<$BlogRSDURL$>


Thursday, February 26, 2004

Rush Making a Lot of Sense 

Sad times in this country when Rush Limbaugh is a voice of moderation and reason. On this, I agree with him 5000%.

What is going on? Two events in our pop culture: one: a movie based on medieval plays that have a long history of inspiring violence and oppression against Jews is released. Two: Janet Jackson flashes breast for about one second. One has inspired a massive government response, which has forced companies to suspend popular radio personalities. The other, has been met with approval by the President.

For the record, massive government response would be wrong in either case.
|

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Liberal Bias! (actually pretty bad) 

OK, I found some real liberal bias.

This headline from Hollywood.com:

Experts Say "Passion" is Full of Inaccuracies

The first outrageous example in the article:

"The Jewish texts ridiculed long hair as something Roman or Greek," New York University's Lawrence Schiffman told Reuters, yet Jesus has continually been pictured with long hair, as he is in Passion.

You mean... THEY DIDN'T GET THE HAIR RIGHT!?! BASTARDS!
|

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

More From Sully 

Andrew Sullivan approvingly posts this e-mail:

"We've witnessed a shift in Republican politics. The Republican establishment used to pay lip service to religious conservative interests while openly courting independent voters with moderate policies because it knew it could get the religious conservative vote regardless (who were they going to vote for, Clinton!?). But now, it seems Bush is paying lip service to independent interests while openly promoting religious conservative policy. Who are we going to vote for, Kerry?

Well, yes."

Sully's been great today - but please. His faux-surprise at this development is pathetic. How in our lifetime have the Republicans only paid "lip service" to religious conservatives? By demanding the appointment of pro-life judges? By appointing Thomas and Scalia to the Supreme Court? (Both find Justices who anyone - including readers of this very blog - would be lucky to clerk for, but certainly darlings of the religious right.) By almost passing a ####### flag burning amendment (thanks Democrats)? By passing the Defense of Marriage Act (thanks Democrats)? By appointing John Ascroft? By having their Presidents never utter the words "gay" or "homosexual" in public - even when a plague is destroying the gay community?

The Republican party has done much more than pay lip service to religious conservatives - indeed, the Republican party needs religious conservatives in order to stay in power. It will give them whatever they want. To act shocked about it now is just sort of weird.

Finally, Sully quotes another heartbreaking e-mail...

"I organized my life around four institutions: my family, the Presbyterian Church, the Boy Scouts and the Republican Party. They summed up what seemed to me a sensible view of life and the world, embodying loyalty, unconditional love, a quiet, thoughtful exercise of faith, a commitment to ethical behavior, and a limited government that did the things it needed for the public good but otherwise left people alone to be all they could become and savor the victory of having done so.
Then I came out, and one by one those four institutions turned their backs on me."

Go to his site and read the whole thing. What's wrong with people?
|

O'Reilly Interviews Gibson 

I just watched Mel Gibson enter the No-Spin Zone. It was indeed the hardest-hitting interview I've ever seen - in that at no point did Bill O'Reilly actually fellate Mel Gibson on camera.

Actual exchange during interview (paraphrased... if there is just a God a transcript will be posted):

O'Reilly: I've taken a lot of heat for you, Gibson.

Gibson: I know, I know.

O'Reilly: I'm used to it.

Gibson: You... you're the kind of guy to go down with the ship.

O'Reilly: (laughs) I'm the kind of guy to go down with the ship. Do you feel sorry for me?

Gibson: No.

O'Reilly: I take all this heat for you and you don't feel sorry for me?


And it wasn't entirely clear that O'Reilly was joking when he asked Gibson if he felt sorry him. This truly is No-Spin journalism.
|

Dumbest Poll Ever? 

What follows is an actual "Greta Poll" from the Fox News web site. How is this an appropriate question for a poll? How in the name of the seven mad gods who rule the seas will the human quest for knowledge and wisdom be advanced from learning that, say, 16% of Americans are "suspicious that the two men asking for parole are involved"?

The Poll:

As the investigation into the disappearance of the Mississippi family of three continues, what concerns you the most?

__I'm suspicious that there was a domestic problem

__I'm suspicious that the two men asking for parole are involved

__I'm wondering if this was a totally random crime

__Nothing

__I have no idea what happened but I'm very interested in the case



UPDATE: I voted for "I'm wondering if this was a totally random crime."
|

Andrew Sullivan Quote 

"This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents."
|

Monday, February 23, 2004

Beyond Parody 

Onion headline on January 28:

Bush 2004 Campaign Pledges To Restore Honor And Dignity To White House

Actual news today:

"Bush cast the upcoming November election as a choice between the 'same old Washington mind-set' and a brighter future in a speech to the Republican Governors Association."
|

Common Sense 

Here's an example of a really dumb man sharing his opinion.

It's about The Passion, which I should be posting more about. Apparently, according to Mr. Cavuto, this a case of Hollywood Elites sneering at the values of everyday Americans. But that's not what anyone is saying - they're saying the movie is anti-Semitic. But not once in this article does he discuss whether the movie is anti-Semitic - he doesn't once address this criticism. So, I suppose what he is saying is that everyday Americans hate Jews and/or he is a complete moron.

A quote:

"Far easier is it for Tinseltown to make a mockery of priests than to say anything good about Christianity itself. But this isn't about Christians or priests or Buddhists or Jews. This is about one solitary life. And one horrible death."

This comes right after he notes that Hollywood "rightfully" praised Schindler's List and Philadelphia. What could he be getting at here?

(BTW, I would appreciate it if someone would read this and tell me if he's insinuating the death of Jesus was worse than the Holocaust or AIDS. He may be.)

UPDATE: And by the way, I don't know if this movie is anti-Semitic or not - I try not to judge things I haven't seen or read, unlike Christian Conservatives, for example. (That's an exaggeration: I apologize.) My only point is that he doesn't acknowledge in this article that this is what the criticism is about, and he doesn't acknowledge that if this criticism is accurate, Mel Gibson does deserve to be ostracized, not just by the liberal, Hollywood elite but by any good person.
|

Sunday, February 22, 2004

Moore = Nader 

Daily Kos raises the very real possibility that famed lunatic judge Ray Moore will run for President - possibly offsetting the Nader factor. See this article - dated February 2 - where Moore does not rule out this possibility.

This would be good, although I can't really figure out what objections religious conservatives have about Bush. I know there has been some rumblings lately, but what has Bush not done that they want him to do?

UPDATE: Over at Pandagon, there's a post about conservative outrage over the Bush's immigration policy. That might work.
|

Bin Laden Surrounded? 

Drudge links to this, probably untrue, article which claims that US Forces have located Bin Laden, are monitoring him by satelite, and are confident that he cannot escape.

But the article says this...

"The special forces are 'absolutely confident' there is no escape for bin Laden, and are awaiting the order to go in and get him.

'The timing of that order will ultimately depend on President Bush,' the paper says. 'Capturing bin Laden will certainly be a huge help for him as he gets ready for the election.'"

If Drudge wants to continue to be a right-wing attack dog, he'd better read the articles he links to. I'm pretty sure that if it's ever revealed that Bush timed the capture of Bin Laden to help his reelection, he will probably be impeached.

|

Contempt 

When Terry McAuliffe says this...

"We can't afford to have Ralph Nader in the race... This is about the future of our country. If you care about the environment, if you care about job growth, you've got to support the Democratic nominee. So I'm urging everybody to talk to Ralph Nader."

... what he means is that he thinks the American people are too stupid to select their President on their own. Did it ever occur to Mr. McAuliffe that the people who voted for Nader KNEW that they were voting in a close election and that they chose to give their vote to Mr. Nader even though that might mean that Mr. Bush would eventually win? Democrats want to deny the American people this choice - because, again, they apparently don't trust the people to vote in their own best interest.

I think Mr. Nader put it best when asked about an anti-Nader web site, calling it...

"[A] contemptuous statement against Democracy, against freedom, against more voices and choices for the American people... It is an offense to deny millions of people who may want to vote for our candidacy an opportunity to vote for our candidacy... The liberal intelligentsia... has allowed its party to become a captive of corporate interests."

Why don't the Democrats spend time trying to explain to us why we should vote for Kerry or Edwards instead of Nader, rather than trying (again) to scare their own supporters?

|

Friday, February 20, 2004

Nader's In 

Or so Foxnews is reporting.

You know, for all the talk about how unelectable Dean was, at least all of the liberals would have been united.

One good thing about having Nader in the race is that we can be treated to hearing many Democrats like Jonathan Chait talk about how they agree with everything Nader says, but will not vote for him because they feel other people will not vote for him. Much like the way many Democrats talked about Howard Dean. It's always a pleasure to confirm what sheep most people are.
|

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

Yes! 

A Google search of the term "Hannidate" now brings up only two web sites - Hannity's and ours. Nice.
|

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

That's a Big Finger 

Based on the picture posted on Druge right now, I'd say John Kerry's finger is bigger than a fully-grown man.
|

This Ain't Your Father's Talking Horse 

Looks like Sherman Hemsley of the "The Jeffersons" will be supplying the voice in a Fox remake of Mr. Ed.

This from the CNN article on this important topic:

"'Mister Ed' is a remake of the 1960s talking-horse sitcom. This time around, the equine title character has an urban sensibility."

What does this mean? I mean, I think I know what it means, but good God. Why would a horse have an urban sensibility?
|

Good News 

From today's Washington Times:

"In anticipation of the Feb. 25 release of Mel Gibson's controversial movie, "The Passion of the Christ," the poll also found that 80 percent of Americans do not feel that the Jews of today bear responsibility for the death of Jesus Christ, against 8 percent who said they did."

Apparently, this is good news! Only 8% of the people in the alleged greatest society in the history of civilization believe that Dodgers outfielder Shawn Green bears responsibility for the death of a carpenter 2000 years ago! Why that adds up to only slightly less than 25 million people!

But don't believe me that this is good news, see Michael Graham at The Corner...

"Given that the margin of error is +/-4%, concerns about Mel Gibson's movie would appear to be exaggerated."

Of course, I suppose this could mean that up to 12% of the population believes that famed funnyman Mel Brooks killed Jesus.

Incidentally, the same poll indicates that 60% of Americans believe the Bible is "literally" true. I don't even want to think about what that means.

UPDATE: It just occurred to me that it appears that 12% of Americans are undecided as to whether the Jews of today bear responsibility for Christ's death - I suppose, sensibly, that they are waiting for more evidence to come in before they reach a final conclusion as to whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg is guilty of a murder that took place 2000 years ago.
|

Monday, February 16, 2004

Hannidate 2004 

This defies all attempts at parody or witty comments. You must see this for yourself.

UPDATE: This is written on the Hannidate page: "Welcome to Hannidate 2004, where you may find your perfect match through Hannity style romance."

What in God's name is Hannity style romance?

Theory: it involves passionately screaming "deliver me from evil, Sean! Deliver me from me from terrorism, despotism and liberalism! Hannitize me!"

UPDATE: Just taking a glance at the people looking for a Hannidate, it looks like most of the guys are more used to spending the evening at home whilst Hannibating over a picture of Ann Coulter.


(How could I have missed that obvious pun before? Apologies to our family readers - relax, I'm sure the FCC will have jurisdiction over this blog soon enough.)

|

PC 

Apparently, when Americans are outraged over Janet Jackson flashing a breast and pressure CBS to take action and apologize, it is a sign that Americans are righteously standing up for their values.

However, when Native Americans are outraged over a racist performance and pressure CBS to take action, it is a sign of political correctness run amok.
|

Sunday, February 15, 2004

Bush Comments on A-Rod 

The man who traded Sammy Sosa comments on the trade of Alex Rodriguez to the New York Yankees:

"I was just as surprised as the Yankees and Boston Red Sox fans when I opened my paper today," Bush told NBC at Sunday's Daytona 500. "It looks like a big deal, and it looks like it's going to happen. A-Rod's a great player, and the Yanks are going to be a heck of a team with him in the infield."

Say what? (as the Daily Howler would say). I thought our President didn't read the Newspapers.

I assume what the President meant to say was:

"I was just as surprised as the Yankees and Boston Red Sox fans when Andy Card briefed me about the news today."

Incidentally, I'm not sure what the point of being a baseball fan is anymore. Good work, Yankees, Red Sox and Rangers - you have led baseball one step closer to destruction.
|

Thursday, February 12, 2004

Wow Again 

Ann Coulter today:
Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.

Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman –- or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.
Of course, Cleland had received a medal three days before for courage under fire. And, admittedly according to his own representative, he was in the field at the time because he had volunteered to relieve some infantry men. And, speaking of volunteering, he had volunteered to be in Vietnam in the first place.

If Ann Coulter is taken seriously by even one person in this country (and, by all accounts, she is taken seriously by millions), you have to wonder if the Founding Fathers' experiment in Democracy and self-rule has failed.

UPDATE: The Center for American Progress is all over this in their Progresss Report... citing a speech on the Senate Floor by none other than every Republican's favorite Democrat, Zell Miller. Can't find it on their web site yet... I'll post a link when I do. Note that Goldberg and Guthrie was all over this Coulter article first... I guess that's good.
|

Wow 

Michael Novak has possibly the most offensive comparison ever on The Corner today...
I was overseas on September 11, 2001, and when I saw the first plane coast quietly into the World Trade Center, I thought it was a freak accident. When the second plane hit, I knew instantly it was war.

When I saw Howard Dean suddenly implode on a clear day, I knew it was from dirty tricks, in the usual run of things, plus his babbling mouth. When I see the second tower suddenly implode, John Kerry, I wonder who could be behind these TWO 'assassinations.' Who could be clearing the way for whom?

Suppose it had suddenly become clear that Bush COULD be beaten this year. Who then would want to get into the race, if only the way were not blocked?
Oh, and if you're a normal person who doesn't routinely read such conservative idiocy, you might think he's insinuating that Bush is behind these tricks. After all, that would make some sense, given that Bush is scheduled to run against the Democratic nominee in November. You'd be wrong.

Give it up people - SHE'S NOT GOING TO RUN.

UPDATE: Apparently, the Corner has taken this post down. Well, it shall remain here for posterity's sake. Incidentally, it was titled "Two Towers Fall Again."
|

Idiots 

So, the FCC is pushing for the authority to regulate cable as well - not just over the air television. Why? Why, if I pay for a service, should the FCC decide what I watch? How is this in any way even bordering on being Constitutional - outside of banning obscenity and cable shows where people yell fire in a crowded theater?

And who are the people who are paying for a service - cable television - and then demanding that it be censored? You are a moron, if this applies to you. DON'T BUY CABLE if it offends you.

Sorry - busy at work. And note that it's not just Republicans who are doing this - there are plenty of idiots on both sides of the aisle. I just don't understand why anyone feels they can decide what I watch on my own TV.
|

Sunday, February 08, 2004

Media Admits it Screwed Dean 

Now that the one truly establishment-challenging candidate has been all but eliminated from the race, the media admits that it overplayed the infamous "scream" speech.

From the AP story:

"[Dianne] Sawyer reported that Dean was using a special microphone that night that filters out crowd noise to heighten his voice; other videotapes taken illustrate that his 'scream' was barely audible to his live audience.

To Trippi, Sawyer's report felt like a Super Bowl referee admitting -- after the game -- that he blew a call that decided the outcome."

Except, of course, that a referee has a split second to make a call in a Super Bowl - or at best a few minutes to review a replay. The media played this story out over the course of a week.

Also, if a referee blows a call in the Super Bowl, someone loses a football game rather than millions of Americans losing the chance to obtain health insurance.
|

MTP 

I guess I'm the only person in the world who thought Bush did a pretty good job on Meet the Press this morning. I thought he was very convincing when he talked about the war in Iraq - so much so, that it reminded me why I supported the war in the first place (though torturedly!). Everything was going very well for him, until he was asked "was it worth the lives of 500 Americans to get Saddam out of power"? At first, I thought he was going to knock this out of the park - but then he just started repeating what he had said before.

The rest of the interview was pretty bad - but no worse than anything we'd seen before. People don't seem to care that he just doesn't have a firm understanding of even the major issues facing the country (or, if he does have such an understanding, he is far from able to articulate it). But I think he does understand the war in Iraq, and he also came across as genuinely believing that he did the right thing.

Of course, there were plenty of terrible things about the interview but, as I've said, we've heard it all before and nobody seems to care.
|

Friday, February 06, 2004

Legal Realism 

Another voice from the school of legal realism.... are we sure Mr. Theismann did not go to the University of Chicago?

From an article on the Clarett decision...

""I think it's wrong," said former Redskins quarterback and current ESPN analyst Joe Theismann. "To me it's a little like the courts of the United States not understanding the world that they're ruling in and that they're just going by the letter of the law.""
|

Thursday, February 05, 2004

Give to Dean 

I suggest that anyone reading this blog who cares about the future of this country go to Dean For America and donate money to the Howard Dean campaign.

Essentially, this is a plea to Goldberg to give more money to Dean. This is quite possibly going to be his last stand - I think we should get it all out of our systems now so that we can support the nominee in a few months. And, there is still the possibility that Dean could win with a victory in Wisconsin.

If we pick our Presidential candidate simply on the basis of beating George Bush, on the basis of fear and anger, then Bush has already won.

(That was fun to say - apologies for the subtle comparison of Bush to terrorists.)

One candidate running for President has the ability to take our country back. Let's help him win.
|

Clinton and Bush: More on Vietnam 

It's obvious that what Clinton and Bush did to avoid Vietnam was similar. (Although, Bush had influence to wield because of who his daddy was; Clinton had earned this influence through hard work and accomplishments since he was born into poverty.) The real advantage of having a military man as our nominee is that it lessens the effectiveness of the Republican lie that Democrats "loathe" the military or that we don't care about national security.

I think there's another difference between Clinton and Bush did - a possible difference, anyway. Clinton was genuinely opposed to the war in Vietnam. I have no idea if Bush was - but I have seen no evidence that he ever worked to get our country out of Vietnam.

However, a young Bill Clinton wrote this:

"I worked for two years in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did. I have written and spoken and marched against the war."

And this:

"From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.

The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above."

And this:

"I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal."

(Note how he never said that he loathed the military - as noted by many before.)

The whole letter is here.

To Bill Clinton's enemies, that letter is self-serving and allowed him to justify avoiding military service and protect his future political career. But it reads to me like a man genuinely torn for so many reasons (including political ambition). Do I have any idea if Bush went through similar torment? No. Was Bush against the war in Vietnam? I don't know. But if he was for the war and if he still avoided military service - that is something worse than what Bill Clinton did. After all, that would mean that he was for the war - as long as rich kids like him got to stay home and poor kids, like Bill Clinton, had to go to Vietnam and die.
|

Kerry's Status as War Hero 

I had foolishly thought that this might help Kerry in the general election. However, Ann Coulter has set me straight with a brilliant analysis of voting trends amongst Americans:

"While there is indisputably nothing cooler than having fought for your country, John Kerry's status as a Vietnam veteran is unlikely to change a single vote. Military guys will support Bush, and liberals don't admire bravery."

And then I remembered that, she's right, I don't admire bravery, and neither do any of my liberal friends. Therefore, I'm supporting the candidate who used his political influence to avoid Vietnam by serving in the National Guard.


|

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

Bad News for Dems 

I'm sitting here at work, reading about last night, and all I can think about is how unfairly Dean has been treated during this process. And I'm starting to think about how fun it would be to vote for Nader again, just to again give a big "fuck you" to the people who did this to him.

Of course, I will almost certainly vote for the Democratic nominee. (Especially now that Joementum has ended.) However, rest assured if I am thinking this, the true Deaniacs are thinking it as well. And the Democrats cannot win without those of us who actually still believe that the government exists to help people, not just to stop Republicans from hurting them.

Again, I realize this isn't a very rational response, and I'm not really looking to defend it. I'm just saying that I am not the only one feeling this way, and it's a problem for the Democrats.
|

Monday, February 02, 2004

Bill O'What in the Hell? 

In my obsessive quest to find funny Bill O'Reilly quotes, I occasionally come across something that makes no sense or, if it does make sense, is just incredibly disturbing and odd. From Bill's web site...

"This is not about a bare breast. If Janet Jackson wants to flash, she can come over to my office anytime. I'll leave the door unlocked."

What?
|

Janet Jackson's Boob 

White House may have leaked undercover CIA agent's identity as a way of intimidating its political enemies? Investigation begins several months later.

Janet Jackson's boob exposed for 1 second during halftime show of Super Bowl? Investigation begins next day.
|

Meaningless Stat Alert 

Michael Novak has a column on the National Review defending the war from Iraq.

First, he notes that the media is vastly over-reporting the number of deaths in Iraq, since they are including accidental deaths - which might be happening anyway. I guess this means something. He notes that the actual number of combat deaths is a mere 343 - NOT 500.

Then he points out a stat that supporters of the war like to toss about from time to time....

"During 2003, the number of homicides in Chicago was 599, in New York City 596, in Los Angeles 505, in Detroit 361, in Philadelphia 347, in Baltimore 271, in Houston 276, and in Washington 247. That makes 3,002 murders in only eight cities."

What in God's name is this supposed to mean? Is Chicago a worse place than Iraq? If so, shouldn't the deaths of Iraqi soldiers and civilians be counted- after all, the actual death toll might be in the hundreds of thousands. And if we must judge everything based only on the number of deaths - wasn't this mission a waste of time? Couldn't the money have saved more lives if it was used to, I don't know, give AIDS drugs to every HIV positive person in the world or bring fresh water to everyone in any third world country?

I just don't understand what this stat means or how in anyway it furthers the argument that the war in Iraq was a good idea. It is very reminiscent of another conservative stat - the fact that George W. Bush got more votes in 2000 than Bill Clinton ever received. Of course, Al Gore also got more votes in 2000 than Bill Clinton ever received and, in fact, also got more votes than George W. Bush received in 2000.

|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?