, your local expert on secular pursuits. What ... Harold Albrecht wasn't available?

JUST THINKING OUT LOUD: If one felt strongly enough about this, one might actually e-mail Steve Paikin and ask him whether he has any standards for his guests. Such as, whether it bothers him in the slightest to have invited Kathy Shaidle, who recently wrote of Barack Obama:

Black, stupid or both: that's your only excuse for getting excited about Barack Obama... I'll be repeating this a lot during the next few years, so get used to it: there is nothing "compelling" about a black man impregnating a white woman. In more than one Toronto neighbourhood, that's what they call "Saturday night."

Perhaps Steve should consider an upcoming episode on racial tolerance and multiculturalism. I'll bet Kate McMillan's available.

THEY'RE hateful and closed-minded; WE'RE just discerning.

The Blogging Tories' "halls of macadamia" gives us the shocking lowdown on Islam:

Islam is a one way street

The Islamic world does not regard itself as a "big tent" type of religion.

Anyone who is not a Muslim is unequivocally an infidel...

This is, of course, in direct contrast to Christianity:

Dr. James Dobson: Fred Thompson 'Not a Christian'

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson has dealt a potentially devastating blow to Fred Thompson's presidential aspirations, saying the former senator is not a Christian.

"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson, considered the most politically powerful evangelical figure in the U.S. said in a phone call to Dan Gilgoff, senior editor at U.S. News & World Report.

"[But] I don't think he's a Christian. At least that's my impression."

The difference between these two situations is obvious, in that ... um ... well, the reason they're not the same is ... uh ... see, here's how it works ... errr ... tell you what, let me get back to you on that.