Oh you think so, doctor?

Why Does Karl Rove Get To Keep On Writing Columns?

2009-10-08T10:49:00.005-04:00

Photo "borrowed" shamelessly from Down With Tyranny

One of my favorite movie songs of all time is "The End Of An Act," from the Team America: World Police soundtrack, better known as the "Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you" song. The song poses the musical question, "Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies?" I feel the same way about the WSJ continuing to publish columns by one of the most discredited political figures of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, one Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove (obviously, Richard Cohen also falls into this category, but I'm gonna leave him alone today...I think).

In honor of Karl's latest counter-factual masterpiece, I've reworked the lyrics to "The End Of An Act."

I miss you more than Karl Rove missed the mark,
When he wrote about health care.
I miss you more than that column missed the point,
And that’s an awful lot girl.
And now, now you've gone away,
And all I'm trying to say,
Is Rove's column sucks, and I miss you.

I need you like Scooter Libby needed prison time,
For his role in selling Plame out.
I need you like Monica Goodling needed an ethics course,
When she was working for Alberto.
And now all I can think about is your smile,
And that shitty column too,
Rove's column sucks, and I miss you.

Why does Karl Rove get to keep on writing columns?
I guess Rove's column sucks
Just a little bit more than I miss you.

Richard Cohen Is Even More Morally Bankrupt Than I Thought

2009-09-01T12:00:00.002-04:00

Good lord:

Now he is in American custody. What will happen? How do we get him to reveal his group's plans and the names of his colleagues? It will be hard. It will, in fact, be harder than it used to be. He can no longer be waterboarded. He knows this. He cannot be deprived of more than a set amount of sleep. He cannot be beaten or thrown up against even a soft wall. He cannot be threatened with shooting or even frightened by the prospect of an electric drill. Nothing really can be threatened against his relatives -- that they will be killed or sexually abused.

Well, I guess what might happen is that interrogators will have to use methods that actually, you know, work. Which might lead to actual, you know, good intelligence...with the added benefit that such proper interrogation is not illegal, unconstitutional, or morally bankrupt. Kind of a win/win, don't you think?

No one can possibly believe that America is now safer because of the new restrictions on enhanced interrogation and the subsequent appointment of a special prosecutor. The captured terrorist of my fertile imagination, assuming he had access to an Internet cafe, knows about the special prosecutor. He knows his interrogator is under scrutiny. What person under those circumstances is going to spill his beans?

Actually, Dick, I do. I believe that America is now safer now that we won't be torturing false answers out of people desperate to make the torture stop. I believe that America is now safer because our intelligence officers now know that they can no longer torture prisoners to death in ways that expose our own forces to torture and death in the event of their capture.

So, you know, there's one person for you. Why don't you go find another straw man to beat up, you sad, sad excuse for a pundit?

Teabagging!

2009-04-15T14:10:00.003-04:00

From today's mass teabagging in Lafayette Park:

original image by Sommer Mathis, dcist, lol'd by me

Shorter Christopher Cox

2008-12-24T12:07:00.001-05:00

Nero's fiddle-playing during fire crisis was his greatest contribution.

Bump...

2008-12-19T14:10:00.003-05:00

Okay, it's been a couple of months, which means it's time for me to post something. If nothing else, this will accomplish the feat of bumping the over-wide embedded Palin parody video down the page some. I'm not deleting it, though, since, well, I think it should stay there for posterity.

So what to write about? Well, a couple days ago a guy was shot in the head and killed around the corner from my house. I mean, it was 3:30 AM, but still...all the guy was doing was walking home from a bar. If it had been a couple hours earlier on a different night, man, that could've been me. Damn. Poor guy.

EDIT: for the record, I agree with Bill Simmons: it's a travesty that The Colonel James isn't on the youtubes. A travesty I say!

Walt Disney Pictures Presents: Head of Skate

2008-09-25T16:54:00.001-04:00

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Nice.

McCain Calls Hillary a Pig

2008-09-10T12:20:00.003-04:00

Via Glennzilla:

Disgraceful, huh?

Uh, Palin?

2008-09-03T11:47:00.004-04:00

Really? Palin?

Oh well, props to my friend Michael, who called this back in January:

Aside from being the hottest governor I have ever seen, she just might be the perfect running mate for the fascist twins Huckabee/Romney... just as evil and perfect for the soccer mom vote. What says change more than a neo-conservative woman as the VEEP? At 43, she's older than the last evil 'up and coming' Dan Quayle... you remember, that guy who hung out at the Naval Observatory during Iraqistan part 1 and got made fun of...

stats on Palin: 90% approval rating, lifetime NRA member, and pro-life. Scary.

My reply, which just shows what a bang-up job Team McCain did in vetting the governor:

Alaska is the home of the most corrupt political class north of Louisiana. I seriously doubt we'd ever see a national candidate from out of their current crop. Not sure if there are any skeletons in Gov. Palin's closet, but it wouldn't surprise me.

She *does* kinda have that Tina Fey thing going on, though, doesn't she?

So Many Lines To Cross, So Little Time

2008-05-23T16:08:00.002-04:00

This literally makes me feel sick to my stomach:

Hillary Clinton today cited the assasination of Robert F. Kennedy during the 1968 presidential campaign to explain why she was remaining in the race despite long odds.

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Clinton told the editorial board of a South Dakota newspaper. " I don't understand it," Clinton added, alluding to the calls for her to quit.

At long last, have you no sense of decency, ma'am?

2008-05-21T12:20:00.006-04:00

I'm ready for my closeup, Mr. Dean.

2008-05-09T09:51:00.003-04:00

By edthered at 2008-05-09
Okay, I've been keeping my metaphorical mouth shut these past two months, waiting for the Democratic primary to play itself out, because I found myself on the verge of saying some pretty harsh things about Senator Clinton, and, well, I didn't want to add to the intra-party vitriol when there was a chance she'd end up as my nominee. That, and my wife gave birth to our first child in mid-April, so I've been a bit preoccupied.

Now, however, I can no longer hold my peace. Hillary can no longer win the nomination by any means that won't tear the party apart at the seams (more than it's already been rent asunder). She just can't. Moreover, if she continues to campaign aggressively, and Obama somehow does manage to self destruct before the convention, she's just damaging her own chances of being a palatable savior to Obama's delegates, who would probably page Al Gore to report to the convention floor before handing anything to Hillary.

With her speech this past Tuesday ("Full speed on to the White House!"), Hillary has entered into Norma Desmond territory. Here are a few soundbites you can expect to hear in the near future, as this sad spectacle plays out:

County Fair Livestock Judge: Hey, I know you. You're that politician, Hillary Clinton! You used to be in politics! You used to be big!
Hillary: I am big! It's the politics that got small.
***
Hillary: They took the idols and smashed them, the Kennedys, the Clintons, the Roosevelts! And who've we got now? Some nobodies!
***
[January, 2011, Hillary attempts to convince Joe Trippi to run her 2012 campaign.]
Hillary: Here, I was going to give it to you at midnight.
Joe Trippi: Hillary, I can't take it, you've bought me enough.
Hillary: Shut up, I'm rich! I'm richer than all this new Washington trash! I've got 109 million dollars.
Joe Trippi: Keep it.
Hillary: Went on a worldwide speaking tour. I've got books on Amazon, selling, selling, selling! What's it for but to buy us anything we want!
Joe Trippi: Cut out that "us" business!
Hillary: What's the matter with you?
Joe Trippi: What right do you have to take me for granted?
Hillary: What right? Do you want me to tell you?
Joe Trippi: Has it ever occurred to you that I may have a life of my own? That there may be some candidate I'm crazy about?
Hillary: Who? Some state senator, or shuck and jive artist?
Joe Trippi: What I'm trying to say is that I'm all wrong for you. You want a Rove, somebody with dirty tricks, a real bastard!
Hillary: What you're trying to say is that you don't want me to run again. Say it. Say it!
[slaps him hard across the face]
***
[February, 2011, Hillary Clinton press conference]
Reporter: I didn't know you were planning a comeback.
Hillary: I hate that word. It's a return, a return to the millions of people who have never forgiven me for deserting the campaign.
***
Joe Trippi: Tell her, Mark. C'mon, do her that favor. Tell her there isn't going to be any inauguration. Tell her there are no superdelagate endorsements other than the ones you write. Hillary: It's not true! Mark!
Mark Penn: Madame is the greatest politician of them all.
***
Markos Moulitsas: I understand she was a terror to work with.
Robert Reich: Only toward the end. You know, a dozen press agents working overtime can do terrible things to the human spirit.
***
Hillary: And I promise you I'll never desert you again because after 2008 we'll run another campaign and another campaign. You see, this is my life! It always will be! Nothing else! Just us, the cameras, and those wonderful people out there in the dark!... All right, Mr. Dean, I'm ready for my close-up.

DC Resident To Florida And Michigan: Tough

2008-03-06T09:05:00.003-05:00

Via Sullivan comes word of the incredibly predictable cry from the governors of Florida and Michigan: Save Our Delegates!

You know what, guys? There's actually precedent here. And I don't mean 100-year old precedent, I mean last election cycle precedent. That's when the District of Columbia, in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that those of us who live here have no voting representation in Congress, moved up its primary into January.

Can you guess what happened? No? Okay, I'll tell you what happened: The DNC told us to stick our primary where the sun don't shine. So you know what we did? Instead of crying on about how everyone should kiss our Big State asses, we did the responsible thing and held a caucus in February. Was this ideal? Not at all. In fact, it ended up costing me the opportunity to vote, because I was stuck at work. Oh well, those are the breaks.

The second-class citizens here in DC had to deal with the consequences of our political elders making a bone-headed attempt to move our primary up. The politicians running the shows in Michigan and Florida had the benefit of this very recent example of consequences when they made their decisions, and chose to ignore it. Now they're complaining like grounded teenagers that the curfew was "unfair." Too bad, those were the rules. They're not particularly fair, but they were made very clear from day one of this campaign. You want your delegations seated? Fine, schedule yourselves a caucus, or a real primary, not one that violates the rules. It's what the District had to do, and if you think you're somehow so damn special that the rules don't apply to you, you can go choke on a hanging chad.

NYS NOW: Still Crazy After All These Weeks

2008-03-04T22:02:00.003-05:00

Woo-hoo! It's always a good day (or evening, in this case) when my inbox is graced with a Marilyn Fitterman press release:

Mr. Obama's experience and education can't hold a candle to that of Hillary Clinton, who has had the opportunity to actually live and work in the White House for eight years, and to work in the Senate for six years. Damn it, how much more should one have to know to be able to run this great nation of ours?

Hey, yeah! Say, how'd that health care reform work out? Oh, too soon? Seriously, Hillary didn't even have a security clearance when she was first lady...how can you put out a press release railing against sexism and misogyny, and in that very same press release, claim that being the wife of the president qualifies you to be president more than being a state senator?

Plus, education-wise, it's pretty damned snobby to say that a J.D. from Harvard "can't hold a candle" to a J.D. from Yale: ooooh, big difference...plus, and having gone to law school myself, I can say this with certainty, law school does pretty much nothing to prepare you to be president, aside from maybe artificially inflate your sense of self esteem. You know, assuming that Hillary's time as First Lady evens out Obama's time as an actual, you know, elected state senator, then according to Ms. Fitterman, Obama's four fewer years in the U.S. Senate mean he "can't hold a candle" to Hillary's experience"...and if that's the basis for your campaign, then good luck against McCain in November.

I'm not saying she wouldn't make a better president, I'm just saying that statements like this from your supporters don't really help.

New Primary Boogie

2008-03-04T14:00:00.003-05:00

Please don't dominate the rap Jack
If you got nothing new to say
If you please don't back up the track
This train got to run today

* * *

One way or another
One way or another
One way or another
This darkness got to give.

The never-ending primary campaign rolls on today...and, regardless of the outcome, will keep on rolling through Pennsylvania. Which wouldn't be so bad, if the MSM election coverage wasn't so Drudge-influenced it resembles the work of TMZ and Perez Hilton more than that of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite...and of course, the blogosphere ain't much better.

Not that the campaigns themselves are much help, either.

In fact, I'm not really sure why I pay attention at all...

At any rate, here are some predictions, for posterity:

Clinton wins the overall Texas vote by a few points - say, 52% - 48% - but because there are more delegates allocated to districts in cities like Austin and Houston, ends up not netting more than one or two delegates. She'll carry Ohio by about 8-10 points, but again, only net maybe 5-10 delegates. Obama will win big in Vermont, netting 5 delegates. Hillary will win Rhode Island by, say, 55-45, and net 3-4 delegates there. Overall, Hillary will come out of the day netting 5-10 delegates...which, of course, only reduces Obama's lead to around 90-95...and of course, Obama will make up all of those delegates in North Carolina.

I don't see how Hillary can win the nomination at this point without things getting ugly at the convention, but I don't see why she would (or should, really) bow out before Pennsylvania. I just really, really hope she doesn't continue down the "McCain has more experience than Obama" route, since, you know, I'd hate to have to watch clips of her in McCain's campaign ads next fall (probably already too late for that, sadly).

How Can You Be So Obtuse?

2008-02-29T10:05:00.005-05:00

When I read articles like this one, I'm not surprised by the post-Super Tuesday flameout of the Clinton campaign. Since I'm not a Serious Columnist like, say, David Broder, I can only speak for myself, but when Hillary's campaign started floating the idea of challenging the DNC's decision not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, it made me less likely to vote for her. The kicker is that they started with that talk before things really started spiraling away from them...so if I were, say, David Broder, I might say something like, "To everyday Americans, and especially the salt-of-the-earth backbone of the old Democratic machine, this sort of legalistic noisemaking served as a not-so-pleasant reminder of the Clintons' propensity to seek victory by any means necessary." I'm also partial to this one: "One friend of mine, a lifelong Democrat, emailed me last night to say that she was starting to see what her Republican friends have always found so infuriating about the Clintons."

Like I said, though, I'm not a Serious Columnist, so I'm stuck with just my opinion, which is this: by threating to challenge the Texas system in court, before the Texas primary even happens, the Clinton campaign is likely to drive a fair-sized number of voters into the Obama camp by driving home Obama's argument that we need a new kind of politics for him. At the end of the day, the only people in the Clinton campaign who would benefit from a lawsuit would be the lawyers (curse our oily hides!), who get paid win or lose.

I guess desperate is as desperate does.

[EDIT: h/t to memorandum. Where are my manners this morning?]

Bill Kristol: Playa Hatin'

2008-02-25T11:07:00.003-05:00

Wow. Could someone please explain to me how The Very Serious Opinion Leader Bill Kristol has a job writing a regular op-ed column in The Paper of Record? FFS, this has to be a joke, right? Please, tell me some intern is covering for Kristol, and seeing just how far he or she can push the envelope without The Times deciding not to run the column. I mean, something like this just has to be parody:

But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”
Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

So, uh, what exactly is an appropriate reason for not wearing a flag pin? Please, I'd love to know, since, you know, I've never worn one, and my reason has always been that I'm better than Bill Kristol, but since that's apparently the height of moral vanity, I guess I need a new, less "grandiose" explanation.

What kills me about Kristol's NYT columns is that he's clearly either not even trying (phoning it in like Jack Nicholson in whatever "poignant" romantic comedy he happens to be in this month), or he's even more dense than I thought. It's so paint-by-numbers. Personally, I figured it was just laziness, but then a little research turned up this column from Kristol's high school newspaper:

Last October, a reporter for the school paper asked Timmy Johnson why he had stopped wearing the varsity letter sweater that he, like many other football players, had been sporting on Fridays since the beginning of the football season. Johnson could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.

But Johnson chose to present his letter sweater removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after the school year started, I had a letter sweater. Shortly after Homecoming, particularly because as we’re talking about the football season, that became a substitute for I think true school spirit, which is participating in the extracurricular activities that are of importance to our community, I decided I won’t wear that sweater.”

Leave aside the claim that “participating in extracurricular activities” constitutes true school spirit. What’s striking is that Johnson couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Johnson's unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a letter sweater. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too imbued with school spirit! — to wear a letter sweater.

Fast forward to last Monday's pep rally. Michelle Simmons, Johnson's steady girl, visiting from a local girls' school, in the course of the rally, remarked, “For the first time in my high school career, I’m really proud of the Collegiate School. And not just because Timmy has done well, but because I think people are hungry for a state championship.”

Michelle Simmons has been in high school for over three years. Can it really be the case that nothing the the Collegiate School achieved since then has made her proud? Apparently. For, as she said later in the same appearance: “Life for regular students has gotten worse over the course of my time in high school, through football, basketball, and baseball seasons. It hasn’t gotten much better.”

Now in almost every empirical respect, Collegiate students' lives have in fact gotten better over the last three years. And most students — and most of their steady girls — don’t think those years were one vast wasteland. So Timmy Johnson hastened to clarify his girlfriend's remarks. “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of Collegiate's school spirit,” he said, “because she’s pretty cynical about pep rallies, and with good reason, and she’s not alone.” Later in the week, Michelle Simmons further explained, “What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud of how Collegiate students are engaging in the pep rally process.”

But that clearly isn’t what she was talking about. For as she had argued in the pep rally speech, Collegiate's illness goes far beyond a flawed pep rally process: “Timmy knows that at some level there’s a hole in our trophy case.” This was a variation of language she had used earlier in the season: “Timmy Johnson is the only person on this football team who understands that, that before we can win states, we have to fix our school spirit. Our school spirit is broken in this school.”

But they can be repaired. Indeed, she had said a couple of weeks before, at the Enchantment Under the Sea dance: “Timmy Johnson ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your chocolate malted. That you come out on Friday nights, that you go to a football game. That you push yourselves to cheer louder. And that you engage. Timmy will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, not going to games.”

So we don’t have to work to improve our school spirit. Our broken school spirit can be fixed — by our cheering for Timmy Johnson. We don’t have to play football or put up decorations for the sock hop to help our school. Our uninvolved and uninformed lives can be changed — by our cheering for Timmy Johnson. Collegiate can become a school to be proud of — by letting ourselves be led by Timmy Johnson.

Bobby "Shooter" McGavin, to whom Johnson is sometimes compared, challenged Collegiate students to acts of school spirit and athleticism. Timmy Johnson allows us to feel better about ourselves.

Johnson likes to say, “we are the team that can win states” and “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Johnson's athletic ability makes his skill on the field appear almost collective rather than individual. That’s a democratic courtesy on his part, and one flattering to his teammates. But the effectual truth of what Johnson is saying is that he is the one we’ve been waiting for.

Timmy Johnson is an awfully talented quarterback. But could Collegiate students, by November, decide that for all his impressive abilities, Johnson tends too much toward the preening self-regard of [homecoming king] Darren Thompson, the patronizing jockism of [star basketball player] Thomas Astor and the haughty bookishness of [class president] John Higgenbotham?

Taylor Marsh: Trying To Prove That Like Cures Like

2008-02-19T17:01:00.003-05:00

Another gem from the self-proclaimed "Antidote to Right-Wing Talk," wherein The Antidote demonstrates that the answer to the classic Right-Wing Talk technique of using hyped-up charges that a political opponent is Unpatriotic and has Deeply Offended Real Americans to portray them as Unserious and otherwise damage their credibility is to...use hyped-up charges that Michelle Obama is Unpatriotic and has Deeply Offended Real Americans:

When it comes to talking about your country, especially when representing someone who wants to be president, you shouldn't have to have an interpreter put out a press release to explain what you actually meant, when what you really said was an insult. Why do Republicans always get this stuff, but Democrats come across like amateurs? Point to McCain.

Excuse me? I suppose Republicans "got this stuff" when they Swiftboated John Kerry, or when they portrayed Max Cleland as a Freedom-Hating Terrorist Lover. This type of bullshit is a classic wingnut ploy, and as The Antidote clearly demonstrates, it is not a ploy that is limited to the right wing. I expect that The Antidote will update the rather odd photo on the top of her page shortly to make sure we can see the flag pin on her lapel.

Whether or not you agree with Michelle Obama's statement (and most Americans probably don't agree, but hey, it was a free country until recently, so you're still somewhat entitled to your own opinion), if you really are sincerely and deeply offended that someone publicly said that they haven't been "really proud" of their country their entire adult life, until recent political events raised their spirits, you have some serious growing up to do. For my part, I'm just sick of mock indignation as a political tool.

Taylor Marsh's Commenters Strike a Blow For Feminism

2008-02-19T14:12:00.005-05:00

You know what's really great about the comments over on Taylor's "Michelle Obama is an America-hating traitor" post? All the comments comparing Michelle Obama (unfavorably) to dogs. Wow, way to go, ladies! I'll be so thankful if Hillary wins - what a victory for feminists everywhere! Huzzah!

As for the post itself, well, it's chock full of Malkinesque gems. Here's a good one:

The love I have for my country does not include following yet another political huckster down a path where he gets the glory he craves, while my blue collar family gets the shaft... again.

Oh well said, Taylor. All hail, your blue collar family, and their American pride...how dare some nouveau riche social climber (whose not-so-distant ancestors may well have arrived in this country wearing actual iron collars) show any disrespect to The Homeland?

FFS, this drivel is from a site that describes itself (right up there at the top of the page, no less!) as "The Antidote to Right-Wing Talk."

It gets even better: The quote from Michelle Obama was this: "For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change." Not "For the first time in my adult lifetime I really love my country." Of course, Taylor's entire post is a list of things that her More-Patriotic-Than-Thou love of the Homeland does not depend on. Like this: "The love I have for this country does not depend on ignorance of what patriotism requires to serve a personal goal." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigt. Listen, Taylor, honey, I hate to break this to you, but it's possible to love something, and not be proud of it. Ask just about any parent out there - there are times in nearly every child's life when his or her behavior is nothing for a parent to be proud of, yet parents keep loving their children all the same. Pride and love are not the same thing.

And as for this: "My uncle Dick certainly didn't serve his country and get battle fatigue in WWII so people could pick and choose pride in this nation based on personal association to some politician, forgetting the greater glory we all serve through our country's ideals."

I hate to break it to you...that's exactly what your uncle Dick served his country for - to preserve for those of us who came later the right to express their disappointment in their country when they see it veering off track. Not so that future generations could be forced into public expressions of "pride" when the Commander-in-Chief orders the torture of prisoners and the destruction of the evidence of that torture, or the illegal surveillance of citizens, and so on and so forth.

I haven't been proud of a lot of things our country has done these past seven years. Got a problem with that? Well, that's your right. But accuse me of not loving America, just because I'm, you know, ashamed of little things like war crimes, and you can fuck off along with all the other authoritarian nutjobs.

(h/t: John Cole)

ZOMG! Marilyn Fitterman Was Right!

2008-02-12T18:16:00.000-05:00

It may be even worse than Ms. Fitterman had feared: Women "Falling for Obama"

My god...she tried to warn us...but...but I didn't know! I didn't know, damnit! Oh my god, WHAT HAVE WE WROUGHT?!!!

New York State NOW...NOW With Even More Crazy!

2008-02-12T14:50:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of a friend, the latest press release from our pals at NYS NOW. Feel the crazy! I seriously think Marilyn Fitterman has a lucrative second career in front of her as a writer for the WWE (the erstwhile WWF...or is "erstwhile" sexist, as it implies that the WWE changed its name when it got married?). Just check out the gem of a lede! Race vs. Gender! Oh yeah! Feel it coming! Can you smellllllllllllllllll what BARAK is cooking?!!!! No you can't, because he doesn't cook, since he's such a womyn hater that he thinks only womyn should cook! RACE WAR! GENDER FIGHT! Only on PAY-PER-VIEW!!!

EDIT: I posted this as soon as I got it, just 'cuz I like to scoop Drudge whenever I can, but for your benefit, I've now gone through and bolded some of my favorite passages:

Deja vu: Race vs Gender 1870-2008

By Marilyn Fitterman
NOW NE Regional Director & Past President NOW-NYS

The press, the media, the pundits, everyone is saying the Democratic presidential race should not be about race vs. gender. How ridiculous is that? We look at Hillary Clinton and we see a possibility of the first woman in the white house. We look at Obama and we see the first man of color in the white house. Therefore, to say it is not about race vs. gender is to deny reality. Let’s get real, and from there it will be easier to make the right decision, which of course is to put women first in a women’s organization. We must, as women, unite.

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when? [You forgot the rest of the quote! "If not.. I'm sorry, Pat, what was that question?"] Back in the early 1820s and 30s there were numerous women fighting for and speaking up for abolition. Women saw the inhuman cruelty of slavery. Lucretia Mott, Maria Chapman, Lucy Stone, Sojourner Truth and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, to name just a few, spoke up against slavery at the very real risk of physical violence. In 1833 the American Anti-Slavery Society actually barred women from speaking. So what did women do? They started their own anti-slavery society throughout the country and even had conventions in 1837, 1838, and 1839. In 1840, when some of these women went to England to attend the International Abolition Convention, they were barred from attending and, after fighting to get in, were barred from speaking even though some were there representing an American Society of Abolitionists. It was not long after this that Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton realized that women had to unite and fight for themselves. They met to discuss a movement for equality and suffrage, and this historic meeting was the impetus for the 1848 first Women’s Rights Convention in Senaca Falls. Those women asked:

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

In that period married women had no right to their paychecks, their children, or their property, let alone the right to vote. For a time the women’s movement and the abolition movement worked together. In fact, Frederick Douglas, a freed slave, was a frequent speaker at women’s conventions. While women were struggling to attain the vote, Douglas spoke for them and sided with them that women and Black men should have suffrage.

However in 1869, when Congress offered up the Fifteenth Amendment giving only Black men the vote, Douglas betrayed women by making the concession. Some women even agreed with Douglas that it was o.k. for Black men to leave us behind instead of holding fast for suffrage. In much the same way today, some think it is o.k. for Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et.al. to support Obama. [Ummm...what? I mean, I'm not going to sit here and defend the fact that women didn't get suffrage until 1920, but the fact that the 15th Amendment passed in any form in 1869 is pretty impressive...also, I don't seem to recall women having to deal with more than a century of Jim Crow after being granted the vote.] Back then, because of that betrayal [You keep saying this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.], women had to wait another fifty years. Not until 1920 did we get the vote. That betrayal caused a split in the suffrage movement which is mirrored in today’s race vs. gender situation in the Democratic Party and in our current women’s movement.

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

Recently, a famous TV personality declared that the United States owed more to Black men than it did to women, this being his reason for supporting Obama. I found that to be one of the most repulsive reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton.

Women have been second class citizens since recorded history. The internalized misogyny that rears its ugly head and so insidiously creeps into our everyday lives will never end until women stick together as do other oppressed groups. Recently I was reminded that pre Roe vs. Wade women had a great uniting force in that all could be forced to complete unwanted pregnancies. I remember how women who were strangers would help and support other women to find a doctor or a back alley abortionist. Women then understood the importance and the value of joining together to help each other control their own reproductive lives. However, since Roe vs. Wade many young women don’t have that very common problem of forced pregnancy, a problem which crosses all economic and social lines. They have forgotten the importance of uniting for each other. And with the loss of this camaraderie we have apparently also lost the knowledge that forced pregnancy could return with a single US Supreme Court vote. And to get Hillary elected, we could sure use a revival in some of that old girls’ club camaraderie.

The current circumstances of race vs. gender are very much alive in spite of media denials. Just looking at the results of Super Tuesday one can see that Black communities were hands down for Obama. Meanwhile women, who are more than fifty-two percent of the population, did not do the same for their sisters. The charisma and preacher-like emotional speeches that Obama gives enrapture the younger generation. [That...that...that snake oil salesman! "And all week long your River City youth'll be frittern away, I say your young men'll be frittern! Frittern away their noontime, suppertime, choretime too!"] But there is very little information in the rhetoric. Were Hillary to show this same agitated style, she would be ridiculed for excessive emotion. She is caught between a rock and a hard place. If she shows emotion, as does Obama, she is vilified, as was recently demonstrated. So even though she is enormously qualified and experienced [especially counting those eight years as the president's wife, no?] for the presidency, all that goes by the wayside when Obama enchants the youngsters with charming rhetoric that says little. [What is he, the freaking Pied Piper? And wait, are you suggesting that young people, including young women, who are Constitutionally granted the right to vote, actually shouldn't be allowed the franchise, because they are too emotional and impressionable? How very forward-thinking and non-paternalistic of you.] If Hillary were to be “charming” she would be disparaged. Women just can’t get it right, can we? [Well, some women can...but judging from this press release, not all of them are capable of getting it right all the time.]

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

Many young women today have forgotten or do not know of the sit-ins, the hunger strikes, the marches, the tears as we lost the Equal Rights Amendment, the thousands upon thousands of women, mothers and grandmothers who died having illegal abortions. Those many young women have forgotten the women’s movement and all the gains we have made. They have abandoned us and instead have fallen for the charisma and charm of a Black male instead of the experience, dedication, and proven life’s work of a White female. ["Oh laws, massa! The missus done run off with that bad negro Catcher Freeman! When will them White Women learn!"] Will it take losing Roe vs. Wade to get back that old camaraderie? We’ve got to realize that and ask:

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

But, it’s not too late. It’s up to all of us who care about women’s equality to educate each and every young woman we meet, and remind her that all the freedoms she has can easily be lost if women don’t unite for full equal rights. We should remind young women that we have a long way to go because even today women are only making seventy-seven cents for every dollar a man earns. This pay inequity hits single mothers and retirement-age women. They should know that it’s about time young girls had the role model of a woman in the White House. Yep, women’s equality is very important and we’ve got a long way to go.

DAMN IT, we woman have been at the forefront of every progressive movement in this country. It’s about time we stand together for ourselves and stand together at the forefront to elect the first woman president. After all:

If not for ourselves then whom are we for? If not us, who? If not now, when?

We must unite for Hillary.

SHAME

2008-02-12T12:53:00.000-05:00

Senate Votes to Give Retroactive Immunity for Telecoms.

A Kangaroo Court in a Star Chamber

2008-02-11T11:23:00.000-05:00

So those sham military tribunals we set up down in Gitmo? Now we're going to be trying folks and possibly subjecting them to the death penalty in these abortions of justice. Not that I'm a fan of KSM or anything, but if he's guilty, what's the problem with hauling him into a real courtroom in New York or Alexandria and letting the evidence speak for itself? Oh, wait, that's right, we tortured him, and we don't want any evidence of that to come out in a U.S. courtroom, or the torturers, their bosses, and their enablers might actually face some accountability for their war crimes.

Oh yeah, and most of the evidence would get thrown out. Because the Bill of Rights frowns upon confessions and other evidence obtained through torture. It would be kind of embarrassing if the government botched the prosecution of several high-ranking terrorists. Embarrassing indeed.

So instead, we face the prospect of our government trying and executing prisoners based on evidence that they won't be allowed to hear (for "national security" reasons), on the testimony of witnesses they won't be able to confront, and on confessions that were tortured out of them. James Madison bloody wept.

Hillary vs. Shuster

2008-02-09T19:41:00.000-05:00

Assuming (and it's a very safe assumption) that Hillary's calls for NBC to fire David Shuster are a calculated ploy to win over voters, I don't see how it really helps her. At this point, the portion of her base that would be inspired by Hillary standing up for her daughter against a stand-in anchor's insult is already rallied, and folks who might be on the fence about another Clinton administration might see an attempt by Hillary to cow the press as a reason to vote against her. For what it's worth, I think Shuster's comment was out of order, but would likely have passed without notice had it been delivered on FoxNews, where Hillary is apparently eager to debate. Not that FoxNews should serve as a bearer of journalistic standards, of course.

Did Shuster deserve to be suspended. Yeah, probably. Is he taking the heat because notorious Hillary basher Chris Matthews is untouchable? Yeah, probably. Does he deserve to be fired? No, not really.

Will the spectacle of the Clinton's bashing (MS)NBC while cozying up to FoxNews help win over undecideds in the upcoming primaries and caucuses? I doubt it.

There Will Be Milkshakes

2008-02-05T20:31:00.000-05:00

Just in case someone ends up drinking someone else's milkshake on this Superest of Tuesdays.

Not My Space, Apparently

2008-02-01T12:49:00.001-05:00

Looks like the Christianists over at myspace have seen fit to delete their atheist and agnostic user group. Apparently, atheists are offensive to some Christians. Boo-freaking-hoo. You know what? Plenty of "Christians" (usually ones who don't have much use for Jesus' actual teachings) offend the hell out of me, but I'd never try to shut them up. This is (or used to be) the United States of America, where you're free to believe (or not believe) whatever you want. Guess I should buy extra locks for my doors for when the Inquisition comes knocking.

Richard Cohen "Earns" Another Paycheck

2008-01-29T09:38:00.001-05:00

Oh joyous day, another Richard Cohen column in today's WaPo! Huzzah! Today, Richard turns to the (in-no-way-beaten-beyond-death) topic of race in the Democratic primary race. What insights await us? Well, his overall point is that the Clintons have been out of line (oh you think so, doctor?), but...wait for it...Obama is to blame, too! Silly man, he should have known better than to be born with an African father...that pesky dark skin is nothing but trouble in national campaigns!

Here's a gem:

The usual post-campaign books this time around may have a particularly interesting tale to tell. It will be how Hillary and Bill Clinton -- or is it Bill and Hillary Clinton? -- managed to turn Obama into the black candidate he never wanted to be. In South Carolina, Obama overwhelmingly lost the white vote.

Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that if post-campaign books "may have" a particular "tale to tell," it would be [your theory here], not "will be." FFS, you just said "may." That's neither here nor there, however. The real nugget here is the last sentence in the paragraph, which I have bolded for your convenience. Okay, let's look at the (oh-so-reliable in a state where the pre-election polls understated Obama's victory by 17% or so) exit poll data for white voters (all ages...Obama won the under 30 white vote, but Richard didn't get that analytical today): Clinton 36%, Obama 24%. Wow! what an old skewl butt-whuppin'! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! But wait...that only adds up to 60%...what about the remaining 40%? Must have been split between Dennis Kucinich and Jesse Jackson (as a write-in...I mean, Bill's got me convinced of Jesse's South Carolina electoral prowess), right? What's that, you say? John Edwards took 40% of the white vote? You mean, Hillary lost the white vote in South Carolina, too? But, but, but that could mean that a large segment of white voters, disturbed by Clinton's tactics, chose instead to vote for a different candidate (one who just happened to be a native son, and who won the 2004 South Carolina Democratic primary with 45% of the overall vote). I guess this didn't fit neatly into Cohen's theory of the day, so he ignored it. I've come to expect nothing less.

Moving on:

The turning point for Obama actually came in New Hampshire, when Hillary Clinton said that Martin Luther King's "dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964." This, of course, only reflected historical reality and was, moreover, a slap not at King, but at Johnson's predecessor, John F. Kennedy, to whom Obama is often compared. (Both Caroline Kennedy and her uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, have since endorsed Obama.)

Okay, to the extent that this statement "only reflected historical reality," it also conveniently ignored the equally important historical reality that none of Johnson's political maneuvering on behalf of civil rights would have been possible without the work of Dr. King, and thousands of others who were on the front lines of the civil rights movement. Which is, of course, what got many people so upset. And does Cohen really, honestly believe that Hillary was taking "a slap" at JFK? Seriously? I mean, warranted or not, what Democratic candidate in their right mind would take a swipe at JFK during a contested primary season? Plus, Cohen seems to (surprise!) ignore the second sentence of Hillary's statement: “It took a president to get it done.” What, Richard, you mean JFK wasn't a president? How can a supposedly Serious OpEd columnist for a major newspaper read those two sentences and conclude that Hillary was taking a swipe not at Dr. King, but at John F. Kennedy?

Moving on yet again:

Possibly we shall someday learn that Hillary Clinton's remark was diabolically intended to offend blacks. I doubt it. Whatever the case, though, some important African-Americans quickly reacted -- and the Democratic primary campaign was never again the same. Not only did the Clintons not back off, but they seemed to savor the moment. As for Obama, instead of adroitly taking the sting out of what Hillary Clinton had said by shrugging it off, he called her comments "unfortunate" and "ill-advised."

In the words of Andy Dufresne, "How can you be so obtuse?" Hillary's remark wasn't "diabolically intended to offend blacks," it was calculated (diabolically or not) to make whites view Obama differently - to say to them, "no matter how inspirational a voice he may be, he's not a Serious [read: white] politician capable of bringing about meaningful change."

Jumping ahead a bit:

In South Carolina, the Democratic presidential race turned a corner. Hillary Clinton went virtually white; Obama went black. In Iowa, in a much larger field, Obama had gotten about one-third of the white vote. In South Carolina, in a three-way race, the figure dropped to 24 percent. By the end, Hillary Clinton's events were nearly all-white affairs, according to reports.

Richard, do you for one second believe that the history, demographics, and politics of South Carolina are identical to those of Iowa? Do you? Because here's a hint: one of them was a slave state that seceded from the Union, and the other wasn't. And that's just the beginning! There are other differences, too! I know, I didn't believe it either, but then I opened my freaking eyes. Sheesh.

Et Tu, Teddy?

2008-01-28T13:57:00.001-05:00

Seriously, this has to be from the Onion:

News from NOW-NYS

For more information contact: Marcia Pappas, 518-452-3944 - 518-469-2661
Senator Ted Kennedy Betrays Women by Not Standing for Hillary Clinton for President

Ultimate Betrayal Felt by Women Everywhere

ALBANY, NY (01/28/2008; 1101)(readMedia)-- Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who “know what’s best for us.”

Uhhhhhh...yeah, so, if endorsing anyone but Hillary is "the ultimate betrayal," I guess Judas, Brutus, and Benedict Arnold are off the hook, eh? And what exactly does that make the millions of women who have voted or are about to vote for any candidate but Hillary Clinton? I mean, Ted Kennedy isn't actually a woman himself, so he's not betraying his Own Kind...and wouldn't it be worse to betray your fellow women? I suppose not, since Kennedy's betrayal is "the ultimate," and "the greatest," meaning there can be none worse. Although, uh, not to dredge up old memories, but I'd have to think that the whole Chappaquiddick incident was maybe a bit more of a betrayal of women...but I guess it doesn't count unless the woman in question is politically tethered to Marcia Pappas and NOW.

This type of rhetoric is as reprehensible as the bile that is spewed from the right every time someone publicly opposes the foreign madness of King George XLIII. If you disagree with the wingnuts, you are a traitor to your country; if you disagree with NOW, you are "the greatest" betrayer of women. Whatever. Marcia Pappas needs to grow up.

Ted Kaczynski Would Be Proud

2008-01-25T11:23:00.000-05:00

Jérôme Kerviel, a junior trader at a French bank secretly racked up $7.2 billion in losses before he was finally found out. Wow. And then there's this, from the end of the NYT story:

Adding to the mystery is the conclusion by Société Générale executives that Mr. Kerviel had not profited from his trades.

“We have no explanation for why he took these positions, and we have no reason to believe he benefited from a financial point of view,” the banker said. “We don’t understand why he took such a massive position.”

Hmmmm...Well, I can see why they're a bit confused...but let me posit a theory: maybe he was trying to lose money. Perhaps he was the ultimate disgruntled employee, or perhaps he was just so opposed to ze capitaleest peegs that he felt like taking down a major financial institution, just to Fight The Power. I mean, I'm probably wrong, but hey, at least it's a theory...plus it would make for a heckuva movie. You know, one of those artsy "indie" flicks directed by a mainstream actor as a sort of vanity project. The kind that actually turn out to be surprisingly decent, like Goodnight and Good Luck.

Best. Musical Guest. Ever.

2008-01-23T17:50:00.000-05:00

Children's TV shows just ain't what they used to be, Beavis:

Bonus points for a young Ray Parker, Jr. laying it down on guitar.

David Broder: "Columnist"

2008-01-23T10:58:00.000-05:00

From Broder's offering in today's WaPo:

While he was on his defensive spiel, Obama also urged people to ignore "crazy" rumors that he was Muslim, not Christian, or ever failed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or take his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Aren't quotation marks fun? Let's try using them with David's WaPo bio:

David Broder is a twice-weekly "columnist" for The Post, "writing" on national politics. His column appears on "Thursdays" and Sundays.

UPDATE: added quotation marks to "Thursdays," since, well, today is a Wednesday.

Oops He Did It Again

2008-01-22T16:15:00.000-05:00

Today Richard Cohen turns from "I don't believe he's a Farrakhan follower, but here's a column about it," to "Britney gets too much media coverage, and here's a column about it." I don't know if this is progress, but at least it's movement.

The column begins by citing a Portfolio article regarding Britney's worth, not just to herself, but to the various leeches that make money off of her (cue Chris Crocker!)...which is vaguely interesting, though hardly the sort of thing I expect to read about on the OpEd page of the Washington Post. I guess Richard felt the same way, because midway through the column, he tries to tie his Britney statistics to the current primary campaign, and, well, just takes a detour right into Crazy Town:

The Britney Industrial Complex is a handy tool to examine more than just Britney Spears. It also explains why Hillary Clinton's human backdrop changed from Iowa to New Hampshire. On election night in Des Moines, Clinton surrounded herself with familiar figures, some of them not so young anymore, while Barack Obama had a backdrop of youthful faces radiating pheromones. By New Hampshire, Clinton had younged-up her crowd, suggesting she was now, like Obama, an agent of change.

Now, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone in Hillary's campaign actually did decide to get some younger folks on stage with her in New Hampshire (though where that fits into the whole "Aging Boomer Women Put Hillary Over The Top" meme is beyond me), but I seriously doubt they were thinking "Let's get ourselves some of that Britney-obsessed, TMZ-lovin' demographic!" when they made that call. Then again, what do I know, it's not like I'm a big shot columnist for the Washington Post, with numerous connections I could use to arrange an interview or two with insiders on this very subject. No, I'm left to idly speculate, without anything beyond anecdotal evidence that I collected while watching TV upon which to base my assumptions...before drifting back to the more important topic: the major role Britney plays in the 13.7 trillion U.S. economy.

"There's a Pattern..."

2008-01-22T10:55:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton in last night's Democratic debate:

"Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any votes. That is a pattern."

George H.W. Bush at the October 19, 1992 Presidential debate:

There's a pattern here of appealing to the auto workers and then trying to appeal to the spotted owl crowds or the extremes in the environmental movement. You can't do it as president: you can't have a pattern of one side of the issue one day and another the next.

***

When you're president of the US, you cannot have this pattern of saying well, I'm for it but I'm on the other side of it.

***

This is my point tonight. We're talking about 2 weeks from now you've gotta decide who's gonna be president. And there is this pattern that has plagued in him the primaries and now about trying to have it both ways on all these issues.

***
My argument with him on -- the question was about the draft -- is that there's this same pattern. In New Hampshire Senator Kerrey said you ought to level, you ought to tell the truth about it. On April 17 he said he'd bring out all the records on the draft. They have not been forthcoming. He got a deferment or he didn't. He got a notice or he didn't. And I think it's this pattern that troubles me, more than the draft. A lot of decent, honorable people felt as he did on the draft. But it's this pattern.

And again, you might be able to make amendments all the time, Governor, but you've got to, as president, you can't be on all these different sides, and you can't have this pattern of saying well, I did this or I didn't, then the facts come out and you change it.
***
And then, Helen, I really believe where people are going to ask this question about trust, because I do think there's a pattern by Governor Clinton of saying one thing to please one group, and then trying to please another group. And I think that pattern is a dangerous thing to suggest would work for the Oval Office. It doesn't work that way when you're president.

Oh, there's a pattern here alright. There's this pattern of Hillary going to the Bush family playbook of insinuations in order to get herself elected. Nice use of the royal "we," too, Hil-Dawg.

The Doughy Pantload Speaks!

2008-01-18T14:11:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of youtube user liberalubu (aka Sadly, No! commenter kingubu), a distilled version of Jonah's recent appearance at the Heritage Foundation (ubu watched so you don't have to!):

Come to Rudy, On an Inside Straight

2008-01-17T10:03:00.000-05:00

Looks like Rudy's getting a bit desperate. Seeing as how he's not paying his top campaign staff this month, it's probably safe to say he's a bit low on cash right now, and having trouble raising more, what with that whole complete lack of momentum thing. I think his campaign needs a new theme song, but with customized lyrics:

If I had a spot for every ace I've drawn
I could air more ads about the terrorists
Don't you push me baby cause I'm polling low
You know I'm only in it for the ego

All that I am asking for is twenty three hundred dollars
I could pay you back with one good hand
You can look around about the wide world over
You'll never find another honest mayor

Last fair deal in the country, sweet Judy
Last fair deal in the town
Put your blood money where your love is, baby
Before you let my bid go down

Don't you push me baby
because I'm polling low
I know a little something
you won't ever know
Don't you read the papers just
a touch of Hannity
Gonna get up
in the morning and go

Everybody's bragging and spinning their lines
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to Rudy on an inside straight
I got no chance of losing this time
No, I got no chance of losing this time

Here's the real thing for you, from 8/4/76, Roosevelt Stadium, Jersey City, NJ (a wonderful version of a wonderful song, that really shouldn't be sullied with any connection to Rudy, but oh well):

All That's Missing is a Yacht Named "The Duke-Stir"

2008-01-16T16:09:00.000-05:00

So much muck for a four-paragraph article...although I'm sure this link will later be updated with an expanded article. To quote David Bowie: "Sordid details following." Here's a taste:

A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

Allegedly, former Congressman Mark Deli Siljander (R-Mich.) was paid more than $50,000 for his lobbying efforts on behalf of the Islamic American Relief Agency. Where did the IARA get this money, you ask? Funny story, that. Allegedly (again with that word!), the money "turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development." Nice! These guys are almost ready to go to work for the DC government, only they need to learn how to spend the money they steal from children on things like fur coats, daytime visits to strip clubs for "planning meetings," and Bentleys.

Of course, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it turns out that this is a legitimate charity that ended up railroaded because some hack at Justice decided there haven't been enough successful "terrorism" prosecutions lately. Just sayin'.

The New American Bible for Skeptics

2008-01-15T16:35:00.000-05:00

How have I missed this? h/t to commenter melior over at Lawyers, Guns, and Money.

Richard Cohen Remains an Idiot, or "The Stupid! It Burns!"

2008-01-15T11:20:00.001-05:00

Good lord...how is it that this man continues to be employed as a columnist? He should be relegated to the fringes of the blogosphere currently inhabited by the likes of yours truly.

Here's a gem:

It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances.

Note the bolded text, which I emphasize because, well, this is in the column's third paragraph. One hundred and forty words into a 787-word column. Which, well, doesn't really count as "right off," especially coming on the heels of two lead paragraphs that seek to connect Barack Obama to Louis Farrakhan, and then highlight some of Farrakhan's nastier past statements.

There follow seven more paragraphs on the evils of Farrakhan himself and those who say nice things about him. But that's okay, because in the last paragraph, Cohen writes:

I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan. But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.

You know something, Richard? If you don't for a moment think something, you shouldn't waste your column insinuating it. And if you don't for a moment think something is true, then why in the name of All That Which Does Not Suck should it be a "tough issue" for Obama? Because the only reason it would be an issue is if idiots like you, who "don't for a moment" think Obama "shares Wright's views on Farrakhan," write columns in major newspapers claiming that this is a "tough issue" where "'present' will not do" for a response.

Of course, it's important to state right off that nothing in Cohen's column suggests he harbors anti-Obama views.

Pick Flick!

2008-01-15T10:41:00.000-05:00

This is just brilliant. From Slate (h/t Big Head DC):

As if People Don't Hate Lawyers Enough Already

2008-01-14T17:18:00.000-05:00

Via Sullivan, in a Poseur Alert that really should be an All Points Poseur Bulletin:

On exhibit is Sloss, Kerr, Rosenberg & Moore (2007), a video made in collaboration with four practicing New York City attorneys John Sloss, Chet Kerr, Scott Rosenberg and Thomas Moore. The work features the lawyers performing a movement and vocal score that references their work and lives. The rhythmic sequences illustrate the performative aspects of litigating, the pressures experienced while working inside the juridical system, the contest, the service and ultimately the lawyers individual humanity. Highly formal in its spatial design and patterning, the work becomes a kind of twenty-first century folk dance.

There's even a picture!

I expect the performance resembles this classic dance cycle, shown in reenacted version here due to copyright issues...hooray lawyers!

Where's my hat tip, Mr. Robinson?

2008-01-14T16:29:00.000-05:00

*Sigh* In truth, it's not likely that Eugene Robinson read my Marion Jones post, which went up nine hours or so before Robinson started this discussion thread over at the Post. And by "not likely," I mean there's less chance than Dick Cheney releasing the list of Energy Task Force members.

Ah well. Great minds and all that...

How Long Until Dubya Commutes Her Sentence?

2008-01-11T14:50:00.001-05:00

Marion Jones gets six months for lying to federal investigators. Don't worry, the President was pretty clear that that sort of crime doesn't warrant prison time, since, you know, people finding out you committed a crime is punishment enough:

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

Don't worry, Marion. I'm sure the White House will be calling you up real soon.

Is Joel Achenbach Chanelling Ian Faith?

2008-01-10T15:20:00.000-05:00

Via Sullivan, this gem from the Washington Post's own Joel Achenbach:

Clinton fought back, but she needs a radio-controlled shock collar so that aides can zap her when she starts to get screechy.

Golly, with this kind of positive press, I just can't figure out why so many women decided to go out and vote for Hillary...meanwhile, here's a scene from the upcoming release, "This Is Still Spinal Tap":

Bobbi Flekman: You put a *greased naked woman* on all fours with a dog collar around her neck, and a leash, and a man's arm extended out up to here, holding onto the leash, and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it. You don't find that offensive? You don't find that sexist?
Joel Achenbag: This is *2008*, Bobbi, c'mon!
Bobbi Flekman: That's *right*, it's 2008! Get out of the '60s. We don't have this mentality anymore.
Joel Achenbag: Well, you should have seen the blog photo Chris Matthews *wanted* me to do! It wasn't a glove, believe me.

Maureen Dowd is Seen as Petty and Shallow

2008-01-09T12:21:00.000-05:00

Maureen Dowd in today's NYT. Where to begin? Well, Glenn Greenwald already took care of the lede ("And in this one short passage, on vivid, revolting display is every repellent attribute that defines the Standard Modern Political Journalist"), so I'll jump to the corrupt heart of the thing:

She won her Senate seat after being embarrassed by a man. She pulled out New Hampshire and saved her presidential campaign after being embarrassed by another man. She was seen as so controlling when she ran for the Senate that she had to be seen as losing control, as she did during the Monica scandal, before she seemed soft enough to attract many New York voters.

Um, Maureen? Maybe she won her senate seat "after being embarrassed by a man," but she certainly didn't win it because she had been embarrassed by a man. She won it because Rudy bailed from the race for health reasons, and she ended up running against a relatively young congressman who was just completely out of his depth. At least, that's what I was thinking when I cast my ballot for her...not, "Well, Bill cheated on her, so she deserves my vote." Maybe several million New Yorkers are as shallow as you think, but I doubt it.

I also love the "[s]he was seen as so controlling" comment. Says who? Could you, you know, cite to a public opinion survey before you make such a sweeping statement about how New Yorkers perceived Hillary eight years ago? Just because you saw her as "too controlling" doesn't make it so for millions of other people. Here's an example: Maureen Dowd is seen as petty, shallow, and a symbol of everything that is juvenile and rotten in our political press.

How this kind of puerile drivel passes for informed political commentary is beyond me.

Primary Night...woo-hoo!

2008-01-08T10:47:00.000-05:00

Well, looks like the fine folks in Iowa really fixated on that whole Pakistan situation, huh? Now it's on to New Hampshire.

Also, a moment of silence for the end of the Gibbs 2.0 Era. Maybe he's lost his fastball, but he took the 'Skins to the playoffs twice in four years the second time around, which is a darn sight better than the once in 11 or so years in between Gibbs 1.0 and Gibbs 2.0.

Caucus Night, Oh What a Night!

2008-01-03T17:27:00.000-05:00

As I watch the results come in tonight, I'll be ever so thankful for the wisdom of Joe Scarborough, because I'm sure that as those Republican caucus goers stand in their respective corners, they'll be thinking, "Well, I'm pretty sure Rudy will do a better job dealing with the whole Pakistan situation."

Yep. Mmm-hmm.

Actually, what I really think is that Bhutto could have been whacked at noon central today and not more than five or six caucus-goers in the entire state of Iowa would have changed their minds because of it.

Yet and still, Richard Cohen is an idiot...

2008-01-02T13:38:00.000-05:00

This time, BarbinMD at Kos beats me to the Fisking.

How does Cohen still have a job? Seriously...I mean, doesn't he at least have, you know, an editor? Or at least a fact checker. Someone to maybe point out that starting out a column about candidates lying with a lie is, um, ironic...really ironic, too, not just "ironic" in an Alanis kinda way.

Day-um!

2007-12-28T10:28:00.000-05:00

Glenn Greenwald does tend to rule. Peggy Noonan? Not so much.

Governor Romney? It's Patrick Henry on line 1...

2007-12-26T16:59:00.001-05:00

...something about there being no retreat but in submission and slavery, and you being some sort of rapper, or onion, or whatever a "rapscallion" is...

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Willard "Mitt" Romney, December, 2007:

Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive.

(h/t Glenn Greenwald.)

Yeah, so, um, thanks for the words of inspiration, Willard, although I'm pretty sure you just called me and every other living American a pussy. Yep. You did. Perhaps you need to re-watch the masterpiece that is Team America: World Police, and hearken unto its central message:

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

There's a reason, Willard, that Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, enumerated the rights of life and liberty separately: because they're not the same fucking thing.

BREAKING! DRINKING CAN LEAD TO SEX!

2007-12-26T16:37:00.001-05:00

Absolutely stunning news on the Post's website today:

Study Links Drinking With Sex

Tuesday, December 25, 2007; Page HE02

Young adults who drink heavily are more likely than non-heavy drinkers to have multiple sex partners, studies have shown.

This makes such complete intuitive sense ("My god! Drinking can lead to sex?! We didn't know...WE DIDN'T KNOW!!!") that I feel compelled to follow this up with an "Oh you think so, doctor?"

...although apparently my college years were one heckuva statistical outlier...

I really hope Chris Cillizza doesn't write his own headlines.

2007-12-21T10:45:00.001-05:00

Currently, on the front page of washingtonpost.com:

The Fix: Someone Has to Win
Friday Line | Despite the negativity about the GOP field, someone will win the nomination.
Chris Cillizza

Oh you think so, doctor?

The "Insight" of David Broder

2007-12-20T09:36:00.001-05:00

Okay, so Jonah Goldberg relies on nepotism to get a book deal, I get that...but for the life of me, I can't figure out how David Broder continues to maintain such an exalted place amongst pundits. His column in today's WaPo is not so much wrong as it is pointless. As in there's no point to it. I learned absolutely nothing reading it. The point he tries to make is that, due to all sorts of wackiness on the campaign trail, "life has suddenly become very confusing on the way to the 2008 presidential election."

Wow, because primary season is usually so very, very straightforward, right? Did Broder just take an early vacation and let some intern write today's column?

He sure does have a funny way of showing it...

2007-12-19T17:39:00.000-05:00

According to the NYT, Harry Reid apparently "hates" George W. Bush. Huh. I guess he must really love BigTelecom, then because that's the only reason I can see why he keeps giving Bush every thing he wants. (h/t, Froomkin.)

Mike Huckabee Hearts Me!

2007-12-17T17:26:00.000-05:00

Via David Corn at Mother Jones, Mike "Loving Christian" Huckabee had this to say about folks like me in his 1998 opus, Kids Who Kill:

Men who have rejected God and do not walk in faith are more often than not immoral, impure, and improvident (Gal. 5:19-21). They are prone to extreme and destructive behavior, indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality (1 Cor. 6:9-10). And they—along with their families and loved ones—are thus driven over the brink of destruction (Prov. 23:21)

Wow. I mean, I knew I was prone to "indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality," but I really had no idea I was driving my family and loved ones over the brink of destruction along with me. Sorry about that guys! If only I was a well-behaved Christian lad, like David Huckabee, the pious son of a preacher man. (h/t: Michael D. at Balloon Juice)

Jonah Goldberg is teh stewpid

2007-12-17T15:54:00.001-05:00

Via Yglesias (by way of Drum). I'm seriously, you guys, how does this 'bag get paid to spew these nutjob theories? There are times when I'm totally tempted to dress up in drag (blonde wig, natch, to make sure I pull in that Coulter demographic), join the Federalist Society, and start spewing forth the most ridiculous, juvenile, irresponsible, inflammatory bullshit I can dream up. I'm reasonably certain I could do a better job of it than Johan Goldberg. Jeebus.

Too bad I graduated from Wesleyan, which I'm pretty sure automatically makes me one of them thar "Liberal Fascists." Maybe I should've gone to Goucher instead.

Good point, Henry...why didn't you say something 5 years ago?

2007-12-13T14:39:00.001-05:00

From today's WaPo Op/Ed section comes this gem of a headline:

Misreading the Iran Report

Why Spying and Policymaking Don't Mix

By Henry A. Kissinger

Seriously, Henry, you're right...so, um, where were you when Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz set up their own special intel office in the Pentagon to make sure that the intelligence they got matched their policy goals?

Maybe he should just say he didn't inhale...

2007-12-12T17:35:00.000-05:00

Via Alec MacGillis at WaPo's The Trail:

Clinton N.H. Official Warns Obama Will Be Attacked on Drug Use

I really have nothing to add that could make this more pathetic or more amusing, so I'm gonna let it be.

i can has substance?

2007-12-11T11:42:00.000-05:00

Lead story - complete with Doomsday headline - on HuffPo right now:

BILL SHOCKER: I TOLD HILLARY TO DUMP ME

...back when they first started dating.

Wow. Thanks HuffPo. That's so much more topical than that boring old torture/obstruction of justice crap that I've been subjected to lately. Good thing we've got you guys as alternative to that tabloid-style crap the MSM foists on us. Maybe next up you can publish a story about all of the rumors that Obama is a Muslim...

Dear Senator Schumer:

2007-11-02T17:22:00.000-04:00

I am saddened and sickened by the news that you will be voting to pass Judge Mukasey's nomination to the full senate. Torture was expressly prohibited by George Washington before the United States even existed as such, and for more than 200 years, General Washington's prohibition stood, and was something we as Americans could be proud of. The current administration has made a mockery of this tradition, and the current congress has done nothing but enable the administration as it guts the Constitution and destroys the rule of law.

I would write to my own senator, but as a native Washingtonian, I do not have one. This, of course, is an issue that is apparently not worth debating on the senate floor (thanks, guys, and you're welcome for my taxes), so since I lived in New York for several years (studying law...you remember "law" don't you? It's what makes torture a crime) prior to returning to the District, I figured you're the closest thing I have to a senator these days.

Anyways, one day you're going to be very, very ashamed of your stance on this nomination. For now, I'm ashamed on your behalf.

Regards,

[EdTheRed]

(Not that the "honorable" senator will actually read this, but sending it to his office via email made me feel at least a teeny bit better.)

Legendary Tough Guy Tom Knott Issues Me a Warning

2007-09-14T13:59:00.001-04:00

Well looky here, looks like I've been put on notice not to get in the way of the "Gathering of Eagles" during their counter-protest this weekend. The warning comes courtesy of Mr. Tom Knott of the Washington Times:

This should be taken as a warning to the innocents who live in the region and the unlucky tourists who planned a vacation at the same time the nitwits of the nation planned a celebration of their insanity. Stay away from the downtown part of the city if it is at all possible. The start of the Million Nitwit March is Saturday.

Ooooh, hey, I'm an "innocent," and I "live in the region," he's talking to me! Of course, considering I actually live in the downtown part of the city will make it a bit difficult for me to avoid that area. You know what, though? Mr. Tom Knott's got me fired up about this! I'm gonna write to my senators and tell them to...oh, wait...I forgot, there are too many nitwits living in DC to trust us with representation...oh well, at least Tough Guy Tom is looking out for our best interests. Good thing, too, because otherwise the Bad Guys might win, and take away my precious democratic freedoms...oh, wait, I'm not fucking allowed to participate in this grand democratic experiment of ours, because there are too many nitwits living in DC. Guess I'll just have to leave it to Tommo, then. That's cool, though, 'cuz I hear he's so tough, he gargles with gasoline and chews rusty nails for breakfast...

Richard Cohen is Still an Idiot

2007-06-19T10:21:00.000-04:00

Richard Cohen hops on board the Free Scooter Libby Bandwagon today. Let's take a look!

With the sentencing of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald has apparently finished his work, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, to make a mountain out of a molehill. At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker -- Richard Armitage of the State Department -- but Libby, convicted in the end of lying. This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.

For the love of...does Richard Cohen not know that Fitzgerald began his investigation at the request of the CIA? Is it still 2004, where we can point fingers at the bogeymen in the "Liberal Press" whenever somebody does something we don't like? Maybe if the New York Times actually had the power to launch a criminal investigation...maybe then we'd actually get somewhere with torture, secret prisons, and the U.S. Attorney firings. Nice one, Dick.

And saying that obstructing a federal investigation is "not an entirely trivial matter" sure seems like an attempt to trivialize it...and why investigate it at all if it's just "the dark art of politics?" Oh, I don't know, maybe because politics isn't supposed to be a "dark art" in a democratic society? Maybe because in a constitutional democracy, the lights should be kept on, not off? Maybe because obstructing justice isn't supposed to be an acceptable political practice in a democracy? Then again, maybe Cohen is right...maybe we shouldn't have bothered investigating Watergate, either...I mean, after all, Nixon and his cronies were just "practicing the dark art of politics," and what's wrong with that?

Moving on, Cohen whines about Patrick Fitzgerald's bullying of poor Judy Miller and Matt Cooper...oh, pity the poor free press!

Much heroic braying turned into cries for mercy as the government bore down. As any prosecutor knows -- and Martha Stewart can attest -- white-collar types tend to have a morbid fear of jail.

Listen, Richard, I'd feel a lot worse for Judy Miller if she actually were a member of the press, but by 2003, she was barely recognizable as such. She was a mouthpiece for the administration. She printed their stories without questioning them, without performing the least bit of actual journalism to see if what she was printing might actually be true. If you want to be treated like a journalist, you have to behave like a journalist. Judy Miller's inappropriately cozy relationship with the administration is what put her into a situation that led to her incarceration.

Oh, and as for white-collar types "tend[ing] to have a morbid fear of jail," congratulations Richard, you win today's Otis Award! Because I'm sure Otis would agree that "real criminals" don't fear jail the same way that people who are "not what most people would, or should, think of as a criminal" do.

As Fitzgerald worked his wonders, threatening jail and going after government gossips with splendid pluck, many opponents of the Iraq war cheered. They thought -- if "thought" can be used in this context -- that if the thread was pulled on who had leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Robert D. Novak, the effort to snooker an entire nation into war would unravel and this would show . . . who knows? Something. For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.

Wow, I'm glad that you've got the guts to tell it like it is, Richard! Leaking the identity of a covert agent? Hey, that's just a little gossip! What's the harm in that? It's not like loose lips sink ships or anything like that.

And hey, I'll tell you what I "thought" might be revealed if the thread was pulled: nothing...because we already know that the administration lied the nation into the Iraq War, with a whole lot of help from "journalists" like Judy "WMD" Miller and her colleagues at the "liberal" New York Times.

I'm also glad to know that the top aide to the most powerful vice president in U.S. history is now a "previously obscure government official" to you, Richard. If you didn't know who Scooter Libby was before this case broke, I guess you don't pay much attention to things here in Washington, huh?

This is precisely the sort of investigation that Jackson was warning about. It would not have been conducted if, say, the Iraq war had ended with 300 deaths and the mission had really been accomplished. An unpopular war produced the popular cry for scalps and, in Libby's case, the additional demand that he express contrition -- a vestigial Stalinist-era yearning for abasement. No one has yet explained, though, how Libby can express contrition and still appeal his conviction. No matter. Antiwar sanctimony excuses the inexplicable.

You're right, Richard...if the war had ended with 300 deaths and the mission really accomplished, this wouldn't have happened...because the fucking administration wouldn't have felt compelled to leak a fucking covert agent's identity in an attempt to undermine the credibility of an outspoken critic of the war...but the mission wasn't fucking accomplished, was it, so they fucking leaked, and the C.I.A. asked for an investigation, and then Scooter Libby obstructed that investigation. What part of this don't you understand?

Oh, and there was never an "additional demand that [Libby] express contrition." It's common practice in our criminal justice system that an unrepentant convicted criminal can't expect as much leniency in sentencing as a convicted criminal who accepts responsibility for their acts. I guess Scooter didn't feel like he had to express any contrition, since he's got the whole cozy Beltway establishment (that includes you, Richard) lobbying the President for a pardon or a commuted sentence. The fact that you think that Libby should have gotten some kind of special treatment at sentencing and been granted leniency without accepting responsibility just because he obstructed justice while practicing the "dark art of politics" makes me want to vomit...there, I just threw up in my mouth. Thanks, Dick.

Accountability is one thing. By all means, let Congress investigate and conduct oversight hearings with relish and abandon. But a prosecution is a different matter. It entails the government at its most coercive -- a power so immense and sometimes so secretive that it poses much more of a threat to civil liberties, including freedom of the press, than anything in the interstices of the scary Patriot Act.

Wow. Um, Richard? Investigation and oversight hearings without the prosecution of subsequently uncovered illegal activities is not "accountability." The government investigating potentially illegal activity carried out by the government itself is NOT the government being coercive, and it does NOT pose a threat to civil liberties: it is a necessary function of a free democratic government. I'm going to repeat myself here: investigation and oversight hearings with the subsequent prosecution of subsequently uncovered illegal activities is not "accountability," and it does absolutely nothing to discourage a government that feels free to practice the "dark art of politics" in whatever ways they choose.

I don't expect George Bush to appreciate this. He is the privileged son of a privileged son, and he fears nothing except, probably, doubt. But the rest of us ought to consider what Fitzgerald has wrought and whether we are better off for his efforts. I have come to hate the war and I cannot approve of lying under oath -- not by Scooter, not by Bill Clinton, not by anybody. But the underlying crime is absent, the sentence is excessive and the investigation should not have been conducted in the first place. This is a mess. Should Libby be pardoned? Maybe. Should his sentence be commuted? Definitely.

Yeah, why would the privileged son of a privileged son appreciate the idea of not holding someone accountable for the consequences of his illegal activities? Maybe because Bush has lived his whole life with the appreciation of this concept.

I have considered what Fitzgerald has wrought, and I can tell you that I am personally genuinely better off for his efforts. So that's at least one person, Richard, in case you're actually counting.

And my god, Richard, can we stop with the whole "underlying crime is absent" shit? For starters, Plame actually was covert at the time of the leak. Now, Fitzgerald was unable to prosecute anyone for this...hmmmm...could that, maybe, have something to do with the fact that Scooter Libby lied to investigators and the grand jury, and obstructed justice? Are you suggesting, Richard, that if a person who obstructs justice does so successfully, they should not face any prison time, because there was no "underlying crime?" Or are you suggesting that it's okay to lie to federal investigators and grand juries, and it's okay to obstruct justice, as long as what you're lying to cover up isn't ever prosecuted? Because if that's what you're saying, well, you're an idiot.

Looks Like Somebody Listened to Otis...

2007-06-07T17:37:00.001-04:00

Paris Hilton was released from jail today. That's okay...she's rich and white...you know, "not what most people would, or should, think of as a criminal."

Otis...Otis...Wasn't he the town drunk?

2007-06-07T16:46:00.000-04:00

I'm sure you've seen this already, but I wanted to draw your attention to a wonderful piece of opinion journalism from today's Washington Post. It's by Federalist Society member William Otis (h/t to Dan Froomkin on the Federalist Society thing...I guess the Post didn't think I'd find that particular piece of information to be relevant as I was reading Mr. Otis' work), and in it, he argues that, while Scooter Libby shouldn't be pardoned, per se, he shouldn't be made to serve any prison time, because he's not someone whom "most people would, or should, think of as a criminal." I was a little confused after my first read, but I took another look, and I think I get what Mr. Otis is saying. As a public service, I thought I would parse it for you.

Scooter Libby should not be pardoned. But his punishment -- 30 months in prison, two years' probation and a $250,000 fine -- is excessive. President Bush should commute the sentence by eliminating the jail term while preserving the fine.

I've always wondered why the President didn't get more involved in the judicial process by tweaking sentences to ensure that justice is properly served. Perhaps the country would be better off if he moved around the country during the year, and set up temporary offices in various cities, he could hear petitioners and then modify the sentences imposed by federal judges as directed by the federal sentencing guidelines...you know, like kings used to do.

There is a legal principle at stake in this case greater than either Libby or the politics of the moment. It is a fundamental rule of law that the grand jury is entitled to every man's evidence. The grand jury cannot survive as the essential truth-finding tool it is if witnesses can lie with impunity. True, Libby committed a "process crime" -- that is, so far as has been established in court or even alleged by the prosecutor, he committed no crime until after the government initiated its investigation of the underlying act (namely, the revelation of Valerie Plame's CIA employment). But for obvious reasons it is not for grand jury witnesses to determine when an investigation is legitimate. As the Supreme Court has noted, there are many ways to challenge questions one believes the government should not be asking, but "lying is not one of them."

This seems clear enough.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton noted that there was ample evidence that Libby intentionally lied. Jurors took care (they did not convict on all counts), and the evidence before them makes it hard to believe that Libby's misstatements were merely a product of poor memory or confusion. The case was proved, and the conviction should not simply be wiped away.

Again, clear enough: in the parlance of our time, Scooter "did the crime."

Yet the sentence is another matter. Neither vindication of the rule of law nor any other aspect of the public interest requires that Libby go to prison.

Hmmm...now I'm getting a little confused. Has Mr. Otis never heard of the use of prison sentences as a deterrent?

He is by no stretch a danger to the community, as "danger" is commonly understood. He did not commit his crime out of greed or personal malice.

Wow, I didn't realize that one could avoid a prison sentence if one believed one's motives to be pure. I also did not realize that lying to a grand jury and federal investigators in an (ultimately successful attempt) to head off an investigation into criminal behavior which one may have been involved in was not motivated at least in part by self-interest. Things are starting to get clearer for me now.

Nor is his life one that bespeaks a criminal turn of mind.

Gosh, I also didn't know that one could avoid a prison sentence if one's life doesn't "bespeak a criminal turn of mind." Hurray! No prison for church-going, God-fearing first time offenders!

To the contrary, as letters to the court on his behalf overwhelmingly established, he has been a contributor to his community and his country.

Oh boy, this is fantastic! This means that if one is convicted of a serious crime, one can avoid prison time completely by getting one's friends and co-workers to write to the court to say what a fabulous contributor to his community and country! "Your honor, Mr. Gacy has been deeply involved in the community his entire life. Why, for years he has regularly dressed up as a clown and entertained the neighborhood children at our block parties!"

And whether or not we agree, we cannot dismiss out of hand the notion that Libby thought he was serving his country by his overall conduct in this episode, specifically by letting it be known, truthfully, that it was not the White House that tapped Joseph Wilson to look into whether Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Niger.

I think Mr. Otis just blew my mind here...wait, I get it! Because there is a chance that Libby thought he was "serving his country" (and, by purest coincidence, his boss) by engaging in the underlying behavior he was convicted of lying about, it's okay that he lied about it! "I'm sorry I lied when I said I didn't line up those villagers and gun them down, your honor, but you cannot dismiss out of hand the notion that I thought I was serving my country when I pulled the trigger...so you see, you can't possibly send me to prison." Oh, and from now on, I would like to see more newspapers refer to leaking as "letting it be known." It just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

A sense of proportionality argues in favor of eliminating Libby's prison term. This was an unusually harsh sentence for a first offender convicted of a nonviolent and non-drug-related crime.

Wow, Mr. Otis is right! A man who lied to federal investigators about the alleged leaking to the press of the identity of a covert agent in apparent retribution for the agent's husband's public questioning of a key piece of evidence used to bolster the administrations causus belli for a preemptive war is far less deserving of prison time than, say, Thomas Grossi, Sr. (2 1/2 years, just like Scooter!) or Mario Pacetti (only a year and a day), a pair of lawless scumbags who were recently convicted of growing (oh, excuse me, "manufacturing") marijuana in an Oakland warehouse and providing it to a medical cannabis dispensary that was licensed by the City of Oakland (I eagerly await Mr. Otis' interpretation of the Commerce Clause, by the way). And Mr. Pacetti actually admitted wrongdoing and expressed remorse! Why should a convict who actually admits he is guilty and says he's sorry be sentenced to less time than a convict who has never admitted any wrongdoing? After all, "we cannot dismiss out of hand the notion" that Libby didn't actually commit the crime he has been convicted of, now can we?

Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, was not sentenced to prison for sneaking documents out of the National Archives, destroying them and then lying to investigators. For his actions, Berger received no jail time, a fine one-fifth of that imposed on Libby and 100 hours of community service.

Ooooh, Mr. Otis is a genius! As long as I can point to someone else who was convicted of a superficially similar crime, a court shouldn't be allowed to impose any sentence harsher than what that other person received! I'm so glad that's cleared up!

And of course, Mr. Otis does eventually get to his real point:

To pardon Scooter Libby would not be consistent with the imperative that the mechanisms of law be able to demand, and receive, the truth. But to leave the sentence undisturbed would be an injustice to a person who, though guilty in this instance, is not what most people would, or should, think of as a criminal.

You see, your honor, even though he's guilty, Mr. Libby is a middle-aged, professional white male! Not some criminal! Now where have I heard that line of reasoning before? Oh yeah! After he was caught red-handed breaking into an Alexandria warehouse and stealing 90 handguns, a guy I went to high school with once told a Washington Post reporter: "It's not like I'm a criminal. I scored 1400 on my SAT." Of course, all that got him was a prison sentence and a mention in News of the Weird. Maybe Scooter deserves better...after all, he didn't just do well on the SATs, he also did well on the LSATs!

Commutation offers a middle ground. Unlike a pardon, commuting the prison sentence would not erase the conviction. It would leave Libby with the disabilities of a convicted felon -- no small matter for a lawyer and public figure.

It's so much easier for those no-name convicted felons who don't even have law degrees, isn't it? Why, Scooter won't even be able to vote in congressional elections! He'll be just like any other felon...or DC resident...you know, people like that.

But commutation would alleviate the harshest, and unnecessary, aspects of the sentence. A partial commutation would send the message that we insist on being truthful, but in the name of a justice that still cares about individual circumstances, we will not insist on being vindictive.

It's so true, Mr. Otis. Let's save the vindictiveness for the people who deserve it, like retarded people in Texas.

"Go away! I'm batin'!"

2007-04-19T11:57:00.000-04:00

Watched Idiocracy last night. Good stuff, but then I've always been a sucker for Mike Judge's work - he pretty much had me with the George Eliot references in an old Beavis and Butt-Head episode: "Jean Gary Diablo in Silas Murder!" which was either the sequel or prequel to "Jean Gary Diablo in Murdermarch!" I was writing my undergrad honors thesis on George Eliot's novels at the time, so Jean Gary Diablo will always occupy a special place in my heart.

Idiocracy is a bit like a live-action version of Futurama, but even more critical of corporate America and the dumbing-down of modern civilization. Plus it's got lots of fart jokes...so there's really something for everyone. The fact that Fox basically buried the film for mocking both Fox and numerous sponsors only makes the movie more enjoyable.

Schadenfreude

2007-04-12T16:51:00.000-04:00

Wolfowitz Apologizes for Role in Salary Scandal.

In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations," Wolfowitz declared. "I made a mistake, for which I am sorry."

That's funny, I thought trusting his original instincts was what got him into this mess in the first place.

Now if he would just apologize for that whole Iraq thing...

"Didn't you get that memo?"

2007-04-11T16:43:00.000-04:00

Via Digby, it looks like somebody forgot to give National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell the memo about the 2006 mid-term results..."McConnell seeks to boost U.S. spy powers."

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has circulated a draft bill that would expand the government's powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, liberalizing how that law can be used.

Question: If the administration has been actively (and unapologetically) violating the FISA for years, why the hell would they care about re-writing it? So they have a brand-new law to ignore?

Sometimes Maureen Dowd Scares Me

2007-04-11T13:46:00.000-04:00

Her latest [TimesDelete] is just weird (I guess that's no surprise). Seriously, um, I really don't know what to say about a column that starts with this premise:

It now seems that instead of desire leading to arousal, as researchers once believed, arousal may lead to desire.

And then connects the Republican party's current malaise among women voters to the fact that these women:

...have been deprived of the bristly excitement of hearing their men on the stump delivering great speeches for quite some time now.

Ummmm...is she saying that women are so hysterical (in the old-school sense of the word) that they decide whom to vote for based on how turned on they are by the candidates? Huh? What?
As Commodus (or at least Joaquin Phoenix) once said, "It vexes me. I'm terribly vexed."

Richard Cohen is an idiot

2007-04-10T17:09:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure that this is even coherent enough to respond to...Richard Cohen has apparently decided that fear of perjuring yourself is an appropriate grounds for pleading the 5th Amendment. Wow.

Let's start here, shall we?

She knows that in Washington, free speech can cost you a fortune in legal fees.

Ummm, hate to break this to you, Richard, but she's paying those lawyers who told her to clam up plenty. You think Akin Gump drafts letters to Congressional Committees out of the goodness of their heart? Moving on:

More likely, Goodling's problem is probably not what she's done but what she might do. If she testifies before Congress, swears to tell the truth and all of that, she will produce a record -- a transcript -- that can be used against her. If a subsequent witness later on has a different memory of what transpired, then the bloodcurdling cry of "special prosecutor" will once again be heard in the land.

You know what? Cry me a freaking river all you want, but "fear of what she might do" simply is not an actual reason for pleading the 5th. "Oh, sorry, I can't testify because I might lie." What Irving Lewis Libby was convicted of was telling a bullshit story, telling it more than once, and persisting in it even though no one else was telling a similar story. He was convicted by a jury of his peers after a full and fair trial. Believe it or not, they actually took the "different memor[ies]" of "subsequent witnesses" into consideration, and decided that Irving was full of it. These were NOT minor inconsistencies that Irving was peddling under oath - the were bald-faced lies, and he was convicted of telling them. To repeat the lesson: fear of "what she might do" is not a valid reason not to testify. Moving on:

No lawyer is going to be thrilled about letting a client testify in today's political environment. Remember, please, that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was not convicted of the crime that the special prosecutor was appointed to find -- who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame -- but of lying to a grand jury. In fact, the compulsively compulsive Patrick Fitzgerald not only knew early on who the leaker was but also that no law had been violated. No matter.

Richard? Bubby? Lying to a grand jury IS a crime. All by its lonesome little self. And you know what? Federal investigators don't like being lied to. It pisses them off, and proving that someone lied to you is relatively easy to prove, especially if the lie is particularly blatant. You can't lie to a Federal investigator and expect them to just ignore it. News flash for you, pal: Martha Stewart faced zero liability for insider trading in imclone stock - she wasn't an insider...but then she went and lied to investigators...and maybe after her little visit to prison, she now realizes that lying wasn't such a good idea. I'm not even going to go into the whole Clinton impeachment thing...

The fact remains that ordinary politics -- leaking, sniping, lying, cheating, exaggerating and other forms of PG entertainment -- have been so thoroughly criminalized that only a fool would appear before Congress without attempting to bargain for immunity by first invoking the Fifth Amendment. After all, it is a permissible exaggeration to say that in recent years more senior federal officials have had sit-downs with prosecutors than have members of the Gambino family.

I'm gonna type this slow, so you can understand it, Richard: leaking, sniping, lying, cheating and exaggerating are not "PG entertainment" when the person you're lying to or cheating happens to have you under oath. Go ahead and leak lies to the press all you want - woo-hoo! Hours of harmless fun! Watch as we leak and lie the nation into a foolish, unnecessary war! No matter, it's all PG entertainment! - but lie to investigators, including Congress, at your own risk. And what sit-downs with prosecutors are you referring to? Because there's been precious little in the way of investigations and oversight these past six years or so. Remember, Dick, that the Valerie Plame investigation was triggered by the CIA itself (who clearly believed that Ms. Plame was covert enough that exposing her identity was an actual crime), not by some gung-ho committee chairman on the Hill.

Sadly, that's all the time I have for now...maybe I'll update this later...or maybe Dick Cohen will give me a whole new set of material...

Bienveniedo, or something.

2007-04-09T18:38:00.000-04:00

This is my blog. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My blog is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
My blog, without me, is useless. Without my blog, I am useless. I must write my blog true. I must write straighter than my enemy who is trying to mock me. I must mock him before he mocks me. I will...
My blog and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...
My blog is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its code and its template. I will ever guard it against the ravages of comments and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my blog clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before Science, I swear this creed. My blog and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life...
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

Oh you think so, doctor?

Why Does Karl Rove Get To Keep On Writing Columns?

Richard Cohen Is Even More Morally Bankrupt Than I Thought

Teabagging!

Shorter Christopher Cox

Bump...

Walt Disney Pictures Presents: Head of Skate

McCain Calls Hillary a Pig

Uh, Palin?

So Many Lines To Cross, So Little Time

I'm ready for my closeup, Mr. Dean.

DC Resident To Florida And Michigan: Tough

NYS NOW: Still Crazy After All These Weeks

New Primary Boogie

How Can You Be So Obtuse?

Bill Kristol: Playa Hatin'

Taylor Marsh: Trying To Prove That Like Cures Like

Taylor Marsh's Commenters Strike a Blow For Feminism

ZOMG! Marilyn Fitterman Was Right!

New York State NOW...NOW With Even More Crazy!

SHAME

A Kangaroo Court in a Star Chamber

Hillary vs. Shuster

There Will Be Milkshakes

Not My Space, Apparently

Richard Cohen "Earns" Another Paycheck

Et Tu, Teddy?

Ted Kaczynski Would Be Proud

Best. Musical Guest. Ever.

David Broder: "Columnist"

Oops He Did It Again

"There's a Pattern..."

The Doughy Pantload Speaks!

Come to Rudy, On an Inside Straight

All That's Missing is a Yacht Named "The Duke-Stir"

The New American Bible for Skeptics

Richard Cohen Remains an Idiot, or "The Stupid! It Burns!"

Pick Flick!

As if People Don't Hate Lawyers Enough Already

Where's my hat tip, Mr. Robinson?

How Long Until Dubya Commutes Her Sentence?

Is Joel Achenbach Chanelling Ian Faith?

Maureen Dowd is Seen as Petty and Shallow

Primary Night...woo-hoo!

Caucus Night, Oh What a Night!

Yet and still, Richard Cohen is an idiot...

Day-um!

Governor Romney? It's Patrick Henry on line 1...

BREAKING! DRINKING CAN LEAD TO SEX!

Study Links Drinking With Sex

I really hope Chris Cillizza doesn't write his own headlines.

The "Insight" of David Broder

He sure does have a funny way of showing it...

Mike Huckabee *Hearts* Me!

Jonah Goldberg is teh stewpid

Good point, Henry...why didn't you say something 5 years ago?

Misreading the Iran Report

Why Spying and Policymaking Don't Mix

Maybe he should just say he didn't inhale...

Clinton N.H. Official Warns Obama Will Be Attacked on Drug Use

i can has substance?

Dear Senator Schumer:

Legendary Tough Guy Tom Knott Issues Me a Warning

Richard Cohen is Still an Idiot

Looks Like Somebody Listened to Otis...

Otis...Otis...Wasn't he the town drunk?

"Go away! I'm batin'!"

Schadenfreude

"Didn't you get that memo?"

Sometimes Maureen Dowd Scares Me

Richard Cohen is an idiot

Bienveniedo, or something.

Mike Huckabee Hearts Me!