Roger Ailes
A Standards-Driven Blog


Saturday, January 11, 2003  

The Perils of Internet Dating

John Podhoretz, the very conservative and highly un-with-it columnist and former editorial page editor at the New York Post met a woman on www.matchmaker.com and married her.
If you get an e-mail from "jfund1" or "armstrong69," just hit delete.

posted by Roger | | 8:51 PM
 

More Guns, Less Scholarship?

A month ago, Instapundit and the Volokh Conspiracy were musing on the topic of "whether there could be a Bellesiles in the legal-scholarship world." Reynolds -- who answered the question "yes and no" -- described a "good academic fraud" as one which "is meticulous on methodology, but then makes up the data to achieve the desired result."

Reynolds and Volokh may soon find an answer to their question. James Lindgren, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law has questioned the authenticity of an alleged study by Yale Law School senior research scholar John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime. In that book, Lott reported that national surveys found "98% of defensive gun uses involved brandishing with no shots being fired." A rough summary of the controversy, according to Lindgren, is as follows:

Lott says that over the course of three months in 1997, he conducted a survey with over 2,400 respondents, which resulted in the 98 percent figure. His computer crashed in June 1997, causing him to lose all computer records of the survey. Lott has no paper record of having conducted the survey, for various reasons. He had his students do the calling for the survey, but can't remember who they are, even though he paid them out of his own pocket. Although he had no backup data, Lott nevertheless cited the results in More Guns, Less Crime, which was first published in May 1998. (It was apparently a stroke of good fortune he didn't keep his book draft on the computer which crashed.) However, Lott didn't identify his own survey as the source of the statistic in the first edition of the book. Between the first and second editions of the book, the text was changed from "If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time...." to "If a national survey that I conducted is correct, 98 percent of the time...." (At least he's humble enough to treat the accuracy of his own survey with skepticism.)

Of course, More Guns, Less Crime isn't really legal scholarship in the traditional law review article sense. But it will be interesting to see how there two law school professors react to suspected misdeeds by one of their own. And, of course, it will be interesting to see how Mr. Lott responds.

(Via CalPundit, Extra Ordinary Ideas and Atrios. Oh, and Instapundit too. I realize this repeats a lot of what has already been said, but it's an interesting story which deserves the coverage.)

posted by Roger | | 4:55 PM
 

Letters to Roger Ailes

Mac Diva has sent the following letter. Since I couldn't do it justice with a summary, I am (with permission, see below) printing it in full.

As background, the rifle found in the vehicle of alleged Beltway snipers John Muhammed and John Malvo was traced back to a Tacoma gun store, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, which neither had records of selling the gun to the alleged shooters (or anyone else) nor any records of having reported it as stolen. This was discussed in an article in the current Washington Monthly entitled "License to Kill: How the GOP helped John Allen Muhammad get a sniper rifle." Instapundit (who is not a conservative asshole) posted two (one, two) comments on the matter.

Mac Diva writes:

I'm concerned about how the facts about how the assault rifle used in the sniper shooting was acquired are being misrepresented online, including on at least one major blog. Frankly, the lack of enforcement powers of the ATF since conservative 'reforms' is scandalous and this is a great story to highlight that. Here is some research I've gathered on the issue:
I believe Glenn Reynolds is wrong about how Republican's opposition to even minimal gun control enforcement impacted the recent snipers case. The conflict of opinion arose in regard to his response this article in the Washington Monthly[.]
The piece, which normally would have been print edition only, was put online because of the InstaPundit's willful mischaracterization of what it said.
But for the hands off posture taken by Justice Department from John Ashcroft on down, a clearly illicit operation such as Bull's Eye, the shop where the assault rifle used in the attacks was likely sold under the table, would not be in business after years of malfeasance. That posture is reflected in both purposeful under-staffing of ATF and reluctance to prosecute cases presented to them by ATF by federal prosecutors in most states, many of them conservative Republicans who may support Ashcroft's odd reading of the Second Amendment.
I think it particularly important that someone oppose Reynolds in this episode because many people go to his site because of its high visibility. Once there, they probably assume he has some objectivity in regard to issues he discusses. When it comes to gun control, among others, he doesn't.
This opinion piece captures the essence of what is wrong:
"Sadly, the Bush administration is bent on watering down, not beefing up, gun laws. It opposes a national ballistics database. Mr. Ashcroft, choosing gun-lobby loyalty over public safety, even insists on keeping gun-sales records away from anti-terrorism investigators. American lives may have to be sacrificed on the altar of an ideological purity that neither the courts nor wide public opinion considers constitutional or even rational. courts nor wide public opinion considers constitutional or even rational."
The Washington Monthly article says it again:
"But there's a reason you won't see anyone investigating ATF: Its failings are the direct result of actions by the Republican politicians who now control both houses of Congress. At the behest of the National Rifle Association (NRA), GOP lawmakers (and some conservative Democrats) have saddled the bureau with so many legal restrictions that it has little practical power to deter sellers from allowing weapons to flow to criminals. ATF could have cracked down harder on Bull's Eye, but its lack of aggressiveness was precisely what GOP lawmakers had intended. Pro-gun-control Democrats could have made an issue last fall of how Muhammad obtained a sniper rifle, but they remained silent in the face of feared retribution at the polls by the NRA. Now, as the minority party, Democrats have little power to investigate anything, even if they wanted to."
The Seattle Times has continually reported the damning facts about Bull's Eye and its owners since the snipers' weapon was identified.
[An excerpt from the article:]
"What actions the ATF here would have taken is unclear, considering the federal government's spotty record in regulating firearms dealers in Western Washington.
Last year, the office that covers Western Washington ranked last among ATF bureaus in the 90 federal judicial districts for gun-case prosecutions, according to Justice Department records.
The U.S. Attorney's office shares the blame.
Federal prosecutors here turned down nearly two-thirds of the 30 cases that the ATF referred for prosecution, putting the Seattle U.S. Attorney's Office 80th out 90 districts in taking such cases. It accepted six of 30 gun-crime cases last year, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research center at Syracuse University."


(This letter was published with permission. The URLs were changed to hyperlinks and quoted portions were italicized for clarity, and the Seattle P-I article was excerpted. Letters to Roger Ailes are always welcomed and appreciated.)

posted by Roger | | 3:00 PM
 

Julia at Sisyphus Shrugged has some insightful comments on Rudy Giuliani and the lawsuit filed by three New York City employees -- a policeman and two firemen -- who were fired in 1998 after riding on a racist parade float. New York Times columnist Clyde Haberman also wrote about the incident in Friday's Times.

Julia reminds us of Rudy's very troubling ties to racist elements within the New York City Police Department, and of his role as defender and apologist for the NYPD in the Diallo and Louima cases. Too much of that history has been forgotten by too many following St. Rudy's post-9/11 canonization.

posted by Roger | | 2:30 PM
 

Is That Gavel-to-Gavel Coverage In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Happy to See Me?

C-SPAN, a public service of the cable television industry, has thoughtfully included Naked News, a pay-per-view website with topless Canadian models reading the headlines, in its list of Media Links.

posted by Roger | | 1:28 PM
 

Sully asks: "What do you do with a man who has successfully evaded paying child support to kids from two different relationships?"

How about: Make him Speaker of the House of Representatives and have him promote a Contract With America which calls for "personal responsibility" and stronger "child support enforcement."

Or maybe a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Distinguished Visiting Scholar at the Hoover Institution and a Fox News political analyist.

posted by Roger | | 1:21 PM
 

With A Rebel Yell, Mick's A Whore, Whore, Whore

Little Mick's last minute get out the vote campaign for his Whore of the Year candidacy has gone into overdrive. By simply ignoring the mountains of evidence of Charles Pickering's unsuitability for the position of federal appellate judge, Mick concludes "[t]he case against Pickering is weak."

How does Mick reach this conclusion? Dishonestly, of course.

In discussing the case, Mick cites a anti-Pickering article in The New Republic, written by Michael Crowley at the time of the first Pickering nomination. Mick then writes:
I was surprised at how little Crowley has on Pickering -- the piece reads as if he'd been fed tendentious arguments by the camp of Sen. John Edwards, when the Edwards folks were panicked by some respectable criticism of his Judiciary committee cross-examination of Pickering. ...
Crowley completely ignores what Byron York and the WSJ editorial page describe as Pickering's chief complaint in the cross-burning case -- that the government cut a lenient deal with the wrong guy, the ringleader who had the most racial animus. (Unnecessary ellipses by Mick, nothing omitted.)
But that's simply not true, as Mick would know if he had read the WSJ op-ed to which he links. The WSJ explains that all three defendants were offered deals, and the one who went to trial (Daniel Swan) rejected the government's deal.

Mick's "proof" of the lack of evidence against Pickering is the existence of two articles favorable to Pickering. Unfortunately for Mick, the incompetence and/or dishonesty of both York and WSJ editorial page is well-established, so Mick's proof is illusory. But let's leave those facts aside, and look at the defense Mick advances on behalf of Pickering. Mick says that Pickering's concerted efforts to reduce the sentence of one racist terrorist were inspired by the fact that Swan's co-terrorist received a light sentence via a "government deal."

Was Pickering really put out that "the government cut a deal with the wrong guy?" As Al Gore, Sr. said to Strom Thrumond, "Hell, No!" In fact, it was Pickering who approved the plea bargain with the juvenile defendant who Mick calls "the ringleader." Crowley writes that "[Pickering] repeatedly told senators that he had been unaware, when he accepted the two plea bargains, that one of the pleading defendants had previously fired a gun into the Polkeys' home. But the trial transcript shows a discussion of the fact that the defendant's plea itself included an admission of guilt for the shooting." (Emphasis added.)

The simple fact that Kaus, York and the WSJ omit is this: Pickering could have rejected the plea bargain and forced the "wrong guy" to go to trial for his crimes too. But he accepted the plea. (And, according to Crowley, lied to the U.S. Senate about the facts too.)

Once this fact is revealed, Mick's impassioned defense for Pickering collapses. Pickering called the government's demand for a 7 year sentence for Swan the "most egregious instance of disproportionate sentencing recommended by the government in any case pending before this court." But Pickering reached this conclusion by comparing Swan's sentence not to the crime Swan committed, but to the plea agreement he himself approved for the juvenile. If Swan's sentence was "disproportionate," it was because Pickering approved the too-lenient sentence for the juvenile in the first instance. Not much of a principled reason for setting a criminal sentence, and even less a principled criticism of mandatory sentencing laws.

Notwithstanding Mickey Kaus's clowning, Judge Pickering deserves an impartial hearing on the matter. To that end, I implore Judge Pickering to call Daniel Swan as a character witness at his forthcoming confirmation hearing.

Great Minds Update: Read the Horse's "MICKEY "MAUS" KAUS SWOONS OVER A SEG."

posted by Roger | | 9:56 AM


Friday, January 10, 2003  

Bold Gold

posted by Roger | | 8:08 AM


Thursday, January 09, 2003  

Brent Bozell has started providing detailed summaries of the, um, best parts of t.v. shows, movies and pop music. For the sake of the children, of course.

I'd like to suggest that Brent start reviewing which pornos not to watch.

posted by Roger | | 10:39 PM
 

Poppy says, "Your mother's right, she's really up on things"/"Before we married, Mommy served in the WACS in the Philippines"

Paul Krugman schools Sully on the difference between a "president" and an "unelected tyrant:"

"Still, some U.S. politicians didn't seem to mind. In 1981 - that is, almost a decade after Marcos suspended the Philippine constitution - Vice President George Bush toasted him for his "adherence to democratic principles and the democratic process." In 1986, when Corazon Aquino led the "people power" revolution against Marcos, Ronald Reagan tried to persuade her to compromise with Marcos - who had murdered her husband. But Reagan, you see, admired Marcos for his wartime heroism and his strong stand against Communism."
(Via The Horse.)

posted by Roger | | 10:04 PM
 

Too Cool For Shul

The collection of freaks at the Moonie Times just keeps getting weirder. Witness Suzanne Fields, who opines that "Jews aren't cool":
George Bush reflects cowboy cool which comes naturally, compared to, say, the Democratic wannabees who want to fill his boots. Joe Lieberman is smart, but a yarmulke is not a ten-gallon hat. He's definitely not cool. (Jews rarely are.)
And how does Fields define "cool"?:
Cool as in confident without showing it, as in knowing without showing off, trendy with the nonchalance of understatement.
So, according to Fields, with rare exceptions, Jews are insecure, overstated show-offs.

I suppose one could argue that Fields' statement was meant to suggest that "cool" actually represents superficiality or trendiness, and thus it's a compliment to call Jews "uncool" (in other words, Jews are serious and substantive, not shallow). But Fields clearly admires all the people she describes as cool (the Bushes, Rummy) and despises all those she thinks aren't (all Democrats). So she clearly means "uncool" as an insult.

I don't know Fields, she could be Jewish for all I know. But why does she hate Jews?

posted by Roger | | 9:47 PM
 

No one is taking up the Mo Do Must Go campaign. No "Belafonte Awards," no ads in campus newspapers, no one calling MoDo a "race hustler" or "quota pimpette." I have overestimated my influence on right-wing opinion makers.

I am so disappointed.

posted by Roger | | 8:35 PM
 

The Hack Is Back

After wasting his special talents on auto show reviews, Little Mick is hack back and badder than ever. Today, Mick weighs in on the case of Charles Pickering, nominee for the federal appellate bench. And his opinions are based on "Byron York's persuasive brief for Pickering in the cross-burning case."

Ah, yes. When last we saw Byron York, he was peddling fraudulent affidavits on behalf of the Republican Party. So why should we believe York when he peddles, uncritically, Pickering's version of events? Don't ask Mickey, his mind's already made up.

Mick knows that "[t]he lobbying groups have to righteously oppose someone or they might as well go out of business." And how does he know that? Because it "seems" that way to him. What more proof do you need?

posted by Roger | | 8:26 PM
 

Talk Left has a good story (although it doesn't link the original source) about a New York City police officer and two firefighters who filed a wrongful termination suit against the city when they were dismissed "after wearing blackface during a Labor Day float [sic] and mocking the death of an African-American man in Texas." Then-Mayor Giuliani voiced the opinion that the men should be fired, even though the authority to fire the men rested with the Police and Fire Commissioners, and not Rudy. Apparently (although it is not entirely clear from the story) the men were fired after hearings before their respective commissioners, and the plaintiffs are arguing they didn't get due process because Rudy's statements made it impossible to get a fair hearing (since the commissioners report to Rudy). One of the plaintiffs' attorneys also suggested that Rudy's comments were designed to rehabilitate his own tarnished record on racial issues.

It's hard to have any sympathy for the plaintiffs. If participation in the parade was part of their official duties (or they were off-duty, but identifying themselves by their affiliation to the NYPD and FD), the city had every right to fire them. If they were acting completely as private citizens and not identifying themselves with their employer, their free speech argument might have some merit. Nevertheless, the views they expressed definitely call into question their ability to fulfill their most important job duty, to serve and protect all of the public. (They were essentially saying that a black crime victim deserved ridicule, not sympathy.) If there was cause to fire them, the fact that Rudy spoke out of place isn't particularly relevant. From what I've read (which is just the Talk Left comment), these guys don't deserve any damages, or reinstatement.

Update: Here's how the NYT reports it.

posted by Roger | | 8:10 AM
 

Weiner Nation

Scoobie Davis provides the invaluable service of exposing hate-radio's most litigious bigot, Michael "Savage" Weiner. Davis' cogent commentary can be read at Scoobie Davis Online and The Savage Nation: A Critical Analysis. It's a must-read.

Apart from its unrelenting racism and anti-gay bile (which far exceeds that of most wingnut talkers), the most noteworthy thing about Weiner's show is how incompetent Weiner is as a broadcaster. Although he fancies himself a humorist, he has absolutely no comedic timing. He can't improvise and often loses track of his thought in mid-sentence. And when he talks about himself, the self-pity is excruciating to hear. I rarely listen to him, but every time I do each of those elements is present. If you think the right can't sink any lower, you haven't listened to Weiner.

posted by Roger | | 7:21 AM
 

Grand Old Police Blotter: Bo Screws The Pooches Edition:

That long-simmering dispute between a suburban Philadelphia animal shelter and Kennedy Center trustee Bo Derek has reached the boiling point. [Para.] Yesterday Bill Smith, of Main Line Animal Rescue in Wayne, Pa., told us he and a group of Washington animal activists are busy organizing a rally in front of the Kennedy Center to demonstrate against Derek, a former Playboy model and actress who was appointed to the center's board by President Bush. In August 2001, Derek pocketed $21,402, including first-class airfare for two, to headline the shelter's September 2001 fundraiser, but canceled her trip after the 9/11 attacks and kept the money.
Derek, a Bush Republican, reportedly refused to comment.

I wonder how much Bo was paid to attend the minstrel show in 2000?

posted by Roger | | 6:44 AM


Wednesday, January 08, 2003  

It's More About The Benjamin

"'A Reuters report of Eden's initial offer [to bequeath $125,000 to any woman who could kill him with sex] in August was published and broadcast around the world. He said it had led to a flood of e-mails to his office (ue_commerce@gmx.de) from women in countries ranging from the United States to Brazil and Russia.'
Does it comment on the state of modern womanhood? I would say so. I highly doubt that this kind of offer would have gotten this kind of response, say, 40 years ago." -- Young Master Benjamin (via TBogg; parenthetical added for clarity.)
"Sit down, Benny."

"Your mother and I want to talk to you about something."

"Yes, sir."

"We think you've reached an age where you're mature enough to understand certain, uh, things...."

"What is it, Father?"

"Son, it's about ... Nancy Reagan."

posted by Roger | | 7:41 PM
 

Earlier, I inadvertently failed to credit Mac Diva for letting me know about this important story. I apologize for the omission.

posted by Roger | | 7:21 PM
 

A Little Red Meat For My Right-Wing Readers

But Mr. Rove and his president have a new style of class warfare � the affluent afflicting the afflicted; the ruling class enacting policies to help itself, weaving a pashmina safety net so the well-off can buy more expensive stuff they don't need....
But at their convention in New York, they can produce a hip-hop show that camouflages their hip-G.O.P. policies. Just as they did in Philadelphia in 2000, when they put on a minstrel show for the Babbity white guys in the stands. -- Maureen Dowd, January 8, 2003
Where are the usual wingnuts?

If Crazy Davey plays his cards right, he can remodel his downstairs bathroom from this one.

posted by Roger | | 6:56 PM
 

Witt and Witlessness

"And let me use an example from 2000. During the debates, during the first debate, Al Gore said that he had gone down to Texas to go to a disaster site with James Lee Witt, the head of FEMA. It turned out he hadn�t. He had gone to 17 disasters with James Lee Witt, not that one. He went with the deputy of Witt. The press jumped all over him. It was as if James Lee Witt were the most popular man in America and Al Gore was lying to get some of that James Lee Witt magic to rub off on him." -- Al Franken, January 6

posted by Roger | | 10:55 AM
 

Chopper Bob Ehrlich isn't going to let a little prosecutorial bias get in the way of a popular state program like the death penalty. A University of Maryland report finds that Maryland prosecutors are more likely to seek the death penalty in cases where the alleged killer is black and the victim is white. Specifically, the report determined that "[b]lack offenders who kill blacks are significantly less likely to face the death penalty, while black offenders who kill whites are significantly more likely to face a death sentence than all other racial combinations."

The newly elected Republican Governor of Maryland nevertheless still intends to lift the moratorium on executions imposed by his predecessor. "I firmly believe that in some cases the ultimate sanction is appropriate, regardless of race," Mr. Ehrlich said yesterday.

Ehrlich's spokesperson, Shareese N. DeLeaver, used a more ... uh ... colorful metaphor on the question of racial bias: "Any kinks in the criminal justice system will be ironed out by the Ehrlich administration."

A summary of the UM report, as well as .pdf copies of the full report, here.

posted by Roger | | 10:43 AM
 

Michael Barone Explains Blogs

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What's a blog?
MR. BARONE: A blog is a Web log. It's where you write up your things and put them out on the Internet. You may write as many as 20, 25 a day, as instapundit.com does.
He also displays his trademark ignorance on the Lott story. (About 5/8ths down.)

posted by Roger | | 8:17 AM


Tuesday, January 07, 2003  

"Missed You At Bible Study"

So I was in the bookstore today and saw a copy of David Frum's book, "What I Saw Was Deevolution" ...um ... "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George Bush" marked down to $13.00 (damaged). Having skimmed it for a good two minutes, I can offer the following review:

"Missed you at Bible study" is the first sentence of the book and reportedly the first thing Frum heard someone say at the White House.

The book has 286 pages, not including the index.

I'm not listed in the index.

Neither is Mickey Kaus.

Sully is mentioned at page 159, quoted as calling some Bush speechwriter named Fonte as Bush's "Catholic Ghostwriter." There's a bunch of stuff about Crazy Davey Horowitz in that chapter.

It's got wide margins.

There's a whole chapter on the "Axis of Evil" credit flap, with Frum whining about how Slate quoted his wife's forwarded e-mail. But he was already planning to leave, and Novak lied on CNN when he said Frum got shit-canned.

Roger's Rating: Zero stars.

UPDATED (1/8) with multiple changes and corrections. See the Comments section for the original text. (Hey, I said it was two minutes.)

posted by Roger | | 11:24 PM
 

Buzzflash links to the William Lind essay that California G.O.P. Vice Chairman Bill Back e-mailed to the party faithful. In the article, Lind imagines what would have happened if the Confederacy had won the Civil War.
Certainly Southerners would not be living under the iron rule of an all-powerful federal government, as we all do now. Northerners might not be, either; a Union defeat would have given states' rights a boost in both countries. The Tenth Amendment might still have the force of law even up north.
So at least part of North America would still stand for Western culture, Christianity and an appreciation of the differences between ladies and gentlemen. Decency might have taken its stand in Dixie, along with some other good things such as an appreciation for the merits of rural life.
Oh, and no Hitler or Communism, and no slavery either.

Plenty of inbred crackers like Lind and Back, though.

posted by Roger | | 11:05 PM
 

The Anal Retentive Prof

"An article on Nov. 28, 1994, about the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and his home in Sri Lanka misstated the surname of a University of Tennessee law professor who nominated the writer that year for the Nobel Peace Prize, for his humanist approach to technology. The professor is Glenn Harlan Reynolds, not Roberts. A reader recently brought the error to The Times's attention." -- Corrections, New York Times, page A2, December 16, 2002

posted by Roger | | 9:52 PM
 

If, according to Confucius, "Ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon and star," then George W. Bush has achieved black hole status.-- Jeffrey Kramer
Brilliant. And there's nine more.

Somebody give that man a blog.

posted by Roger | | 9:46 PM
 

Racial Profiling In Massachusetts

A series of articles in the Boston Globe reveals racial disparity in traffic stops by Massachusetts police. Police officers in that state have been required to record the race of individuals stopped and ticketed since 2000. The Globe reviewed the records and reports the following findings:
* Blacks and Hispanics are ticketed at about twice their share of the population. Although blacks account for 4.6 percent of the state's driving-age population, they receive 10.0 percent of tickets to state residents. Hispanics make up 5.6 percent of the population, but get 9.6 percent of tickets.
* Once a driver gets a ticket, a vehicle search is rare, occurring only every 60 tickets. But the search rate for black and Hispanic drivers is about 1 out of 40 tickets.... Blacks and Hispanics driving a new car are especially more often searched than whites in new cars.
* Once searched, more of the whites were apparently found with drugs. Officers are required to report drug charges on tickets, so the Registry can suspend driving privileges. In all, 16 percent of whites searched were charged with a drug offense, compared with 12 percent of blacks, 10 percent of Hispanics, 7 percent of Asians, 6 percent of American Indians, and 4 percent of Middle Easterners. The tickets don't detail what officers were looking for, or whether they found it, but they do show whether there was a drug charge.
Even assuming all the traffic stops were legitimate, that doesn't explain why African-Americans and Hispanics have their vehicles serarched at a higher rate or searched more often without cause.

Also interesting is the police resistance to collecting statistics on the races of persons stopped, even though they are legally required to do so. Most cops comply with the law, but one who opposes the requirement says: "Why should it be incumbent upon me to determine the race? Why do I have to guess? I don't guess your address, I don't guess your name, I don't guess your date of birth.''

What are the chances this officer never uses racial descriptions in the line of duty, except to describe persons who have volunteered that information to him? Go on, take a wild guess.

posted by Roger | | 9:06 PM


Monday, January 06, 2003  

Double Penetration

Now that I've got your attention.

What do Andrew Sullivan and Mickey Kaus have in common?

Other than that.

According to columnist Bruce Bartlett, they're both penetrating writers. Bartlett writes of Sully:

My favorite [blog] is one written by Andrew Sullivan (andrewsullivan.com), a British conservative with a Ph.D. from Harvard....[Para.] ....Mr. Sullivan started out on the left. He was at onetime editor of the New Republic magazine, an important voice of American liberalism for more than 100 years.
Because he understands the left so well, Mr. Sullivan is particularly penetrating in his analysis of it, especially when it comes out of academia or the New York Times. In fact, his criticism of the latter on his web site cost him a job writing for the New York Times Magazine on direct orders of its executive editor, the extremely liberal and partisan Howell Raines.
Fortunately, Mr. Sullivan survived the loss of income by getting voluntary contributions from his readers. A recent fund-raising drive netted him almost $100,000 in $20 increments � a remarkable achievement and testament to his popularity. (Emphasis added.)
And of Little Mick:
Another site I check almost daily is written by Mickey Kaus and appears at slate.com. He is another former liberal who has drifted rightward, although not as much as Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Kaus sees himself as more of a New Democrat who is trying to save liberalism from its own excesses. Nevertheless, his insights are often penetrating.
Bartlett also opines that blogs can be unreliable, "[b]ut that is true of any medium that deals in time-sensitive information, including newspapers." You don't know how right you are, Bruce.

posted by Roger | | 11:52 PM
 

They All Look Alike To The Confederacy's Newspaper

The Moonie Times has confused Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page with Mod Squad actor Clarence Williams. Page's current column, attributed by the paper to "Clarence Williams," is here.

An honest mistake, I'm sure.

posted by Roger | | 11:35 PM
 

Bush League Tactics

This is weird. William Donahue of the Catholic League is criticizing a group for "mock[ing] gay priests" in a Philadelphia parade. A group planned to march in the parade with participants dressed as priests and altar boys, referencing the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church. Says Donahue, quoting himself in his own press release:

�To mock gay priests in a major parade in a prominent city is disgraceful. That the government is hosting this assault on homosexual priests is even worse."
.... That�s because the City of Philadelphia is infinitely more interested in not offending the sensibilities of African Americans than it is gay priests. In short, the City has drawn a line that racists may not cross, but anti-Catholic and anti-gay bigots are welcome to do so."
As evidenced by his past writings, Donahue is no supporter of either gay rights or gay priests. Although he doesn't say it outright, Donahue's real point appears to be that all gay priests are sexual predators. Donahue might want to review the scriptures pertaining to false witness before he quotes himself again.

(Story via Best of the Blogs and Hit & Run.)

posted by Roger | | 11:11 PM
 

Roger's Bookbag

For those who consider Who Moved My Cheese? too intellectually demanding....

For those who think reading Truly Tasteless Jokes while evacuating their bowels is multitasking....

Here, via TBogg, is the perfect book for you:

"The Leadership Genius of George W. Bush: 10 Common Sense Lessons from the Commander-in-Chief"
Yes, George Bush is the latest hero in the genre that made extra-wide margins, bullet points and two-sentence paragraphs obscenely profitable.

I'm not going to bash Bush here, since he has nothing to do with the book. (Of course, he had nothing to do with A Charge to Keep either, but that's another poorly written story.) I'm going to bash the publisher of this worthy volume, John Wiley & Sons. The book hasn't even been printed yet, and it's already crap. Witness the dust jacket copy:
If, according to Abigail Adams, "great necessities call forth great leaders," then George W. Bush has displayed a natural ability to lead.
What?!? That makes no sense. None.
From owner of the Texas Rangers to President of the United States, these principles have propelled George W. Bush to the top and can do the same for you:
Incredible. Wiley & Sons should be ashamed to have its name on something so poorly written.

posted by Roger | | 10:00 PM
 

Lefty Radio

skippy the bush kangaroo has an interesting campaign to promote interest in the syndication of the Randi Rhodes radio show. I've never heard Rhodes, but she's a C-SPAN fan, skippy likes her, and she apparently slapped Ollie North around recently. What's not to like?

Talk radio in my area is a 10-hour block of Rush, Sean Hannity, Dr. Laura and Michael Savage. In other words, a sneak preview of hell. Pacifica has some pretty good hosts, like Larry Bensky and Amy Goodman, but nothing in the talk radio format. Talk of the Nation on NPR is incredibly bland.

For an often-uproarious weekly show with a mostly left point of view, try Harry Shearer's Le Show. No one bashes Larry King better. And the Apologies of the Week are hilarious.

posted by Roger | | 9:26 PM


Sunday, January 05, 2003  

Frum Here To The Remainder Bin

The big bombshell at the Drudge Report is that Chucklehead Canuck David Frum has written a book about his days as a Bush speechwriter. It's called "What I Saw Was Deevolution."

Seriously, it appears the biggest bombshell is that Frum "describes Bush as 'tart.'" Fascinating.

But which definition?

1. Having a sharp pungent taste; sour.

2. Sharp or bitter in tone or meaning; cutting.

3. A pastry shell with shallow sides, no top crust, and any of various fillings.

4. A prostitute.

5. A woman considered to be sexually promiscuous.

Egg Boy also reports that top Administration officials (read Karl Rove) are "infuriated" with Frum's "controversial" book. There is no question that this book will be nauseatingly obsequious to the Boy King in every respect, unless Frum is thinking of a career change to dishwasher. But if Drudge's characterization of the White House reaction is true, Rove is the biggest control freak to blight the landscape since the Reverend Jim Jones.

(Link via Atrios.)

Update: Drudge also reports that Frum says Bush is "not nice." Other stunning revelations from Frum: Bush is "not a woman," has "white skin" and "probably isn't a midget."

posted by Roger | | 5:30 PM
 

The Moonie Times' Mag On North Korea

posted by Roger | | 12:13 PM
 

Sully Mit Weinerschnitzel

Andrew Sullivan posts a comment in which he translates Paul Krugman from the German. I didn't know that Sully was bilingual. In the comment, he reads Krugman's answer to a Der Spiegel interviewer to mean "that president Bush is indistinguishable from an unelected tyrant," namely, Ferdinand Marcos. But Marcos was elected twice before declaring martial law. Marcos also was declared the winner of a third election, in 1986. The legitimacy of that election was questioned, as was the legitimacy of 2000 Presidential election in which Bush claimed victory. Looking at the identical point in their respective careers, Marcos actually had more legitimacy two years in than Bush has now.

Sully also takes seriously Krugman's comments about seeking asylumn in Germany. Apparently, the magazine's use of the parenthetical "(laughs)" wasn't enough of a clue for the sober-minded Sully to realize that Krugman was joking. Humourless git.

posted by Roger | | 11:47 AM
 

Which Simpsons Character Are You, John Ashcroft?

"So many of the foibles of 'The Simpsons' are projections of what happens in my life, and in our family. I see both the humor and the tragedy in everyday existences in the lives of Homer, Lisa, and Bart. Marge may be my favorite character. She is so pure in her life, she tolerates the nonsense and just stays right in there.
"Ned Flanders is another character I like. He seems naive, but keeps chugging on with his positive approach to life. Instead of being victimized by all of Homer's schemes and abuses, he ends up doing well, which confounds Homer. What's interesting to me about 'The Simpsons' is that it's about people of pure motive and perseverance who keep plowing ahead in spite of the lunacy that surrounds them." -- Attorney General John Ashcroft
Ashcroft then declared that Apu Nahasapeemapetilon was being detained indefinitely, without bail, for questioning as a material witness.

posted by Roger | | 10:10 AM
Contact Roger
Complaints?
Roger Goes Postal
Disclaimer
Enemies List
Stale and Tired