My arrogant opinions about politics, culture, science fiction, and whatever else I feel like talking about.

An Observation From 'The Anchoress'

        Originally here:

        I’m pro-life, pro gun-ownership and I would vote for Rudy in a New York minute.  I trust him to do the right thing.  He turned NYC from a hellhole into a haven.  He told Yassar Arafat to get out of town while the rest of the political elite, and the Clinton WH were kissing the old monster’s rear-end, and he told a Saudi Prince to keep his post-9/11 ten million dollars if it meant dissing Israel in any way shape or form.  He will get the issues of national security and war RIGHT, and let’s face it, if those issues are not handled the right way, then all the social issues become moot points.

        He needs to pick a better shade of lipstick, though.

        Here here.  Count me "Another wingnut for Rudy Guliani."

Posted by: saintonge at 01:12 | link | comments
politics, republicans, rightists

Bill O'Reilly is Hitler

        Check the irrefutable evidence here.  The good news is, in fifteen minutes, someone else will be Hitler.

Posted by: saintonge at 01:06 | link | comments
satire

This Just In

        You better sit down before you read further.  Pat Buchanan has discovered that Jews are not Christian, and Israel is not the United States.

        Thanks Pat.  Those questions have been bugging me for years.

Posted by: saintonge at 21:18 | link | comments

What /Really/ Matters to Daily Kos?

        Dodging inconvenient questions.

        Israel has invaded Lebanaon to go after Hezbollah.  U.S. policy toward Israel and it's enemies looks to be a significant factor in the fall elections.  But, as Dan Riehl points out, the Kossacks have nothing to say on the matter, except for one post saying that Kos has nothing to say on the matter.

        I wonder why.  Could it be they're afraid that if they say they support Israel, the anti-Americans will leave them, but if they say they support Hezbollah and the destruction of Israel, they'll drive Jews to the Republicans?  I do wish "Kos" would explain his reticence with something better than this.  Because it's rather vague, don't you know.

Posted by: saintonge at 21:01 | link | comments

1984 Times

        Tom Maguire caught The New York Treason pulling a “Ministry of Truth” act as they try to get Ned Lamont a primary win in Connecticut by pretending there's some reason he's running besides opposition to the Iraq Campaign.

        Unfortunately for the Treason, the original stories on why the Left wanted to oppose Lieberman, and why Lamont decided to run, are still available on the web.  Lamont's opposition to the war is why 70% of his donors are from out of state, and Lieberman's support for it is why the Treason treason is running anti-Lieberman-editorials-disguised-as-stories like this.  I mean really, are even the Treason's readers stupid enough to fall for this nonsense?

      The MSM needs to learn new ways of lying.  The old ones don't work no more.

Posted by: saintonge at 18:46 | link | comments
iraq, politics, msm, democrats, foreign affairs, leftists, incompetence, dishonesty, reality

Weird!

        The website Capitol Hill Blue "The Oldest Political News Site on the Internet" may be inventing all their sources!  Definitely a 'What the Fuck?' moment for the blogosphere.

        Hat tip: Instapundit.

Posted by: saintonge at 15:29 | link | comments
internet, weirdness

Dishonesty or Functional Insanity?

        Update: The best (and funniest) analysis yet of Greenwald, here.

        Lately, leftist blogger Glenn Greenwald and have decided to chastise the right-wing blogosphere for inciting violence against lefties.  Alas, they are functionally insane, and so they don't know when someone is and isn't inciting violence, or lying about the events.

        They found two posts on the Anti-Idotarian Rotweiller in which BC and Mischa call for hanging Sen. John Kerry and the Supreme Court Justices in the Hamdan majority.  Greenwald and Media Matters think such talk is reprehensible, and must be condemned (as opposed to white Supremicist Mark Hale saying to his phony church "we are in a state of war with Judge Lefkow," who had ruled against him in a lawsuit.  The 'at war' comment was just hyperbole, according to Greenwald, then his lawyer, and the fact that one member of the church had reacted to Hale's "hyperbole" about the need to "destroy" non-whites and Jews, and the need for "RAHOWA" (racial holy war), by going on a shooting spree that killed two and wounded nine, and other "church" members were convicted in the beating murder of a black Gulf War veteran, and still others were investigated in connection with bomb plots doesn't mean Hale was trying to get the judge killed.  See here for numerous links about the man, and group whose right to "free speech" Greenwald was willing to defend.)

        OK, I'm a reasonable guy.  Shame on you, Mischa and BC, for saying those things about the Justices and Kerry, even if you didn't mean it.  It makes you sound like one of Greenwald's "free speech" clients.  But the rest: it's "hate-filled," "intimidaton," 'inciting to murder' to fail to monitor the Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiller every few hours so that you can condemn any over the top posts there; call Glenn Greenwald a douchebag; note that Greenwald let his law liscense lapse; state your conviction that the behavior of the MSM lately is legally treason and wartime, and hope those who did it are convicted and executed according to law; respond to The New York Treason's revealing addresses and security details of Rumsfeld's and Cheney's summer homes by suggesting that the same should be done to reporters and editors of the Treason; discussing a prediction that certain 'peace protestors' would use violence during a New York rally, and then saying that New Yorkers would respond violently to violence directed against them; Instapundit saying that when a weak group makes war against a strong group, and just won't give up no matter how often they are defeated, then it has and will end in the strong group using genocide against the weak as the only way to make the weak group stop, but he hopes our fight against Islamic terrorists won't come to that; and pointing out Greenwald's hypocrisy (Greenwald never criticized Frisch for her behaviour, or condemned the denial of service attacks, and Hale's "hyperbole" was far worse than Mischa and BC's posts).

        The strange thing is, Greenwald and Media matters do put up links to those they are criticizing, but the links usually don't support their case.  Are they so out of their minds they can't understand the posts they link to?  Or are they just dishonest, lying about what the right blogosphere says in hopes of getting lots of links, and thus advertising revenue?

        Beats me, but I suggest all right-wing bloggers not link to Greenwald and Media Matters until they clean up their acts.  Feeding the trolls only encourages them?

Posted by: saintonge at 17:12 | link | comments
internet, weirdness, leftists, dishonesty

OY!

        Here's something I hadn't thought of, from Best of the Web for today:

        Did you ever think that all this hitherto unreported rage on the Democratic left at Joe Lieberman over his 1998 comments about Bill Clinton might have been the reason George W. Bush won Florida?

        While nothing about Lieberman's actions was ever heard outwardly during the 2000 election — or for the next 5 1/2 years, for that matter — perhaps there was some undercurrent of seething resentment among liberal Democrats in South Florida over Al Gore's selection of the senator as his running mate, that it led those people to cast their ballots for Pat Buchanan as a protest vote over Joe's presence on the ticket.

        Of course, after the results came in and there was only a 537-vote margin separating Bush and Gore, none of these people would actually admit to casting protest votes for Pat and foiling the Democrats' hopes for regaining the White House.  But since they're saying their anger at Lieberman is based as much on 1998 as it is on 2003 and beyond, they must obviously have been carrying this rage into the voting booth with them in November 2000.

        To coin a phrase: Heh!

Posted by: saintonge at 16:38 | link | comments

Today's MSM Lie

        The Associated Press Headlines and opening from here:

U.S. Opposed to Cease-Fire With Hezbollah

Despite Pressure From World Powers and U.N., U.S. Holds Line Against Cease-Fire Deal With Hezbollah

By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer

        WASHINGTON Jul 20, 2006 (AP)— The United States held the line Thursday against a quick cease-fire deal in the Middle East, increasingly isolated as world powers and the United Nations demanded an immediate end to fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants.

        The actual U.S. position, from the same story:

        Administration officials also questioned whether a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah is even feasible.

        "We'd love to have a cease-fire," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.  "But Hezbollah has to be part of it.  And at this point, there's no indication that Hezbollah intends to lay down arms."

        Feh!

Posted by: saintonge at 16:23 | link | comments (1)

No Comment Needed

        From Best of the Web Today - July 19, 2006:

Eek! Sexual Harassment!
        This is hilarious: It seems one Taylor Marsh, writing at the Puffington Host, is aghast that President Bush, at the Group of Eight summit, touched Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel on the shoulders:

        Here's just one comment I got from a wingnut reader:

        Bush is a Texan.  Texans hug one another, kiss one another, place their hands on other's shoulders, and give hand squeezes all the time.  You libs are always talking about understanding the culture of others and it's time for you to start understanding Texas culture.  We're not cold and frigid like you Yankees are.

        Sheesh, you need to get a life.

        Ah, yes, you silly women, sexual harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Boys will be boys, especially at the G8 Summit.  As for the conservative bloggers, it's a non-issue.  For women like myself trying to make it in the world of political commentary, foreign policy and military issues, as well as radio and blog reporting, respect is all.  It's bad enough we can't get on the Sunday shows, but now our president sends out the message that a world leader can be manhandled at will. . . .

        George W. Bush was supposed to bring "honor and integrity" back to the White House, but instead he's disgraced us all.

        Judging by this 2002 blog post, Marsh appears to have been considerably less troubled by the actual sexual antics of Bush's predecessor:

        We all agree that Bad Boy Bill did a great disservice to us all when he got caught with his pants down in the White House.  But what was worse is that he fed his enemies the ammunition they needed to go after him, no holds barred.

       The lack of self-awareness here is awesome to behold.

        As I said, no comment, but I will give a prize to the best excuse for why “getting caught” exposing yourself to a women you don't know, and asking for a blow job, is less bad than touching a woman on the shoulder.

Posted by: saintonge at 14:03 | link | comments

Silliness

        I usually admire the insights of Iraq the Model The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, but this time it's just ridiculous.  Writing of the Israeli Lebanon incursion, it says:

        In this regard, one bad idea is the international call for an immediate "cease-fire" to be monitored by a multinational peacekeeping force.  U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has made this suggestion, as has British Prime Minister Tony Blair.  This didn't work out too well the last time, in the early 1980s, when 241 Americans and 58 French soldiers were killed in Beirut by truck bombs almost surely sent by Hezbollah.  Any international force would be a terror target once again, and at this stage any cease-fire imposed from the outside would merely hand Hezbollah a victory.

        Nonsense.  An international “peacekeeping” force would take bribes to look the other way while Hezbollah moved back in, and more bribes to sell their weapons to Hezbollah.  The terrorists wouldn't attach their suppliers.

Posted by: saintonge at 12:37 | link | comments

Robert Wright Insults America’s Intelligence

        Update: spelling error caught by my friend Clvin G.

 

 

        Perhaps it's the hot weather in Minneapolis, but I'm really cranky the past few days.  Because of this, I've delayed writing about Robert Wright's astoundingly offensive op-ed in The New York Treason till I could refrain from threatening to break his face for daring to publish it.

 

        It was said of the Bourbon Dynasty of France, when they were restored to the throne after Napoleon, that they had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.  Robert Wright does them one better: he has learned nothing and remembered nothing — or at least, he hopes you haven't learned anything and have no memory of the past six decades, as well as the twentieth century generally.  In his essay, Wright calls for a “new” foreign policy of “progressive realism.”  But there isn't a scrap of realism in it anywhere, and nothing about it is new.  It's just appeasement with a dishonest face.

 

        What is “progressive realism” supposed to entail?  Well, first off, forget about promoting human rights in tyrannies.  ‘Business is business,’so we don't raise any objections when some thug tortures and kills dissidents.  This is Bush 41's policy of watching the Tianenmin Tiananmin repression and sending his diplomats to toast the murderers.  Apparently, Wright has forgotten that that ever occured, or at least hopes we have.

 

          No, instead of imposing sanctions, or muscling dictators in negotiations, we should encourage “free markets,” which will eventually erode repression.  But not “free markets” in the sense of ‘the government leaves them alone.’  Musn't go overboard here.  Instead, we'll not only give the World Trade Organization responsibilty for negotiating the dropping of trade barriers, but also allow it to set labor standards and environmental policy.  ‘Righghghghghghght,’as Bill Cosby's Noah routine has it.  We just saw the latest round of trade talks collapse because the developed countries are determined to subsidize agriculture, and the European Union members are at daggers drawn over services.  I'm sure that they'll be happy to have the W.T.O. tell them what their internal economic policies should be.  And it's only to be expected that the governments that interfere so assiduously in their own economies will, the moment they meet for trade talks, suddenly become born-again free traders, right?  And of course, only a paranoid would think that perhaps the W.T.O. would create policies deliberately designed to cripple the U.S. economy.  Why, next you'll be saying that the Kyoto Treaty's emphasis on carbon dioxide produced by developing countries only, and free passes for Third World CO₂ and natural gas leaks was anti-U.S.!

 

        Then there's arms control.  Arms control has never stopped any country from acquiring any arms it really wishes to acquire, so naturally Wright wants more of it.  Said arms control should revolve around the UN, “which has more global legitimacy than other candidates.”  Can't argue with that last phrase.  No matter how hard we try, I don't think the U.S. will ever be able to do what the UN did with Iraq: set up a regime of sanctions against a foreign country, then set up a loop-hole to keep the populace from suffering, then turn the loop-hole into a massive bribe program.  Nor could we keep a straight face while pretending to investigate ourselves, and clearing everyone responsible.  As for having our “peacekeepers” make prostitutes of children, so they can get enough money to buy the food aid we're supposed to be handing out for free, fuggedaboudit.  Not even France could do that.  Corruption on that scale is uniquely the province of the UN.

 

        Wright says:

        Nowhere does this emphasis on international governance contrast more clearly with recent Republican ideology than in arms control.  The default neoconservative approach to weapons of mass destruction seems to be that when you suspect a nation has them, you invade it.  The Iraq experience suggests that repeated reliance on this policy could grow wearying.  The president, to judge by his late-May overture toward Iran and his subdued tone toward North Korea, may be sensing as much.

        In case you're a man from Mars, the United States became aware that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the eighties, but failed to invade for almost twenty years.  (Hair-trigger reactions those neo-cons have.)  Iraq agreed to give up all weapons of mass destruction in 1991, after the Gulf War, and to prove to the UN that they were gone.  Throughout the remainder of the Bush 41 administration, the entire Clinton administration, and most of the first two years of the Bush 43 adminstration, Saddam lied, cheated, and finally flatly refused to carry out his disarmament agreement.  Even after W. decided to do something about Iraq, he tried the UN route one more time.  The result was a Security Council Resolution stating that Iraq must comply with arms inspection, or suffer consequences.  Saddam agreed to comply, and let in the UN disarmament inspectors — and the inspectors reported that Iraq wasn't complying.  For Wright, a dozen years of defiance should have been answered by allowing Saddam to continue this until . . . well, that's a subject he won't raise.  In Wright's version of “progressive realism,” there's never a deadline for compliance.

        Still, he [, President Bush,] is nowhere near embracing the necessary alternative: arms control accords that would impose highly intrusive inspections on all parties.  Neoconservatives, along with the Buchananite nationalist right, see in this approach an unacceptable sacrifice of national sovereignty.

 

        But such “sacrifices” can strengthen America.  One reason international weapons inspectors haven’t gotten a good fix on Iran’s nuclear program is that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty gives them access only to “declared” sites.  Wouldn’t Americans be willing to change that and let inspectors examine America more broadly — we have nothing to hide, after all — if that made it harder for other nations to cheat on the treaty?

        I’m not sure if Wright really is so incredibly ignorant that doesn't know that his ‘mutual contraints’ idea has been U.S. policy for longer than he's been alive, or so cynical he thinks the public is that stupid, but in either case this is pathetic.  Intrusive inspection, and a voluntary renunciation of nuclear weapons, was the basis of the Acheson-Lillienthal plan for banning nuclear weapons in 1946, and the USSR rejected the idea, ‘as a whole, and in all of its separate components.’

 

        In the fifties, the idea of a nuclear test ban treaty was discussed, and under Kennedy, a Limited Test Ban Treaty was signed, prohibiting nuclear tests in space, the atmosphere, or the oceans, but allowing them underground.  Why the exception?  Because the scientists told the government ‘There's no way to determine for sure if a seismic event is an earthquake or a nuclear bomb test unless we inspect the place it occurred,’ and the USSR wouldn't allow on-site insections of holes in the ground.  The Non-Proliferation Treaty was also drastically limited by what the USSR would accept.  But as soon as the Soviet attitude changed, we signed agreements (the INF and START treaties) that allowed on-site inspections of U.S. sites by foreigners.

 

        As for Iran and N. Korea, the problem isn't what they're hiding, it's that they have openly and flagrantly disregarded the agreements they've already signed.  Wright's solution: sign some new agreements that will further restrict the U.S., and hope that the people who cheated on the old deals will obey the new ones.  This is Bizzaro World “Realism”.

        There is a principle here that goes beyond arms control: the national interest can be served by constraints on America’s behavior when they constrain other nations as well.  This logic covers the spectrum of international governance, from global warming (we’ll cut carbon dioxide emissions if you will) to war (we’ll refrain from it if you will).

        And what happens, when we and other nations agree to refrain from something, and then the other nations violate the agreement?  Wright is careful not to raise that subject.

        This doesn’t mean joining the deepest devotees of international law and vowing never to fight a war that lacks backing by the United Nations Security Council.  But it does mean that, in the case of Iraq, ignoring the Security Council and international opinion had excessive costs: (1) eroding the norm against invasions not justified by self-defense or imminent threat; (2) throwing away a golden post-9/11 opportunity to strengthen the United Nations’ power as a weapons inspector.  The last message we needed to send is the one President Bush sent: countries that succumb to pressure to admit weapons inspectors will be invaded anyway.  Peacefully blunting the threats posed by nuclear technologies in North Korea and Iran would be tricky in any event, but this message has made it trickier.  (Ever wonder why Iran wants “security guarantees”?)

        We are now past imbecility and dishonesty.  Wright's distortions are so blatantly enourmous, he's figuratively spitting in our faces.  North Korea signed an agreement with President Clinton to refrain from developing nuclear weapons, in exchange for aid.  We delivered the aid, and N. Korea went on with its nuke program.  Iran claims it needs to develop nuclear power for electricity production while burning off natural gas that could generate power ( Iran has the second largest natural gas reserves in the world).  Iran insists that it only wants power plants, but has turned down all offers to let it have nuclear power plants as long as it doesn't have enrichment facilities or fuel reprocessing plants.  In short, it rejects any program that would give it nuclear power plants while depriving it of the means to make weapons material.  And the drive for fuel enrichment goes back to the nineties, more than a decade before the invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush:

        China, in 1991, provided Iran with uranium hexafluoride (a uranium compound, which is gaseous state, and used for enriching uranium. . .

 

        Finally, Iran signed, in January 1995, a contract with the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy to finish the reactors at Bushehr. . . Iran and Russia also agreed to discuss the construction of a gas centrifuge uranium-enrichment facility in Iran.

        As incredible as that was, it gets worse:

        The administration’s misjudgment in Iraq highlights the distinction — sometimes glossed over by neoconservatives — between transparency and regime change.  Had we held off on invasion, demanding in return that United Nations inspections be expanded and extended, we could have rendered Iraq transparent, confirming that it posed no near-term threat.  Regime change wasn’t essential.

        Well, well, we could have “demanded” Iraq do something.  I guess all those UN Security Council resolutions from 1991 through 2002 weren't demands, they were polite requests that Iraq could ignore if it wanted too.  And what would Wright have us do if we had “demanded” Iraq prove it had disarmed, and they refused?  As far as I can tell, just keep demanding, while never taking any action.

 

        I could go on discussing this intellectual cesspool, but I'm too angry to continue treating these lies and evasions as if they were something to be taken seriously.  But there is one clot of shit that must be mentioned, because of the cynical evil that informs it (and I do not use the description “evil” casually):

        Notwithstanding last week’s carnage in the Middle East, more people have been dying in Sri Lanka’s civil war than in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  But given the threat of anti-American Islamist terrorism, forging a lasting two-state solution in the Middle East is a higher priority than bringing lasting peace to Sri Lanka.

        In 1947, the United Nations voted that Britain's Palestinian mandate should be divided into two states, one Jewish, one Arab.  Jerusalem would be internationalized.  The Arab states refused to go along, and declared war against Israel the day state came into existance.  Most of them are still at war with Israel (only Egypt and Jordan have made peace, as far as I can tell), while Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Fatah have made it clear that they intend to destroy the Jewish state.  There can be no “two state” solutions unless and until the Muslim world is ready to recognize Israel's right to exist.  Israel was ready for a two-state solution six decades ago.  The Muslims weren't, and mostly still aren't.  Wright's real policy is to pressure Israel into ever more concessions, in return for nothing, till Israel's enemies can destroy it.  But Hell, they're only Jews, it's not like their lives matter . . .

 

        Enough, I need to go vomit.

Posted by: saintonge at 11:45 | link | comments
liberals, israel, sarcasm, insanity, foreign affairs, bush administration, evil, jew hatred, george w bush, dishonesty, war with jihadism, stupidity springs eternal

Missing the Point -- Deliberately?

        The bogus "War on Drugs" has come up again at Instapundit, in connection with Sen. Biden's asinine "RAVE Act".  Glenn properly scorns it, but for the wrong reasons.

        Pop quiz!  Question 1: Are we willing to allow people to use illegal drugs in this country?  As a matter of fact and real existence, yes.  It is empirically obvious that some people will die before they stop using illegal drugs, and others will suffer grievous damage to their lives before giving them up.  It is also empirically obvious that such users will pay enormous amounts of money for their drugs, and that others will risk any legal penalty to secure their business.  Therefore, if we are serious about not letting anyone use drugs, we have to target these users, with penalties up to and including death.  We obviously aren't willing to do that.

        Question two: How much legal harassment of illegal drug users are we willing to do?  Answer: Not much, obviously, or certain sports and entertainment figures would spend large parts of their lives in prison.

        Question three: Can we even mildly cut illegal drug use by any means except targeting the users?  Answer: No, as shown by over a century of attempts to do so.

        Objectively, our "drug policy" amounts to this: ‘We really like using certain drugs, and we have no intention of ever giving them up.  But some people rail against them, and it makes us feel guilty for using them, and we have no intention of fighting those people publicly (because, when you get right down to it, guilty pleasures are more fun than innocent pleasures).  So, we'll pretend to be against drug use by legally targetting the sellers, but leaving the buyers alone.  That will keep the wowsers quiet, and let us get on with our drug use.’

        Sen. Biden's bill fits in with this great tradition of hypocrisy.  It won't stop drug use, but it isn't intended to.  It won't stop Raves either, or glow sticks, bottled water, and “chill rooms” either, but it isn't intended to do that.  It's intended to make Biden look good to the crowd that wants to continue the pretend drug war.  And that it will do.

        Which is where the question comes in: ‘Are the “anti-drug” and “anti-drug war” people really not aware of this?  Or have they decided to deliberately miss the point?’  Because there are countries that don't have much of a drug problem, and they do throw users in jail for long periods of time, and shoot ‘dealers,’ drug ‘dealing’ being automatically proven by possessing more than a certain quantity of drugs.  It works fairly well.  But somehow, neither side in the “debate on drugs” ever gets around to mentioning that example.  Which makes me suspect that most people seemingly opposed to the drug war aren't.  They just like to burnish their credentials as “anti-drug war warriors” while making sure the drugs stay illegal (because, after all, guilty pleasures are much more fun, and taking “brave stands” is more comfortable when you don't actually suffer any consequences for them).

        Let's take a really brave stand: the laws should be amended so that the minimum penalty for first/second/third etc. time drug use is at least the maximum penalty for first/second/third etc. time drug dealing.  That way, we'll know by the size of those penalties exactly how serious we are about stopping or not stopping people from using drugs.

Posted by: saintonge at 13:25 | link | comments

The Non-Scandal That Will Not Die

        Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald informs Bob Novak that the part of his investigation ‘directly concerning Novak’ is over.  Novak says, publicly, that Fitzgerald has known for a long time who his sources for the infamous Plame column were.  Fitzgerald also told Rove that he is not a ‘target’ for prosecution.

        So you'd think it was over.  No crime was committed in the ‘outing’ of Plame, assuming her husband hadn't already outed her.  Just put up with the Libby trial, and it's over.

        Think again.  The Wilsons wanted another big money book deal, but their two-and-a-half million advance fell through.  So they're suing Cheney, Libby, and Rove, plus ten unnamed others.  The MSM will cover this, and coyly mention in every story that Valerie is writing a book.  Free Publicity!  But the public has to suffer more of the lying duo.

        My God, My God, why have you forsaken us?

Posted by: saintonge at 16:25 | link | comments

Little Green Snarkyhood and Her Woodssnarkman

        Betsy Newmark's husband Craig comments on an article in/on Fortune/CNN by Marc Gunther.  The article in question is inspired by the book The Long Tail, which is about the internet and niche marketing.

        Mostly, Gunther thinks the idea of more choice is a good one, but he sees too areas where it leaves us poorer: the MSM and national politics.  There, the great unity we used to supposedly feel because we watched the same news shows, read the same magazines, etc., has diminished.

        Comments Craig Newmark:

        One: choice is hurting the mainstream media.  Oooooh, cry me a river.

        Two: choice is hurting our politics.  Why?  In part because “people can now filter the news and opinion they get to avoid exposure to ideas with which they disagree”.  Well, I admit he's got a point, here.  A couple of generations ago, I recall well how all the Liberals were forced--forced, I tell you--to read Adam Smith and Hayek and Milton Friedman and the National Review.

        (Why do I suspect that the real complaint here is that yes, Conservatives more or less used to have to read the New York Times and the Washington Post and watch ABC, CBS, and NBC, but now — damn it all — we don't?)

        While Craig hits high, Betsy hits low:

        And don't you remember the 1960s and 1970s as that period in history when Americans were united so totally.  No one needed to protest in the streets or complain about the government or criticize pop culture because we were all exposed to those same few networks and newspapers.  Oh, wait. . . . .that didn't happen.  Oops.  There goes the whole thesis.

        Really, what is it with Liberals?  From 1929-1932, what then passed for Conservatism shot itself in the gut by mishandling the Great Depression.  Liberals took over the Democratic Party, and most of the country, by offering hope (and cemented things by repelling foreign threats.  Thank you, kindly and sincerely, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman).  Finally, Eisenhower threw in the towel and reconciled the Republican Party with the New Deal.

        But that was then, this is now.  Johnson screwed up Liberalism by being unable to make his “Great Society” programs work.  Nixon screwed Liberalism up worse (and Nixon was a moderate, “practical Liberal,” a more moderate version of Truman).  McGovern & Carter did even worse.  Meanwhile, Conservatism's self-inflicted wound healed, and Reagan changed the political complexion of the country.  Since 1980, we've been a political moderately conservative nation, rather than the moderately liberal one we used to be (though the new Conservatism was ushered in by a former Democratic Liberal who still loved Roosevelt).

        And since the Reagan landslide of 1980, Liberals have done nothing but kvetch, kvetch.  Their point of view seems to be that they're entitled to run the country, automatically, because FDR was so popular.  It's just not fair that Liberals keep losing races outside some irredemiably Liberal/Democratic enclaves, and Democrats only win the Presidency when they put up Southerner who can fake being a Moderate.  ‘The country is so much worse off because we’re not in charge anymore, even if the statistics say otherwise.  We're worse off in foreign affairs too, even if the tide of terrorist attacks has been turned back.  Believe us rather than your lying eyes, and go back to putting Democratic Liberals in office automatically.’

        Sorry Charlie, you need to grow up.  When you stop trying to rerun the Carter years, we'll consider voting for you.

Posted by: saintonge at 14:07 | link | comments
politics, books, culture, liberals, msm, inaccuracy, the sky is falling, whiners

Bush the Supreme Being

        It appears El Presidente exercises remote control over French soccer players.  According to an LA Dog Trainer columnist, all the Administration has to do is keep saying "terrorist" enough, and French sports stars go crazy.

        Not only that, she's underestimated their powers.  The Administration can drive people crazy by saying "terrorist" without actually saying the word (note how many actual Administration members and spokesmen are quoted in the article).

        Wow, Bush is all-powerful.  Or maybe not.  Possibly it's Karl Rove and his secret mind-control rays.

        Hat tip: Betsy Newmark.

Posted by: saintonge at 09:15 | link | comments
msm, insanity, leftists, bush administration, george w bush

_The Washington Post_ Lies?

        Maybe there's an innnocent explanation for what I'm going to blog about, but I confess to being puzzled about what it might be.

        On July 11th, Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S.'s Ambassador to Iraq, delivered a speech at the Center For Strategic and International Studies in Washington.  You can find a copy of what purports to be the speech as delivered here.  The Ambassador was broadly optimistic about the prospects for Iraq, making one caveat:

        I will give my bottom line up front.  I believe Americans, while remaining tactically patient about Iraq, should be strategically optimistic.  Most important, a major change - a tectonic shift - has taken place in the political orientation of the Sunni Arab community.  A year ago, Sunni Arabs were outside of the political process and hostile to the United States.  They boycotted the January 2005 election and were underrepresented in the transitional national assembly.  Today, Sunni Arabs are full participants in the political process, with their representation in the national assembly now proportional to their share of the population.  Also, they have largely come to see the United States as an honest broker in helping Iraq's communities come together around a process and a plan to stabilize the country.

        Moreover, al Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly weakened during the past year.  This resulted, not only from the recent killing of Zarqawi, but also from the capture or killing of a number of other senior leaders and the creation of an environment in which it is more difficult and dangerous for al Qaeda in Iraq.

        These are fundamental and positive changes.  Together, they have made possible the inauguration of Iraq's first ever government of national unity - with non-sectarian security ministers, agreements on rules for decision making on critical issues and on the structure of institutions of the executive branch, and a broadly agreed upon program.  They have also enabled political progress that resulted in the recent announcement by Prime Minister Maliki of his government's National Reconciliation and Dialogue Project.

        However, at the same time, the terrorists have adapted to this success by exploiting Iraq's sectarian fault line.  A year ago, terrorism and the insurgency against the Coalition and the Iraqi security forces were the principal sources of instability.  Particularly since the bombing of the Golden Mosque in February, violent sectarianism is now the main challenge.  This sectarianism is the source of frequent tragedies on the streets of Baghdad.  It is imperative for the new Iraqi government to make major progress in dealing with this challenge in the next six months.  The Prime Minister understands this fact.

        Today, I will discuss the status of these efforts, noting the achievements we have attained and the further steps we intend to take in partnership with the new Iraqi government.

        The next day, The Washington Post ran a story on the speech.  The story begins:

        America's top envoy in Baghdad yesterday denied that Iraq is now embroiled in a civil war but acknowledged growing concern that sectarian clashes could derail the new government if violence is not brought under control.  Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad also said the new security crackdown in Baghdad has been a disappointment and is being reviewed to make "adjustments."

        "I do not believe that what's happening could be described . . . as a civil war.  But there is significant sectarian violence, there's no question about that," he said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  ". . . There is a risk that the sectarian conflict will expand, state institutions will be overwhelmed.  And that's what needs to be avoided.”  For now, however, he said the government is holding together, and political parties are committed to trying to prevent a full war.

        If you compare the text of the speech as supposedly delivered, you won't find "crackdown" or "disappoint" anywhere.  With one exception, NONE of the quoted material appears in the text of the speech.  That one exception is the word "adjustments," which appears in this paragraph:

        In parallel with political efforts, the Iraqi government, with the support of the Coalition, must increase the effectiveness of Iraq's security forces and adjust our security operations to meet the challenge of controlling sectarian violence.  This will require adjustments and new efforts in six areas.

Somehow, that doesn't sound like a remark about a disappointing security crackdown.  Further, the tone of the Post story is alost unrelieved pessimism, while the Ambassador's speech is anything but, as we've seen.

        So what happened?  Did the CSIS print a phony transcript?  Or did the Robin Wright and the Post make it all up?  Or what?

        I don't know, but if I had to bet, I'd put my dough on 'The Post was deliberately lying.'  But perhaps I'm wrong.  I'll write the Post reporter and ombudsman and see what they have to say.

        Stay tuned.  But don't hold your breath waiting for the response.

Posted by: saintonge at 08:08 | link | comments
msm, bias, inaccuracy

Just How Bad is Islamic Culture?

        Incredibly so, says Dr. Sanity.  Read and shudder.

Posted by: saintonge at 10:57 | link | comments

Some Worthwhile Links

        For something that's really cool, go here and watch an octopus disappear before your very eyes.

        Surprise, surprise: The New York Treason is probably lying about how widespread the knowledge of the SWIFT program was, pre-story.

        Villainous Company weighs in on the Treason, noting that in 2001 they were hot to chase down terrorist financing.  Cassandra suggests the real problem with the SWIFT program was that it worked to well for the Treason.

        The Boston Globe is balancing their budget on the backs of gay employees.

        Seventy-year olds with implanted defibrillators just aren't listening to their doctors .

        In one of those perpetual headlines that ought to be kept permanently set in type, Hollyweird sells out ideals for profit, with help from the MSM.

        In the international Good News/Bad News dept., the good news is that France, and the EU generally, have abolished poverty.  The bad news is the news hasn't reached the French poor.

        The Court rules (warning, PDF) that the Capitol is not privileged against searches.

        On the Bizzaro world of Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, no one is governing the United States.

        Joe Biden tried (video only) to clarify his remarks about Indian-Americans, and succeeds only in showing what a putz he is.  Bear this in mind the next time you hear an MSM shill tell you Biden is oh so smart and well-informed.

Posted by: saintonge at 00:40 | link | comments

More Terrorism

        In "Mumbai," India, which used to be Bombay, India.  Disgusting.

        You know, there are times when the best idea is just separation.  If I were Indian, I'd be thinking seriously about just throwing every Moslem out of the country.

Posted by: saintonge at 00:07 | link | comments

Light Blogging

        I'll be at a science-fiction convention today through Sunday, CONVERGENCE in Bloomington, MN.  Look me up if you're there.  Otherwise, see you next week.

Posted by: saintonge at 07:23 | link | comments (3)

A Common Mistake

        Lorrie Byrd's post of July third said in part:

        For those on the left worried that if they wave a flag tomorrow they might be thought to be supporting the President of the United States, or the U.S. military, or American capitalism, relax.  Fly the flag, sing some patriotic songs, shoot off some fireworks, eat some hot dogs.  I did when Bill Clinton was President and no one that I know got the impression that I was endorsing him.  One thing it seems most everyone, right and left, can agree on is the beauty of the U.S. Constitution and appreciation for the freedoms we are so blessed to experience.  I encourage everyone on the right and left alike to celebrate what you find great about this country.

        Sorry, Lorrie, but the reason these people can't celebrate "the beauty of the U.S. Constitution" and "the freedoms we are so blessed to experience" is because they hate the U.S. Constitution and want to destroy our freedoms.  The only thing they have in common with patriots is legal citizenship.  These are the sort of people whose public reaction to news of Stalin's, Mao's, Castro's and Pol Pot's murders was to deny they happened, but whose secret, real reaction was 'Yeah, kill more of them!'  Not all leftists are like this, but many are.  They hate us and want to kill us.  Never loose sight of that.

Posted by: saintonge at 08:11 | link | comments (2)

Bashing _The New York Treason_ and editor Keller

        Cassandra does a fine job of laying out their contradictions (and theology) here.  Just go read it.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:16 | link | comments

Rhetoric vs. Reality

        The Blogfather makes a good observation, concerning Joe Lieberman:

        I think that a lot of the Democratic activist base -- and nearly all of the "netroots" establishment -- will be bitterly antiwar regardless of events on the ground.  You can see that in their treatment of Lieberman today.  It's pretty clearly subordinating their alleged top goal, regaining control of the House and Senate, to their real goal, striking out at anyone who supports the war regardless of their political affiliations or other positions.  Actions speak louder than words.  And yes, it's likely to be very damaging for the Democrats.  Can you say "McGovern?"

        At times like this, it's worth remembering that McGovern was a delegate to the Progressive Party convention of 1948, and that the Progressives were running a candidate soley because the disagreed with Truman about the Cold War.  It's also worth remembering that a platform plank was offered to the convention, stating, essentially: 'Just because we oppose the present foreign policy of the U.S., it shouldn't be supposed that we would blindly support any country that opposed the U.S. in the future.'  That plank was turned down, because the majority of the delegates did automatically support the late USSR over the U.S. I LOVE IT!)  The majority of the anti-war activists automatically support anyone against the U.S.  Hatred of our society and citizens is what motivates them.  Which is why the Democrats are in trouble until they get rid of these people.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:00 | link | comments
iraq, democrats, leftists, war with jihadism

The Anchoress Discovers the Cause of All Problems in the World

        Fruit.

        In the space of one hour, I had seen fruit inspire two accidents that could have resulted in injury or - were I or others the litigious types - lawsuits.  I had seen fruit cause people to knock other people aside.  I had seen it rattle their priorities.  Fruit had caused people’s eyes to glaze over, their jaws to go slack, their reason to flee.  My experience at Costco has given me a glimpse into the core of universal behavior, and the core is rotten and has far too many seeds.

        Who knew?

Posted by: saintonge at 08:08 | link | comments

Happy Birthday, USAmerica!

        And may you outlast us all.

Posted by: saintonge at 07:44 | link | comments

Why Didn't You _SAY_ So?

        I must apologize to the MSM.  I thought they published the Belgian SWIFT money surveillance story because they were disloyal.  Perish the thought!  They did it because they know more than we do, and have determined that the war on terror should wind down.  They were saving us from the mistake they made when we re-elected W.

        Silly me.  I don't know where I picked up the idea that the U.S.A. is a Republic, with elected officials making policy.  I'm glad to be disabused of that notion.  Thank you, MSM.

Posted by: saintonge at 03:28 | link | comments
satire, msm, treason, george w bush

The Evil Senator Joe

        Joe Lieberman, that is.  Deciding that he may lose the Conneticut Democratic Senate Primary, as a result of the Kossacks opposition to his support for the Iraq Campaign, Lieberman is getting petions signed for a run as an independent.  The Left is not amused at the idea that they shouldn't have a veto power over the Democratic party.  But I am.  I find especially funny the idea of a Kos commentator that refusing to let the Kossacks know him off is the moral equivalent of treason.

        It's all just too, too delicious.

        Hat tip: Ann Althouse

.

Posted by: saintonge at 03:20 | link | comments
iraq, congress, war with jihadism, stupidity springs eternal

Trying to Justify Treason

        The attempt is on view here, and it's not a pretty sight.  Let's do at least a partial fisking.

        WHEN government officials ask journalists to withhold information on national security grounds, they face a natural skepticism.

        Many reporters believe that the government routinely exaggerates the need for secrecy.  They suspect that security officials try to snuff reporting that is merely embarrassing or at most politically troublesome. . . .

      Oh, really?  Apparently, we are to think that all politicians, whenever they mention 'national security,' are lying, or at least, are more likely to be lying than telling the truth.  Perhaps they could print that in the newspaper.  If politician X says something about 'national security,' they could immediately print after the quote: '(Note: most reporters and editors at all papers, believe that all politicians, including politician X, is more likely than not lying whenever they mention national security.  We certainly think politician X is lying.')  If they believe politician X is an exception to the rule, they could explain how they arrived at that conclusion.  They could also tell us if they consider non-elected bureaucrats liars or not.  Of course they won't, because then some annoying blogger would ask them for evidence, and their sources would get mad at being called liars.  Besides, the truth is, "journalists" believe politicians on the basis of whether the politicains; political preferences match the sribblers', nothing else.

        And of course, us peasants don't need to see actual evidence that the conveniently anonymous "many reporters" are right, in any particular case, or in general.  Nor do "many reporters" see any need to respect the law, or the judgment of the people's elected and appointed officials.  Personally, I'd like to see every reporter and news organization that breaks a classified story have to show cause why they shouldn't face the old Norse penalty of "outlawry," which means that no one faces criminal charges for anything done to them, up to and including murder.

      And note the unspoken message that it's OK for them to cause embarrassment to officials, and political trouble to the government.  We are close to seeing where they are really coming from:

. . . And most journalists are deeply reluctant to pass up a scoop.

        Ah, some truth.  Their desire to scoop their competitors is all they really care about.  It's more important than our lives.

        I'll skip some, where they bleat about how they have surpressed stories from time to time (they're hoping that this gives them a pass on publishing classified material recently; it doesn't), and get to some spin:

. . . But on vivid display are articles published over the government's vociferous objections, some of which have deeply angered the Bush administration and its allies.

        Yah see, it's not about obeying the law, or national security, or protecting people from being murdered by terrorists, it's about embarrassing a politician they hate.  And all their liberal readers should excuse them publishing this material, because it angered the Bush administration.

        The Times now hastens to display it's cowardice:

        The latest tempest was set off on June 22 by the disclosure in The New York Times, closely followed by The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal, of a secret program that scrutinizes global money transfers by a Brussels banking consortium.

        The article followed other exposés of counterterrorist tactics, including The Washington Post's on the Central Intelligence Agency's overseas detention centers and The New York Times's on the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping.

        Unmentioned is the fact that the Los Angeles Dog Trainer was still mulling over the government's request not to publish until the New York Treason posted the story to the web.  Nor does it tell you that the Journal only published unclassified material:

        The Times decided to publish anyway, letting Mr. Fratto know about its decision a week ago Wednesday.  The Times agreed to delay publishing by a day to give Mr. Fratto a chance to bring the appropriate Treasury official home from overseas.  Based on his own discussions with Times reporters and editors, Mr. Fratto says he believed “they had about 80% of the story, but they had about 30% of it wrong.”  So the Administration decided that, in the interest of telling a more complete and accurate story, they would declassify a series of talking points about the program.  They discussed those with the Times the next day, June 22.

        Around the same time, Treasury contacted Journal reporter Glenn Simpson to offer him the same declassified information.  Mr. Simpson has been working the terror finance beat for some time, including asking questions about the operations of Swift, and it is a common practice in Washington for government officials to disclose a story that is going to become public anyway to more than one reporter.  Our guess is that Treasury also felt Mr. Simpson would write a straighter story than the Times, which was pushing a violation-of-privacy angle; on our reading of the two June 23 stories, he did.

        But then we knew they were cowards at the Treason when, as Tim Blair points out, they declined to print the Danish Muhammad cartoons.

        Critics of the Bush administration say that extraordinary secrecy has generated the rash of disclosures.  “People in the government who believe something wrong or illegal is going on feel they have no recourse but to go to the press,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former C.I.A. general counsel.

        Well, the 'beliefs' of 'people in the government' must be infallible, right?  Oh, wait, the story already denied that.  And there is a "whistleblower" program set up in the 'intelligence community', for those who believe that an agency is acting improperly.  Funny how the Treason didn't see the need to mention that.  Another thing they didn't mention is that Smith is a Democrat who was general counsel of the CIA under Clinton, and a former Democratic Congressional staffer, who accused Bush of violating the law.  Those aren't things you needed to know, I guess.

        Recounting some of the MSM's magnificent cooperation, the Treason notes:

        In 1986, after holding for weeks at government request a scoop about an N.S.A. tap on a Soviet undersea communications cable, The Post learned that the Russians knew all about it already from an N.S.A. turncoat named Ronald Pelton.  NBC beat The Post on its own report.

        I can't help but notice what's not there — what reasons the government gave to the Post for not running the story, whether there was any reason to believe that the printing of the story would harm national security despite Pelton's betrayal, or any mention of Jack Anderson's previous disclosure of valuable signals intelligence.  We do of course hear about how the Treason didn't reveal the CIA connection to the Bay of Pigs invasion, at the request of President Kennedy.  They just revealed that an invasion would take place.  You can see how that would be harmless, right?  And they remind you that afterwards, Kennedy wished the Treason had revealed the CIA connection, because it might have scrubbed the whole plan.  They don't comment on Kennedy's moral cowardice in refusing to either give military support to the "secret" invasion, or cancel it himself.  Musn't raise such issues.

        The article closes with a quote from a "Mr. Smith," who says the MSM and the Intelligence Community don't understand each other very well.  But I don't care if they understand each other.  I want the MSM to put national security above getting scoops.  Not that I'm holding my breath.

Posted by: saintonge at 02:40 | link | comments (1)
msm, treason, bush administration, nsa warrantless surveillance

OOPS!

        Yale University gets caught breaking the rules on research grants.  The school is very sorry it got caught, and promises not to let it happen again.

        Hat tip: the Blogfather.

Posted by: saintonge at 23:16 | link | comments