mightcan

Moved

2005-11-10T13:11:00.000-06:00

Kay Bailey, Communist or Capitalist?

2005-11-09T11:39:00.000-06:00

Here in Dallas, we're having a little tussle over an airport, called Love Field. It happens to be popular, well positioned, and convienent. And it's the home of the World's Best Airline (Southwest Airlines). Unfortunately, there is a larger, unpopular, and inconvienent airport called DFW Airport (Dallas-Fort Worth International). It happens to be the home of one of the least friendly, least responsive, and least competitive airlines in the world (American Airlines). Because of AA's legislative largesse, it's a classic example of our dear representatives in Government NOT representing their constituents, because, for some ungodly reason, Love Field is saddled with a restriction called the Wright Amendment. It prohibits Love from competing with DFW Airport. AA LOVES it. It keeps Southwest in a bottle AND lets AA artificially inflate prices (guess who pays that!).

People in Fort Worth and Dallas OVERWHELMINGLY want the Wright Amendment removed, but our Representatives because, in my opinion, of above and below board machinations from AA, don't want to lift those restrictions. So, thinking this through, what can be the reason? IF AA isn't gaming the system with contributions and Boss Tweed behaviour, what else can it be? I MEAN, who wants more government control, less competition, and ignoring of the electorate? If only the Church Lady had said LENIN instead of Satan. In the interest of better understanding our Duly Elected Representatives (DERs), I've put together this little table, Kay Bailey, Commie or Capitalist? (HANDY TABLE BELOW, PAGE DOWN!!!)

Kay Bailey, Commie or Capitalist?

	Government or People Know Best? <-GOVT------------PEOPLE->
	Which is better for the People? <-I DECIDE----------YOU DECIDE->
	Who prefers stealing the People's money? <-STEAL------------HELP->
	Which airline does Kay Bailey book for Trotsky? <-AA--------Mexicana Air->
	Who believes the Wright Amendment is GOOD? <-Loves WRIGHT--LOVES FREEDOM->

SO I'M GUESSING KAY BAILEY is one of those sleeper cells we keep hearing about!

What comes after magnetic yellow ribbons?

2005-11-08T12:17:00.000-06:00

When, Hugh and Jonah and LSP* Glenn, start to feel guilty about being of military age but too, oh, (what's that dang word? You know, the word that throws into relief one's public opinion, versus one's private actions? You know, the kid who goads the others to act but safely hangs out in the back of the class? Oh, I don't know, something will come to me) commitment phobic to actually do anything, what can they do? Why, the next step up for Hugh is to support charities like this. That Hugh, he is a man of action!

Because you know, they've got other commitments, and supporting a nice laptop for some injured soldier, that speaks volumes above those magnetic thingies. It's so much more "No Man is an Island"-ish, more Nelsonish (you know, England expects each man to do his duty. Their duty is to keep the triple shot latte economy going), more Churchillian - except for the actual beach/cities/hills fighting thing.

What is that word?

-----
*Lemonade Stand Proprietor

The stench that is Pete Sessions and the GOP

2005-11-07T13:39:00.000-06:00

See this, notorious push polling, ccAdvertising. linked to Grover Norquist.

PETE SESSIONS (R-TX)
Expenditures
2003-2004 Cycle

Sort by Name Sort by Amount Sort by Date Sort by Description Top Overall Expenditures

Recipient Amount Date Description

CcAdvertising, Herndon, VA $7,326 9/7/2004 PHONE SURVEY

CcAdvertising, Herndon, VA $2,794 8/19/2004 PHONE SURVEY

NOTE: Where expenditures to financial institutions have a description of "see below," the actual expenditures that make up the total are itemized as separate entries elsewhere in the report.

All the numbers on this page are for the 2004 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released on Friday, October 07, 2005. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

Its time to TAKE OUT THE TRASH (Maybe even NEXT Whiterock Lake Cleanup Day). HEY PETE, HOW'S THAT SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM WORKING OUT FOR YOU? NO MONEY FROM SOUTHWESTERN BELL TO PAY FOR IT?

Excellent example

2005-11-05T17:18:00.000-06:00

Here is an excellent example of the incompetence of the GOP. JFK put an American on the moon in less than 10 years (and does it). The Chinese, who've never done it, announced they will do it by 2017. The GOP, in the person of W, Our Great Leader, says he can do it by 2018. Shouldn't this drive the wingnuts batty?

Oh! So now we know...

2005-11-04T07:55:00.000-06:00

Now we know why Jeff "Chick~~shit~~hawk" Goldstein, Jonah "Coward" Goldberg, Pouty Michelle Malkin, and so/so on, were too valuable to give up to the war effort. Their requirement in the wingnut publicity machine was simply too great (C&L).

"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: Not only would most voters not know about an initiative to protect Coushatta gambling revenues, but religious "wackos" could be tricked into supporting gambling at the Coushatta casino even as they thought they were opposing it.

It's a first, a really, truely, readily identifiable miasma. How often do you get to say that in a day?

Glenn Reynolds, Dumbest Lawyer or Smartest Lemonade Stand* Proprietor

2005-11-02T13:43:00.000-06:00

Go read this on MSNBC:

WMDs make Harry Reid's head explode

• November 1, 2005 | 10:51 PM ET

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid can't stand it. He was hoping that special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would bring down the Bush Administration for him, but all he got was a lame indictment of Scooter Libby.

He showed his pique today by taking the Senate into closed session and demanding an investigation of prewar intelligence.

Well, okay -- but then the investigation needs to go way back before the war, to 1998, when a Democratic President, with the support of many Congressional Democrats, passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided that:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

...

(9),(10),(11) [you want to see those, go there]
...

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Then there are statements like these:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton, February 4, 1998

[more quotes of Democrats/Clinton officials about how bad Saddam was. Interestingly, no mention of the Hussein/Rumsfeld coffee klatch]

The anti-war fundraising base of the Democrats -- as exemplified by organizations like MoveOn.org -- is powerful enough to require Democratic politicians like Harry Reid to pretend that all the WMD stuff began with President Bush. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, a gross and partisan lie.

[money quote] Reid owes the President an apology. He owes another to the Democratic Party, whose credibility he is destroying, day by day.

UPDATE: Perhaps Reid should look at this Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraqi WMD, which found that errors in intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction didn't stem from White House pressure, but from groupthink and systematic failure within the Intelligence Community:

The Committee found significant short-comings in almost every aspect of the Intelligence Community's human intelligence collection efforts against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities, in particular that the Community had no sources collecting against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after 1998. Most, if not all, of these problems, stem from a broken corporate culture and poor management, and will not be solved by additional funding and personnel.

1998. Was Bush President then?

Here's what I sent to him in the comments. Really, we can't let this go unchallenged. Remember, for the GOP to succeed, all it takes is for the good men (& women) to do nothing.

- I don't think Reid views the indictment as lame, but maybe since it didn't include a blue dress, perhaps so. I'm not quite as up-to-date on my law as many of our lemonade stand proprietors.

- He didn't demand an investigation, he demanded progress on an ONGOING investigation. Spending too much time squeezing those lemons?

-Ah yes, the Clinton did it too! defense. There is no evidence in any of this that the Clinton administration would have prosecuted its efforts at neutralizing Iraq in the same way this administration has bungled their - excuse me - fought their way. Indeed there is contrary evidence, of qualitatively better results - just over the curve of the earth in North Korea. Oh, and didn't I just sense that the current administration is back to trying the same Clintonian efforts with that card carrying member of the axis of evil?

-Lastly, are you saying that EVEN if War was required, on this particular evil of the cacophony of evils extant, that we would have gone without armour, without vests, without a plan for the aftermath, without preparation? There is no way. Although, it would probably be true that the Clinton administration might not have had the Oil Ministry quite as high an after-conflict protectorate.

I know you loath comments - as do most wingnuts - I mean, your blog doesn't allow them. And I sometimes agree that wingnuts do fly off, but geez, maybe if you had allowed comments someone could try to pass along advice, even to the Lemonade/Clarence Darrow wannabe you are, sound advice, like, oh, Gee Glenn, Try something NEW, try thinking!

*Thanks to James Wolcott.

Today is the day

2005-11-01T12:19:00.000-06:00

This is the day. We're going to get to see something rare, the political Blue Moon, a chance for us all to see the incarnate apparition of a Party for All Seasons. It may seem that we've been given Claudius' poisoned mushroom, a we know before we even bite, poisoned piece of Kabuki dinner theater, in this next Supreme Court Justice. It may seem that the Republican bully has sat upon our chest, snowballing spittle onto our face, "say it, say it's the new order of things, the permanent majority/minority stasis, I'm on Top and, well, you're my permanent Bottom".

But its not really true, we know its not true. Make no mistake - he is the NEXT SCJ - it's a foreordained calamity that can't be changed. But it is the first real sign of an end of the fight, of an end of the fight in the fighter, a staggering of the overzealous opponent who depends on wild flagellation and shrill obfuscation. Yes, he has had a surfeit of energy, of will, of determination and has beaten us - his opponent - as far as he can take us and he must now realize that there won't be a collapse. At this moment, he must know the war is lost. His victory will cost too much. The frisson that held the wingnut to the confused conservative to the misguided Libertarian to the avaricious Wealthy crumbles once the appointment cashiers. The Disparadised GOP loses its engine and falls into its components - natural enemies unnaturally bound.

This battle isn't about winning - and a pox on those who say we Democrats, we happy few, must pick our battles. A pox on those who say wait, "Can we win this one? Shouldn't we husband our energies for the Good Battle we can win?" This is the Good Battle. This is the chance to answer the "No Quarter" standard with a fusillade that falls short in distance and long on hope. Nuclear Option be damned. Parliamentary deceit? So be it. It is time to stand for something, to fall and to fail as one, not as pusillanimous individuals - Joe Lieberman be damned.

This is the enemy of the future

2005-10-26T14:57:00.000-05:00

Pete Sessions. What a disturbingly brazen hog at the public trough. From Slate:

It's not just state politicians who are promoting the interests of the telecommunications industry. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, a former SBC executive, introduced a bill in the House of Representatives earlier this year that would prohibit state and local governments from offering telecommunications services unless the area wasn't being served by a private company. According to Sessions' House financial disclosure forms from 2003 (the most recent year they were available), he has between $500,000 and $1 million in SBC stock options.

Next time you see him cleaning up White Rock Lake, remind him that it was nice to take a day away from the destruction of Social Security to pick up trash.

Then vote him out with the Trash.

The Fog of Egress

2005-10-25T15:04:00.000-05:00

Scooter Libby and Karl Rove must be jumping for joy. Each and every blog-fount has it completely wrong. These guys are getting, what Hollywood soldiers called, the million dollar ~~wound~~ ticket and a free exit home. How can that be, one might say (admit it, you just said it)? Because, regardless of how guilty, how feckless, how inveighed they become - they KNOW that there is a get out of jail card, one of those Lenny Briscoe signed business cards. Present it to the traffic cop and you're not even late for latte. It's GUARANTEED, a lock, an "I gotta horse right here, by the name of Paul Revere, can't lose" feud that will be delivered from the Oval office the femto-second that there is any real danger that the shark jaws of justice just might clamp on. Don't think so? Ask Caspar Weinberger. Ask Elliott Abrams, Duane Clarridge, and Alan Fiers. Ask Clair George and Robert McFarlane. Ask Nixon. That's the way Republicans do it. The LAW, like TAXES, is for little people.

This is small time. This is minor stuff. This is hardly even detention hall. Scooter&Karl get out. This Ship of State, of governing, this prayed for instantiation of complete and total GOP stewardship is seriously listing, sinking, adrift and in irons. Scooter&Karl get a first class lifeboat and an exit with honor. They don't even have to take the oh-so-bravely delivered Fifth of Oliver North. They're just free. Every Conservative must know this ship is-a-done-for. They've given up. They're just tired of telling people to ignore the man behind the curtain. They're on to the next Dorothy, the next HMO-Tin man that just wants a heart.

You know what? Every Conservative knew this was doomed from the start. Don't start that litany of excuses, I know what they are:

Excuses, To Be Used with Every GOP Meltdown

They weren't really conservative, Look at how they spent!
We didn't vote for them, We're Libertarians!
Screw politicians, They're all the same.

It's the same every time, huh? Conservatives think that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility, but they're wrong. What was the size of government growth under Reagan? Under G.41? Under Clinton? Under W? How was the economy? What about right now? Does an erinaceous stagflation sound like a bad remake of Groundhog Day?

You, each and every one of you knew you were voting for a party that would rather RULE than GOVERN, knew you were voting for failed policies, failed philosophies, and a mirage of visions. Visions, give me a break? You think that's too hard a critique? Really? Let's think about visions: A Democrat envisions a Man on the Moon in less than a decade. A Republican envisions a superconducting/supercolliding hole in the ground. A Democrat pushes that vision and gets it achieved. A Republican uses his power as Commander-in-Chief to order the first men on the moon be picked up by the carrier Hornet - not the John F. Kennedy - because the shadow that relief throws is too stark to hide within.

Libertarian. Give me a break. If you're a Libertarian, then you are closer to a Democrat. Take this test: Which party brought out NoChildLeftBehind (the Federal Gov't knows better than your local school board)? Which party sued Oregon (what do the states know about right to die, that's reserved for the Federal Gov't. Did ya misread that clause about rights not delineated are reserved by the States)? Which party brought you Patriot 1 and Patriot 2? Which party wants a State Religion? Which party counsels that Supreme Court Nominees DON'T have to answer questions because, "it might come up". Geez, what kind of deception is that? You know what kind it is - its the party of wingnuts telling you there is nothing to see here, move along. Calling yourself Libertarian? Thats just because you've been cowed into believing LIBERAL and DEMOCRAT are bad words.

All politicians the same? Really? What is the same about Santorum and Wellstone? Waxman and Delay? Healthcare and don'tcare? Tax policy and tax theft?

The GOP is a party of No Ideas. It doesn't even pretend to have ideas. Each and every action is about enriching the rich, gilding another Midas' throne, protecting the few against the many. Did any of the FEW go to Iraq? Yea, lets talk about that war image. Would a leader have sent men to combat, a war of his choosing, at his time and place, lacking armour? lacking bullet proof vests? lacking the men &women to do the job? A Democrat would NOT.

It's a sad state for the GOP, when they look back on Elliot Richardson as model of Conservative behaviour, where Nixon's speech writer is the party repository of elder wisdom, where on that Saturday Night Massacre, a future justice nominee hides in the good Nazi defense. We are living in an unbalanced African kleptocracy, taken to its most efficient ends; the kind of efficiency that only an unrestrained death embrace of capitalism and government can achieve.

For the we, for the rest of us, I'm reminded: What's that last line in Romeo and Juliet? Oh yea, "We are punishED" Three syllables, last one emphasized, pun-ish-ED.

Is there really someone who believes...

2005-10-25T12:44:00.000-05:00

Is there really someone who believes that this is worth this? Well, these people don't: Jenna, Barb, Jonah "Coward" Goldberg, Jeff "Chickenhawk" Goldstein.

This is simply NOT true

2005-10-21T15:59:00.000-05:00

From TechWeb:

The Navy on Friday confirmed blocking access to commercial email services provided by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp., Google Inc., America Online Inc. and others, saying they posed a security risk to its networks.

Every other IT department in the world can handle attachments, gmail, aol, etc. This is CLEARLY an attempt to prevent our military personnel from communicating outside "controllable" lines.

The Very First Thing

2005-10-21T08:59:00.000-05:00

If honesty as an intrinsic government feature does return, if and when the Democrats come back (it certainly won't under the current Sun King administration), then Sinclair Media must, as the VERY FIRST ACT, be stripped of their spectrum licenses. IN NO WAY have they benefited the common good that should be their guardianship since, you know, you and I own the spectrum.

Mea culpa

2005-10-20T11:19:00.000-05:00

My public mea culpa. Scroll down to James in Dallas, TX.

Proposed Democratic Congressional Contract With America

2005-10-20T08:43:00.000-05:00

It's time to discuss differences. When Bill O'Reilly, who's too cowardly to debate the Hollywood types he decries, like George Clooney, shows signs of cracking, that's a leading indicator. By cracking, I mean that - even though Blustering Bill would NEVER say that the wingnuts are collectively and severally wrong, he has descended to the redoubt of all wingnuts when giving up - "Both sides do it". (First corollary, "Clinton Did IT", Second corollary, "Clinton got a blowjob"). That tells me that the self-immolation is nigh, that much like communism, ideological wingnut collectives have the seeds of their own destruction within them.

Here's a platform to take Congress back:

1. A Clean Congress. Mandate neutral redistricting. Mandate redistricting occur at Decade. Mandate electronic ballots with paper trails. Mandate wealth registration year/over year for Congress -- if you're a bankrupt bug killer you shouldn't be a millionaire after a few years.

2. An AVERAGE Congress. Members of Congress get EXACTLY the benefit of the AVERAGE AMERICAN WORKER. Healthcare, vacation, holidays, fringe benefits, etc. Then, CONGRESS will be like a board of directors for America, with their ONLY compensation the valuation of the stock in America.

3. An Informed Congress. MAKE SCIENCE NEUTRAL. Set in place decisions and processes independent from wingnuttery. I mean, a cervical cancer vaccine unavailable because wingnuts think it'll increase promiscuity? I mean, no access to safe morning after pills? I mean, eviscerate studies/reports that don't report along the party line?

4. A Chastened Congress. Find out why and how we were duped with LIES about Iraq and then PUNISH - NO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

5. An Empowered Congress. Don't allow SCOTUS candidates to refuse to answer ANY question. Don't allow the excuse of "It Might Come Before Me". What the heck does that mean?

Andrew Sullivan soils himself again

2005-10-18T12:20:00.000-05:00

Our own Demosthenes* comes up with his own paralogia:

THE EVIL OF ABORTION: Here's a touching piece that cuts to the core of why abortion is, in my view, morally wrong. Money quote:
In ancient Greece, babies with disabilities were left out in the elements to die. We in America rely on prenatal genetic testing to make our selections in private, but the effect on society is the same.
Margaret's old pediatrician tells me that years ago he used to have a steady stream of patients with Down syndrome. Not anymore. Where did they go, I wonder. On the west side of L.A., they aren't being born anymore, he says.
We have real debates about sex-selection abortion; if we ever find a gay gene, you can be sure much of the next generation of homosexuals will be aborted; but today, the silent abortion of countless potential human beings who have Down Syndrome is barely discussed. It should be. Note that I'm not saying here that all abortion should be illegal. I'd vote for a law that kept it legal in the first trimester to protect a woman's ownership of her own body and for pragmatic reasons; and I think majorities in most states would agree, if allowed a vote. But it is always wrong. How can it not be?

Gosh, such a brilliantly selfabsorbed extrusion. Where to begin? Let's use our red pen, it's so much more fitting when grading average papers, don't you think?

THE EVIL OF ABORTION: Here's a touching piece that cuts to the core of why abortion is, in my view, morally wrong. Hey, its great to have morals. Whose morals are you using here? Your self-directed, self-derived sense of right and wrong or the Republican party's sense? I mean, we need a flag as to when you're stamping those distaff feet in that just so fillipy personal view as opposed to the Royal you. Money quote:
In ancient Greece, babies hmm, babies with disabilities were left out in the elements to die. We in America rely on prenatal genetic testing to make our selections in private, but the effect on society is the same. ? Hillsides with dying infants? Thats new to me, but I accept that you're trying some sort of visual entanglement.
Margaret's old pediatrician tells me that years ago he used to have a steady stream of patients with Down syndrome. Not anymore. Where did they go, I wonder. On the west side of L.A., they aren't being born anymore, he says.
We have real debates about sex-selection abortion; if we ever find a gay gene, you can be sure much of the next generation of homosexuals will be aborted hasn't the right already said that Gay is a choice, a preternatural desire for boys to run for homecoming queen and girls to, well, just run; but today, the silent abortion of countless potential human beings who have Down Syndrome is barely discussed I'm confused, are you talking about aborting fetuses or babies with Down's? Aborting babies, now that seems a bit much to me. It should be. Note that I'm not saying here that all abortion should be illegal. I'd vote for a law that kept it legal in the first trimester oh, so its ok to feed the baby to the mountain goats in the first three months, but not after? How do those ownership rights work for a woman? If it takes 90 days to foreclose, is the woman's body sold on the courthouse steps? to protect a woman's ownership of her own body and for pragmatic reasons care to elaborate? I mean, I'm pretty sure the Greeks thought their solution pragmatic; and I think majorities in most states would agree, if allowed a vote. Can we put gay marriage on the same ballot? If we're trusting in the majority and all... But it is always wrong sorry about being late, got that James Dobson book on tape about the Gay lifestyle ALWAYS being wrong. I'm assuming you're using the same logic here right? How can it not be? well, I'm pretty sure society decides what's moral and in what context. Yes, I know, it's simplistic, and you may argue that there are intrinsic values, common thoughts on right and wrong across cultures. In our culture, before wingnuts like you set fire to the feed corn of our civil discourse, we were heading for a basic difference between a FETUS and a BABY. For me, I think the only common worldwide, cultural characteristic is that no cultures eat cockroaches. But here they have an organized political party and get elected to office. Hey! Cock-roaches. In the context of writing about you, that's a double-entrendre! cool!

Just ONE THOUGHT, Which party and their members, of the two extant today, would be MOST likely to suport aborting fetuses with a gay gene?

(* the relevant, in Mr. Sullivan's catchphrase, money quote, in wikipedia. In 346 BC Demosthenes was one of many envoys sent to Philip II of Macedon to create a peace treaty. Upon their return, Demosthenes led the potentially fatal prosecution of his fellow envoys based on the ill reception of the treaty's terms and Philip II's actions immediately prior to its agreement. The prosecution was discredited when politician and envoy Aiskhines disenfranchised Demosthenes' fellow, possibly lead, prosecutor, Timarkhos, by convincing the jury he had prostituted himself to another male while young. Demosthenes was also accused of sexual and gender impropriety. Aiskhines attributed Demosthenes' nickname, Batalos ("arse"), to his "unmanliness and kinaidiā" and frequently commented on his "unmanly and womanish temper", even criticising his clothing: "If anyone took those dainty little coats and soft shirts off you ... and took them round for the jurors to handle, I think they'd be quite unable to say, if they hadn't been told in advance, whether they had hold of a man's clothing or a woman's." (Dover, 1989)

Glenn Reynolds, Wingnut and Dolt

2005-10-15T09:49:00.000-05:00

In our continuing theme of wingnuts who fancy themselves thinkers for the ages, here is an excellent example of how working with veneer means never having to say, "And I did a little more research only to discover...". Example, our Wingnut of the Day posts this:

SPEAKING OF STAGED NEWS:

In one of television's inadvertently funny moments, the NBC News correspondent was paddling in a canoe during a live report about flooding in Wayne, N.J. While she talked, two men walked between her and the camera _ making it apparent that the water where she was floating was barely ankle-deep.

Heh. There's video.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, one of the soldiers at the Bush event blogs about what happened. Seems like a lot of media folks are up the creek, while bloggers wade by in hip boots . . . .

He's linking to Crooks & Liars who does a posting of the video. (I happened to see it live and it was MontyPython-like funny.) But THEN our master of the supercharged synapse contrasts this to the President's staged telecon with solders. He links to a solder's website who was there. This is clearly done, in wingnut fashion, to force an equivalence where none really exists (Picture Darwin, with Dr. Reynolds in a headlock, and instead of yelling "McFLY!" he's yelling, "HELLO, INTELLIGENT DESIGN!")

So there are two things wrong here that anyone who bothers to look beyond the veneer - usually a non conservative wingnut would quickly see.

ONE - The Today Show hosts immediately called the reporter out on the issue, live and in the moment. Immediately highlighted the incongruity of her being in a canoe and men walking by. They did play it for humor, but they were self-correcting. Did the President do that? Did Scott McClellan (aka, in the boxing world, as the Champion of the Old Lady Punchout, although he lost his last fight) do that about the scripted interview? Um, I'll save you the time - no, they didn't. They continued to play it as impromptu, unrehearsed, unscripted.

AND TWO - The soldier's link that Professor Reynolds used to discredit the scripted event (and 2) does EXACTLY the opposite. It discussed knowing the questions in advance, that there was correographed movement, that there was a sequence (blocking) of stage action, and so on. Man, Professor Reynolds, do you actually read beyond the abstracts in law school? Or is the Heh, Indeed, and Yes commentary style the limit of your written discourse?

If that's the case, I would then recommend something new, that you try something daring, that you, maybe, try thinking.

Being Gay and Republican

2005-10-14T11:13:00.000-05:00

I, for one, think this is harder than a gay camel passing through the the eye of a straight needle. But there are promulgators, charlatans, Jack Rubys that prey on the weak minded. And the biggest gay facilitator of the evil that is the Bush administration is Andrew Sullivan. This eponymous website, filled with self-conflating insights and commentary, completely disassociated the actions of the right with respect to gay issues and the actions of the right with respect to fiscal policy, foreign policy, governing, etc. He excoriated the Democrats/Kerry at every turn. He contributed to this gay mafia from the outside - he was an enabler - that one could be gay and conservative and republican and religious. He (and his kind) allowed this gay underground to work for the right - against their own - without any costs - morally, physically, or emotionally, at all.

This gay proselytizing class is the EXACT (in my view) congruence of the eunuch mandarins of the forbidden palace. They gladly placed their legs into the neutering guilluotine (sic?) and placed their dismembered into a jar. But there is one difference, the enuchs kept the jar - to be buried when they die with its contents - so they could become whole again for the afterlife. How will the gay mafia effect this when their beltway palace terms expire? How can they be made whole? There is no action for the "team" that will provide their acceptance into the GOP's Faustian Kingdom of Heaven.

And this Andrew Sullivan, this constant whore of wingnut fantasies, has his epiphany with the position on gay marriage. He begins to crack a little, but still with this unbelieveable position that the right was RIGHT about everything, except this one thing -- surely God will show them the way. I think this shows how completely, totally fooled he was, and as the "gay" right were. It's a political version of the Stockholm Syndrome.

How do people like this get reputations as thinkers? As insightful minds of the 21st century? As commentators of our condition? Even a first grader would note that a snake slithers to dinner, slithers to hunt, slithers to mate...and when given the option to think that a snake would sprout legs and walk upright to welcome you into his den - even a first grader would call you a fool to think such a thing.

Sorry, too early to rant.

Each and every person who voted for Bush should see this

2005-10-04T13:01:00.000-05:00

Especially the cowards: Jeff Goldstein, Jonah Goldberg, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, and Glenn Reynolds.

What is it about conservatives that make them so stupid?

2005-09-28T08:39:00.000-05:00

I mean, they're too stupid to work a TV channel selector and now they're too stupid to NOT buy a book.

Classic conservative speak

2005-09-27T16:37:00.000-05:00

Here is the wingnut Andrew Sullivan - who all wants us to know that he is "gay! i tell you, gay!" - as if that somehow ameliorates his wingnuttery. But I digress, here is a classic example of how wingnuts avoid responsibility:

1. Clinton did it too
2. Some Democrat *somewhere* is doing it too
3. If you can't find one or two, try the some liberal is doing

See this from our friend:

THE LEFT INDOCTRINATES TOO: Here's the loony-left version of the Republican kiddies' book. This one isn't as clearly aimed at children, but it certainly reads like something some moonbat parent might read to a five-year-old. Sigh. Then again, a reader makes the following decent point:
Is a six-year old socialist somehow inherently more absurd than a six-year old Christian or a six-year old Muslim? We think nothing of ascribing religious beliefs to (or imposing religious beliefs on, if you prefer) our youngest children, or sending them to schools for -- again, depending on your perspective -- spiritual enlightenment or religious indoctrination. But a six-year old is no more able to make a free choice about his or her religious beliefs than about his or her political beliefs. So why mock someone for sending a child to "Socialist Sunday School" and let them off the hook for sending a child to religious Sunday school? Surely both are simply examples of parents attempting to pass along their own worldview to their children, to fix their beliefs before they are old enough to really think them through. The only real difference as far as I can see (and this is a perception unsupported by any hard numbers) is that kids are far more likely to change their political views as they mature than they are to reject their religious schooling?
My response would be that there's a difference between teaching children about the meaning of the universe and telling them which contemporary politicans might be lurking under their beds.

If one clicks then you can say, oh yea, I'm against this behaviour, but 1,2,3 is doing it so we're off the moral shephard's crook OR I'll stop when they do. ITS NEVER A SIMPLE, YEA, ITS WRONG, WE SHOULD STOP.

What a maroooooon. Hey, if he can do the YGLESIAS AWARDs then maybe I'll start the MAROOOOONIE AWARDS.

Andrew, being publicly GAY isn't an exhibition of courage anymore. Being publicly gay and Republican isn't delivering that intellectual cachet anymore. You're being considered smart? There isn't ANYMORE anymore.

Someone, somewhere, please, please tell me how these folks gather intellectual credibility? How?

It puzzles me

2005-09-27T10:20:00.000-05:00

Wingnuts are always hung up on the pieces in order to condemn the whole. As in, for the anti-war demonstration, there were people espousing views that most would not support. Nonetheless, everyone there was against the war. Take this wingnut view:

THE SAN DIEGO COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE worked for months to get the message out about last Saturday's anti-Semitic peace and love-fest. They held countless planning meetings, printed thousands of fliers, and bought advertising in alternative newspapers. They made numerous phone calls, sent hundreds of e-mails, and leafletted dozens of coffehouses and parking lots. They obtained a permit, rented a truck, and made numerous signs and banners. Then they wrote press releases, and notified the media.

The end result: about 1100 people showed up in Balboa Park by our estimate; they claim 2000. And most of those people didn't stay very long after the march was finished; the last few speakers were pretty much talking to themselves.

Ok so there we some questionable people there - with questionable associations. But how come, for wingnuts, this only goes one way. Exhibit 1:Wingnuts. What a fantasy world. It must be great to be able to just ignore the uncomfortable, deny the factual, and postulate the improbable. Intelligent design here we come!

Read this

2005-09-26T17:31:00.000-05:00

Heres the start of it:

September 26, 2005

CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES

Fight Ignorance:
Read BuzzFlash
My Son in Iraq: I Know That It Happened Because I Heard It

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Teri Mackey

The day started pretty much like all of the others since my son had left for Iraq. I automatically woke up to surf the major news networks at 3 A.M. to see if anything newsworthy had happened in Baghdad while I had slept. It seemed as if it had been a quiet night and there were no new reports, so I turned off the television and went back to sleep. The phone rang and I woke up in a nanosecond, which was a trait that I had mastered since the first call I had gotten in the middle of the night from a war zone.

"Hey Mom it’s me." Something my son always said every time he called, but this time his voice sounded unusual. He had a really serious tone in his voice and the automatic gunfire in the background was loud and more constant than usual. My heart began to race and I took a deep breath.

"Hey, I'm trapped on a rooftop and I don't think we are going to make it out of here, so I just called to tell you that I loved you and that I am thinking of all of you." The gunfire in the background was so loud that he had to pause, and then he continued. "We were out on patrol and were just getting ready to return to base and a bunch of our guys got overrun and so we went to help them, but when we got close we got overrun as well and had to retreat to this rooftop.

Go read it. It's telling. Hey PW (I know you read this!), what on earth could you ever phone home in an emergency about? Cleaning skidmarks from those chickenhawk undies?

Good summary

2005-09-26T12:36:00.000-05:00

When you are a coward, avoiding the truth comes easily

2005-09-26T08:19:00.000-05:00

Its one of the amazing things to me about wingnuts. If you buy white paint - that they pick. Paint the wall - that they pick. And then want to argue with you, suddenly the wall is not white. And you've painted the wrong wall. Facts have no meaning to wingnuts - because facts - in a strange way could be used to support commitment and action - on their part - you know, that strange thing about actually putting yourself into the line of fire.

Take for example the latest from our cowardly lion. He builds a whole case around a statement that only 2000 anti-war protestors showed up. Despite references otherwise.

The anti-war rally, held Saturday at the western edge of the National Mall, drew a crowd of 100,000 or more

Look around, there are tons of references in the MSM (Main Stream Media) about the 100K-200K mark. So this is my point about convienent definitions. The MSM is evil except when needing to use as supporting evidence for a wingnut's wet dream. Really, are there any greater cowards on this mortal coil than Jeff Goldstein? Ok, maybe Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt - but they participate in the professional category - I'm limiting it to the amateur ranks.

By the way, will our chickenhawk (Jeff Goldstein) blog about Pat Tillman now?

Friday, April 23, 2004
The Anti-Mercenary
American hero.

For all of Michael Moore's bloated, furniture-bumping, sweatsoaked girth, he'll never be half the man this guy was.

RIP.

Funny thing, Jeff. If MM is only half the man, you're still a little girly boy. Looks like MM and Pat Tillman agreed on more points than you and he. Lets see you retract your comments about Pat Tillman now.

Another hero

2005-09-26T08:12:00.000-05:00

The thing about the chickenhawks and the 101st fighting keyboarders is that someone is a hero in their make believe world until the truth comes out. Then they just forget about them.

PW put to more shame

2005-09-23T14:22:00.000-05:00

Protein Wisdom (chickenhawk Jeff Goldstein) is too busy/important/cowardly to join up for a way he's promulgating/proselytizing. Geez, even this 70 woman put him to shame.

Stupid email of the day

2005-09-17T09:32:00.000-05:00

This posted on Andrew Sullivan's blog. It shows how deluded the GOP base is:

EMAIL OF THE DAY II: "You ought to give President Bush some slack. He has had to face more in his presidency than arguably any other in the last 100 years. He inherited a recession, 9/11 happened, the Iraq war and this hurricane. He is only human and I think he is doing better than most.
I don't like the big spending nor the illegal immigration crisis. But I do believe the President is a man of integrity facing outstanding and overwhelming problems in his office."

Let's look at the facts:

Inherited a recession

8/6 PDB

Go back to studying intelligent design.

Go watch this

2005-09-16T08:40:00.000-05:00

This.

Tell me again

2005-09-14T15:14:00.000-05:00

Tell me again about the GOP being the party of responsible government when they're afraid of independent investigations? Even Anan at the UN allowed an independent body to investigate the oil scam.

Good quote

2005-09-14T12:18:00.000-05:00

NY Daily News:

The briefing

FIGHTING WORDS: That was funnyman Damon Wayans in Orlando the other day going nuclear on President Bush - and twins Jenna and Barbara - over the war in Iraq and the possible reinstatement of a military draft. "I'll send my sons if he sends his daughters," Wayans told the crowd, including Daily News contributor Jawn Murray, at Tom Joyner's Family Reunion in Disneyworld. "Put those two drunk b-s on a plane and let them go fight. At least I know my sons would be getting some on the way." By way of White House reaction, First Lady Laura Bush's press secretary, Susan Whitson, gasped yesterday and told me: "I wouldn't dignify that with a response."

Hey, PW, would you sign up if Jenna did? I mean, just because you write like you're ~~gay~~chickenhawk...doesn't mean...oh, maybe it does.

How to rebut wingnuts about Katrina

2005-09-14T10:23:00.000-05:00

Wingnuts never want to sign up to fight OR accept responsibility. Here's a handy reference source for Katrina.

What will the wingnuts do now?

2005-09-14T08:34:00.000-05:00

Non-partisan Congressional report (PDF) clears Blanco against charges that she did not call a state of emergency in time, among other things. Kinda blows a hole in Protein Chickenhawk's view.

Bush takes responsibility, sort of

2005-09-13T11:26:00.000-05:00

Bush says:

160,000 homes may be ruined

Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters may have damaged 160,000 homes in New Orleans beyond repair, an official with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said today. Also today, President Bush said he takes responsibility for the federal government's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina. "To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.

Why an admission, from this administration? Who NEVER takes responsibility for his actions, like most conservatives/chickenhawks?

Its probably because David Brooks, NYT VERY conservative columnist, came out with this story:

"NYT's Brooks revealed that "from Day One," the Bush White House "decided our public relations is not going to be honest"

In it he highlights that the Bush strategy has been to NEVER take blame for anything, even if it means lying...

They had to take this seriously as Brooks is one of the MAJOR apologists for this administration and he's on the NYTimes, so they had to show that they "could take responsiblity", if thats what their statement means. What BS. No wonder Protein Chickenhawk feels so at home. Hmmm! Tastes like chickenhawk!

Same logic

2005-09-13T08:38:00.000-05:00

From Glenn Reynolds' lemonade stand (thanks to James Wolcott):

RICK STUART:

So far incredible news from Katrina, the dead body count is really low compared to the numbers in the thousands we heard about.

So how did the media get the number and keep putting it out?

Good question. This should be a major media embarrassment:

The city braced for more grim discoveries as the receding waters allowed search parties to reach isolated buildings. But the death toll -- 279 for Louisiana -- was still far below the initial prediction of the city's mayor that 10,000 perished.

"It's hot. It smells. But most of the houses we are looking at are empty," Oregon National Guard Staff Sgt. James Lindseth, 33, said as his platoon, inspecting for people dead or alive, worked its way through dank and broken homes that had been in the water a few days ago.

So they were off by 9700, so far. That's good news, but it's also reason to take other things they tell us with many grains of salt.

So will lemonade master Herr Doktor Reynolds apply the same logic and doubt to the administration after such arguments as WMD, 911-Iraq connection, Medicare prescription drug program cost, No Child Left Behind legislation, and so on? I mean, he's basically saying the media can't be trusted because they inflated something OR reported an inflated number. Can't the same be applied to this administration many times over?
To quote a famous Republican, "Where is the outrage America?"

Federalize National Guard?

2005-09-12T08:15:00.000-05:00

I've found it curious how wingnuts kept saying the Governor has to act before National Guard troops can be sent in. If so, then is this correct about the Arkansas integration efforts?

U.S. Congressman Brooks Hays and Little Rock Mayor Woodrow Mann asked the federal government for help, first in the form of U.S. marshals. Finally, on September 24, Mann sent a telegram to President Eisenhower requesting troops. They were dispatched that day and the President also federalized the entire Arkansas National Guard, taking it away from the Governor.

Note the article says the troops were federalized OVER the objection of the governor.

Ah more wisdom from protein wisdom!

2005-09-10T13:32:00.000-05:00

It so makes my day! This is a completely incoherent rant about a website promoting Bush impeachment.

The Impeach Bush Coalition

...has a honkin’ new website and a spirited call to arms:

The time has come. It’s time to stay on point. The blogs need to unite around a rallying cry of “IMPEACH BUSH." As of this post, the term “impeach bush” is the third most popular search term at Technocrati.

President Bush has totally and utterly failed the American people. Almost every day we are presented with further proof why he should not be our president. From 9/11, to WMDs, to Iraq, to Katrina-- the reasons are many and obvious. We need to impeach him NOW.
The only point that should be discussed is-- “IMPEACH BUSH NOW!” We need to pound this point over and over again. It should be mentioned wherever possible, and it should not stop until the mainstream media and all politicans realize that we, the people, will not stand for gross negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, nor the utter lies, any longer.

The Bulldog Manifesto hereby calls upon every blog, from large to small, from Eschaton to Spontaneous Rising, from Daily Kos to Martian Anthropologist, from Crooks and Liars to Bring it On, from The Rude Pundit to The Talking Dog and EVERY BLOG IN BETWEEN!

The Bulldog Manifesto hereby calls upon every activist, from the national activists to the pissed off mothers, from the local politicians to the military families, from the school teachers to the student, spread the word, it is time to IMPEACH BUSH NOW.

Cut and paste this post and email it to friends and family, write letters to your senators and congressperson, start your own impeachment blog, sign the Impeach Bush Petition, just do something! It begins with ALL OF US!

It doesn’t matter whether the House of Representatives consists of a Republican majority, we cannot wait around until 2006 for that to change. We can no longer afford to wait. Impeachment begins NOW, with all of us!

Go leave your suggestions in the comments. Here’s mine (which will no doubt be disappeared):

Another suggestion: add a rider to the articles of impeachment that would insure that, in addition to getting rid of Bush, Mumia is freed, and the Rosenbergs are retroactively given Medals of Freedom.

Oh yeah. And that everybody who didn’t vote for Bush gets pie.

BECAUSE OF THE TASTY FRUIT FILLING

Mercy, mercy, me! What could he possibly be ~~railing~~ranting about here? I guess he disagrees with this:

President Bush has totally and utterly failed the American people. Almost every day we are presented with further proof why he should not be our president. From 9/11, to WMDs, to Iraq, to Katrina-- the reasons are many and obvious. We need to impeach him NOW.

Hmm. I guess it does take courage, even for a ~~chickenhawk~~coward to come out against something that the majority of Americans agree on - no, not impeachment - but that he's been a failure. Hey PW! Seen any good polling lately?

Maybe its this paragraph.

The Bulldog Manifesto hereby calls upon every blog, from large to small, from Eschaton to Spontaneous Rising, from Daily Kos to Martian Anthropologist, from Crooks and Liars to Bring it On, from The Rude Pundit to The Talking Dog and EVERY BLOG IN BETWEEN!

Yea, it does drive the Tory wingnuts crazy when there are populist driven initiatives. Its that two way, consent of the governed, communications, equality, American Democracy thing that fools them.

Whats his retort?

Another suggestion: add a rider to the articles of impeachment that would insure that, in addition to getting rid of Bush, Mumia is freed, and the Rosenbergs are retroactively given Medals of Freedom.

It makes it difficult for me, an observer of the ~~failure~~coward that is PW, to work with logic so flawed and humor so vapid. At least, I think it was an attempt at humor - it certainly wasn't logic. Maybe he should have signed it with one of his idols of the past - Joe McCarthy! See! Q.E.D. -> Nonsequitur fails in the hands of amateurs when attempting to hightlight a point.

Hey look what PW posted

2005-09-10T13:26:00.000-05:00

Ah, yes, our favorite chickenhawk of the blogosphere.

Sentences you hope never to hear uttered by a member of active duty military, #17

“Uh, sir? I’m afraid one of our Gibbons is still unaccounted for...”

(h/t Craig C)

Well Duh! Of course you won't hear an active duty military member say this -- or anything -- thats one of the side benefits of being a ~~chickenhawk~~coward.

Bush ready

2005-09-05T09:11:00.000-05:00

Bush is ready to answer the need for plastic turkeys in New Orleans. All he needs is permission from the local authorities to send them in. Why oh why do the locals continue to be the holdup? And what about that constitutional provision prohibiting Federal plastic turkeys from entering where states' rights turkeys already reside? Isn't original intent a problem here? Clearly, the Founders understood that in times of emergency, the Federalies could send plastic turkeys where needed.

13 points of Ben Stein

2005-09-03T16:48:00.000-05:00

MY COMMENTS TO BEN STEIN'S GET OFF HIS BACK ARTICLE

-----------------------------

Get Off His Back

By Ben Stein

Published 9/2/2005 11:59:59 PM

A few truths, for those who have ears and eyes and care to know the truth:

1.) The hurricane that hit New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama was an astonishing tragedy. The suffering and loss of life and peace of mind of the residents of those areas is acutely horrifying. Always start with an obvious point, that way you can lead them to drink well from the trough of disbelief.

2.) George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one. A little less obvious for our religious wingnuts who view W through a Pharoric prism. What, ya mean he's not descended from God?

3.) George Bush did not make this one worse than others. There have been far worse hurricanes than this before George Bush was born. [Actually, there is considerable evidence that he made the EFFECTS of this one worse with his cuts to FEMA, his appointment of an incompetent, and his stopping to take guitar lessons before acting. Note, there were too many links on this to include...just check for yourself here. WHAT IS IT about republicans that prevents them from taking responsibility?]

4.) There is no overwhelming evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. [There is clear circumstantial evidence of this.] There is no clear-cut evidence that global warming even exists. [Wrong.] There is no clear evidence that if it does exist it makes hurricanes more powerful or makes them aim at cities with large numbers of poor people. If global warming is a real phenomenon, which it may well be, [it may be? Didn't you say there wasn't anyproof? What's your position on the Toothfairy...since with the same statement of lack of proof you could then follow your logic to say, But if there was one, that might explain the money under your pillow.] it started long before George Bush was inaugurated, and would not have been affected at all by the Kyoto treaty, considering that Kyoto does not cover the world's worst polluters -- China, India, and Brazil. In a word, George Bush had zero to do with causing this hurricane. To speculate otherwise is belief in sorcery. [Who said W created, birthed, designed, deployed, directed, or otherwise manipulated this storm. What, um - I know this is a difficult issue - is your point?]

6.) George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. [Wrong again. His administration set the amount of funding for levies, Army Corp of Engineers, etc. ...] "In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. [I love this logic. A had nothing to do with it, but on the other hand, A was instrumental in it. Hey Ben, Sesame Street called, they want their diploma back.] It is in no way at all George Bush's fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It's not George Bush's fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile. [Of course. If only we had used that logic about invading Iraq. It isn't America's job to make sure every adult in Iraq has freedom, good health, etc. By the way, as President of the US, isn't part of his job to protect all of its citizens? Even the not so materially blessed?]

7.) George Bush did not cause gangsters to shoot at rescue helicopters taking people from rooftops, did not make gang bangers rape young girls in the Superdome, did not make looters steal hundreds of weapons, in short make New Orleans into a living hell. [This did happen. It was W's job to provide security for the realm. Its pretty clever to say that, "Oh, I f*ucked up on one thing so I can't do the other things..."]

8.) George Bush is the least racist President in mind and soul there has ever been and this is shown in his appointments over and over. To say otherwise is scandalously untrue. [He may not be, but the GOP is. Remember the Southern Strategy? Remember Lott? How many times has W spoken to the NAACP? W clearly just does what Rove tells him to do.]

9.) George Bush is rushing every bit of help he can to New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama as soon as he can. [Did he start as soon as he could? Um...cleverly phrase retort there Ben!] He is not a magician. [We didn't ask him to be a magician, we asked him to be a PRESIDENT.] It takes time to organize huge convoys of food and now they are starting to arrive. That they get in at all considering the lawlessness of the city is a miracle of bravery and organization. [There wasn't this lawlessness for the first THREE days of the disaster. W visits and ONE day later things happen. I know, its tough coming off your 40 day vacation.]

10.) There is not the slightest evidence at all that the war in Iraq has diminished the response of the government to the emergency. To say otherwise is pure slander. [Here's some slander for you BEN, YOU'RE WRONG.]

11.) If the energy the news media puts into blaming Bush for an Act of God worsened by stupendous incompetence by the New Orleans city authorities and the malevolence of the criminals of the city were directed to helping the morale of the nation, we would all be a lot better off. [You're right, let's start at the top, with the administration that can NEVER take responsibility for any of its actions. Isn't the real problem that this hurricane can't be blamed on Clinton? Or in your case, Mark Felt?]

12.) New Orleans is a great city with many great people. It will recover and be greater than ever. Sticking pins into an effigy of George Bush that does not resemble him in the slightest will not speed the process by one day. [Well, I did once buy a vodoo doll - with pins - in New Orleans.]

13.) The entire episode is a dramatic lesson in the breathtaking callousness of government officials at the ground level. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had gotten her way and they were in charge of your health care. [You mean we might have health care and might have avoided losing a war in Mesopotamia? Can't work Clinton got a blow job into this, so the fallback is attacking someone who tried to provide health care for everyone? Maybe she should have signed up for those guitar lessons herself.]

God bless all of those dear people who are suffering so much, and God bless those helping them, starting with George Bush. [Senior or Junior? I at least saw Senior on TV asking for Americans to help. All I saw W do was drive quickly by a Gold Star mother. Boy, thats the kind of courage God does need to Bless.]

Hey Ben, try this reference instead.

Our own adopted Chickenhawk, Protein Wisdom

2005-09-03T09:51:00.000-05:00

I feel special affection for PW. After all, it was his incontinent rants and logy, logorrhea of the 101st fighting keyboarders that inspired me to step out with this. But its hard to maintain such an affection when the commentary is so onesided. It's always more fun, more interesting, more fulfilling when the prey has ability and, oh, talent. Case in point, this week's events. After all, here is a tremendous catastrophe, an affecting human story of unprecedented modern American dimensions. What does he do? He quotes this:

Diagnosing New Orleans: a Canadian Perspective
In former times entire nations found the strength to rise to the occasion, ordinary people understood that survival depended on their shared common decency and respect for their fellow citizen. That, by co-operating and persevering, they might create coping mechanisms through pooling skills and resources, and to be sure, the majority of those trapped in New Orleans will have done just that.

But, in former times, whole nations were not living in a time of entitlement, where all and any are provided for by an all-encompassing “social safety net”, funded by those faceless others with more, who have life easier, whom we have been trained to envy.

Those human failings, irresponsible and anti-social behaviors that once brought consequences in the community - shame, ostracization, and deserved personal deprivation - are today excused, assigned new and neutral nomenclature (all the better for medical diagnosis), prescribed “tolerance”, and if possible, assigned the politics of race or class, so that collective guilt may be mined to ensure that self-destructive behavior gains not only acceptance, but state funding.

The predatory violence and anarchy befalling New Orleans is not the result of a freak convergence of forces brought on by unnatural disaster.

It’s a warning.

-- Kate McMillan
Make sure to read the whole thing.

Kate’s piece is, at base, about the erosion of self-reliance, though I suspect some progressives will declare that the incidental alignment in New Orleans between race qua race and poverty, coupled with Kate’s critique of the underlying political ideology that drives the mindset of entitlement cultures, makes the essay “racist” (which, that’s just what “progressives” do when they don’t wish to argue a thesis on its merits)—and will therefore dismiss it as hate speech.

But that ain’t gonna cut it this time.

Really thats it? A perceived good old days story about self reliance?

When one has minimal intellectual capacity,the condition by extension requires a reduced capacity to view history. Someone with depth, from the right or left or America or humanity would say THIS was the good old days:

No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.
-- John Donne
From "Devotions upon Emergent Occasions" (1623)

Fits doesn't it? I'm going to assume that the spirit of Bishop Donne would forgive me to adjust the quote:

No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
[America] is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a [City] of thy friends or of thine own were
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.

Somehow, thrown into relief against a Chickenhawk reference of an obscure Canadian webpost, Donne's insight seems even more a part of the American ideal.

Can't rant much better than this

2005-09-03T09:47:00.000-05:00

If you're going to rant, do it with style.

Bush busted!

2005-09-03T09:31:00.000-05:00

Factcheck fact checks Bush's FEMA actions.

Why do the wingnuts hate Michael Moore?

2005-09-03T09:28:00.000-05:00

Because he's so damn effective. Could you imagine Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly writing like this?

Sen. Landrieu, "What a marooooooooon"

2005-09-02T12:01:00.000-05:00

This is enough to make one want to move to Louisiana just to vote AGAINST someone like this in our party.

ANDERSON COOPER: Joining me from Baton Rouge is Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. Senator, appreciate you joining us tonight. Does the federal government bear responsibility for what is happening now? Should they apologize for what is happening now?

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D), LOUISIANA: Anderson, there will be plenty of time to discuss all of those issues, about why, and how, and what, and if. But, Anderson, as you understand, and all of the producers and directors of CNN, and the news networks, this situation is very serious and it's going to demand all of our full attention through the hours, through the nights, through the days.

Let me just say a few things. Thank President Clinton and former President Bush for their strong statements of support and comfort today. I thank all the leaders that are coming to Louisiana, and Mississippi, and Alabama to our help and rescue.

We are grateful for the military assets that are being brought to bear. I want to thank Senator Frist and Senator Reid for their extraordinary efforts.

Anderson, tonight, I don't know if you've heard -- maybe you all have announced it -- but Congress is going to an unprecedented session to pass a $10 billion supplemental bill tonight to keep FEMA and the Red Cross up and operating.

COOPER: Excuse me, Senator, I'm sorry for interrupting. I haven't heard that, because, for the last four days, I've been seeing dead bodies in the streets here in Mississippi. And to listen to politicians thanking each other and complimenting each other, you know, I got to tell you, there are a lot of people here who are very upset, and very angry, and very frustrated.

And when they hear politicians slap -- you know, thanking one another, it just, you know, it kind of cuts them the wrong way right now, because literally there was a body on the streets of this town yesterday being eaten by rats because this woman had been laying in the street for 48 hours. And there's not enough facilities to take her up.

Do you get the anger that is out here?

LANDRIEU: Anderson, I have the anger inside of me. Most of the homes in my family have been destroyed. Our homes have been destroyed. I understand what you're saying, and I know all of those details. And the president of the United States knows those details.

COOPER: Well, who are you angry at?

LANDRIEU: I'm not angry at anyone. I'm just expressing that it is so important for everyone in this nation to pull together, for all military assets and all assets to be brought to bare in this situation.

Is there not a Democrat out there with any backbone?

This is well said

2005-08-31T15:38:00.000-05:00

Wow. Someone on WorldNetDalily takes down fellow (part 1 part 2) WorldNetDaily ~~journalist author contributor~~ wingnut about complaining about being called a Chickenhawk. And quite nicely too.

It is entirely possible that my WND colleague has a perfectly good reason for not serving his country in its moment of need. For all I know, he may have a weak heart, a wooden leg, a predilection for San Francisco bathhouse sex or some other condition that prevents him from joining the military. But devoting two columns to criticizing a single word strikes me as a lady protesting a bit too much.

Mr. Shapiro's first argument against the appellation is that it is nothing more than a leftist attempt to silence debate. This is partially true, but the argument is deceptive because it is incomplete. It is not leftists but the military that has long despised civilians who clamor for war from the safety of their homes. In 1879, Gen. William Sherman said: "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

His second and third arguments are that the insult is dishonest and "explicitly rejects the Constitution." But there is nothing dishonest about calling into question the credibility of one who does not practice what he preaches. If a CNBC analyst urges viewers to buy a stock he is secretly shorting, he will rightly be dismissed as a hypocrite unworthy of further regard. The unconstitutional argument is spectacularly silly, since no one in Congress has proposed a federal law barring such hypocrites from office. One can only assume that Mr. Shapiro's first Constitutional Law class lies ahead of him.

His fourth argument, which asserts that use of the term is somehow "un-American," reveals a similar failure to understand the First Amendment and American history. Mr. Shapiro might wish the Constitution prevented people from calling him names, but it actually protects their right to do so and American political history is littered with an abundance of inventive insults. As for the reference to the Bush daughters, hiding behind the skirts of young women is no way to prove you're not a coward.

His fifth and final argument – that use of the term "chickenhawk" is an attempt to avoid substantive debate – is easily disproved. I have repeatedly criticized numerous aspects of this global struggle, have openly opposed both the Iraqi and Afghani occupations, and am quite willing to debate Mr. Shapiro or anyone else on the issue in the forum of their preference. Yet I – like 62 percent of the soldiers and veterans who frequent Vox Popoli and Blackfive – am in accord with the notion that "chickenhawk" is an appropriate label for a warmongering young columnist who urges others to make sacrifices he has no intention of making himself.

Most of us realize that during wartime, sacrifices must be made ... But taking such a stand requires common sense and the knowledge that we are in the midst of the great battle of our time.

– Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, July 28, 2005

I would be remiss if I did not note that many of these military men and women favored a different 11-letter word that also begins with "chicken." The genuine flaw in the use of the "chickenhawk" label is that in most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations. However, due to Mr. Shapiro's precocious position in the national media, this common flaw does not apply. While his peers are dodging sniper bullets and IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Shapiro is bravely urging them to invade five more countries in the establishment of global empire from the safety of his Harvard dorm room.

Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire. No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world.

– Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, Aug. 11, 2005

The America Bar Association already boasts more than 896,000 lawyers, America has no desperate need for another one. The U.S. Army, on the other hand, is currently 8,000 men short of its 2005 recruiting goals. I am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004. "Now's the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up."

Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist church, and has been down with Madden since 1992. Visit his Web log, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and responses to reader email.
The chickenhawk clucks
Posted: August 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WONDER WHAT CHICKENHAWK WISDOM has to say about that?

Idea for Democrats

2005-08-30T14:36:00.000-05:00

First order of business, when Congress returns, introduce a bill that STOP-LOSS can ONLY be used in conficts that receive a FORMAL CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION of WAR. That would eliminate police actions, UN actions, incursions, etc. Then, if its important enough to commit troops AND prevent them from leaving when their scheduled to, then it's important enough to declare war.

Could this be Chickenhawk Wisdom's mom?

2005-08-30T11:24:00.000-05:00

It seems to fit the "I'm not a coward, my mom won't let me do it" theme that I'm sure he'll use any day now.

The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.

But she made it clear that her support only went so far.

"Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."

Chickenhawk people?

Life's pretty cheap for that sort...

2005-08-30T09:15:00.000-05:00

George Bush on NPR this morning speaking in El Mirage AZ:

There have been hopeful developments in Iraq. I know you see violence on your TV screen and it breaks my heart to see the death of innocent life there. But thats the only thing the terrorists have got going for them. They've got the capacity to shake our conscious because unlike their ideology, we value every human life.

Contrast that with General Westmoreland said during Vietnam:

Human life is cheap to the Asian. They don't feel the same way about death that we do.

I think that if you're a president wanting to AVOID comparisons with Vietnam, that I might stop PARAPHRASING its more famous quotes.

Geez. Is the problem that none of Bush's staff are old enough to remember vietnam or they just didn't study it in prep school?

A DEMOCRAT WITH SOME COURAGE

2005-08-29T15:22:00.000-05:00

IF ONLY ALL the Democrats were so courageous.

www.brianellner.com

Sticks and Stones

2005-08-29T10:45:00.000-05:00

TO all the wingnuts who have been accused of being "Chickenhawks". This is to help you with your counter arguments. I know the Chickenhawk label is painful, that it's not fair for people to continuously REMEMBER what you've advocated and try to link it to your actions. That's just so mean. But here's some help.

Did you have any shared experiences as a child? I'm pretty sure you did. AND I'm willing to put forth that near the top of that list was the oh/so/clever retort of "Sticks and stones...". You know the rest, you probably already said it:

Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But words will never hurt me

So there you have it, just fall back on those tried and true agruments at the last prep school you attended and follow these leads:

Claim that you're above the fray, after all, your a COLUMNIST, TOWN CRIER, whose vital duties prevent you from placing yourself in harm's way. Someone needs to be around to write that it was "One if by land, two if by sea...", from Rich Lowry:

Invariably, whenever columnists like myself write in support of the Iraq war without having served in the military there, letters flood in deriding us as “chicken hawks.” How can writers support the war without fighting in it themselves? these letter writers ask, although usually not so politely.

And later, "The anti-war movement would have a better chance of convincing the public of its position if it weren’t so fond of arguments that are juvenile, opportunistic and irrelevant."

The "Stop picking on me, I'm gonna tell" school of self defense, from Jonah Goldberg,

Anybody who's been on the receiving end of the "chickenhawk" epithet knows what I'm getting at. Various definitions of chickenhawk are out there, but the gist — as if you didn't know — is "coward" or "unpatriotic hypocrite." The accusation is less an argument than an insult.

It's also a form of bullying. The intent is to say, "You have no right to support the war since you haven't served or signed up." It's a way to get supporters of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, or the president simply to shut up.

Make fun of your taunter (What's it to ya, four eyes?), from Young Pundit:

Satirizing The "Chicken Hawk" Arguement[sic] Contest
Since some of my loyal readers have been satirizing (and doing a pretty damn good job at it) the left's absurd arguement of "you support the war, so why aren't you fighting on the front lines in Iraq?", I'm proposing a contest. Come up with your best analogies and post them in the comments section. The contest will end on Fri. and the top 5 analogies will be named Sunday.

The "I heard that yesterday, can't you think of anything new?", from Jon Henke:

The Chickenhawk Fallacy
Posted by: Jon Henke on Tuesday, February 08, 2005

I'm tired of this...

Although I do not believe that everyone who advocates a war must go and fight it, I do believe that young men who advocate a war must go and fight it.

Is that the deal? I wasn't told. Alright, then. Let's be consistent, though.

Make fun of linking the name callers to Communists! Man, the old chestnuts still can stir the faithful, from Right Wing News:

The Chickenhawk Slur
by John Hawkins

On Veterans Day, I noticed that more than a few left-wing websites decided it was an opportune time to break out the "chickenhawks" slur again. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the word or who associate it with its more vulgar meaning, when the left uses the term, they are generally referring to a foreign policy hawk who has not been in the military and is not seeking to join up. You see, they're of the opinion that only those who have actually fought in the military or who are willing to do so, should be able to advocate war. Of course, that's not exactly what you'd call a "well reasoned argument," but keep in mind that we're talking about people who think that carrying a giant puppet head at an anti-war rally run by Communists passes for an eloquent statement about the war on terrorism.

A, Yes!, the survey SAYS! approach, via Say Anything:

August 18, 2005
Dispelling The Chickenhawk Myth
By Rob on August 18, 2005 at 9:57 am

This was a survey of bloggers who served:
August 17, 2005
Left and Right Bloggers Military Service Survey

An oft heard accusation is that of chickenhawk being leveled at supporters of the Iraq War who have no prior military service. Bloggers with no prior military service are called members of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists on almost a daily basis by Markos Mulitsas' Daily Kos, himself a veteran of the U.S. Army. The phrase is used to shorten discussion about the war by making a personal attack and delegitimizing the person's credibility. It is easy for you to be for the war when you are not fighting it, is the crux of the chickenhawk argument.

Pretend you speak English like a French waiter before the check arrives, from Scott McClellan doesn't know if the President has any immediate family members in Iraq or the military.

Or, do the imperious swagger to challenge the challenger. Mitt Romney isn't offering up his kids.

Mitt backs war, but his boys are safe at home
By Maggie Mulvihill
Saturday, August 27, 2005 - Updated: 09:19 AM EST

Gov. Mitt Romney, who has comforted the grieving loved ones of soldiers killed in Iraq and promoted National Guard recruitment, yesterday said he has not urged his own sons to enlist - and isn't sure whether they would.

Some of you though, are just too stupid to try this at home. Remember, logic isn't a plaything. Here is an example from the particularly detestable Nathan Tabor:

Conservatives, on the other hand, truly love freedom - so much so that when necessary, they are willing to fight to preserve and protect it, as well as to export it around the world and extend it to other peoples less fortunate than we are.

Really, I don't know why the wingnuts panties are in such a state of compression. A chickenhawk, after all, is a pretty innocuous thing, from the chickenhawk database:

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

So the secret is to just lay low and pretend. You know, like when your Dad negotiates that car deal for you or your Mom lines up your prom date, just view it as your birthright.

Dallas' own Chickenhawk: George Dunham

2005-08-28T10:09:00.000-05:00

George Dunham, resident sports talk show host (1310AM Dallas, KTCK), rabid conservative supporter, huge fan of George Bush. I think he is of age to serve. Open question: When will you be signing up to defend America? Its easy to take pot shots at Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, Cindy Sheehan when you're ensconced in an air conditioned broadcast booth. But when can we expect you to be signing up for the military? Your president needs support for his causes, the causes you support and which you actively denigrate the critics.

That's fast

2005-08-26T00:01:00.000-05:00

I'm amazed at the internet. It evolves so quickly and effectively.

Where are the conservatives?

2005-08-25T23:50:00.000-05:00

There's not a conservative in the world that would NOT be angry about this.

"It's a glamorized pickup truck," he said. "We're riding around in Humvees that obviously aren't strong enough to withstand an IED (improvised explosive device) blast. Myself and all the Marines were pissed we were put in this position."

REMEMBER - YOUR Secretary of Defense said that you go to war with the army you have. IF I REMEMBER correctly, we picked the country, the date, the time, the means, AND the equipment. You're not a conservative if that doesn't make you want to scream. You're just some pissant ideologue without the courage of your convictions (Like this guy).

Glenn Reynolds and his lemonade stand

2005-08-25T23:42:00.000-05:00

I guess summer at the lemonade stand isn't all its cracked up to be!

This is ... tough (unlike PW)

2005-08-25T22:33:00.000-05:00

This speaks volumes:

Both his parents said their son's death makes their once-wavering opinions about the war in Iraq much more clear.

Andre Lieurance referred to Cindy Sheehan, the California mother of a slain soldier, who recently camped out in front of President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in opposition to the war.

[emphasis mine]"She didn't speak for me. Now she does," the father told The Knoxville News Sentinel on Tuesday. "I'm with her. I believe we were lied to. (My son) did what he was supposed to. Bush didn't."

"It's a bad war; it's a stupid war," said his mother, Karen Lieurance. "I questioned it from Day One. I think it's a lot easier to support the president when you don't have a family member over there."

Where is that Chickenhawk Wisdom and the rest of the 101st fighting keyboarders?

Mickey Kaus - Village Idiot

2005-08-24T12:20:00.000-05:00

It's true, there are FEW who rival Chickenhawk Wisdom for abuse of logic, but Mickey Kaus has to be one of them. Note the following

Slate's Fred Kaplan, citing Juan Cole as backup, writes of the draft Iraqi constitution [emphasis added]:

Much has been made of the assembly's debate over whether Islam should be declared "the source" of legislation or merely "a source." But look at how it came out: "a fundamental source"—which, as professor/blogger Juan Cole notes, amounts to pretty much the same thing as "the source."

No it doesn't. If something's "a fundamental source" rather than "the fundamental source" then there can be other fundamental sources. It's not, you know, the source. Duh! ... I'd say a) by buying off the mullahs with the weasel-word "fundamental," this provision looks on its face like a win for the anti-clerics; and b) Kaplan and Cole are so eager to find fault with the constitution (and, by implication, the war) that they've lost touch with logic. ... Update: Brookhiser takes an in-between position. [Via Lucianne] ... 2:54 A.M.

Ok, I'll BITE. There is a difference between an INDEFINITE article and a DEFINITE article. Your position, that there can be other fundamental sources - can be easily supported. Where are the other ENUMERATED sources within the document? How are fundamental sources ranked?

I'm really surprised at this quote as wingnuts are profligate in their opinions about Rand and, oh, Orwell. Is this a case of "more equal than others"? Come on, Prof Cole's assertion is as valid as your ~~vacuous~~pernicious view that somehow, someway, John Locke will suddenly be channeled by Chalabi.

Cool!

2005-08-23T17:15:00.000-05:00

Who'd'a thunk it? VFW protests W.

Wow. I should give up on PW, Mr. Wolcott has it all over me

2005-08-23T08:41:00.000-05:00

From James Wolcott. He could be speaking about our resident Chicken{hawk} Protein Wisdom.

The Squawk of a Chickenhawk
Posted by James Wolcott

Senator Chuck Hagel has never been high on NRO's The Corner's Hit Parade of favorite Republicans. While it's true that he lacks the stature and intellectual rigor of a Rick Santorum or WFB's hunky heart-throb Bill Simon, it does seem a trace unfair to call him the Senator from France, as some Cornerites have done in the past, and hint that his loyalities lie other than in the land we all love.

His patriotic steadfastness was questioned yet again after his Sunday appearance on Meet the Press, where he made the dread comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, and brought Michael Ledeen out of his badger hole.

"RE: HAGEL [Michael Ledeen]
Senator Hagel has certainly earned the Jimmy Carter Appeasement Award for 2005. As I've noted before, the man has never met a tyrant he didn't want to negotiate with. Maybe he should run for president with Jesse Jackson as his mate.
Posted at 11:31 PM"

Let's review, shall we?

Chuck Hagel, two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for his Vietnam War service.

Jimmy Carter, seven years in the Navy, including serving under Admiral Rickover in the development of the nuclear submarine program.

Michael Ledeen? Let's just say he won't be regaling them at the VFW lodge anytime soon. Indeed, the closest he's come to combat has been listening to Roger L. Simon's Hollywood war stories from his heroic screenwriting days.

Memo to Ledeen: There's a stature gap between you and Hagel/Carter that puts you in the pygmy shade.

Moreover, accusing anyone at this point of "appeasement" is just so dated, so played-out, so 2002. And dragging the puffy, irrelevant Jesse Jackson into your insult train--truly, truly stale.

The appeasement slur won't work anymore, nor will invocations of Neville Chamberlain and quislings. Give it up, pack it in, put it away.

Two years ago, Ledeen sneered about Hagel's "wimpery" about Iraq (a sneer I'd wager Ledeen wouldn't dare be man enough to repeat to Hagel's face), but it's Hagel who's been vindicated. The fact is that Ledeen and his neocons got the war they wanted, it was waged according to their blueprints, and it's their fuck-up, their moral responsibility, their historical bloodstain, their arrogant, ignorant, blundering, inexcusable mess. It says something about Ledeen's depraved indifference toward the consequences of his own lobbying efforts that he still thinks at this late date that he can get away with being droll.

08.22.05 7:06PM

Really, chickenhawk is too soft a word, but evokes such outcry from the wingnuts, its like moral salt to the emperor's new wounds.

Hey my alma mater wins again

2005-08-22T16:28:00.000-05:00

NO SURPRISE: UW-MADISON TOPS THE PARTY SCHOOLS IN THE U.S. Aug 22, 2005

[NO SURPRISE: UW-MADISON TOPS THE PARTY SCHOOLS IN THE U.S.] THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON IS THE TOP PARTY SCHOOL IN THE COUNTRY. THE RANKING COMES FROM THE PRINCETON REVIEW'S LIST OF THE TOP 361 COLLEGES IN THE COUNTRY RELEASED TODAY.

U-W-MADISON HAS OFTEN MADE THE LIST OF TOP PARTY SCHOOLS, WHICH
IS BASED ON THE USE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS, HOURS OF STUDY AND THE POPULARITY OF THE FRATERNITY AND SORORITY SYSTEM. LAST YEAR, IT WAS NUMBER FOUR.

THE PRINCETON REVIEW IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH PRINCETON UNIVERSITY AND BASES ITS RANKING OF A SURVEY OF MORE THAN 110-THOUSAND COLLEGE STUDENTS.

1. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

2. OHIO UNIVERSITY-ATHENS

3. LEHIGH UNIVERSITY

4. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA BARBARA

There is more in the list.

CHICKENHAWKS

2005-08-22T15:03:00.000-05:00

Hey Protein Wisdom (PW) still wants to avoid that Chickenhawk label. He uses the following argument:

Me, I’m willing to make the following offer: I will accept as valid the chickenhawk argument from any person who agrees to support a Constitutional Amendment making military service a prerequisite for all who presume to shape foreign policy, up to and including the President, members of both the House and Senate, and all Federal Court justices. Either that, or from those who push to pass a Constitutional Amendment disbanding the military, which makes the question moot.

Short of that, I’d ask you to save your anti-democratic impulses for, say, campus speech codes or social engineering programs driven by the idea of proportionality—and allow the grownups to make the difficult choices that arise in the course of protecting the interests of our nation. Please.

BTW, I've seen this before from him as he sent it to me before in the comments. It didn't make much sense then, it doesn't now. I pointed him to some basic pages on logic; I know he read it because he then referenced a logic page on his blog.

But lets look at this ...agrees to support a Constitutional Amendment making military service a prerequisite for all who presume to shape foreign policy...Again, huh? This is classic misdirection and false equality. The chickenhawk accusation isn't about qualifications...its about determining the support level for a position. Chickenhawks clearly press this war, claim its value, its worth, its righteousness. SO the chickenhawk accusation is: At what level will you decide to support this effort? What is the pain level? You're of age, you meet military qualifications. You and the other 101st Fighting Keyboarders wrap this effort in the flag, in religion, in a leaden moral worth.

Someone who advocates such a need (so vociferously) and cannot state their level of commitment - when the cause has such an obvious and recognized need for physical support and contribution - that's a perfect definition of a chickenhawk.

Hey PW! If not NOW, WHEN? IF NOT HERE, WHERE? IF NOT BY THESE MEANS, THEN HOW? IF NOT THIS CAUSE, THEN WHY?

Gawd, this is like poisoning fish in a barrel, you don't even need to aim. social engineering programs driven by the idea of proportionality Social Engineering/Programs/Proportionality? Umm...you mean like Democracy?

Neocons practise forming religious state in middle east before attempting at home

2005-08-22T14:51:00.000-05:00

Now we know what we've been fighting for, the right to create an Islamic state!

US relents on Islamic law to reach Iraq deal

Rory Carroll in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Monday August 22, 2005
The Guardian

The United States has eased its opposition to an Islamic Iraqi state to help clinch a deal on a draft constitution before tonight's deadline.

Now I understand the neocons' refusals to go.

Paul Hackett

2005-08-21T10:07:00.000-05:00

This guy reall is great. This is what Democrats should be. Fight back!

So generally, the consensus is Rush doesn't know squat about patriotism. He's typical of the new Republican. He's got a lot of lip and he doesn't walk the walk. The fact of the matter is, I went to Iraq to serve my country. I left my nice house, my nice wife by my choice because I thought it was the right thing to do.

He's typical of the new Republican...could be talking about PW and PW-ilk? Oh no, PW believes that those who stay and carp also serve the cause!

Yea, yea, yea...

2005-08-20T12:55:00.000-05:00

I know, I haven't really posted much on PW lately. But it's not really my fault. He just doesn't seem to be posting anything interesting. I mean, look at today, a quote from a movie, a top ten list, and a Montessori exercise - putting your words to someone else's music (what, fingerpainting was yesterday?).

Well, here's some unsolicited advice:
1. Movie quotes are easy. "You gonna eat those fries?"

2. Generally, a top ten list goes from 10 TO 1 (you bonehead!) to build some antici---PATION (Another movie quote!)

3. Try finger painting. Your putting words to Jimi Hendrix is kind of like Jim Ryan at first grade field day -- there's a lot of "Isn't that cute" coming out of him. Oh, BTW, Jimi was in the military. How about you? I hear they need folks.

Another reason why...

2005-08-20T09:08:00.000-05:00

Yet another reason why Dr. Cole remains the most reliable and impartial commentator on the Mess/That Is/IRAQ. Its no wonder the wingnuts hate him so (truth and impartiality being their greatest enemies).

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's apparent belief that Iran might be helping the radical Sunni fundamentalists in Iraq to kill Shiites is frankly nuts. But if there is anything more nuts, it is Iranian Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei's counter-charge that the US military is secretly blowing things up in Iraq and blaming insurgents, so as to create a pretext to stay in Iraq.

Hey, Ali, the US Department of Defense doesn't want to have to keep 138,000 troops in Iraq. They only probably want to keep a division there (say 20,000 men). So they aren't blowing up all those bombs (including the ones that kill US troops) so that they have to remain overstretched and suffering in Iraq!

And, Don, radical Khomeinist Shiites don't give bombs to radical Salafi Sunnis to use on Iraqi Shiites.

Jehosaphat, can we live in the real world here, folks? It's like the inmates run the asylum.

Hey! Someone else is using PW's logic to Avoid the "Chickenhawk Meme"

2005-08-19T15:29:00.000-05:00

Man, the way these guys hate being called chickenhawks, you'd think it would almost be enough to get them to enlist. Well, almost. Maybe what they need is some battery operated keyboards so the fighting 101st can actually get to the front!

Item found at Democratic Veteran. By the way, for PW, Ben Shaprio, Jonah "Coward" Goldberg, here is the definition of veteran, hero, and chickenhawk.

(from thefreedictionary.com) Veteran: vet·er·an Pronunciation (vtr-n, vtrn)
n.
1. A person who is long experienced or practiced in an activity or capacity: a veteran of political campaigns.
2. A person who has served in the armed forces: "Privilege, a token income . . . were allowed for veterans of both world wars" Mavis Gallant.
3. An old soldier who has seen long service.
adj.
1. Having had long experience or practice: a veteran actor.
2. Of or relating to former members of the armed forces: veteran benefits.

Hero - Please see photo above.

Chickenhawk: Multiple choice answer
A. Bill O'Reilly
B. Jonah Goldberg
C. Michelle Malkin
D. Ben Shapiro (Please note we're not asking about who needs LOGIC lessons)
E. Dick Cheney
F. Rush Limbaugh (May also be asked in the drug addict section)

I guess there isn't a reason to finish as this punchline was probably telegraphed HOURS ago.

Where did Kerry lose the election for you?

2005-08-19T14:39:00.000-05:00

I don't ask facetiously. I read this from retiring colmunist Jules Witcover.

"I wrote then that there was a more realistic vehicle for expressing public disfavor -- the approaching 2004 presidential election. I argued that those who were against the war could use the election as a referendum on what I argued was an illegal war begun under false premises.

"Many voters obviously did so, but not enough, in part because the Bush campaign succeeded in making Democratic nominee John Kerry, himself ambiguous on the war, and his Vietnam service record the issue rather than the man who had started that war. In retrospect, I lament not having advocated impeachment, even as achieving it was unlikely.

I can remember EXPLICITLY. It was the moment at the Grand Canyon when he was asked (something along the lines of) "Knowing what you know now, would you still have voted for the war?" He said yes. Right then, right there, he lost it.

On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Who needs to be swiftboated when you can't muster the voice to say "NO".

Damn Liberal Media

2005-08-19T07:50:00.000-05:00

That Liberal media just continues to stifle dissent.

Should We Be Asking Why the Bush Twins Haven't Volunteered to Go to Iraq?

2005-08-15T11:41:00.000-05:00

How would Jenna put it? Well, duh! Of course!

Erick the Pissant

2005-08-15T02:11:00.000-05:00

Wow. Wingnuts must be feeling the heat. From Redstate.org:

Crossing the Line
By: Erick · Section: Democrats

I'm not generally one to go across the line of good wording too much, but it seems I struck a serious chord by calling Mrs. Sheehan "a media whore." In fact, she is more a pawn of the media, though willingly. And for those who think I am actually calling her a "whore," you are gravely mistaken.

Mrs. Sheehan is certainly entitled to her grief. Were I in her shoes, I too would be grieving for my loss. But, I believe Mrs. Sheehan has willingly or unwillingly allowed herself to be used to push an anti-war, and now anti-Israel, agenda. She wants to blame the President for her son's death when the true blame lies with the terrorists that her friend Michael Moore calls Freedom Fighters.

For using the term "media whore" I certainly do apologize and recognize the inappropriate usage.

I do, however, stand by the remainder of my remarks.

I am rather amazed how the moonbats who are filling up voicemail and email are upset that I called Mrs. Sheehan a "media whore" and they have no problem calling Bush "Hitler" or worse. Amazing what happens when you take on a lefty sacred cow.

Geez. Where to start? How about at the beginning? I'm not generally one to go across the line of good wording too much... What the heck does that mean? but it seems I struck a serious chord by calling Mrs. Sheehan "a media whore." Uh, yeah... In fact, she is more a pawn of the media, though willingly. Pawn: (from the freedictionary.com) a person used by another to gain an end. She was the pawn or the media was? But, I believe Mrs. Sheehan has willingly or unwillingly allowed herself to be used to push an anti-war, and now anti-Israel, agenda. Didn't you just say in the previous sentence willingly? Which is it? Have you been taking logic AND writing lessons from PW? Finally, the apology: For using the term "media whore" I certainly do apologize and recognize the inappropriate usage. Really, thats all that should have been said. Thats an apology. That's all a real man would have said. BTW, he removed the link to his webpage, but I think its cached at the wayback. And also, when you're a wingnut, you can never, never, never really apologize, so here comes some more: I do, however, stand by the remainder of my remarks. And we can't forget the favorite wingnut excuse, "He did it first!": I am rather amazed how the moonbats who are filling up voicemail and email are upset that I called Mrs. Sheehan a "media whore" and they have no problem calling Bush "Hitler" or worse. Amazing what happens when you take on a lefty sacred cow.

Yea, Pissant is just about the right description.

Yet another Cindy post

2005-08-15T01:48:00.000-05:00

Still more on Cindy. I guess I just didn't understand the I'm done with it post. Maybe its a sign of this.

Elevated from Comments

2005-08-15T00:57:00.000-05:00

Recent exchange with PW. I found it interesting.

Still packing in the readership, I see.

What is your point here, exactly?
Jeff G | Homepage | 08.13.05 - 8:09 pm | #

Ha!

"Still packing in the readership, I see." Satire or irony? I always confused the two.

I think its more of a diarist exercise and as such readership isn't really the point for me yet. Maybe that will change with ego/time/age/frustration, but I'm finding it cathartic to do what I can.

"What is your point here, exactly?" For this entry? Or in general? For this entry, the "Try not to be so fucking stupid, Steve" was too much to let go, particularly when you had already (properly I believe) advised on ad hominem attack - remember? Advising me to not be so snarky?. But for you to say, You're stupid, thats about as basic an ad hominem and snarky attack as there is, don'tcha think?

The In General answer, that requires some more introspection. Mostly it was that I read a lot of blogs a day, both sides. Some are clever, some are interesting, but they're always fun. The day I decided to try my feeble hand at it just so happened to coincide with reading your blog and with a crescendo about events in this war. I find it fascinating that there is such a rigidity of position - and that makes it Gulliveresque - and fun. Example, by any measure Juan Cole is cogent and erudite. (no one on your site would agree with that) And I think Paul Wolfowitz is also cogent and erudite. (most liberals would not agree with that.) I would never call Wolfowitz stupid. Wrong, wrongheaded, misguided, and perhaps as things went off track, even misleading (ala McNamarra) - but never stupid. Your website is successful, it attracts readers. Readers that say that anyone from the left is stupid. Thats not so. Or you allowing that "media whore" as a phrase was appropriate for a gold star mom. That's reprehensible.

My site? I'm not sure it'll ever amount to anything. But I disagree with a lot of what you say and this is my forum to frame a response.

BY THE WAY, what happened to your "I'm not going to comment any more on Cindy Sheehan. I'm done with it." blog entry. My links still point to it, but the text has changed? Surely you would not be so disingenuous as to revise it, so I must have put in the wrong trackback URL. Can you point me to the correct one?
mightcan | Homepage | 08.14.05 - 2:05 pm | #

This is kind of fun!

Latest PW Interaction

2005-08-14T19:34:00.000-05:00

I received the following from PW:

Another chickenhawk-flavored post, huh?

Well, I've addressed that question here, but for you, tell you what: I’ll take your question about enlistment seriously if you agree that you will back a Constitutional Amendment making military service mandatory for any one who directs foreign policy, votes on foreign policy issues and or related legislation, or rules on issues that impact foreign policy. That would successfully insure that all three branches of government are completely “militarized,” which is what you seem to want (structurally speaking).

The other option is to suggest that we simply pass a law outlawing war, disassemble our military, and make the question moot.

Umm? This is supposed to be the specious argument that, "If you haven't done it, you can't advocate it." I think that's what PW is saying, but it comes as a little bit of surprise because its an argument fomented by amateur logicians.

Of course, this master stroke of logical construction is directed at the, as PW references, "Chickenhawk Meme." Let me highlight that this is not the case for me, for I agree that one cannot say that only those that have experienced something can advocate it. What the "chickenhawk meme", for me, promulgates is this:

Ok, follow so far? Good. Next input, it is entirely fair to say that if you support this effort so thoroughly and it is so important, then at what level will you participate physically in it? It's become clear that the cause is so without universal support that resources to pursue it will become problematic. So those supporting it must step up at some point to show the level of commitment, or the cause may be put at risk. What is your (and the other chickenhawks') point of support/action? It's not now as shown by this. So when is it? When Iraq falls? When Saudi Arabia falls? Mexico? After you finish your iTunes downloads? Never? What is the point at which you will put your butt in harms way? That's a pretty simple question.

See? It's not the disengenuous argument of only those that have done can do, its the moral question of, "If not now (for you), then when?"

This is quite the article

2005-08-14T18:33:00.000-05:00

My goodness, what kind of Sheehan tactics will the wingnuts use against her:

The Marines' Hymn played softly as his flag-draped coffin was slowly taken from Calvary Baptist Church for a military burial at Lexington Cemetery. [Chase] Comley, a driver for an amphibious assault vehicle battalion, was killed by a suicide bomber last weekend while conducting combat operations near Amiriyah, Iraq. [...]

But, in a departure from the norm in Kentucky -- one of the reddest of red states -- some of Comley's relatives, including a few sitting in the front pews, have spoken out strongly against the Bush administration and the war that took the 21-year-old Marine's life. [...]

But on Friday, Comley's grandmother, 80-year-old Geraldine Comley of Versailles, described herself in an interview as a former Republican stalwart who is "on a rampage" against the president and the war.

She said she would like nothing better than to join Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier who has been holding a peace vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Texas.

"When someone gets up and says 'My son died for our freedom,' or I get a sympathy card that says that, I can hardly bear it," Geraldine Comley said.

She said her view, developed before her grandson's death, is that Bush pushed for war because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate the first President Bush, and to get control of Mideast oil.

"And it irritates me no small amount that Dick Cheney, in the Vietnam War, said he had 'other priorities,'" Geraldine Comley said. "He didn't mind sending my grandson over there" to Iraq. [...]

She said "it broke my heart" when Chase Comley joined the Marines, but he told her that recruiters said he probably would be stationed in Hawaii or Japan.

Maybe they will start in with MEDIA WHORE for this 80 yo grandmother. Or maybe they'll report her to the Secret Service for her "rampage" conmments.

Conspiracies, conspiracies, conspiracies

2005-08-14T15:24:00.000-05:00

PW writes this:

Over at RedState, Nick Danger bemoans the distraction that is Cindy Sheehan and points to the real growing scandal over Able Danger, which (for my money, at least) has more to do with hiding findings than with placing blame.

Well, this just in from NRO, may have cost him his money:

WE MAY OWE THEM A BIG APOLOGY [John Podhoretz]
A day or two ago, I posted a note of caution about the Able Danger scandal, and that note of caution has now turned into a full-fledged symphony -- and some of us on the Right who have been making a big stink about this may have been had.

The 9/11 Commission has put out a very detailed memo defending itself that basically says Rep. Curt Weldon and the unnamed Navy officers who have made a big stink about Able Danger are stretching it bigtime. The basis of their charge is two-fold:

First, that 9/11 staffers met with folks in Afghanistan in 2003 who told them about Able Danger and that Mohammed Atta had been identified by that military-intelligence operation. Here's what the commission says: "As with their other meetings, Commission staff promptly prepared a memorandum for the record. That memorandum, prepared at the time, does not record any mention of Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers, or any suggestion that their identities were known to anyone at DOD before 9/11. Nor do any of the three Commission staffers who participated in the interview, or the executive branch lawyer, recall hearing any such allegation."

What's more, in February 2004, commission staff members read Able Danger documents at the Pentagon: "None of the documents turned over to the Commission mention Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers. Nor do any of the staff notes on documents reviewed in the DOD reading room indicate that Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers were mentioned in any of those documents."

That's about as strong a denial as there can be, and it sounds credible to me.

In PW's defense, he does post this after quoting roughly the same extract I did from NRO:

Speaking of which, Bob Graham was on FOXNews Weekend a few moments ago insisting that the Senate Intelligence Committee knew nothing about Able Danger.

Quite conspicuously, however, he did not deny knowing where Natalee is—though in Graham’s defense, Brian Williams neglected to ask the question.

Greta, I feel certain, would not have made that same mistake.

Developing…

THATS IT? DEVELOPING...? Maybe he's being clever in associating the Drudge level of commentary with the relationship to the truth this story has...Yea, thats it, clever!

Still on the Protein Diet

2005-08-14T11:56:00.000-05:00

It's been how many days now since our fellow blogger said:

"Follow the story here. Me, I'm done with it."

[Note, I made a mistake and had the wrong trackback link to the above quote. I take responsibility for that.] Yet PW publishes another tirade against Sheehan? Hasn't the right and PW highlighted that changing your mind was the universal default for any rights to an opinion?

So, tell the world, "You believe it a noble cause to give up a son for, but not noble enough for you to fight for?" Safely ensconced behind the 101st fighting keyboarders' line, its easy to use that nearby inkjet and print of a couple of battle ribbons. May something with a Â, &, ∝, or ℵ just to show that you're an experienced fighting keyboardist. Really, so experienced and talented that the fates require your safety, your preservation, your wisdom - or we would all be doomed.

PW says this:

Apparently, any wingnut who dares analyze the political or cultural effects of Cindy Sheehan s protests whether his interest lies with how those protests are being covered in the media, or the possible political and personal motivations behind those protests, or the makeup of the attendant support and supporters of said protests, etc. is an angry, black-souled, moronic, evil, vile hater who, in the words of one passionate Cindyphile in the comments here, should slit [his] own throat.

Really? Any wingnut? I don't think so. What I discovered was that the outrage by liberals, adults of sympathy (whether agreeing with her or not), polite individuals, and some conservatives was a rejection of the word "whore". Yea, I know, there was that disingenuous attempt to say it should have been considered as one phrase "media whore". You tried, but the logic involved would tax the most sophisticated of writers. (I suppose in that regard it's no shame to have failed.)

Really, couldn't you have just said, "Whore is wrong. Media prostitute, media slut, media cunt, they all contain words that shouldn't be used against anyone who has lost a son in this war, regardless of their position."

But then again, courage (you know, the kind of courage to put your butt in harm's way for a cause you've proselytized) is required to publicly admit that something might be incorrect, especially when a house of cards can't allow any card to bend.

Analogy

2005-08-13T10:12:00.000-05:00

I've been wondering why there hasn't been a strong antiwar/antipolicy movement. I understand the the wingnut echo chamber does suppress dissent (re: Goldstar Mom is a "media whore". Per Protein Wisdom - still unenlisted - we should keep it as one phrase - not "whore" - "media whore", but it doesn't quite ameliorate it, does it?) And the media is so right wing. And the GOP is so paranoid of dissent. These things keep a pretty strong cap down. But there should have been more.

And suddenly there is a voice that coalesces dissent. I mean, there have been voices before, such as the father of one of the first to die in Iraq holding up a sign saying, "George Bush look who you killed," or something close to that. But now, with Ms. Sheehan, there is some traction.

So I offer the following analogy that came to me: Those of you who took too much chemistry, remember any experiments with supercooled and/or supersaturated liquids? The experiment usually ends with the dropping into the liquid a crystal or striking the beaker (adding energy) in some way. Suddenly, the entire solution appears to crystalize. Its really quite impressive. I think that is what has happened here. The wingnut echo chamber has failed. I mean, changing your mind? media whore? Geez. Clearly, if messages don't get initial traction, wingnuts like PW really don't have the ability to conceive and promulgate on their own.

One more thing about PW, he used this phrase

Try not to be so fucking stupid, Steve.

Statements like this really do call for the best of old chestnuts, "Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot."

Ah, Protein Wisdom always comes through

2005-08-13T00:34:00.000-05:00

From here:

But perhaps I'm being too indelicate here. Perhaps all that Atrios and his ilk wish to do is give voice to the mother of an Iraqi soldierÂto allow her her share her experiences with the world. And what could be wrong with that? Provided, of course, that the soldier in question is dead, and that the mother hates the President, thinks the US is a fascist state with imperialist intent, and that the 2004 elections were stolen... more challenging.

Well, the indelicacy he is refering to is his endorsement/confirmation in joining of the labeling of Ms. Sheehan as a "media whore". By the way, he said this earlier, "Follow the story here. Me, I'm done with it." Maybe I'm confused by the done with it phrase, since, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the above blockquote more about it? And here. And here. Maybe its logic that you're done with as it seldom appears to visit?

It is indefensible, in any fashion, to refer to anyone who has lost a son in this nation's action, whether you support it or not, as a "whore", in any capacity.

I would think that if you support this war, and just blog for attention from the sidelines, then the term media whore would be much more appropriate. Or maybe another word will do. What's that word that encompasses, you know, that situation where you encourage everyone else around you to engage in battle, but YOU don't actually want to join the fray? Oh yea, coward.

Don't agree? Then get your butt out there and enlist.

2005-08-11T17:17:00.000-05:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Once in the shower, WWJD?

2005-08-11T17:09:00.000-05:00

Reprinted from Bradford Plummer:

Both Norbizness and Sadly, No! are having great fun with James Dobson's tips on how to tell if your son is gay—hint #4: "he hangs around with girls too much" (!!!)—but it looks like the real comedy gold in Dobson's newsletter involves his proposed cure for the gender-confused young son:
[T]he boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.
That's right. Want your kid to grow up straight? Put him in an environment where he "cannot help but notice" other penises. Works every time.

Wow. Just Wow. (I guess Glen Reynolds is right, one word really can provide full comment.)

Fear of any criticism, from any source

2005-08-10T12:15:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin, practising in an LFZ. You're dinging a woman who gave her son to your great leader's war? You support the war so much, that in the face of all the lies it is predicated upon, you're still cheerleading for its followers and attacking its detractors? And the main point of logic is that this woman has changed her mind? Geez, look at the poll numbers. You're of recruitment age, lets see you get your butt into the enlistment line (right behind the cowardly Jonah Goldberg).

Even our wait-table-pundit couldn't resist:

A friendly reminder:

He’s the freakin’ President of the United States, lady. And besides, you already met with him once before.

Jesus. Thank Patton grieving parents and spouses of WWII soldiers killed in battle weren’t subjected to the kind of crass exploitation by anti-war opportunists Cindy Sheehan is being exposed to; the thought of some seersucker-suited aide wheeling Roosevelt door-to-door across America, hat in hand, so that he could answer to the wives and parents of 400,000 dead soldiers—the majority of whom were drafted ...well, that’s just too ridiculous and depressing even to contemplate.

Listen → I feel for this woman, I honestly do. But somebody close to her needs to take her aside and convince her that it’s time to grieve in private and to honor her son’s memory. Instead, this poor grieving woman is taking solace—solace I believe she’ll later come to regret—from the worst type of hyperpartisan frauds, professional Bush-bashers and wannabe-Vietnam-era protestors whose hatred for the President and his foreign policy runs so deep that they’re willing to adopt Ms. Sheehan like some sort of morbid mascot of convenience and exploit her pain—and her son’s death—in the most cynical and public way imaginable.

The whole business makes me sick.

There. I said it.

"He’s the freakin’ President of the United States, lady. And besides, you already met with him once before." Pretty callous about someone who's made a sacrifice in W's folly.

"anti-war opportunists Cindy Sheehan is being exposed to; the thought of some seersucker-suited aide wheeling Roosevelt door-to-door across America, hat in hand, so that he could answer to the wives and parents of 400,000 dead soldiers—the majority of whom were drafted" Its true that 66% of the armed forces were drafted in WWII, most went willingly because it was seen as a valid conflict (Germany declared war on us first, Japan attacked us first). Using your logic then, lack of a strong antipodal position should be taken as validation of the cause. Therefore, it would follow that presence of strong public opinion against said position should be taken as a validation of the criticism. Whats wrong with grieving in public?

Listen → I feel for this woman, I honestly do. Not enough to let it go. There is something wrong with a position that can't brook ANY challenge from ANY quarter without comment.

she’ll later come to regret—from the worst type of hyperpartisan frauds, professional Bush-bashers and wannabe-Vietnam-era protestors whose hatred for the President and his foreign policy runs so deep that they’re willing to adopt Ms. Sheehan like some sort of morbid mascot of convenience and exploit her pain—and her son’s death—in the most cynical and public way imaginable. She seems to be in control of her own comments and position. I've seen her on CNN, et. al., and, while not practised - like O'Reilly challenging McCain about POW experiences, she seems genuine to me. I haven't seen ANY liberal blogs challenge any gold star mothers who are prowar/proconflict/procause with any of the level of vituperative dissonance like this. Me? Being a parent myself, I think the loss of a child, regardless of wealth, position, fealty, is a challenge to the body spirit that I'm not sure I would have the strength to endure. Those people deserve whatever slack I can provide - even if its to listen without contradiction. Why is it so important that everyone has to say they see the emperor's new clothes?

The whole business makes me sick. But not sick enough to enlist. Yea.

[update] Hey! Great minds think alike. Its in a premium area, but here is the gist:

Well, almost always. By our way of thinking, families who have lost a loved one in Iraq get a free pass to think whatever they want to think about the war. If getting through their grief requires them to believe that Iraq had WMD or that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 or that the war will spread democracy through the Middle East or that fighting "the enemy" there means we don't have to fight it here or whatever new story the president is peddling this week -- well, whatever. They've paid the price of admission to think whatever it is that lets them sleep at night, and we wouldn't presume to tell them why we're right and they're wrong.

And of course this too:

It seems that everything and everyone are "fair game" when it comes to propping up the president and his war. Well, two can play that game. On a conference call with bloggers this afternoon, Sheehan called O'Reilly's show an obscenity and said she won't "dignify" it with her appearance. And Sheehan said she has a question for Bush: If the war is such a noble cause, is he encouraging his own children to enlist?

It's a question one might put to Malkin, too. You've got two kids, Michelle. Will you be walking them down to the recruiting center when they turn 18? And why wait for them? You can sign yourself up today.

Yea! I asked that of PW and MM. SO WHEN IS THE WAITER AND AMERICA'S PRETTIEST WINGNUT GOING TO JOIN THEIR NOBLE CAUSE?

I think it could take volumes

2005-08-10T11:07:00.000-05:00

Lets start with this:

The Republican War on Science

We mightcan do business...

2005-08-09T16:24:00.000-05:00

I got this in the email:

Dear Mightcan,

On August 2nd, we sent a shockwave through the Republican Party. In case you don't know me, I was the Democratic candidate in the special election for Ohio's second congressional district. I am also a veteran of the Iraq War.

In a district that has seen 40 point Democratic losses for 15 years, we came within four points. That was after Tom DeLay and the national Republicans poured in a half a million dollars to shore up my opponent.

I couldn't be prouder of our campaign. The national Republicans promised to "bury" me, but we stood tough and put them in their place. On Thursday the Washington Post asked their spokesman whether they had fulfilled their promise, and the spokesman admitted simply: "we did not." Newt Gingrich himself called it "a wake-up call to Republicans."

There are so many people who made this possible. Never having run for public office before, I was amazed by people's hard work, long hours and dedication to my campaign. I could not have run this race without the grassroots Democrats coming to my aid - in message, in boots on the ground, and in contributions to my campaign.

And there was another team who was working on my behalf. At the most critical point of the campaign, the DCCC sent staff to direct a get out the vote operation unlike anything this district has seen in decades. They helped me turn my campaign into a well-oiled machine.

and so on

I'm a big, BIG fan of Mr. Hackett. But I have this question before I contribute: Will it go to candidates that will call W the sob he is? Will it go to candidates that will stand for something? State their opinion? Highlight the lunacy of Iraq? Bring Haliburton to account? Be for me? BE DEMOCRATS? I don't want any pissant accommodation because the candidate is afraid to make a living in my world. I want them in DC making a difference! Then we mightcan do business...

More on the search for LFZ

2005-08-09T12:15:00.000-05:00

It's like practise for being a wildlife tour guide: "Coming up on the right side is another Blustery Bear hoping the hot air of poor thought will be just the thermal he needs." Case in point:

Losing the Iraq War
Can the left really want us to?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Aug. 8, 2005, at 8:36 AM PT

Lets take a look. Early on, this is said:

There is a sort of unspoken feeling, underlying the entire debate on the war, that if you favored it or favor it, you stress the good news, and if you opposed or oppose it you stress the bad.

Geezy-peezy, thats some significant insight.

I do not find myself on either side of this false dichotomy.

Hmm? What false dichotomy? That one side thought it was a good idea and one side thought it was a bad idea? We're not picking out paint chits here.

It never seemed to me that there was any alternative to confronting the reality of Iraq, which was already on the verge of implosion and might, if left to rot and crash, have become to the region what the Congo is to Central Africa: a vortex of chaos and misery that would draw in opportunistic interventions from Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Really? There are a lot of rotting regimes. Why Iraq? Oh the WMDs - or was it the 9/11 attacks - or was it Saddam's attempt on GB1? - or was it harboring Al Queda? Forgive me, but logic like yours is what produces reasons like these.

Bad as Iraq may look now, it is nothing to what it would have become without the steadying influence of coalition forces. None of the many blunders in postwar planning make any essential difference to that conclusion.

Lets see, there was:

1. NO connection to Iraq and Al Queda before, there is now.
2. NO significant Iranian/Syrian/Saudi Arabian terrorist training before - there is now.
3. NO American dying in Iraq before - um, what about now?
4. NO worrying about the progress in Afghanistan before - there is now.

QED, the completion of the excersize is left to the reader. Unfortunately, the neocon book only has answers to the ODD numbered questions in the back - you know, the questions dealing with subverting a democracy at home, not creating one abroad.

By the way, in your proof, please avoid making statements that something is obvious, when by simple application of neurons it can be seen to be NOT obvious - or completely false:

Indeed, by drawing attention to the ruined condition of the Iraqi society and its infrastructure, they serve to reinforce the point.

More mud into the sluice:

How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality?

You mean the neocons and conservatives that haven't joined the armed forces to fight this war - this war of their own creation? You mean chickenhawks - cowards if you prefer - like Jonah Goldberg here and here?

How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East?

Because its a war that has passed into the SPOILS phase you dolt. I see many wanting to fight these battles, to spread our view of equality (our view? yea, because I like it), we're the good guys for goodness' sakes. But the tables are stacked against this kind of reconstruction when of the immediate items to protect after the invasion, only the oil ministry gets the protection. But what do you mean find hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis? Show me where our government recognizes such a figure (go ahead, I'll wait..............hello? back yet?) Show me how NGOs can participate in the post war environment in Iraq? Yea, just as I thought - a big bag of nothing.

The New York Times ran a fascinating report (subscription only), under the byline of James Glanz, on July 8. It was a profile of Dr. Alaa Tamimi, the mayor of Baghdad, whose position it would be a gross understatement to describe as "embattled." Dr. Tamimi is a civil engineer and convinced secularist who gave up a prosperous exile in Canada to come home and help rebuild his country. He is one among millions who could emerge if it were not for the endless, pitiless torture to which the city is subjected by violent religious fascists. He is quoted as being full of ideas, of a somewhat Giuliani-like character, about zoning enforcement, garbage recycling, and zero tolerance for broken windows. If this doesn't seem quixotic enough in today's gruesome circumstances, he also has to confront religious parties on the city council and an inept central government that won't give him a serious budget.

Yes, I support that. Unfortunately, our government supported Chalabi. Maybe Haliburton should sell to the US some CHARACTER CONSULTANTS, at least where character counts.

Brazil Declines AIDS Grant, Protects Sex Workers

2005-08-08T14:52:00.000-05:00

Wow. A really good wingnut description from Brazil.

"We can't control [the disease] with principles that are Manichean, theological, fundamentalist and Shiite," Chequer said.

Learn something new every day...

2005-08-08T10:31:00.000-05:00

ID really is a LFZ far too large for a feeble sort like myself. Nonetheless, little things like this provide energy:

One of the world’s leading experts in origin of life research issued a statement on Friday saying that intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it is not science.

Dr. Fazale Rana, vice president for science apologetics of the organization Reasons to Believe, said in his statement, “As currently formulated, Intelligent Design is not science. It is not falsifiable and makes no predictions about future scientific discoveries.”

What the heck are science apologetics? I didn't know, but sure enough there is such a word.

Religion, the original LFZ! (or is it just the followers that are LFZ?)

2005-08-08T08:40:00.000-05:00

How come smites never go to those who deserve smittening?

But this is a great way to answer.

Indeed (Thanks to Glen Reynolds for showing me how shallow insight can really be!)

2005-08-08T08:34:00.000-05:00

The numbers of Americans killed so far in Iraq remains low, compared with the tens of thousands who died in Vietnam or Korea. But if Iraq is considered a nation-building or stability operation, the death toll is very high measured against the U.S. experience in the Dominican Republic, Panama and the Balkans, said James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan and now a military analyst for RAND Corp.

Master of LFZ: Glen Reynolds

2005-08-06T12:14:00.000-05:00

Sometimes genius just has to be recognized - even over the hubris of the source hammering on that same point. Thats what brings us here today, oh faithful seekers of reality based commentary: GlenReynolds.com. For some, condemnation is an easy virtue, for others condemnation is thrust upon them, but here, we have an extrapolation of the lab's pithed frog. My opinion (like everything else on this page) is that herein GR.com resides logic so fallacious, ~~mendacious~~, (no, not mendacious. I think that takes some level of intelligence coupled with intent - that should be reserved for Rush, O'Reilly, etc. lets say vacuous) cretinous, that, well, look - its not even 1:00 in the afternoon and I've already run through three "ous" words just to try to capture the gestalt. Example in poin t (from GR):

As I mentioned below, lots of people think Americans are fat. Some of them must think we're stupid, too. Why else would they be pushing ideas like a "fat tax?"

But that's what many people in the policy-entrepreneur community have been doing. Writing in The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn notes the arguments:

Silly though it may sound, there's a very sensible case for taxing unhealthy food--or, at the very least, two unhealthy substances within food. One is saturated fat, commonly found in beef and dairy products; the other is transfatty acids, or transfat, which the food industry adds to products during baking or frying. Both substances increase the level of "bad" cholesterol in the blood, which clogs arteries.

Transfat seems to be a double whammy: It appears to reduce the level of good cholesterol, which counteracts the effects of bad cholesterol.

Scientists agree that anything beyond minimal consumption of either increases the risk of heart attack and other circulatory problems, with no offsetting health benefits, even for otherwise healthy people.

Economists agree that the treatment of these conditions--whether through prescription drugs to treat high blood pressure or angioplasty to open up clogged arteries--is very expensive.

If you want to load up on french fries, health risks and all, why is that the government's business? Unfortunately, fat consumption really is the government's business in one, very literal, sense. As taxpayers, we all bear the burden of higher medical costs--either directly, by paying for Medicare and Medicaid, or indirectly, by subsidizing employer-based health insurance (which is tax deductible).

So, when some people choose to eat poorly, we all end up bearing the financial burden for their decisions. A Twinkie tax would help rectify this, however modestly. Government wouldn't be scolding Americans about their choices. It would simply be asking them to confront the costs of those choices--namely, the future medical bills that fatty foods make more likely.

My grandfather was a curmudgeon who argued that once the government started paying for medical care, it would start telling you how to live. As usual, he turns out to be right.

But the government should face some blame, too. Successful government efforts to get people to quit smoking are blamed in part for weight gain -- French women, we're told, don't get fat, but that may have as much to do with chain-smoking as with a healthy diet -- and the government subsidizes agriculture in ways that probably promote less healthy diets (beef and dairy farmers, for example, get all sorts of government benefits -- but hey, they also subsidize tobacco, so...

At any rate, I'll take claims that we need federal action seriously when the federal government manages to trim itself down a bit. I don't ask much, Uncle Sam: If you'll get down to the size you were ten years ago, then you'll be in a position to ask the rest of us to do likewise.

Wow! His grandfather must have been some guy. Did he turn back in his medicare? Did he turn back in his social security ABOVE what he contributed in taxes? Did he stop driving when seatbelt laws arrived? Did he rail about child abuse laws? (After all, thats some guvment ficial telling me how to raise my kids!) These kinds of arguments, that required "good old days" disease, are especially effective on pliant, addlepated minds like GRs.

Would your grandfather have said, "Once governments started ~~paying~~ invading for ~~medical care~~ oil, it would start telling you how to ~~live~~ die4lies?

As for trimming down to where the gov't was ten years ago? Geez, who was in power ten years ago? A DEMOCRAT!

What really, really, really gets GR's goat though, is the mismatch of public perception with his idealized inner blogger. The world views him as the rightwingnut - if not as intellectually powerful as most -- when he doth protest to the world that he is at the center. Can you buy a xanax gift pack?

Logic Free Zones

2005-08-06T09:34:00.000-05:00

The watched pot and boiling and all of that. I think, to do this, one needs a perimeter in which to explore. I think mine is going to be LFZs (Logic Free Zones). I mean, they seem to be pretty easy targets (Protein Wisdom, GlenReynolds.com, AndrewSullivan, HughHewitt, etc.) so I won't have to work too hard. It is fun since it's so one sided, and I'm pretty sure they're thin skinned - as with most conservative, reactionary, bloviators - geez, most don't even allow comments!

Lets start with this from PW:

The Death of America, #1378: "NCAA Bars Colleges' Indian Mascots in Tournaments"

From Bloomberg News:

The National Collegiate Athletic Association banned the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams during its postseason tournaments, a ruling the president of Florida State University called ``outrageous and insulting.’’

The NCAA’s executive committee said the organization, which governs college sports, is limiting the prohibition to tournaments it controls. It doesn’t have the power to institute an outright ban, said University of Hartford President Walter Harrison, chairman of the committee.

Effective immediately, nicknames or mascots that are determined to be “hostile or abusive’’ can’t be shown on uniforms or other team-related clothing, Harrison said. He wasn’t specific about which nicknames or logos would be affected.

Florida State President T.K. Wetherell, whose school uses the Seminoles as a nickname and Chief Osceola as a mascot, said in a statement that he would pursue ``all legal avenues’’ to overturn the rule.

“The executive committee has been swayed by a strident minority of activists who claim to speak for all Native Americans,’’ Wetherell said. “That the NCAA would now label our close bond with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as culturally `hostile and abusive’ is both outrageous and insulting."

On a day when Tony Blair, long a proponent of the most divisive and intellectually fatuous brand of multiculturalism to insinuate its way into the liberal social fabric, is taking the first very difficult steps toward shoring up the national identity of Brits, the NCAA—represented by a group of weak-willed political hacks so terrified by bad publicity that they’re willing to sell their souls to the tolerance police—is ceding control of language (and granting de facto spokesmen’s rights) to a handful of professional victims who’ve made it their mission to shriek longer and louder than the millions of others who, if asked, would likely find such semantic foolishness insulting.

The problem is, decisions like this are more than simply insulting, because they strengthen the political hand of prononents of identity politics, which in turn weakens individual rights and drives the PC culture that leads to the kind of balkinization and clash of cultures we’re now beginning to see all over Western Europe.

Quite a sad day for America, and another embarrassment to come out of our increasingly gutless academy.

The Bloomberg is what our waiter is commenting on, the envelop is his. I had my eyes opened as I didn't really think that the deaths of transit riders in London was in some way even remotely comparable to a discussion of mascots. I mean, when I run those LFZ awards, this has got to be a shoe in for the top 10. Second, I didn't think they were weak willed. I'm pretty sure that knowingly pissing off a bunch of alums requires some sort of will. And I'm just going to gloss over the whole - I think next point - about ceding control of the language and spokesman's rights stuff. I couldn't follow it and it will have to wait for one of my younger nieces or nephews to help me out. (Maybe on a Big Chief tablet!)

But really, the most annoying thing about this is the way conservatives/wingnuts pervert thought processes here.

1. Ownership Rights. Did the NCAA act only within their dominion? (post season activities) Aren't they the effective owners of such activities? Don't the participants VOLUNTARILY become members of said organization? (And don't say they don't have options, thats how the CFA was formed.) So what you're saying is that owners don't have rights if they do something YOU don't agree with? Or else its that he is a secret member of handful of professional victims who’ve made it their mission to shriek longer and louder than the millions of others who...

2. Populism. These affected groups, not constituting the majority numerically, could never have effected change (the removal of what they considered against their best interests). So they lobbied, formed coalitions, lined up supporters and went to work. Hummm, populism works against the powers-that-be? No wonder wingnuts are against this, it sounds way too democratic and a challenge for the (formerly) benign aristocracy of wealth we've substituted for democracy here. They brought about their change and they didn't even have to make up stuff about WMDs being under the Orange Bowl!

3. Individual Rights. Weakens individual rights? In what way? I think its an example of its strength. Please see #2.

4. Who cares? I mean really? I think the only real argument is about tradition. "My Dad was a Death's Head and I want to be a Death's Head!". Then persuade your school to not change. Don't participate in post season play and/or start another league - practise your freedom. Thats the American way - except when perverted by the fantasy weirdness of wingnuts.

Is lying to go to war impeachable?

2005-08-05T14:04:00.000-05:00

Let's hope so.

America wakes up

2005-08-05T13:57:00.000-05:00

Don't we need an analogy about a patient coming out of a coma?

Instastupid.com

2005-08-05T13:47:00.000-05:00

I've followed this site for some time - enough to know that he wails everytime someone catalogs him as conservative. Me, I've seen enough to know that he might not be bright enough to realize he's a wingnut -- I mean, W believes he's a fighter pilot.

But I do admire the ability to channel Bevis and Butthead as commentary (heh AND indeed).

Comments!

2005-08-05T10:02:00.000-05:00

Geez, I thought with 1 blog a second being deployed to the blog-ether, that it would take months, if ever to get any comments. I really hadn't considered it since this was really just me experimenting with blogspot tools for some other ideas. But this is great, in the span of about four days, comments really did show up. I mean, if there is a backwater to the blog world, I've got to be sitting on the distant bank. But, cool nonetheless.

More Protein Stupidity

2005-08-02T17:27:00.000-05:00

Note this comment about Intelligent Design:

While I don’t believe Intelligent Design should be taught as a comparable theory to evolution in science classes (it’s not scientifically falsifiable¹, first of all, which means it’s not a scientic theory, regardless of how vehemently anthropocentic proponents of irreducible complexity insist it is—and anyway, it addresses questions about first causes that fall outside the proper purview of scientific inquiry), I nevertheless do believe that addressing the field of ID theory in science classes provides a perfect opportunity to show how ID and evolution do not necessarily contradict one another, and that—if evolution is taught properly—the controversy itself disappears, except as a propaganda tool ginned up either by creationists or materialists who like to use it as a rhetorical club against their ideological opponents.

(my emphasis). Dang! This kind of discussion is just what the world has been needing! Of course pseudo-science and science can co-exist! Where have I been?!?! I can see it now, master's degrees showing that the weight of a duck CAN identify witches! Is it legal for him to use wisdom in his name?

Win Ben Stein's Stupid

2005-08-02T12:44:00.000-05:00

Read this. Here it is recopied here:

-------------------

Special Report
I Don't Feel for Felt
By Ben Stein
Published 6/3/2005 1:09:24 AM

Just a few more thoughts on the events of the day:

Now, we read that Mark Felt's family and Mark Felt put out their story solely to make money off it. So, this makes the family's karma even more unnerving. The father, patriarch, Mark, took out his anger and frustration for being passed over at the FBI, by ruining the career of the peacemaker, Richard Nixon. So, he condemned a whole subcontinent to genocide and slavery and poverty to please his own wounded vanity. (Maybe his nickname should be "sour grapes" and not "deep throat" because he has as much in common with that fox as with a porn star.) And, blood will tell, as the old saying goes: his posterity is now dragging out his old body and putting it on display to make money. (Have you noticed how Mark Felt looks like one of those old Nazi war criminals they find in Bolivia or Paraguay? That same, haunted, hunted look combined with a glee at what he has managed to get away with so far?)

And it gets worse: it's been reported that Mark Felt is at least part Jewish. The reason this is worse is that at the same time that Mark Felt was betraying Richard Nixon, Nixon was saving Eretz Israel. It is a terrifying chapter in betrayal and ingratitude. If he even knows what shame is, I wonder if he felt a moment's shame as he tortured the man who brought security and salvation to the land of so many of his and my fellow Jews. Somehow, as I look at his demented face, I doubt it.

Third, correct me if I am wrong about this, but isn't it a crime not only to dispense classified information but also to receive classified information? Why wasn't anyone ever prosecuted about this? Is there a statute of limitations?

Finally, there is a lot of debate about whether or not Mark Felt was a hero. Obviously, I don't think so. I think the hero was Richard Nixon, fighting for peace even as he was being horribly mistreated and crucified just for his fight for peace.

But there was and is a bigger story here. Frankly, Nixon is no longer alive. If he was a hero, he is a deceased hero. Bob Woodward is no one's idea of a hero. A super businessman and accomplished writer, but no hero. Mark Felt is only Richard Ben-Veniste's hero. But there are major heroes out there every day. There are 140,000 of them in Iraq and about 15,000 in Afghanistan, at lethal risk every minute of every day. There are a million more ready to go. There are millions of family members of these heroes. Can we possibly, possibly, conceivably forget them? Somehow, I think we have. The lead news stories are almost never about them. The story is about Michael Jackson or about Mark Felt. This is desperately wrong, and I do mean desperately. I am going to write a lot more about this Monday, but in the meantime, let's remember there's a war on, and the best and bravest of our nation are dying every day -- to protect a great nation, but one which seems lately to have forgotten even what the nation is all about.

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer in Beverly Hills and Malibu, and author of "Ben Stein's Diary" each month in The American Spectator. He is also a former presidential speechwriter. Click here to subscribe to The American Spectator.

--------------------

I believe that this kind of unbelievable stupidity that can only be caused by R complex dementia. And since I think this was glossed over WAAAAYYYY too quickly -- almost as if it was a dog-whistle article - and in an effort to raise our Q scores - and bring this back to the news pot - watch for a (possible) contest to appear right here. Remember this, but for this particular example, it might be more appropriate to catalog under the "Having fun with the Soviet hobby of revisionist history" parlour action game.

Protein Wisdom - Who reads this guy?

2005-08-01T10:05:00.000-05:00

As an example, in this color, of the depth of wisdom and insight that can be expected:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So when the Moderate Voice argues that “It’s a separate issue as to whether the perception is correct,” and that “Guantanamo [...] has become a public relations disaster for the U.S.,” the editors miss the obvious point, which is that pronouncements like Carter’s are what created the public relations disaster in the first place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this, this, and maybe this:

NEW YORK So what is shown on the 87 photographs and four videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon, in an eleventh hour move, blocked from release this weekend? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images: "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.” They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.

had more to do with it. It always puzzles me, how the rightwingnuts justify this. I mean, they never have an answer to this interrogative: "Aren't we supposed to be the GOOD guys?"

But it really, really puzzles me why anyone reads this guy. There isn't wit, insight, good spelling, or even rudimentary logic -- I guess all the residue of skills that make a waiting tables self-actualization.

Wildman weekend (one of them is me)

2005-07-31T15:40:00.000-05:00

2005-01-01T17:07:00.000-06:00

Recipient	Amount	Date	Description
CcAdvertising, Herndon, VA	$7,326	9/7/2004	PHONE SURVEY
CcAdvertising, Herndon, VA	$2,794	8/19/2004	PHONE SURVEY