You know, I’m no different from anybody else. I start each day, and I end each night.
Shorter Suzanne Fields: If Germany were serious about confronting Nazism both past and present, it would forbid Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from attending the World Cup, arrest him, or worse.
Shorter Joel Mowbray: Muslims don’t do enough to condemn their terrorist brethren, as illustrated by the large number of Muslim terrorists.
Shorter LaShawn Barber: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: There truly is no depth to which black people won’t sink to get some money from whitey.
Shorter Walter Williams: Tyrants always start out with small measures that appear… For the last time, I don’t know what you mean by “warrantless wiretaps” and “phone call databases.” Now, where was I? Portion sizes at restaurants are…
Shorter Jeff Emanuel: I seriously doubt our Marines did anything wrong at Haditha because, if anything, we’re too nice to Iraqi civilians.
Shorter Jacob Sullum: As a libertarian, I have some misgivings about capital punishment.
Shorter Brent Bozell: Is it too much to ask, when we win a battle, for the media to tell us that we’ve won the war?
Shorter John Stossel: Environmentalists are religious fanatics who want to take your land, kill your family and hand over the planet to animals that may or may not exist.
Shorter Jonah Goldberg: Riddle me this: If Al Gore wants to be taken seriously on global warming, why hasn’t he denounced the movie, Cars?
Shorter Kathleen Parker: I’m sure if we all put our heads together we could think up a plausible explanation for the civilian deaths at Haditha.
Shorter Kevin McCullough: Thank God for brave patriots like Ann Coulter, who speak – if not truth to power – then memorable slurs against the credibile.
Jeff Goldstein is a real piece of work, a posterchild for the inferiority complex and resultant over-compensation issues delineated in Adlerian psychology. As is so often the case, the inferiorities he feels are both real and, simply, perceived. There’s nothing wrong with being a Mr. Mom or failed academic, yet Goldstein’s behavior indicates he feels differently — he’s so very touchy about it. On the other hand, there is something wrong with being a chickenhawk coward, a paste-eating cretin, and a talentless hack. Hence his overcompensation in the form of obnoxious aggression (often to the point of violent threats), pseudo-intellectual windbaggery, atrociously banal “short-fictions”.
To the casual observer, Goldstein might seem to be a garden-variety internet wingnut, a suburban douchebag whose sad and petty hatreds, frustrations over stagnated ambitions and innate cowardice lead him to adopt a sort of Walter-Mitty-As-Rambo-As-Whackjob-Blogger schtick, whereby all his fantasies of action and genocidal crusade and manly-man aggression are sated through internet jackassery. Of course if Goldstein really wanted some adventure, he could go to the recruiting office, but — hahahahaha — everyone knows that ain’t gonna happen. And yeah, all of this is common enough on the WingNet, although Goldstein has a curiously ambitious drive to be the biggest jerk of them all, and he very nearly succeeds. Added to this drive and his deep, abiding fear that he might be a weenie is his status as “Literature Wingnut” and the unique salad of sex and violence issues which reside in his otherwise empty brainpan; Goldstein’s a hell of a case study.
His sex and violence issues I’ll deal with first; if by the end you’re not also convinced that Goldstein is certifably crazy and that, therefore, he ought to be straitjacketed and shot-up with elephant tranquilizers, then you should be drubbed to death with a giant dildo.
Ha ha, the Ukraine. Do you know what the Ukraine is? It’s a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It’s feeble. I think it’s time to put the hurt on the Ukraine.
1 und 2 und 3 und 54, 74, 90, 2006
ja so stimmen wir alle ein.
Mit dem Herz in der Hand und der Leidenschaft im Bein
werden wir Weltmeister sein
It wasn’t Ann who crossed the line. It was these widows who crossed the line.
Personally, I think D-Hizzy is right. Widows are always crossing the line. In fact, they cross the line so often, that they can’t even be called fifth column. Those mofo’in’ widows are somewhere around the 1,430,532,035,024th column. And that means they are b-to-tha-izz-ad for the You-Ess-Ay
We’re going to soon be launching a major revision of the blog, and while we’ve been scheming on this for a good year, I’d like some input from you guys on two things.
1. Graphic design.
This is my weakest area of expertise. I can shoot a pretty photo, but I’m not good at creating beauty - I find they’re different skills (capturing vs. creating). I really could use some advice, suggestions, mock-ups of what you all think AMERICAblog 2.0 could or should look like. I’m talking graphically. The layout of the page, the colors, the background color, should I include any images and if so where, our logo?
Well, let’s see.
Above: Model to stand in for Aravosis, who in real life is a startling orange color and has no eyebrows. Not shown: blazing fireplace stuffed with money, giant billboard for constant Americablog fundraiser, servants polishing Bentley in garage
The Wall Street Journal Editorial engages in the always impressive feat of refuting arguments made by no one, with a helping of made up shit on top. They quote:
Senator Levin: “While the intelligence community was consistently dubious about links between Iraq and al Qaeda, Mr. Feith produced an alternative analysis, asserting that there was a strong connection. Were you comfortable with Mr. Feith’s office’s approach to intelligence analysis?”
And answer:
Mr. Feith’s office did not freelance an “alternative analysis.”
Seeing as how Levin is quoted as saying Feith produced an “alternative analysis,” we’re not sure what this ‘counterclaim’ is meant to achieve.
Nor did the Defense Department “assert” a “strong connection.” Judging by leaked excerpts of the still highly classified work printed in the Weekly Standard […]
Ah, the document is highly classified but the WSJ knows what it said (and did not say.)
(continuing directly) DOD merely [sic] provided the committee with a list of raw intelligence items on the topic.
If accurate, doesn’t this support the government’s theory that these were warriors maneuvering and not individuals despairing?
The NYT story she links to states:
Three detainees at the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, tried to conceal themselves in their cells — behind laundry and through other means — to prevent guards from seeing them commit suicide, a senior military official said Sunday.
Right, “warriors maneuvering.” Fortunately, Ann expands in comments to her post:
The mere fact that the three suicides were simultaneous tends to show they did it for the effect and not (merely) to escape their predicament. […]
I don’t find the despair theory too plausible. The conditions in the prison aren’t bad (so I’ve read). If the men see themselves as prisoners of war, why would they despair to the point of wanting to die? Is that how other prisoners of war have reacted when held in indefinite captivity?
Suicide makes more sense for those who know that if tried they will be found guilty and face the death penalty. Read the information in the article about who the suicides [sic] were before responding about the despair of the innocent prisoner. We have released many prisoners, so anyone who is innocent has hope of gaining release. [Emphasis added.]
Hey, you, Mr. Man Possibly Guilty of Something or Other: don’t despair — there’s a chance you’ll be released one day. You’ve only been here for nearly five years for fuck’s sake! [More thoughts, posted earlier of course, from Roy.]
Aside from that, I hope this serves a lesson to all of you who link to crap internet sources like Jason Leopold merely because they write what you want to hear. In fact, the Armando fiasco stemmed from one asshole angry that Armando trashed his diary using Wayne Madsen as a source.
This is the reality based community, not the “make up your own reality” community. Conservatives already own the trademark to that name.
Be properly skeptical of everything you read.
Word.
Blogs are not good sources of news. I read blogs to get unique ideas and perspectives from interesting people. But when I want news, I’ll go to the New York Times, the BBC, WaPo, or the Wall Street Journal (their NEWS section, not their EDITORIAL section).
[Gavin adds: Dude, you’re undermining our credibility as a serious news source. Actually, Raw Story hits some good ones now and then, but there’s an odd and pervasive reluctance on the part of bloggers to make calls and get original quotes — which is such an easy thing to do that even Newsmax has almost mastered it. The worst that can happen is that the source doesn’t reply to a voicemail. Not exactly a fearful tragedy.]
McCullough (above): A living warning of the physical effects of spite, pepperoni Hot Pockets, and Mario Kart.
Wouldn’t you just know it? There Ann Coulter was, minding her own business and exercising her First Amendment rights as innocently as a septuagenarian practicing tai chi in the park, when – WHAMMO! – the liberals sensed an opening to spew a bunch of stuff (invective? bile? Jarritos Tamarindo?), just like they always do. Kevin McCullough, for one, has had enough of the liberals and their unfair tactics:
Liberals in America have been staging a new strategy on winning public policy debates. Simply provide spokespeople that no one is allowed to respond to. Ann Coulter had the gall to challenge that and let loose with some direct observations in her newest best-seller “GODLESS” and true to form liberals have been fomenting in response.
The reason they do is not because it breaks some sacred respect that one should have for a grieving mother, wife, or relative. Rather the reason they are so outraged by this is because it simply stabs through the heart the strategy of hiding behind spokespeople who ‘can’t be criticized’.
Well, I’ll be damned. I don’t think anyone believes that Cindy Sheehan or the Jersey Girls shouldn’t be criticized for their views, but people who possess enough decency to fill a rolling paper know it’s kind of crass to criticize the victims of tragedies for being the victims of tragedies. Big diff.
[W]hen the GOP invited widows of 9/11 to participate in their national convention, the memes went up from the left of “pure political posturing.” Yet any observer of those who participated would be hard pressed to know of a single critical thing they said about the President’s opponents. The presentation they made dealt with the need for America to remain strong in its stand against terrorism. Kerry’s name was never even invoked. And their involvement in the public debate ended that night.
Or, in other words, “No, you’re not doing it right. Your grieving is politically incorrect, and I am offended.” (And he’s only half-right about the high-minded discourse endorsed by the GOP’s political widows; they introduced Rudy Giuliani, who gave a speech mocking John Kerry. Oh, and they also remained politically active, publicly supporting Bush and his policies as recently as a couple of months ago. Not that I care all that much, but still. And there’s also that whole Ashley’s Story thing.)
The obvious goal [of the left] here is to create a spokesman that cannot be attacked … one who’s essentially bulletproof….
When you think about it, Hillary Clinton has even approached this bulletproof status in some ways. She’s a woman, and she’s a woman who has endured public humiliation at the hands of her philandering husband. As such, some would say that she is beyond criticism.
Actually, Neal, there is not one fucking person who would say that. (NMMNB provides a few links to make his point, whereas unleashing the profanities is all we’re willing to do.)
I reached Truthout editor Marc Ash on his cel phone this morning. “I wasn’t aware that he had said that,” he said of Luskin’s announcement, but insisted that Truthout was “absolutely” standing by its earlier reporting.
“We’ve done a lot of work on this story, we’ve talked to a lot of people,” he said, “and some of the people who provided information for the story are absolutely in a position to know.”
OK, guys, it’s time to lay your cards out on the table. Your sources clearly burned you big time. Tell us what you know and how you came to know it.
If the current wave of video blogging and podcasts has convinced us of anything, it is that producing good video or podcasts really is hard work. Not only do many of the usual suspects produce astoundingly crappyoutput, the mediocrity is enhanced by the same standard of accuracy they display in their blogging efforts. Which is why we were pretty excited when we discovered the Ole’ Perfesser and Dr. Mrs. Ole’ Perfesser show. What could be better than those two going at it? Those two going at it in the company of James Lileks and Cathy Seipp. From that edition:
Dr. Mrs. Ole’ Perfesser: I remember when I was a kid we had a smoking pit (?) in our high school. I didn’t smoke, but it was considered very uncool to be out there smoking. And now everybody’s like [sic] smoking and it’s supposed to be really cool. I mean, I wonder if we’ve gone too far, you know, with all this anti-this anti-that.
Now, we don’t know where Dr. Mrs. Ole’ Perfesser went to high school. We don’t know when Dr. Mrs. Ole’ Perfesser went to high school. But we do know one thing: Sadly, No! Read the rest of this entry »
MR. RUSSERT: Welcome, all. Markos Moulitsas, let me start with you out in Las Vegas. You’ve been hosting a convention of liberal bloggers and political activists. What do you think your convention has achieved?
MR. MARKOS MOULITSAS: Well, you know, there’s this perception of bloggers as being these anti-social people, typing away at keyboards in their parents’ basement.
Not to mention creepy degenerates who are obsessed with other peoples’ groins.
See what I mean?
And I think what we’ve seen is that actually the people who read these blogs are a real cross section of the Democratic Party, a real cross section of America. We have all age groups represented; we have people that are blue collar, white collar. And at the end of the day, no matter how much they may love to be online and use the blogs to find each other, they crave that flesh-and-blood interaction, and that’s what they’re doing here today.
Gary “Trollerto” Ruppert draws our attention to the fact that Newsmax has debunked the whole Haditha thing. We needed no further encouragement to check it out — which is how we learned that the mastermind behind the entire “incident” is a 12-year old girl:
But the “innocent” Haditha 12-year-old failed to give any further details about which other family members knew about the bomb plot. Or whether one of her relatives had detonated the blast.
So what did this girl do?
“I was planning to go to school. I was about to go out of bed. I knew the bomb would explode so I covered my ears,” the youngster said, according to a CNN translator. [Emphasis added]
So what did she know and when did she know it? And what does that make her?
The Haditha co-conspirator continued[.]
Co-conspirator! Now that’s some sweet, honey roasted wingnuttery.
Bradrocket adds: I hate to be a party pooper, but the fact is that none of these comments was written by the “real” Gary Ruppert. It was a very nice parody of a parody though, and whoever wrote them deserves credit. However, the fact is you gave yourself away by joking about bongs- the fact is that the “real” Ruppert is as humorless as they come.
Sebster adds: Bradrocket is only saying what the gay immigrant terrorists want you to believe. Vote for fear!
Bradrocket adds: The fact is Seb has me nailed. The fact is I’m on the take from the Mexhomonazis of Amerikkka.
In other news, David Ortiz rules. Also, here’s a close-up of Gavin’s crotch:
The seemingly never ending battle against spam comments continues, and one unfortunate downside is that real commenters with valuable contributions to make about Gavin’s shorts sometimes get caught by overzealous (or simply very wise) spam filters. In order to give humans the chance to post without fear of robot reprisal, we’ve opened up registration to the general public. Registered users (who are logged in!) will bypass all spam control. This is not an invitation to use registration to post intimate details about my two penises, so consider yourselves warned. Just to be extra clear:
Registration is optional — the only benefit being that you will avoid automated spam control.
Comments, whether posted by registered or unregistered users, are not moderated or edited. [With the exception of posts containing private information, e.g. Michelle Malkin’s home adress; take that shit elsewhere.]
Shorter Byron York: Liberal bloggers are finding out the hard way that it requires a lot of blood, sweat and tears to chart a course for your political party, instead of just doing it the other way around.
New Scientist has discovered that Pentagon’s National Security Agency, which specialises in eavesdropping and code-breaking, is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in internet technology - specifically the forthcoming “semantic web” championed by the web standards organisation W3C - to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals.
Gee, I can’t imagine how that capability might possibly be abused.
[Gavin adds: It’s an outgrowth of the existing NSA program(s). If I can be allowed an I-told-you-so moment, remember this?
We researched this with a lot of phone calls and source-checking (Correntewire has been working on it as well). The NSA program is structured according to networks of people, not ‘phone records’ or bulk Internet surveillance.]
Orwell’s telescreens required invasive, mind-reading technology that doesn’t actually exist (so far as we know), but we voluntarily pour our most private thoughts into the Internet for anyone’s viewing enjoyment (or stultification, depending on what you happen to be viewing). And with the way these college kids are addicted to their Facebooks and their My Spaces, there’s an awful lot of personal information out there.
Anyone here a fútbol fan? I’ve been trying to get into it for a while, but since American soccer totally sucks, I’ve failed. I’m rooting for the Argentines this year. No reason. Just ’cause.
Seb adds: Are you ready for some football? As for Argentina: Boooh!
This game will determine what the greatest nation on this planet is: Portugal or MexicoGermany or Costa Rica.
Bradroquette adds: If y’all can’t beat Costa Rica, y’all iz wack.
Gavin adds: I’m hoping for a surprise upset by a Finnish death-metal band.
Hugh Hewitt, the wingnut of sweaty-manboobs fame, has a true talent. No matter how wingnutty he is, he can always coax superior wingnuttery out of his radio show’s guests. What a wretched talent that must be for a wingnut: Hugh’s doomed to always be a bridesmaid but never a bride. (It may help to imagine the groom always being Dear Leader, flightsuited and codpieced — wait, no it doesn’t help to think of that; forget I said it.)
Now, after wiping the barf from our chins, let’s consider Hugh’s latest showso that we may barf again, his guest being superwingnutien Mark Steyn:
HH: Let’s do a second quote. This from Steny Hoyer, the number two ranking Democrat. While the death of al-Zarqawi is certainly a positive development, it must be tempered by the sober recognition that this will not end the insurgency.
Nothing wrong there, correct? Pretty sensible reaction from Hoyer, yes? It is the truth, after all. Ahhh, but these are wingnuts and Hugh has just set Steyn up to spew some pure batshit-insanity:
MS: Yes, well they’re doing a lot of tempering with sobriety, and I think they haven’t quite got the formula right. You know, the Democrats sound to me a bit like al Qaeda. Al Qaeda released this statement on the death of Zarqawi, saying congratulations to our glorious comrade al-Zarqawi for finally achieving martyrdom. It is a great victory for us. And it reminded me of the announcements the Democratic Party puts out after they failed to pull off the victory in the special election in California this week, and the one in the Ohio Congressional district last year, I think, where they lose, but they nevertheless hail it as a tremendous political upset and a great victory.
Democrats remind him of al-Qaeda; al-Qaeda reminds him of Democrats. Also, “sobriety” reminds him of al-Qaeda, which I guess makes sort of wingnutty sense when you remember that the Greatest Good is Dear Dry-Drunk Leader. Other things that might remind Steyn of al-Qaeda include sensibility, apple pie and puppies. No, that doesn’t add up for me, either, but I’m just trying to figure out this wingnut association game and it hurts my head gahhh.
Things may seem all placid here, with fluffy clouds drifting over fields of gently waving grass, and duck-ponds with queues of fuzzy little baby ducks swimming about, et cetera, but things are in fact decidedly not placid around here.
You’ve probably heard the latest, but here it is again.
We’ve spent a lot of time lately doing things that haven’t become posts immediately, and we have to ask for some extra patience as we work the phones and send the carrier pigeons back and forth.
In normal societies, people like this would spend their days stumbling through alleyways and yelling at deviant garbage cans. But in post-9/11 America, they are paid large sums of money to work as analysts on nationally-syndicated television programs.
Ladies and gentlemen (and Yosef), I give you the lovely Sandy Rios, a FOX News contributor who is defending Ann Coulter’s assertion that four outspoken 9/11 widows are “enjoying their husbands’ deaths”:
RIOS: Well, Bill, I think, I don’t disagree with your basic premise. I mean, it is certainly not my choice to attack people. However, we are living in strange times. And I think while everybody else is making nice, Ann’s words are laser-focused on truth. She says things that no one else dares say and it kind of made me think about, for instance, holocaust pictures. Do we have to see pictures of emaciated bodies to understand what happened? It’s kind of offensive. But, you know what? Yes, we do.
Take a deep breath and think about what Sandy is saying here. She is literally comparing Ann Coulter “exposing” the 9/11 widows as “harpies” who are “ejoying their husband’s deaths” to exposing the evil brutality of Nazi Germany. In other words, the “horror” of 9/11 widows who criticize Bush is on par with the horror of Auschwitz.
While poor Seb was reduced to hiring an untalented hack like me, the lovely and snarkerific Ms S.Z. of World O’Crap went out and hired my non-union Mexican equivalent, Scott, who does five times the work I do, and is ten times as funny:
Russert: Mr. Christ, what do you say to accusations that you’re opposed to fighting a battle to bring about the end of all life on Earth because you’re an Anti-Semite?
Jesus: Well, first of all, I’d like to point out that I myself am Jewish—
Ann Coulter: Yeah! Just like George Soros. Another Jew who somehow figured out a way to avoid crucifixion.
Jesus: I WAS crucified! (DISPLAYS WOUNDS IN HANDS)
Michelle Malkin: Why don’t people ask him more specific questions about the nails in his hands and feet? There are legitimate questions about whether or not they were self-inflicted wounds.
Russert: What do you mean self-inflicted? Are you suggesting Mr. Christ crucified himself on purpose?
Michelle Malkin: Did you read the book by Barabbas and the Golgotha Veterans for Truth? Some of the thieves who were actually crucified have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.
That’s some funny. I hate you, Scott. I’m calling INS.
In an interview with CNN he stays on message. There’s no reason necessarily to think we needed troops in Iraq to get Zarqawi and “we cannot win this.” Video and transcript here.
UPDATE: A reader writes: “Murtha actually said “we cannot win this militarily”. His qualification is crucial, and it’s dishonest to ignore that.”
Fair point, though I hardly think I was being dishonest in pointing people to the video and transcript.
Regular readers already know we (Seb) have a (happy birthday!) 1 year old son. (Why yes, he is the Cutest. Baby. Ever. Thanks for asking.) Being a parent is, of course, hard, hard work. And like any parent, we worry. (Will he be handsome, will he be rich?) We have no reason to believe our worries differ from those of any other parent. Indeed, we suspect that if your wife called you and said she had found your son eating Liquid Paper, your first thought would be exactly the one we had on learning this news: Read the rest of this entry »
The U.S. Senate on Thursday killed a bill backed by President George W. Bush that would have permanently repealed estate taxes.
On a vote of 57-41, the Senate blocked consideration of a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that would wipe out what Republicans call the “death tax.”
Republican backers had acknowledged they were short of votes for full repeal, but they had hoped to offer an alternative that would have reduced the tax rate and exempted all but the wealthiest estates from the tax.
I still find it remarkable how successful the GOP has been in turning the repeal of the estate tax into a populist cause.
