Friday, February 29, 2008
Nazi Pundits Fuck Off
So, remember when Bill O'Reilly tried once again to singlehandedly shift the narrative rightward by comparing DailyKos to Nazis and the KKK? Well, why would he abandon such a well-reasoned debate tactic?
O’Reilly: What’s the difference between the KKK and Arianna Huffington? What’s the difference?
Ham: I think there is a difference,.
O’Reilly: I don’t see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis. It’s her, It’s her, It’s her…I didn’t say she’s a Nazi.
So, she's a Nazi, but she's not a Nazi. You heard it here first, folks; Arianna Huffington is Schrodinger's Stormtrooper.
Of course, it's especially egregious in this case, seeing as Huffington's mother stood up against the Nazis during World War II. Then again, Bill O'Reilly isn't exactly the world's biggest expert on Nazis.
O’Reilly: What’s the difference between the KKK and Arianna Huffington? What’s the difference?
Ham: I think there is a difference,.
O’Reilly: I don’t see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis. It’s her, It’s her, It’s her…I didn’t say she’s a Nazi.
So, she's a Nazi, but she's not a Nazi. You heard it here first, folks; Arianna Huffington is Schrodinger's Stormtrooper.
Of course, it's especially egregious in this case, seeing as Huffington's mother stood up against the Nazis during World War II. Then again, Bill O'Reilly isn't exactly the world's biggest expert on Nazis.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Brass Ones
More U.S. military officers would be willing to reinstate the draft than would allow gay and lesbians soldiers to serve openly.
Just to repeat that: More U.S. military officers would rather reinstate the clunky conscription service that, thanks to Vietnam, now goes hand-in-hand with fears of Junior being dragged off to die in some hellhole in the minds of most Americans, rather than let gay and lesbian soldiers serve openly like they do in Canada, the UK, and Israel, among other places, without their militaries going completely critical.
It looks like the best chance of Don't Ask, Don't Tell's death may come at the hands of a body outside the military. We can only hope it dies soon.
Just to repeat that: More U.S. military officers would rather reinstate the clunky conscription service that, thanks to Vietnam, now goes hand-in-hand with fears of Junior being dragged off to die in some hellhole in the minds of most Americans, rather than let gay and lesbian soldiers serve openly like they do in Canada, the UK, and Israel, among other places, without their militaries going completely critical.
It looks like the best chance of Don't Ask, Don't Tell's death may come at the hands of a body outside the military. We can only hope it dies soon.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Our Livelihood Depends On Suits Not Facing Jail Time
Dear everyone and anyone who says that Democrats have given terrorists the right to attack us:
The only reason this bill has failed in the first goddamn place is because Bush himself has announced that, if the bill does not contain telecom immunity, he will veto it, even if it gives the FBI the physical property to crawl through the phone lines and strange Osama bin Laden with the phone line. And, really, it's not like the Democrats in the Senate were doing a hell of a lot to stop it in the first place.
We better now? Good.
The only reason this bill has failed in the first goddamn place is because Bush himself has announced that, if the bill does not contain telecom immunity, he will veto it, even if it gives the FBI the physical property to crawl through the phone lines and strange Osama bin Laden with the phone line. And, really, it's not like the Democrats in the Senate were doing a hell of a lot to stop it in the first place.
We better now? Good.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Obama Seeks Your Precious Bodily Fluids
I'm sorry, really? Is this what the Obama slander train has come to?
Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier — also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)
"Obama was born on a Tuesday. So was Stalin! Eh, eh?" (Note: I do not know whether or not either personality was actually born on a Tuesday. In fact, the more inaccurate said statement is, the more it likely matches up with Schiffren's thesis.)
I don’t know how Barak Obama’s parents met.
"But welcome my conjecture on how he's the mixed-blood scion of a Communist plot to take over America."
Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing the questions which might arise about how Senator Obama’s mother, from Kansas, came to marry an African graduate student. Love? Sure, why not? But what else was going on around them that made it feasible?
Yes, that is entirely why political correctness was invented: to keep dumb, affluent white conservatives from making wild gesticulations about how a white woman and a black man couldn't just naturally fall in love and embrace their feelings during that period of time, and how it must be the design of a deliberate Bolshevik experiment?
Before readers level cheap accusations of racism —
Too late.
let’s recall that the very question of interracial marriage only became a big issue later in the 1960s.
Yes, it wasn't like my home state of Massachusetts (read, the Commie state) didn't have any specific laws on the book regarding interracial marriage before the '60s. Oh, wait.
Seriously. Was it not enough to keep hitting the racism stump? You had to throw Communism in for flavor? Why not just go forward and say he had gay sex in an extremist madrassah? Or are you saving that one for October?
Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier — also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)
"Obama was born on a Tuesday. So was Stalin! Eh, eh?" (Note: I do not know whether or not either personality was actually born on a Tuesday. In fact, the more inaccurate said statement is, the more it likely matches up with Schiffren's thesis.)
I don’t know how Barak Obama’s parents met.
"But welcome my conjecture on how he's the mixed-blood scion of a Communist plot to take over America."
Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing the questions which might arise about how Senator Obama’s mother, from Kansas, came to marry an African graduate student. Love? Sure, why not? But what else was going on around them that made it feasible?
Yes, that is entirely why political correctness was invented: to keep dumb, affluent white conservatives from making wild gesticulations about how a white woman and a black man couldn't just naturally fall in love and embrace their feelings during that period of time, and how it must be the design of a deliberate Bolshevik experiment?
Before readers level cheap accusations of racism —
Too late.
let’s recall that the very question of interracial marriage only became a big issue later in the 1960s.
Yes, it wasn't like my home state of Massachusetts (read, the Commie state) didn't have any specific laws on the book regarding interracial marriage before the '60s. Oh, wait.
Seriously. Was it not enough to keep hitting the racism stump? You had to throw Communism in for flavor? Why not just go forward and say he had gay sex in an extremist madrassah? Or are you saving that one for October?
Cuba Libre
So, how long's it been since I last posted? Yeah. Thought so. What can I say? Midterms are starting up, and it's like being slapped with a gauntlet.
Anyway. I'm guessing everyone's heard by now that Castro is finally freaking retiring. Not like there's going to be much of a regime change; Fidel's brother Raul is taking over, like he did when Castro was in the hospital for biffing on a concrete floor. There wasn't any coup then, but you never know.
Then again, I can only guess what my little brother's doing this Spring Break.
Anyway. I'm guessing everyone's heard by now that Castro is finally freaking retiring. Not like there's going to be much of a regime change; Fidel's brother Raul is taking over, like he did when Castro was in the hospital for biffing on a concrete floor. There wasn't any coup then, but you never know.
Then again, I can only guess what my little brother's doing this Spring Break.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Sound And Fury, Indicating Nothing
So, I haven't really been posting lately. Sorry about that. I've been dealing with the lurking remnants of a cold.
There's been another college shooting, this one at NIU. Five dead, including the shooter. And what do you know, once more, Jack Thompson takes his dog-and-pony show on FOX News and blames video games before the bodies have even cooled.
Then again, by now it's been pretty firmly proven that the legal community does not hold Jack Thompson in the highest respect, and that FOX News knows approximately shit about video games. So, when you think about it, it's kind of like watching a game of paintball where none of the guns have ammo. There's no real gravity in the first place, and whatever tension remains has been removed.
Still. Way to ride the wave of destruction, assholes.
There's been another college shooting, this one at NIU. Five dead, including the shooter. And what do you know, once more, Jack Thompson takes his dog-and-pony show on FOX News and blames video games before the bodies have even cooled.
Then again, by now it's been pretty firmly proven that the legal community does not hold Jack Thompson in the highest respect, and that FOX News knows approximately shit about video games. So, when you think about it, it's kind of like watching a game of paintball where none of the guns have ammo. There's no real gravity in the first place, and whatever tension remains has been removed.
Still. Way to ride the wave of destruction, assholes.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I Stand Against Torture, Except When I Don't
There's one thing going for John McCain, we keep saying. He stands against torture. In an age when the White House seeks to make the practices of Torquemada a legitimate interrogation method, McCain, who's experienced torture first-hand, has stood firm against its use by the government.
At least, when he talks, he does. When he votes, he sometimes falters. Remember the Military Commissions Act? McCain bows to a bill that denies habeas corpus to Guantanamo prisoners, and he's hailed as a "maverick" by the press.
Well, the maverick strikes again. The Senate voted today to ban the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror subjects. The measure passed, by 51 to 45. But guess who wasn't on the winning side?
Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon.
Yup. Even when the issue is pretty much declared to be pointless, McCain will still buck with pressure and go along with the GOP lockstep. It's practically become second nature by this point. But to see McCain bend on torture, the one issue he claims to hold himself above all others on? It's just sickening.
At least, when he talks, he does. When he votes, he sometimes falters. Remember the Military Commissions Act? McCain bows to a bill that denies habeas corpus to Guantanamo prisoners, and he's hailed as a "maverick" by the press.
Well, the maverick strikes again. The Senate voted today to ban the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror subjects. The measure passed, by 51 to 45. But guess who wasn't on the winning side?
Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon.
Yup. Even when the issue is pretty much declared to be pointless, McCain will still buck with pressure and go along with the GOP lockstep. It's practically become second nature by this point. But to see McCain bend on torture, the one issue he claims to hold himself above all others on? It's just sickening.
So Much For The Good Fight
The Senate Republicans, with the aid of quite a few Senate Democrats, have voted to grant retroactive immunity to telecoms who illegally spied on their customers at the behest of the US government. Eighteen Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, voted for immunity. Hillary Clinton didn't even show up to vote.
What can I say? Oh, I know. You craven little douchebags.
Maybe the people in the House will actually have a spine.
What can I say? Oh, I know. You craven little douchebags.
Maybe the people in the House will actually have a spine.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The President Is Always Right
Congratulations, Mister Bush. You just pissed away any moral credibility the United States has.
WASHINGTON -- The White House said Wednesday that the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding is legal and that President Bush could authorize the CIA to resume using the simulated-drowning method under extraordinary circumstances.
Yes, so what if it's turned up nothing? So what if the CIA was so concerned of its rightness, they destroyed the video tapes of the proceedings in case they were used as evidence? So what if we considered it an atrocity when the North Vietnamese did it? 9/11 changed everything!
And I love seeing the enablers on both sides of the aisle sputter and try to make things right. You've got Hayden, the CIA director, saying that tens of thousands of soldiers are waterboarded as part of their survival training, failing to connect the dots that they're given such training so that they can learn how to resist torture. And you've got Dianne Feinstein talking about how this is such a black mark on America, when she's the one who pushed Mukasey through without holding his feet to the fire.
And then you've got Bush, smiling away as he says that this waterboarding is different, because now the "new law" has differentiated between the torture that took place at the hands of the North Vietnamese and torture that takes place at the hands of Americans, while Chris Wallace blathers on about "protecting people who want to harm us."
I don't even know what to say anymore, folks.
WASHINGTON -- The White House said Wednesday that the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding is legal and that President Bush could authorize the CIA to resume using the simulated-drowning method under extraordinary circumstances.
Yes, so what if it's turned up nothing? So what if the CIA was so concerned of its rightness, they destroyed the video tapes of the proceedings in case they were used as evidence? So what if we considered it an atrocity when the North Vietnamese did it? 9/11 changed everything!
And I love seeing the enablers on both sides of the aisle sputter and try to make things right. You've got Hayden, the CIA director, saying that tens of thousands of soldiers are waterboarded as part of their survival training, failing to connect the dots that they're given such training so that they can learn how to resist torture. And you've got Dianne Feinstein talking about how this is such a black mark on America, when she's the one who pushed Mukasey through without holding his feet to the fire.
And then you've got Bush, smiling away as he says that this waterboarding is different, because now the "new law" has differentiated between the torture that took place at the hands of the North Vietnamese and torture that takes place at the hands of Americans, while Chris Wallace blathers on about "protecting people who want to harm us."
I don't even know what to say anymore, folks.
Friday, February 08, 2008
The Reverse Backstab Technique
Well, after thinking on it, I guess I might as well comment on the message hidden (and by "hidden", I mean "written in 50-foot letters crafted from blinking flourescent pink neon") in Mitt Romney's concession speech:
Mitt Romney suspended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination Thursday, saying if he continued it would "forestall the launch of a national campaign and be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win."
"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. This is not an easy decision. I hate to lose," the former Massachusetts governor said.
"If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country."
Now, I could be like Jon Stewart and offer a simple, pithy, "Fuck you." But really, I feel like digging deeper into this. Because Romney's just the start of it. You think the dolchstosslegende bullshit flew thick and furious from the mouths of pundits and Congresspersons before? Because 2008 is going to be a fucking knife fight, and I promise you, the GOP is going to be pulling every dirty trick it can out of the bag.
So, I'd just like to see why Mr. Romney thinks the Republican Party is so well-suited to fighting terror, and why we pansy liberals are just going to hand over the nation to the terrorists.
Well, let's see... after 9/11, Bush sent troops into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and bring democracy to the region. That may be the only decent choice he made in this whole War on Terror imbroglio. Let's see what else the administration and its enablers did...
Well, Bush and company invaded Iraq, a country with sweet FA to do with the 9/11 attacks, under constantly shifting auspices (democracy? WMDs? "This is the guy who tried to kill my dad"?). Once they invaded, any reasonable plans to keep things stable fell by the wayside, and the country quickly fell into chaos. And in that chaos, the people we were supposed to be going after in the first place snuck in and set up shop. Random acts of ethnic cleansing, rampant terrorism, and the deaths of over 3000 soldiers ensued. After the American people proclaimed they were sick of the war, Bush came up with the idea for the troop surge which, as you can see, is having resounding effects.
Extremists who were plotting terror attacks were caught, yes, but not through the grace of the Bush administration. Richard Reid was caught because he was stupid enough to try to light a shoe on fire on a busy flight. The cases that Bush trotted before the press involved a man who was later tried on charges completely unrelated to the great danger he was originally arrested for, a plot to blow up gas tanks that never would have worked, and a group of idiots who thought they needed offical Al-Qaeda uniforms. Oh, and the London bust, the reason why we can't take bottled water on flights anymore? Guess which party wanted to move as soon as possible, despite the fact that there was no imminent threat, likely leading to the bungling up of several cases against potential terrorists? And, lest we forget, there was that one case that no one ever solved, the one where people actually died, the one that Bush tries to paint over every time he says there hasn't been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.
Then there are the wiretaps. Oh, yes, the wiretaps. So essential to protecting us from the dire threats to democracy posed by gay servicemen and Quakers. Then again, this serve violation of our civil liberties wasn't so important that anyone bothered to pay the goddamn bills.
And torture -- oh, torture. What do those human rights fags know about torture; they've never seen 24, have they? Our administration happily endorsed a practice used by all the great villains in history and has used it on people who may not even be guilty of any crime. Which, by the way, is a great way to create insurgents; if they didn't hate you before, they do now! It's gotten to the point where foreign courts have declared that we're not safe for refugees.
But, hey-- at least they've supported the people fighting this war on the ground, right? The soldiers? I mean, if you ignore the attempts to dick soldiers out of the GI Bill, the Bankruptcy Bill, the substandard body armor, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you need or want", the attempts to dick soldiers out of medical benefits, Walter Reed, and the homeless veterans, I'd say the administration has done a pretty bang-up job of caring for our troops.
And then there's the big one -- Osama bin Laden. We've got him locked away, right? And even if we don't, at least we know that Bush really cares about capturing him, right?
I won't stand this slander any longer. I won't hear the people who just stood by while Bush and his merry band of miscreants broke the military, bungled the fight against terrorism, and threw our values in the trash bin point the finger at us liberals and say that we'll betray our nation. Because quite frankly, I don't see how we can fuck things up worse than they already have.
Mitt Romney suspended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination Thursday, saying if he continued it would "forestall the launch of a national campaign and be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win."
"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. This is not an easy decision. I hate to lose," the former Massachusetts governor said.
"If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country."
Now, I could be like Jon Stewart and offer a simple, pithy, "Fuck you." But really, I feel like digging deeper into this. Because Romney's just the start of it. You think the dolchstosslegende bullshit flew thick and furious from the mouths of pundits and Congresspersons before? Because 2008 is going to be a fucking knife fight, and I promise you, the GOP is going to be pulling every dirty trick it can out of the bag.
So, I'd just like to see why Mr. Romney thinks the Republican Party is so well-suited to fighting terror, and why we pansy liberals are just going to hand over the nation to the terrorists.
Well, let's see... after 9/11, Bush sent troops into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and bring democracy to the region. That may be the only decent choice he made in this whole War on Terror imbroglio. Let's see what else the administration and its enablers did...
Well, Bush and company invaded Iraq, a country with sweet FA to do with the 9/11 attacks, under constantly shifting auspices (democracy? WMDs? "This is the guy who tried to kill my dad"?). Once they invaded, any reasonable plans to keep things stable fell by the wayside, and the country quickly fell into chaos. And in that chaos, the people we were supposed to be going after in the first place snuck in and set up shop. Random acts of ethnic cleansing, rampant terrorism, and the deaths of over 3000 soldiers ensued. After the American people proclaimed they were sick of the war, Bush came up with the idea for the troop surge which, as you can see, is having resounding effects.
Extremists who were plotting terror attacks were caught, yes, but not through the grace of the Bush administration. Richard Reid was caught because he was stupid enough to try to light a shoe on fire on a busy flight. The cases that Bush trotted before the press involved a man who was later tried on charges completely unrelated to the great danger he was originally arrested for, a plot to blow up gas tanks that never would have worked, and a group of idiots who thought they needed offical Al-Qaeda uniforms. Oh, and the London bust, the reason why we can't take bottled water on flights anymore? Guess which party wanted to move as soon as possible, despite the fact that there was no imminent threat, likely leading to the bungling up of several cases against potential terrorists? And, lest we forget, there was that one case that no one ever solved, the one where people actually died, the one that Bush tries to paint over every time he says there hasn't been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.
Then there are the wiretaps. Oh, yes, the wiretaps. So essential to protecting us from the dire threats to democracy posed by gay servicemen and Quakers. Then again, this serve violation of our civil liberties wasn't so important that anyone bothered to pay the goddamn bills.
And torture -- oh, torture. What do those human rights fags know about torture; they've never seen 24, have they? Our administration happily endorsed a practice used by all the great villains in history and has used it on people who may not even be guilty of any crime. Which, by the way, is a great way to create insurgents; if they didn't hate you before, they do now! It's gotten to the point where foreign courts have declared that we're not safe for refugees.
But, hey-- at least they've supported the people fighting this war on the ground, right? The soldiers? I mean, if you ignore the attempts to dick soldiers out of the GI Bill, the Bankruptcy Bill, the substandard body armor, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you need or want", the attempts to dick soldiers out of medical benefits, Walter Reed, and the homeless veterans, I'd say the administration has done a pretty bang-up job of caring for our troops.
And then there's the big one -- Osama bin Laden. We've got him locked away, right? And even if we don't, at least we know that Bush really cares about capturing him, right?
I won't stand this slander any longer. I won't hear the people who just stood by while Bush and his merry band of miscreants broke the military, bungled the fight against terrorism, and threw our values in the trash bin point the finger at us liberals and say that we'll betray our nation. Because quite frankly, I don't see how we can fuck things up worse than they already have.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Caloo, Calay!
Well, looks like everyone's favorite douchebag has finally thrown in the towel. So, tell me, Mitt, just why are you giving up?
Mitt Romney suspended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination Thursday, saying if he continued it would "forestall the launch of a national campaign and be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win."
"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. This is not an easy decision. I hate to lose," the former Massachusetts governor said.
"If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country."
Uh... huh. And I suppose it has nothing to do with the thorough spanking you received from McCain.
Ah, well. At least the prick's gone. That just leaves the lesser of two evils to pick from.
Mitt Romney suspended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination Thursday, saying if he continued it would "forestall the launch of a national campaign and be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win."
"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. This is not an easy decision. I hate to lose," the former Massachusetts governor said.
"If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country."
Uh... huh. And I suppose it has nothing to do with the thorough spanking you received from McCain.
Ah, well. At least the prick's gone. That just leaves the lesser of two evils to pick from.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Pooped Wednesday
So, Super Tuesday was yesterday, and still no one can tell me what the hell it all meant for the Democratic candidates. Obama won more states! Hillary won more delegates! Apparently, we need to wait for the next few primaries to get a decisive answer, which kind of puts the buzzkill on the whole media orgasm over Super Tuesday.
McCain, on the other hand, was the clear victor for the Republicans. I'm guessing it's the lesser of all the evils, but it's still not my desired result. I also take some perverse glee in Mitt Romney taking pride that he won in all the states he lived in, which seems to be the political equivalent of saying, "My mom thinks I'm cool." (Though I'm ashamed my fellow Bay State residents didn't come together and pants Romney in the name of bipartisanship).
So. Back to the speculation.
McCain, on the other hand, was the clear victor for the Republicans. I'm guessing it's the lesser of all the evils, but it's still not my desired result. I also take some perverse glee in Mitt Romney taking pride that he won in all the states he lived in, which seems to be the political equivalent of saying, "My mom thinks I'm cool." (Though I'm ashamed my fellow Bay State residents didn't come together and pants Romney in the name of bipartisanship).
So. Back to the speculation.
Monday, February 04, 2008
I Hear The Homeless Need To Keep Warm
Well, if you live anywhere near New England, you no doubt heard the smack of millions of palms hitting millions of foreheads as the Patriots screwed up last night. What can I say; the Giants played a good game. And hey, it was a hell of run.
Now all I have to keep warm is the sweet, sweet glow of schadenfreude. Man, at least the "Dewey Defeats Truman" guy was rushed to print. This thing was up a week before the Super Bowl.
Seriously, Globe. What the hell?
Now all I have to keep warm is the sweet, sweet glow of schadenfreude. Man, at least the "Dewey Defeats Truman" guy was rushed to print. This thing was up a week before the Super Bowl.
Seriously, Globe. What the hell?
Cats And Dogs, Living Together
What do you know; for once in her life, Ann Coulter says something that I want to pay attention to.
While I don't doubt that this is just a ploy for attention and Ann will go back to delightfully ridiculing Hillary for daring to have a vagina as soon as the tide turns, I'd like to focus on the fact that most of the Republican punditry are reacting to McCain like someone just force-fed them ipecac. And while there's no way in Hell I'd go for a McCain presidency (just kidding, I totally want us to be in Iraq for a hundred years), has there been anyone who's been liked by the punditry who has some degree of success?
McCain is too soft. Huckabee is too honestly religious. Fred Thompson was their great white hope, but he sputtered and died. Giuliani... well, the less said the better. Hell, it seems like the only person who doesn't make the punditry spit with rage is... Romney.
Great. I just found the one thing worse than a McCain victory.
On a somewhat unrelated topic, man, it feels good to see Ann Coulter stuffed in the back closet. Now who's going to applaud wildly when she calls Hillary a dyketastic feminazi?
While I don't doubt that this is just a ploy for attention and Ann will go back to delightfully ridiculing Hillary for daring to have a vagina as soon as the tide turns, I'd like to focus on the fact that most of the Republican punditry are reacting to McCain like someone just force-fed them ipecac. And while there's no way in Hell I'd go for a McCain presidency (just kidding, I totally want us to be in Iraq for a hundred years), has there been anyone who's been liked by the punditry who has some degree of success?
McCain is too soft. Huckabee is too honestly religious. Fred Thompson was their great white hope, but he sputtered and died. Giuliani... well, the less said the better. Hell, it seems like the only person who doesn't make the punditry spit with rage is... Romney.
Great. I just found the one thing worse than a McCain victory.
On a somewhat unrelated topic, man, it feels good to see Ann Coulter stuffed in the back closet. Now who's going to applaud wildly when she calls Hillary a dyketastic feminazi?
Friday, February 01, 2008
Schrodinger's Drowned Cat
So, when the Congressional Democrats went ahead and approved Mukasey for AG, they swore they'd get an answer out of him as to whether or not waterboarding could be considered torture. As to why they didn't do this before hand... well, it's not like they run the place, right?
Oh. Right.
Anyway. Mukasey was called before Congress to give his answer. And it ain't pretty:
MUKASEY: With respect, I don't think that's what I'm saying. I don't think I'm saying it is simply a relative issue.
There is a statute under which it is a relative issue. I think the Detainee Treatment Act engages the standard under the Constitution which is a shocks-the-conscience standard, which is essentially a balancing test of the value of doing something as against the cost of doing it.
BIDEN: When you say "against the cost of doing it," do you mean the cost that might occur in human life if you fail to do it?
MUKASEY: No.
BIDEN: Do you mean the cost in terms of our sensibilities and what we think is appropriate and inappropriate behavior as a civilized society?
MUKASEY: I chose the wrong word.
I meant the heinousness of doing it, the cruelty of doing it, balanced against the value.
BIDEN: Balanced against what value?
MUKASEY: The value of what information you might get.
BIDEN; That's what I thought you'd say.
MUKASEY: And in one of your hypotheticals, there was getting some historical information or some other information that couldn't be used to save lives.
And one wouldn't have to go to the question of whether that was torture or not to level to find it would shock the conscience to do it in those circumstances.
So, basically, we don't know if waterboarding is torture unless we use it on someone and they spill like a pinata. Which apparently means that it's okay to use torture, because there's a good chance it might save a life, making this the 1,245th recitation of the "ticking time bomb" fallacy by someone who should know better.
Way to go, Congressional Democrats. You sure picked a winner.
Oh. Right.
Anyway. Mukasey was called before Congress to give his answer. And it ain't pretty:
MUKASEY: With respect, I don't think that's what I'm saying. I don't think I'm saying it is simply a relative issue.
There is a statute under which it is a relative issue. I think the Detainee Treatment Act engages the standard under the Constitution which is a shocks-the-conscience standard, which is essentially a balancing test of the value of doing something as against the cost of doing it.
BIDEN: When you say "against the cost of doing it," do you mean the cost that might occur in human life if you fail to do it?
MUKASEY: No.
BIDEN: Do you mean the cost in terms of our sensibilities and what we think is appropriate and inappropriate behavior as a civilized society?
MUKASEY: I chose the wrong word.
I meant the heinousness of doing it, the cruelty of doing it, balanced against the value.
BIDEN: Balanced against what value?
MUKASEY: The value of what information you might get.
BIDEN; That's what I thought you'd say.
MUKASEY: And in one of your hypotheticals, there was getting some historical information or some other information that couldn't be used to save lives.
And one wouldn't have to go to the question of whether that was torture or not to level to find it would shock the conscience to do it in those circumstances.
So, basically, we don't know if waterboarding is torture unless we use it on someone and they spill like a pinata. Which apparently means that it's okay to use torture, because there's a good chance it might save a life, making this the 1,245th recitation of the "ticking time bomb" fallacy by someone who should know better.
Way to go, Congressional Democrats. You sure picked a winner.
