|
Brooks: "The Boston Fog Machine"
Great piece by David Brooks today, calling John Kerry "The Boston Fog Machine" for his legendary skill at obscuring every clear choice with rhetorical smoke:
Kerry established himself early as the senator most likely to pierce through the superficial clarity and embrace the miasma. The gulf war had just ended. It was time to look back for lessons learned. "There are those trying to say somehow that Democrats should be admitting they were wrong" in opposing the gulf war resolution, Kerry noted in one Senate floor speech. But he added, "There is not a right or wrong here. There was a correctness in the president's judgment about timing. But that does not mean there was an incorrectness in the judgment other people made about timing."
For you see, Kerry continued, "Again and again and again in the debate, it was made clear that the vote of the U.S. Senate and the House on the authorization of immediate use of force on Jan. 12 was not a vote as to whether or not force should be used."
In laying out the Kerry Doctrine --that in voting on a use-of-force resolution that is not a use-of-force resolution, the opposite of the correct answer is also the correct answer -- Kerry was venturing off into the realm of Post-Cartesian Multivariate Co-Directionality that would mark so many of his major foreign policy statements.
Liberals: Firmly On Record that Treason Against America is "Bad"
Over at Oliver "Free" Willis, "reasonable liberals" are all busy patting themselves on the back for agreeing with the controversial premises that
1) You shouldn't covertly act as an agent of a hostile foreign power
and
2) If you're caught doing so, you should be punished severely.
Read the comments. The Angry Left excuses the behavior and hails her as a hero; one guy figures, hey, if we like our spies in enemy countries, isn't it "inconsistent" to want to punish their spies in ours?
But then the "reasonable liberals" chime in, and congratulate Oliver "Free" Willis for being smart enough to realize that treason is bad. They're all self-satisfied that admitting this makes them difficult to "stereotype" as liberals.
Hmmm. Yes. Very outside-the-box thinking, guys. We hereby issue you all one Ace of Spades HQ gold star.
How pathetic is it that, for a liberal, calling treason against your country "bad" is now considered proof-positive of a discerning and insightful intellect?
How sick is it that these people seem to think they're taking some sort of a brave and maverick stance?
How low, in sum, has the bar of "patriotism" been lowered to accomodate these people?
Oliver "Free" Willis has annoyed us since he showed up and Instapundit started hyping him.
Oliver "Free" Willis would just say, "I'm a liberal, but I tell you what, I make no apologies for the senseless slaughter of 3,000 American civilians," and Instapundit started writing Hoseannahs to him, trumpeting him as a "liberal who gets it."
Uhhhh, yeah. He "gets it." In the sense that if you give a retard a retard-level test, where they have to match similar colors and shapes, they "get" that too. For Instapundit, it was some sort of amazing accomplishment that some liberal, somewhere, had made the difficult intellectual paradigm-shift that the mass-murder of 3,000 people was just plain wrong and frankly bad manners to boot.
So, Oliver "Free" Willis passed the retard-level test regarding patriotism and seriousness about mass-murder. Whoop-ee-dee, hooray, huzzah.
And since that brilliant bit of cogitation, "Free" Willis has given us nothing but bile and hysterical female shrieking about the men defending his fat shamu-looking ass.
But Instapundit's still a fan!
We guess it's like that old saying: If a horse manages to tap-dance, you applaud not because he does so well, but simply because he somehow manages to tap-dance at all.
And, by extension, we suppose, getting a liberal to take any sort of a firm position that killing Americans is bad is like getting a horse to tap-dance. Instapundit applauds merely because the horse seems to be trying.
So, maybe we were wrong. Maybe we shouldn't be criticizing these people. Maybe we should join Instapundit in saying--
"Ah! Some liberals who understand that treason is wrong! Congratulations! Here are some enlightened liberals who really 'get it'!"
"Don't Force Your Religion on Us!"
You know the slogans:
Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!
Get your agenda away from my pudenda!
No legislation on my ovulation!
Out of the testes, into the streets! Out of the testes, into the streets...!
Etc.
For a long time we've been wanting to argue that, look, everyone's first principles are ultimately non-rational and arbitrary, whether "secular" or "religious;" and so it's silly to argue that people can't use their own religion to inform their political beliefs.
Well, The Volokh Conspiracy has made just that argument, better than we could have, so now we're happy and content.
It's nice when solid, painstaking work gets done and you didn't have a damn thing to do with it.
A Good Post about the Pro-Terrorist Left
Michelle at A Small Victory can only shake her head in sadness and frustration.
"Pro-Terrorist Left" is our phrase, not hers.
Cool web design, too. Feels like you're watching Mystery on PBS. Very Gorey.
What Do You Feed an 800-Pound Guerilla?
A healthy diet of euphemisms and apologism, it turns out. LGF notes that when Reuters believed the Basque ETA was behind the Madrid bombings, it called the slaughter what it was: terrorism.
Now that the possibility exists that Al Qaeda Muslims were responsible, Reuters isn't quite so sure it was terrorism after all, and begins calling the massacre a "guerilla attack."
We'll have to wait until the predominant religion of the attackers is confirmed before knowing whether this was a "terrorist" attack or just an act of resistance by dashing, romantic guerilla fighters, sort of like Zorro, but without the flamboyant hat.
OOPS! Pardon our oversight. AllahPundit's indispensible daily quick-takes led us there.
Le Monde: "Shades of Gray" and "Complex Nuances" Are For Pussies
Surprisingly, Andrew Sullivan actually manages to avoid ranting about gay marriage today.
And, for the first time in a year, delivers a must-read post. Sacre Bleu, some Frenchmen seem to suddenly think that terrorism is something to be taken seriously and battled fiercely.
Or at least they think that today, and are willing to take the daring and provocative step of writing such a thing in a newspaper. We'll see.
Those Kerry Crossfire Transcripts
Just One Minute has lengthy quotations from John "F--- Russia and France" Kerry. It's worse than we thought.
Remember, John Kerry is speaking in 1997-- in defense of then-president Clinton's plan to unilaterally take action against Iraq. He seemed to have a different view about the wisdom of French foreign policy when he needed to defend a Democratic President for purely partisan reasons:
SEN. JOHN KERRY: ... I mean, the fact is that over a period of time France and Russia have indicated a monetary interest. They on their own have indicated the desire to do business. That's what's driving this. I mean, as Tom Friedman said in a great article the other day, France, Inc. wants to do business with oil and they are moving in the exact sort of opposite direction on their own from the very cause of the initial conflict, which was oil.
Wait, wait, wait, wait-- you mean Halliburton was actually a French company all along? And, we suppose, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are actually Frenchmen?
Amazing.
UPDATE: And speaking of Kerry, and speaking of the pro-terrorist left's denial of the existence of a real terrorist threat, remember this exchange...
TOM BROKAW: Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it. Who is right?
KERRY: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing...
Senator In-Between.
How Long...
...until the Pro-Terrorist Left begins denying the existence of a real terrorist threat again?
We estimate that it was about one full year before the Pro-Terrorist Left began feeling comfortable actually saying and writing what they'd felt since 9-11: That there was no terrorist threat at all; that the entire notion of a "terrorist threat" was a fascist mind-control scare-tool similar to the fictitious Immanuel Goldstein in 1984; that the "real terrorists" were those in the West who stood up to terrorism, etc. (Oddly enough, they simultaneously don't believe in a terrorist threat and yet claim that George W. Bush is the real terrorist threat.)
200+ are now dead in Spain, and that number will, sadly, climb for the next week. 1500 are injured. All because they committed the "crime" of boarding a train en route to work or to a daytrip.
The Pro-Terrorist Left will, of course, stop claiming there is no terrorist threat. For a short while. But for how long, exactly?
A month, maybe? Maybe six weeks?
Right after 9-11 -- that is, on September 12th -- the greatest "threat" perceived by the pro-terrorist left was that the US would overreact to the greatest terrorist slaughter of civlians in modern history. Right out of the box, they began fretting that civil liberties might be curtailed and that police might become more aggressive: that was what they worried about, as dead, buried bodies were still roasting in the smoldering wreckage of the WTC.
We've already heard that in response to 3-11. We just heard (sorry, can't cite it) that "people" are "worried" about a "European overreaction" to terror.
Yes. That is the most important worry at the moment, indeed.
Pomplona, Spain.
Instapundit, damn him, remembers those horrid women who posed as suicide bombers in Madrid of all places last year:
LGF's essay on that photo here.
We think the blogosphere owes it to these two attention-seeking nihilistic women to display their faces as often as possible. They wanted publicity; let us oblige them.
Maybe some of the families of the butchered Spanish dead would like to discuss things with them.
UPDATE: Was that too nasty a suggestion? Are we here at Ace of Spades HQ insinuating that someone to do violence to these women?
Actually, no. We'd just like to see them humiliated and exposed for the vicious murder-cheering witches they are.
Ironically, we here at Ace of Spades HQ are actually anti-violence, which these women clearly are not. They're not anti-war, they're just pro-enemy, and we'd enjoy it if the Spanish press were to hound these women into tears.
Omarosa Bin Ladin Accuses Apprentice Co-Star of Using "N word"
What an absolutely vile lunatic of a woman.
One good thing will come out of this.
Three words: Celebrity Female Boxing.
Ultimatum Time?
VodkaPundit is angry about the Madrid bombings. And he's annoyed at those who criticize Bush's forward strategy of freedom in the Arab/Muslim world.
He asks, "Isn't it time we made that American sentiment 'Live free or die' into a goddamn ultimatum?"
MRC: CBS and NBC Censored Lindauer's Work for Democrats; Made Sure to Mention She Was a "Distant Cousin" of Andy Card
It's the last item.
How prescient are we? We didn't know this when we did today's top ten, but yesterday, rather than report this woman has worked for four Democratic Congressmen, CBS reporter Jim Steward instead chose to highlight the vitally important detail that Lindauer was regarded as a "klutz" by her neighbors and "she couldn't even turn on her lawnmower last year."
Compare with "She's been 'really meaning' to start jogging or join Curves" or "She thinks a really good name for a chocolate lab would be 'Pretzel.'"
Our list doesn't seem so ridiculous and comical now. It seems a little understated, actually.
Uhhh, guys, if you have time to discuss her difficulty with lawn-mower activation processes, you probably have time to report on her occupation.
Leftist Crank Al Gore: "Television Induces Quasi-Hypnotic State"
Yeah, well, Al, that's kind of the point. That's why we watch it.
But seriously-- think about the 2000 election again. Think how lucky we are to have George W. Bush as President.
Can you imagine a President who thinks like Al Gore? This is Noam Chomsky stuff; this is the righteously paranoid worldview of 1969 Yippies.
We can hear Al Gore ranting: "You people spend your whole lives as prisoners, chained to a pretty-pictures box. Why do you think they call it programming, man?! Think about that: They're telling you what it is! They're selling you soap and fascism in between state-approved propaganda for apathy and conformity! Turn off! Turn on! Drop out!"
This is what he really believes, remember. He's now "letting it rip." This is the bullet the nation dodged on December 12, 2000.
He also blathers about global warming, which, last time we checked, was going to plunge us into an ice age... again. In the seventies, the boogeyman was an ice age; in the eighties and nineties, it was runaway heat; now it's maybe an ice age again. Whatever.
Another hat tip to FreeRepublic.
"Charitable Money-Laundering:" Follow the Money From Heinz's Vaults to Terry McAuliffe's Smeagol-Smirk
At least one newspaper is interested in the story.
Hat tip: FreeRepublic.
Susan Lindauer: Maybe Not That Kind of Spy
Via Instapundit, the Volokh Conspiracy notes that Liberal Spy Susan Lindauer has not been charged with espionage, but rather of being an "unregistered foreign agent."
That might not be legal espionage, but not all spies engage in espionage. Some spooks work to influence the direction of a government while secretly working for another. Which seems to be what Susan Lindauer was doing.
So, as far as we're concerned, the "Spy" epithet is still accurate. She was just a different sort of spy. An agent of influence, as they say.
R'oh! South Korean National Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Impeach President
193-2. Now that's the way you do it.
Nice.
Johnny Ramone: Republican!?!
This is why no one will ever beat Drudge at his game. He made the game; he mastered it. Yeah, Drudge does tend to fixate on stories that we here at Ace of Spades HQ have no interest in (Disney's coporate reshuffling; floods in Peru).
But the man has terrific sensibility at putting together a front-page news-site. An almost perfect mix of the serious and the silly.
Today, we find out that Johnny Ramone is a fierce NRA-card-carrying Bush-boosting Republican.
Who would have thought it? If you forced us at gunpoint to guess at Republicans in punk/rock -- apart from Ted Nugent, of course -- we might have said that annoying drummer from Metallica; he sure is a bear for intellectual-property rights.
Or maybe Sammy Hagar. We could see him at a Bush meet-up.
Or maybe Jan "Theme from Miami Vice" Hammer; we always admired the mechanical fascistic precision of that instrumental.
But Johnny Ramone? We would not have guessed that. Weird, wild stuff.
Today's Top Ten
Yesterday, most of the liberal media didn't mention that Iraqi Spy Susan Lindauer was an aide to numerous Democratic Congressmen and Senators, including candidate for President Carol Moseley-Braun. Instead, they chose to hype the rather secondary fact that she is the second-cousin of Bush Chief of Staff Andy Card. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, among others, chose to headline their stories with this "important" detail.
...from the Home Office in Pocatello, Idaho...
Top Ten Other "Important" Facts the Liberal Media Decided it Had to Report Rather than Reporting on Susan Lindauer's Democratic Affiliation
10. She's been "really meaning" to start jogging or join Curves
9. She's just wild about spats
8. Her neck is ringed by a colorful frill which she can puff out as a warning display indicating hostility
7. Sometimes she gets some song stuck in her head all day long and can't get it out! She just hates that!
6. She is the proud owner of an extensive collection of swingers' magazines
5. She thinks a really good name for a chocolate lab would be "Pretzel"
4. Loves: Harry Connack Junior; Hates: "The Man"
3. She is functionally frappedextrous, meaning sometimes she calls it a "milkshake," sometimes a "frappe," and feels equally comfortable with either
2. Claims her favorite cartoon is Doonesbury; her actual favorite, Cathy
...and the Number One Other "Important" Fact the Liberal Media Decided it Had to Report Rather than Reporting on Susan Lindauer's Democratic Affiliation...
1. Turn-offs: Smoking, men who wear too much cologne; know-it-alls; Turn-ons: Dead drops, safe houses, and genocidal dictators who aren't afraid to cry
Twin Embarassments from Democratic Underground and Hans Blix
FloridaCracker's got it. First one post, then scroll up to the next.
Just a little tease:
Four days ago, Hans Blix claimed that the threat of __________ (blank) was overstated.
Take your best guess.
Think bombs going off in dense civllian areas.
It's a tough one, we know. Check Florida Cracker to see if you've guessed correctly.
Too Good to Be Missed Update on "Cousin of Bush Staffer" Spy
Check out the "Ultimate Update" at this post.
Wonkette: How Come the Bush Ads Depict Muslim Terrorists as Being, Well, Muslim?
She really doesn't understand.
Tell us, Wonkette, what race should the terrorist have been? Black? Would that have been better?
Hispanic?
Asian?
Pacific Islander/Other?
Oh, wait. We know. You wanted a...
WHITE
terrorist. Preferably one wearing a "Jesus Saves" baseball cap and a "God Hates Fags" wifebeater t-shirt.
Because we all know-- only white, Southern, Christian people can be bad.
And of course we all know that all of the 9-11 hijackers where white caucasian Christians.
As were the Bali bombers.
And the Madrid bombers.
And the Baghdad bombers.
And the Istanbul bombers.
And the first WTC bombers.
And etc.
As we all know, all terrorism in the past 1,000 years of recorded human history was committed by Timothy McVeigh.
This is so similar to the absurd liberal bitching about the Willie Horton ad.
Why, they piously asked, must the picture of a black man be used to illustrate an ad about a black murderer/rapist/kidnapper and the white Governor that set him free on weekends to commit more acts of violation and mayhem and rape?
Ummm... because he was black? Just like Mike Dukakis... was white?
It would be one thing if Lee Atwater had taken a white murderer/rapist and transformed him into Kingfisher from Amos & Andy.
If Willie Horton were actually white, and then Lee Atwater slapped some blackface on him and dressed him up as Uncle Remus and then, who knows, had him start singing Zippeddy-Doo-Dah as he forcibly sodomized Br'er Rabbit at knifepoint, we we'd admit the left had a point.
We'd say: "Now look here, politics is a bloodsport and all, but that crosses the proverbial line, Old Chap. Bad form, Lee Atwater. Very bad form."
But, see, the trouble is-- Willie Horton actually was black. Not just well-tanned; but black. He was, as the kids say nowadays, an "Afro-American."
So, that's sort of why the picture that ran with the Willie Horton ad showed a black face. As inconvenient a fact as this might be for the left-- Willie Horton had a black face.
Get it?
For much the same reason, Lee Atwater used Michael Dukakis' Greek-American face in running negative ads about him. Sure, someone could see such an ad and think, "Hmmm, Greek-Americans are brining this country down. And damnit, I hate souvlaki. Maybe I should purchase myself some rope and lynch a couple of Greeks."
And yes, perhaps they could have run anti-Dukakis ads with pale WASP actor John Lithgow playing Michael Dukakis; that way, Evil would have had a pale white WASP face again, as we know Evil -- real Evil -- always does.
But they chose to depict Dukakis as he actually was: as a dimunitive Massachusetts miniliberal of Greek extraction. Truth is, as they say, always a defense.
Next penetrating question from Wonkette: Why does the media have to depict David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz as mentally deranged? Couldn't that cause "bias" against the criminally insane?
There's an old put-down which was once sort of clever but which became, as often happens, pretty lame through indiscriminate use: What color are the skies in your world?
Hey Wonkette: What color are Mohammed Atta, Zacharius Moussawi, and Osama bin Ladin in your world?
In our world, they're sort of olive-skinned to dusky. That's not an indictment of people with that color of skin; it's just a neutral, proveable fact.
Liberals think that terrorism is a "fictitious threat." The real threat, of course, is showing a picture of an actual terrorist. That could cause, who knows, violence of some sort-- the wrong kind of violence. White violence, the only sort of violence that can't be excused or apologized away.
Hat Tip: AllahPundit.
Tim Robbins Agrees with Senator Jay Rockefeller: The Cunning, Crafty Jews Crucified Saddam Hussein
If an anti-semite rails in the forest, and that anti-semite is a leftist, does anyone in the mainstream media hear it?
In ripping apart Tim Robbins' childishly stupid sketch-comedy Embedded, TNR reviewer Lawrence F. Kaplan points out that Robbins spends an awful lot of time skewering "neoconservatives" who just so happen to be Jews.
Just a coincidence. You know-- the way it's a coincidence that lefties are obsessed with Paul Wolfowitz (or, as BBC newsreaders pronounce it, "Volfevitz," just in case you missed the fact that he was Jew whose family had fled Central Europe) while almost entirely ignoring Donald Rumsfeld, his Christian boss. (Okay-- sometimes they mistakenly believe his Rummy is Jewish; in those cases, sure, they heap lots of invective on him.)
An essay was included with the program given out at Robbins' play. This essay apparently provides some useful background about Tim Robbins theories about the "neoconservative [read: Jew] cabal" running the country.
Kaplan writes:
What exactly are those theories? The cabal, despite its repeated shouts of "hail Leo Strauss!" (this, to a Jewish refugee from Nazism), doesn't give us much insight. Fortunately, the program for Embedded, which contains an essay by someone named Kitty Clark, does. (For the New York production at least, someone in Robbins's orbit had the good sense to expunge from the original essay, which I found on the Internet, several pointed references to the Jewishness of Strauss and his supposed adherents.)
Well, so long as he edited out those "pointed references to the Jewishness of Straus and his supposed adherents," we guess the essay is still just kosher, as it were.
UPDATE: We can't be sure if this is the same essay Kaplan references, but here is a Kitty Clark article about Strauss in .pdf format.
We didn't see any overt anti-semitic remarks in the piece. We will say, however, that she seems as fastidious as a Prussian bureaucrat about identifying which of the villains in her passion play have Jude blut coursing through, or rather, "corrupting," their veins.
We have a feeling that if you asked her to define Richard Perle under the "half-blood Jew once-removed" Nuremberg Racial Purity Laws categorizations, she'd pretty much nail it without having to break out her dog-eared copy of Mein Kampf.
Perhaps she could have saved word-count by dispensing with the "another Jewish intellectual living in New York" locution and simply thrown up a yellow Star-of-David asterisk after each of the Hebraic Heavies named in her piece.
Might have been a little more subtle that way, you know?
The Left Has Its Talking Points on the Democrat Spy for Iraq
CNN reports (in its broadcasts) that the liberal Democrat Spy is actually the second cousin of Andy Card (Bush's Chief of Staff).
Ah-ha! A riposte. Jeepers, she's related somewhat distantly to a Republican!
Two questions:
One. Did Andy Card hire her as his second cousin? Did he investigate and evaluate her background before appointing her as a member of his extended family? Did he promote her, from, say, second-cousin-once-removed to second-cousin?
No, you say? You say that she was just born into Card's family, without him having a say about it?
Oh.
Two. Given that the circumstances strongly indicate that Card alerted the authorities to her (because she delivered a letter to him from Saddam's people, telling him she was "in contact" with Iraqi authorities), can we really make the claim here that Card did anything but the right thing? Difficult under the circumstances, yes, perhaps a bit cold-blooded to do to a relative-- but the right thing nonetheless.
Oh, well. There you go. This liberal Democrat traitor has worked her way up through the system of Democrat hacks, working for numerous liberal Democrat Congressmen, ulitmately working in a sensitive position for a Democrat candidate for President. But, on the other hand, she's Andy Card's second-cousin.
So it all just balances out.
Expect Oliver "Free" Willis to waddle his fat orca ass over to the keyboard and use his chubby shamu flipper-fins to note this for his learning-impaired readership.
Once he's finished with this hour's ten Filet-O-Fish sandwiches, of course.
UPDATE! An Instapundit reader emails him to note that...
Just saw the NBC evening news: Tom Brokaw not only skipped the substantial aspects of the indictment (her being paid ten grand *and* her willingness to perform aid and comfort when she believed she was aiding the "Iraqi resistance" with Libyan help), but he neglected to mention that she was a former journalist and former Democratic congressional aide.
He did take pains to report that she was a second cousin of White House staffer Andy Card.
Of course! That's obviously the most important biographical detail about her!
Our "objective, neutral" media in action!
ULTIMATE UPDATE! Suprise! Not only is this the left's talking points, but it's the headline in the "objective, neutral" media!
Instapundit links to bloggers who've discovered that the AP story is running with the headline "Suspected Spy is Bush Staffer's Cousin."
No mention of how she might have gotten her hands on sensitive documents in the headline; apparently the suggestion is that "Cousins of Bush Staffers" are just sort of put on the distribution list for secret documents.
At some point, you have to wonder why Congress doesn't just hold hearings on this. Not necessarily to pass laws, but just to "understand" how bias happens. Put these obnoxious bastards under oath and make them explain their reasons for these sorts of headlines.
Yeah, there would be political heat for doing so. Yeah, there'd be whining about "chilling the press' right to spin information to aid leftist causes."
But at what point does the sheer brazeness and obnoxiousness of the liberal media begin to make it worth it for Republicans to haul them in for a bit of questioning?
A New Blogger Actually Gets Results!
Oh, That Liberal Media actually shames the LA Times into reporting on Justice Ginsberg's conflict-of-interests, very similar to the alleged Scalia conflict-of-interests they earlier hyped.
It's nice and all that the LA Time actually bothers to run a story on Ginsberg. But, as OTLM asks, why did it have to be a blogger that brought this to their attention? Don't they have reporters who ask things like, "Gee, maybe we ought not just run a story fed to us by PFAW; maybe we ought to check around ourselves independently, and determine ourselves whether or not liberal justices likewise give speeches before ideological groups."
The answer is a simple one: No, they don't have any reporters who ask such questions. Stories go right from a "Press Alert" from a liberal lobbying group to a reporter's "to-do" list to the front page within 24-48 hours.
Hat tip: Third-level fascist informant TabouliJones.
Number of People Killed by Frenzied Christians Since Release of The Passion: 0
Number of People Killed by Frenzied Muslims Since Release of The Passion: at least 500+*
Guess which one liberals are still tearing their hair out over? Guess which one they're soft-pedaling as unimportant?
Anyone think Frank Rich is going to pen an anti-Islamic screed this week?
Thanks to AllahPundit for noting the absurdity of this.
*Includes both Madrid train bombings and Baghdad bombings of two weeks ago, plus the various other small-scale attacks where frenzied Muslims "only" butcher 3 or 4 people at a clip.
BUT NOTE:
Spain's government is studying the reported al-Qaida claim but still believes ETA is more likely responsible, a senior official in Aznar's office said.
Spain's security forces were not ruling out "any line of investigation," Interior Minister Angel Acebes said.
The United States believes Al-Masri sometimes claims to be acting on behalf of al-Qaida, and it later turns out they were not. For example, they took credit for blackouts in the United States and London last year.
Either way, though. Basque or Muslim, the point still holds. Liberals are only concerned about terrorism (or, as they usually put it, "terrorism") when it is perpetrated by a political group they disfavor, such as Christians.
When it's perpetrated by anyone darker in skin tone than Brian Boitanno, or any adherents of one of those "exotic" foreign cultures that make liberals moist with multicultural longing, they're decidedly eh about it.
SHOCK: California Supreme Court Abides By California State Law!
Unbelievably enough, these judges whose job it is to "interpret the law" have interpreted a state law defining marriage as actually defining marriage.
It's sure to be a controversial decision. We're especially interested in seeing the counter-intuitive, complex reasoning that went into deciding that a law saying marriage was between a man and a woman meant that the law was that marriage was between a man and a woman.
UPDATE! Andrew Sullivan has been hospitalized. Doctors have tentatively diagnosed him as suffering from an "acute snit." His condition is reportedly "Guarded but Hysterical."
Update: Democrat Spy For Iraq Speaks
"I'm an anti-war activist and I'm innocent," Lindauer told WBAL-TV as she was led to a car outside the Baltimore FBI office. "I did more to stop terrorism in this country than anybody else. I have done good things for this country. I worked to get weapons inspectors back to Iraq when everyone else said it was impossible. I'm very proud and I'll stand by my achievements."
Tape it & run it as a commercial. Keep talking, Susie.
They're not anti-war. They're just pro-enemy.
Found here, via Drudge.
ANN COULTER TIE-IN: Remember when liberals spent six months baiting Ann Coulter with the question, "Well, if your book is called Treason, who are these 'traitors' in the Democrat Party anyway? Hm? Hm? Hm? Hmmmmmm?"
Think Chris Matthews is going to be asking her that question now?
Wonkette: A Little Democratic Espionage for an Enemy Country is No Reason to Get All Wiggy
Wonkette, previously infamous for her "3,000 dead, blah blah blah" flippancy about 9-11, now decides that it's perfectly okay to be flippant about espionage for an enemy nation as well.
What's the big deal?, she wonders. Like, aren't "secrets" all like "boystuff" 'n stuff?
And then these people pretend to be horrified when you suggest that perhaps they're unserious about security issues.
Perhaps the left could begin to convince America that they do take security and defense seriously by, you know, actually beginning to take security and defense seriously.
NOTE: We'd actually like to be nice to Wonkette, given that she keeps a link to us up on her site, and feeds us dozens of referrals day-in, day-out. But when she is so clearly of the Maureen Dowd School of Advanced Strategic Studies -- as in, "All this mayhem and war just bores me; can't we talk about Celebrity Mole Yucatan instead?" -- it makes it impossible to do so.
And now that we think about it-- who the hell are these people who are reading both Wonk- "3,000 dead, blah blah blah"-ette and us? Seems it bit odd.
Given that Wonkette's link to us is our quote calling her "Perfectly Vapid," maybe it's people who are disgusted by her puerile flippancy about life-and-death matters and who decide that the "Perfectly Vapid" description is the mot juste.
IN DEFENSE OF WONKETTE: At least Wonkette has actually mentioned the story. Which is hard for a liberal-- how do you pretend to be upset by something which you really just think is someone "following her own muse"?
Meanwhile, other liberals, such as the land-adapted orca-with-a-weight-problem Oliver Willis, have not yet seen fit to take the Filet-O-Fish sandwhich out of their chubby little hands to even note the story in passing.
Krugman Calls Himself "Ideologically-Driven" Extremist
We've not checked in with the invaluable Don Luskin for a while. It was, as it always is, a mistake.
This is just delicious. It's a long post, but for those who just want to see Krugman explicitly contradicting himself -- and, worse yet, claiming that those who disagree with one of his two contradictory positions to be "ideologically-driven" extremists, which would, it seems, include himself -- can just read the first few paragraphs.
It's worth a good chuckle.
UPDATE to Democratic Spy Story: Offical CNN.com Story Has Completely Scrubbed the Woman's Occupation Out of Their Account
See "Another Update" at this post.
All the News That Fits Our Agenda.
UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: We thought we noted this first. We didn't. Instapundit noted it right in the post we just linked to. Hat tip to Instapundit, and sorry for not giving immediate credit.
More "Fictitious" Victims of Bush's "Fictitious" War
Via Drudge.
Our hearts go out to the Spanish victims of this terrorist attack.
One of the most pernicious tropes of the anti-war -- oh, the hell with it; let's call them what they are: pro-enemy -- left is that this is a "fictitious" war fought against a "fictitious" foe which has been created out of the dark phatasms of the reactionary right-wing imagination. George W. Bush, this line of thinking goes, is "scaring the hell" out of people about a phatom menace, as it were, in order to gin up political support for his plan to dominate the world, or at least the world's oil reserves.
Only pro-enemy leftists actually say this. Liberals are more cautious, and tend to only hint at this while preserving plausible deniability. John Kerry, for example, hints at this notion frequently, but he's careful to (as usual) take both sides of the issue and also say something about the terrorist threat being, well, an actual threat. He doesn't really believe that there is a real terrorist threat, at least not the sort we actually need to think about much or actually act against; but he's at least savvy enough to realize that the public disagrees with this fanciful notion, and so he avoids actually committing himself to that position.
But we'd like to just ask all those super-patriotic lefties and liberals-- if this is a "fictitious" war, what the hell are these innocent civilians doing covered with blood and shredded by flying glass?
Drudge has updates, of course. A Koran and taped messages were found in the van suspected of being used for the attacks; and supposedly there's an Al Qaeda letter claiming responsibility.
We don't know yet if any of this is genuine; seems to us that the Basque terrorists might have decided to be clever and carry out a major terrorist attack while framing Al Qaeda with planted evidence.
On the other hand, terrorism can't really work unless you announce that you are the responsible party, and that you committed your atrocities for whatever grievances you believe grant you the right to commit mayhem and murder.
Three related points:
If this is Al Qaeda, it indicates that Bush is doing a pretty good job of protecting America, because we are the preferred target. If they attacked Spain, it is because they could not so easily attack America. This isn't to denigrate Spanish anti-terrorism measures; it is actually a little more difficult for Europe to defend itself against Muslim terrorism, given the high numbers of Muslims in Europe and the ease of crossing borders between states.
If this is Al Qaeda, then this ought to put Americans back on notice that the terrorist threat has not, as they hoped, simply vanished, so that they can get back to watching reality television shows without being interrupted by breaking-news about actual reality.
And, if this is Al Qaeda, expect the press to downplay the significance of, and tragedy of, this vicious act of senseless mass-murder, precisely because the press doesn't want Americans to get the idea that maybe it's not actually safe yet to vote George W. Bush out of office.
Ex-Congressional Aid to "Coach Carol" Moseley-Braun Charged with Spying for Iraqi Intelligence Service
As always, it is patently ridiculous to suspect the left of being treasonous, or just a little bit open to the idea of treason.
Means nothing, of course. This left-wing traitor just happened to be an aide to Congresswoman.
UPDATE: Very good Instapundit microanalysis and links.
Best point: Charles Austin says he knew the woman must be a Democratic Congressional aide (her party affiliation wasn't mentioned until late in CNN's report) because he knew damn well that if she were a Republican, that fact would have been noted in the headline.
It's similar to the "dog that doesn't bark" clue in stories about terrorism. When they don't mention the terrorists' names, ethnic backgrounds, or religion, you know, with high confidence, that the terrorists were Muslims, because the media is always very quick to note "White Christian Guy Murders 12."
ANOTHER UPDATE: Ooooooh, check out this, the official CNN story on the matter.
Now, the fact that the woman worked as a Congressional aide has been scrubbed entirely from the story.
One would think that to be an important piece of information. Hell, the occupation of suspects in crimes is routinely reported, even when it's entirely irrelevant to the actual story; it's reported, just like the irrelevant detail of the suspect's age is reported.
But CNN doesn't want to even get into that; it might raise some follow-up questions they don't want to report on, like "Well, who did she work for in Congress?"
So they have now completely censored that information from the story.
Don't Let the Bathroom-Stall Door Hit You In the Ass On The Way Out
George Michael to put future songs on Internet, for free
LONDON (AFP) - British singer George Michael said he was retiring from the music business and intended instead to put all his future songs on the Internet -- for free.
We've got a great album title for him-- Listen Without Financial Commitment, Vol. 1.
Sounds around the right price. His last album didn't sell too well at a positive cost in dollars. We'll see how it does at zero dollars.
The 40-year-old pop star told BBC radio he would never make another album for sale in record shops, because he did not need the money and wanted to be less famous.
He wants to be less famous? Isn't he, like, already "less famous"?
Didn't he become "less famous" sometime around 1997? Seriously. Who's this guy kidding?
If he wants to be "less famous," he oughtn't announce his "retirement," which is calculated to put him back in the public eye. If he really wants to be "less famous," he should just announce that he's touring in support of his last album.
That was working pretty good, last time we checked. Which was never. Because, really, who cares about George Michael?
Who does he want to be "less famous" than, precisely? Dr. Phil? Charles Durning? Wink Martindale? One the less-celebrated Muppets, like one of Gonzo's unnamed chickens?
If you saw this guy,
in a restaurant, would you say to him, "Wow! George Michael! Come over here and sign my 12-inch Faith import!"
Or would you say to him, "Err, Wine Steward! My seafood-entree says 'white' but my heart says 'red.' Can you resolve this dilemma?"
We think the sadness of George Michael's recent career can be summed up in one deadly observation:
Andrew Ridgely hasn't been troubled by the break-up of Wham! for at least five or six years now.
He's come to peace with it, since sometime around the release of Patience. He thought to himself, "You know, all in all, I don't have such a bad life really, sitting here dispensing tokens to perverts in this Picadilly Circus peepshow. It could be worse. Sure, I missed out on making a quarter-billion pounds had I managed to stay together with George. But then again, I would have been complicit in the recording of Shoot the Dog. If I'd had anything to do with that shit-pop abortion, I just don't know that I could look myself in the mirror the same way."
The rest of this sad, tragic story here.
"I may have seen fire and I might or might not have seen rain
It's an unfair question to ask if I've seen sunny says I thought might never end
Focus groups have warned me against taking a position as to whether there were days when I could not find a friend
But I always maybe thought I might perhaps see you again... possibly"
No offense to any of the guitar-strumming readers of Ace of Spades HQ, but we've always hated folksie guitar douche-boys. And this isn't helping any.
You know, for most of their adult lives, liberal politicians just act like the rather-mediocre, decidedly-uninteresting civil servants they actually are.
Then, every four years, there's a presidential election, and the liberal politicians start breaking out their frigging accoustic guitars and waxing nostalgic about Woodstock.
We know it's coming: Sometime during the next two or three election cycles, a hippie-dippie Democratic hopeful is going to break out a frigging vintage-1985 Hacky-Sack and try to form a "hacking circle" with four or five inter-city youths, who will of course have no idea why this elderly, pencil-necked white man keeps saying "Come on, give me a good hack! Hack it! HACK IT!"
The brutality of what happens next will be exceeded only by the absolute hilarity of it. Or so we hope, anyway.
Remember Howard Dean's answer when asked, in a debate, what his favorite song was? He got this beaming glow -- the glow of an inferior intellect who erroneously believes he's about to say someting winningly clever-- and then, proud as peacock, informed the audience that it was "one you never heard of, Wycleff Jean's Ooomgaamooga." (Or whatever it was. Who gives a rat's red raw ass about Wycleff Jean?)
How sad is that? A fifty-five-year old man getting the same superior grin on his face as a fourteen-year-old when he announces "The music I'm into is so trendy and obscure that you haven't ever heard of it."
Or, during his 1988 abortive presidential campaign: Al Gore "delights" reporters by getting into a deep, thoughtful external monologue about who the greatest band in the world is/was, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. Al Gore's answer, after much profound pontification: the Beatles.
Wow. What a shocking answer. Not that we disagree necessarily; we just wouldn't spend an hour debating ourselves, Gollum-like, only to reach such a bourgeois-conventional-wisdom conclusion. Either we'd just answer quickly after a shrug, or we'd fix you a withering glare as we asked, "What are you? Like, ten?"
And now this preening simp, strumming the guitar like an eighteen-year-old American Studies major trying to attract female attention on the steps of the quad as he clumsily wrestles with the chord changes in Aqualung.
Excuse me-- are we electing a man to the most important office in the free world, or are we selecting a dream date for the Smith College Sadie Hawkins Sock-Hop?
What is it about liberals that causes them to so embarassingly cling to their increasingly-distant youth and behave like teenagers? Wrinkled, balding, ugly teenagers, we mean.
And what is it about liberal reporters that cause them to view this behavior not as it is -- borderline schizophrenic-delusional -- but as somehow "authentic" and a "window into the candidate's real soul"?
Authentic? If John Kerry wants to demonstrate his "authenticity" and give voters a real glimpse into the man he actually is (rather than the boy he imagined himself to be forty years ago), he should invite the press in for his next scheduled colonoscopy.
Or let voters sit-in on his next four-hour meeting with his estate lawyer. (You can learn a lot about a man by watching him escrow.)
Or invite Katie Couric along to tag along as he demostrates the proper method of utilizing his erectile-inflation pump.
What the hell is wrong with liberals in this country?
There's nothing wrong with aging. It happens to all of us. It's not always a happy thing, but it's best handled with dignity.
Dignity. Anyone remember that?
Here's a little rule for John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, and the next ten thousand liberal politicians who decide they're going to win over the "youth" and women's vote by preening and strutting like Motorcycle Boy in Rumble Fish:
If your age is now at least equal to half your IQ, put the fricking guitar down.
If your body-fat-percentage exceeds the follicular density of hair on your head, avoid bragging on the fact your sister gave you a Wycleff Jean album last Channukah.
And if your face is weathered and wrinkled by age, but your Volvo SUV is as shiny and pristine as the day you leased it last month, spare the nation your scary-important thoughts on the relative quality of each of the Beatles' post-breakup careers.
Honestly, no one gives a shit what you think about Shaved Fish versus All Things Must Pass. It was a bullshitty conversation thirty years ago; it's an embarassing one now.
Grow. The Hell. Up.
Today's Top Ten
The XM8, the "Kinetic Energy" component of America's next-generation infantry weapon. A fully-equipped XM8 will feature a nightvision/infrared video camera, useful for looking around corners and sending images back to command. It will also feature a below-the-barrel grenade launcher, with shells detonated by radar-range control, allowing troops to kill enemies hidden behind cover.
...from the Joint Advanced Weapons Evaluation Office at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds...
Top Ten Cool Things About the New XM8 Assault Rifle
10. First 1,000 weapons produced will come stamped with wicked-ass Batman logo
9. Thanks to top-secret design enhancement by Gary Gygax, weapon is +4 to-hit against half-orcs and Hill Giants
8. Integral stereophonic audiosystem lets troops march into battle while blasting music of their choice; prototype weapon lets users toggle between Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Mancini's Peter Gunn Theme, and Bonnie Tyler's Total Eclipse of the Heart
7. Demanding military specs and impressive electronic failsafes make weapon easy to use, even in hands of retards, gaywads and/or spazzmoids
6. Sophisticated Battlefield Management System (BMS) indicates that a target has been eliminated by playing Howard Dean's "Yeaaaiiihhhh!" war-yip
5. Weapon can be used to open cans; can also be used to open up doors, light armored trucks, and enemies' chest-cavities
4. Pushing A, B, and C buttons simultaneously allows user to execute a Super Scorpion Kick finishing move
3. It's fun to note that the weapon which will be killing America's future enemies survived John Kerry's efforts to kill it
2. When out of ammunition, weapon may be used as a club-- the coolest frigging club in the whole wide world
...and the Number One Cool Things About the New XM8 Assault Rifle...
1. You just know Moby is already going apeshit over this
"They're not 'anti-war'; they're just on the other side"
From Glenn Reynolds TCS column (via Instapundit):
Let's be honest here: There are a lot of people in the media, and in American politics, who would rather see the United States fail in Iraq, if it means getting George Bush out of the White House and John Kerry in. And if that failure doesn't materialize on its own, they'll do their best to portray what's going on in Iraq as a failure even when it's not.
It's been said before, but it must be said frequently.
It's shocking that "Americans" actively root for American battle dead. It's still more shocking that some "Americans" admit this without displaying any shame about it (see Kamiya, Gary and Kinsley, Michael).
Whatever the Hell This Is, We Want One
It seems to be the bullet-firing, or "KE," part of the envisioned automatic rifle-slash-20mm radar-range-detonated grenade launcher, which will, they say, one day be the standard rifle of all of our troops.
We kinda wonder about the complexity of the thing; this thing looks pretty cool and sleek on its own, but it's bulky when put together with the grenade-launching module. And, all together, it's got delicate electronics out the ying-yang.
But whatever. We still want one.
It seems to fit the design aesthetics of the Kil-O-Zap blaster, as described by Douglas Adams. "Make it ugly," the Kil-O-Zap's creators told the design team. "Make it clear to people that there is a right side of this gun, and a wrong side, and if they are on the wrong side, things are going badly for them."
It's not ugly, but it's pretty obvious there's a "right side" and a "wrong side."
Thanks to Chicago Boyz for the post, and thanks to contributor RDBrewer for bringing it to our attention.
VIDEO UPDATE: The Kil-O-Zap Assault Rifle in Action!
Is the Social Security "Crisis" Overstated?
Daniel Gross, a liberal economist at the amateur webzine Slate for whom we've had little prior use, reports that the system remains close-to-solvent under two debatable, but quite possible, assumptions:
-- 2.5% productivity growth per year
and
-- ever-increasing immigration by young workers
We always wondered about that last part. After all, the current problems are caused by too few young workers supporting too many old retirees. It always seemed to us that the nation could, if it chose to do so, suddenly mint a whole lot of new American workers by allowing increased immigration by working immigrants and thus balance the books between young subsidizers and old pensioners.
It's something to consider.
Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller: The Jews Crucified Saddam Hussein
It's always the same playbook, eh?
Senator Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is demanding to know how much information a small office in the Pentagon received from the Israeli government and how much information this office shared with the Israelis, according to correspondence obtained by The New York Sun.
While Mr. Rockefeller has demanded a broad range of information and documentation on coordination with Israel, he has asked no such question about the Pentagon’s coordination with other foreign governments, according to an administration official familiar with the details of the investigation.
Conspiracy theories that the Israeli government worked with hawks in the Bush administration to maneuver America to war against Iraq are a staple of fringe anti-war rhetoric on the extreme left and right, but officials here say Mr. Rockefeller’s letter marks one of the first times the accusation has been taken up seriously by a mainstream American political leader.
The Democrats, staunch friends of the American Jews, just want to know to what extent this crafty, cunning race misled good Christians into wrongly crucifying poor Saddam Hussein.
And don't dare you say that they're feeding anti-semitic tropes. "Crafty" and "cunning" are, after all, positive epithets. Who wouldn't want to be called "crafty" and "cunning"? Or even, "scheming"?
The Washington Post Really, Really Cares About Casualties... Except When They Fall
WARNING: A useful but long post! Click here to skip past this lengthy post to the quick headlines!
One of our best and longest-serving S.S. Hitlerjungen, err, we mean field reporters, Aaron Burr, has broken out the weapon of last resort-- the Lexis/Nexis search -- against the Washington Post.
First, he notes that Americans are being killed in Iraq at the lowest rate since the beginning of the war:
Mar. 2003 - 65
Apr. 2003 - 73
May 2003 - 37
June 2003 - 30
July 2003 - 47
Aug. 2003 - 35
Sept. 2003 - 31
Oct. 2003 - 42
Nov. 2003 - 82
Dec. 2003 - 40
Jan. 2004 - 47
Feb. 2004 - 20
Mar. 2004 - 5 [Though Mar. 9]
Can one month constitute a trend? Well, when the one-month trend was dramatically increasing casualties (in November), the press sure thought that one month was a good predictor of the future.
When casualties doubled in a month, they took that as a trend. When they fell by more than half, they simply ignore it.
Aaron Burr continues:
However, that fact is not reported by The Washington Post.
Perhaps the Post is not focused on American deaths in Iraq.
Perhaps not.
And then he lists these Post headlines from September 2003 to February 2004:
Suicides in Iraq, Questions at Home; Pentagon Tight-Lipped as Self- Inflicted Deaths Mount in Military: Feb 19, 2004; pg. A.01
After 10 Months in Iraq, U.S. Marks 500th Military Death;
Blast Outside Occupation Headquarters Kills at Least 12: Jan 18,
2004; pg. A.17
Iraqi Deaths: When Did the Count Start?: Dec 19, 2003; pg. A.36
November Deadliest Month in Iraq: Nov 29, 2003; pg. A.14
Bush Visits Army Post With Heavy Casualties in Iraq Meeting With
Families Of Dead Is His Third Since War Began: Nov 25, 2003; pg. A.02
Rebuilding Iraq, Amid Casualties: Nov 17, 2003; pg. A.24
U.S. Tolerance of Deaths Tested - Key Factor Is Whether Public
Believes Victory Is Likely: Nov 16, 2003; pg. A.20
For One Soldier's Family, a Double Funeral - Attack Victim Was Headed
Home After Mother's Death; Nov 4, 2003: pg. A.20
At 82nd Airborne, Girding for More On a Somber Day: Nov 3, 2003; pg. A.12
Day's Death Toll For U.S. Troops Is Highest Since March: Nov 3, 2003; pg. A.14
New Attacks Intensify Pressure on Bush: Nov 3, 2003; pg. A.01
Relatives At Colo. Base Fear The Worst Fort Carson Soldiers Are Among
Victims; Nov 3, 2003; pg. A.13
At Dover, New Facility To Receive The Dead; Oct 28, 2003; pg. A.17
Is Iraq Another Vietnam Quagmire? No and Yes; Battlefield Conditions and Times Differ, but Parallels May Be Seen on Insurgencies:Oct 5, 2003; pg. A.26
Iraq Toll Hits a Nerve With Murtha; Veteran Hawk Says Some Bush Strategists Have to Go: Sep 27, 2003; pg. A.07
'Like Losing a Family Member'; D.C. Guardsman Killed in Iraq Explosion Honored at Arlington: Sep 9, 2003; pg. B.01
For Veterans, an Evocative Repeat - Rising Casualties in Iraq Prompt
Memories That Generate Doubts: Sep 7, 2003; pg. A.03
Grief Corps - The Military's Casualty Assistance Officers Deliver The
Worst Possible News and the Best Possible Help; Sep 4, 2003; pg. C.01
Number of Wounded in Action on Rise - Iraq Toll Reflects Medical
Advances, Resistance Troops Face; Sep 2, 2003; pg. A.01
Now, once again, we're not saying the deaths of our American troops should not be reported, or reported less prominently. They gave their lives serving this country; the very least we can do is report on their sacrifice prominently.
But if heavy and rising casualties are worth so many headlines, isn't it also the case that light and falling casulaties must be worth the occasional headline as well?
Assuming, of course, that the press is actually interested in the subject of casualties, rather than simply finding a bloody hammer with which to pound Bush.
A Little Good News: Bush Beats Kerry by 20 Points on Ability to Prosecute War on Terror
BostonIrish provides us with a bit of good cheer on this otherwise dispiriting Wednesday.
Oh, and Here's Some More Bad News: There's an October Surprise Coming, Too
Ace of Spades HQ has been, err, somewhat erratic in our predictive abilities.
But we remain bold in our prognostications. Frequently in error but never in doubt. Sort of like Dick Morris, except without the toe-fetish.
And here's our prediction:
It's not much of a secret that our "allies" don't want Bush to be re-elected. There are few nations on earth which like seeing a self-assertive, confident, and combative America. And first among the nations that want a weaker America are France, Germany, and Russia.
Expect leaks from the intelligence services of the Entente Non Cordiale in mid-October. They will suddenly leak it that the Bush Adminsitration was "warned" with specific information about an impending terrorist attack on New York and Washington weeks before 9-11.
And this will be partially true, but only so slightly as to constitute an effective lie. Of course, there will have been vague indications of a possible upcoming attack with little specific details, as there always are; and yes, some of these will have been shared somewhat (but without any details that American intelligence would need to investigate the claims).
The governments of the Entente Non Cordiale will deliberately mislead reporters as to the specificity and urgency of these warnings. With only weeks left until the election, the press will not have the time to investigate the claims of specific, urgent warnings.
And of course it also won't have the inclination to do so anyway, as the press is more fervently anti-Bush than the goatee-sporting, Galoise-puffing faux intellectuals at the Rue de Pussies marijuana shop in Amsterdam.
So, expect a well-timed, coordinated disinformation campaign by somewhat hostile foreign governments in mid-October. And expect our unbiased, objective press, which really only wants to report "cold, verified facts," to hype the story into an absolute frenzy just before the November 2 election.
"Bush lied," "Bush knew." If you liked them the first time 'round, you're gonna love the encore.
It's coming. Be prepared. It's not so much an October Surprise as an October Inevitability.
By the Way Update: We know that this sort of thing constitutes a very undiplomatic, very hostile attempt to influence the political process in a third country, of the sort that is extremely frowned upon amongst "allies," and not frequently done in such an overt way.
But they're going to do it anyway.
...from the Home Office in Pocatello, Idaho...
Top Ten Other Offers John McCain Is "Entertaining"
10. Might co-author upcoming Frank Rich opinion piece, Jesus Is Not Just All Right With Me
9. May personally perform a partial-birth abortion on fourteen-year-old girl in order to demonstrate his "evolution" on the issue
8. Could team with The Undertaker to take on The Killer Bees in Wrestlemania 44: Hanoi Hell-Cage
7. May join Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton for weekly mani-pedi sessions
6. Considering hosting his own three-hour-a-day, six-days-a-week news analysis program; one drawback is that plan would result in him being on television ten hours less than his current weekly average
5. Five Words: Gerald Nadler Erotic Foot Massage
4. May co-star in Buzzkill, Tim Robbins' compelling, wrenching drama about rich liberals "traumatized" by watching terrorist attacks of 9-11 on TV while at a P. Diddy after-party
3. May "modify" position from anti-tax to "Tax 'em until their eyes bleed"
2. In an effort to prove his new stripes in the culture war, may update website to include ambient trance themes by Moby as well as the masturbation scene from Bad Lieutenant
...and the Number One Other Offer John McCain is "Considering"...
1. Why only serve as John Kerry's Veep? Seriously discussing possibility of moving to Massachusetts and tying the knot so he can officially serve simultaneously as Kerry's Vice President and First "Bitch"
McCain: Maybe I'm Not Quite So Republican After All
He'd "entertain" the idea of being Kerry's V.P.
Which means he's going to be Kerry's V.P.
The hits just keep on coming. No one likes a Nervous Nellie, but jeepers, it's been a rough four months since Saddam was captured, hasn't it?
Despite Terry McAuliffe's Representations, Democratic Primary Voting is Not Establishing "Record Turnout"
McAuliffe and similar hacks keep claiming that all of this "record turnout" presages high Democratic turnout in November. Trouble is, the turnout has not been "record" -- indeed, it's lower than past years -- and in fact for some later contests, turnout has been at a record low.
I guess it depends on what the meaning of "record" is.
No wonder Clinton likes this guy so much. Reason Number 1,674 why we don't trust Terry McAuliffe any farther than we could spit a rat, as Douglas Adams once put it.
"Coach Carol" Moseley-Braun Wants to Be Vice-President
Maybe it's about time someone told her the Democratic Party only nominates white men for the highest offices.
They also tend to nominate complete imbeciles. On that score, sure, she's got it well-covered.
Iraq Casualties Drop to Lowest Rate of War; Media, Which Formerly Claimed to be Concerned About Casualties, Yawns
You could hardly be blamed for not noticing that American soldiers are dying, and being injured, at the lowest rate since the war began.
We noticed it three or four days ago, if only due to the Sherlockian dog which didn't bark: we were suddenly aware that the heartbreaking daily update of dead American heroes suddenly went pretty quiet, if not totally silent.
So we noticed only because of the lack of reportage in the media.
Oddly enough, the media, which has justified its emphasis on American deaths to the exclusion of all else on the basis of its "concern" for our soldiers, suddenly has chosen to be disinterested in the issue entirely.
How many times have we heard liberals like Josh Marshall claim that they really weren't just celebrating American war dead because dead bodies translated to Democratic political advantage, but that they were "heartbroken" by the deaths, and they really pray that the deaths slow or cease entirely?
And how many times have we heard them claim they'd celebrate it if our boys were no longer dying?
Well, our boys aren't out of the woods yet; we can forgive liberals for not breaking out the champagne.
But you would at least think they could note what they have claimed to be their most fervent hope for a year.
John Kerry: Chickenshit
So says the tenth member of Kerry's crew, whom the media hasn't exactly been rushing to interview. Time magazine assigns a reporter with a pro-Kerry book out -- "out," as in "on the shelves right now, and which would be hurt were someone to contradict his heroic portrait of Kerry" -- to interview the man.
Not surprisingly, it is suggested the man is not credible because he -- prepare yourselves-- listens to Rush Limbaugh.
Thanks to Kausfiles for both pointing out the article and noting the reporter's rather compromised objectivity.
We're just curious: Is it now the position of the liberal media that only liberal voices are credible, and that all non-liberal voices are to be dismissed as dishonest?
If so, why the hell are we still being summoned for jury duty? If our political leanings are de facto proof of our dishonesty and lack of fairness, why should poor criminals be sent to jail on our evil whims?
Radioactive Missiles Discovered In Iraq
No, it's not the smoking gun we're hoping for. But these missiles contain enough radioactive uranium to pose a dirty bomb threat.
More proof of how splendidly "containment" was working.
By the way, it seems to us that Saddam is pretty well contained now. So all the "containment" imbeciles should be double-plus happy.
Peering Forwards Backwards
They say (and they should know) that this shot from Hubble represents the deepest visible-light image of the universe ever. And they're not just looking outwards; they're looking back in time as well. Some of the objects depicted might be depicted as they were 12 billion years ago.
That's pretty much all we understand of this; Carl Sagan's Cosmos didn't explain the details of astronomy. But there's more here, if you're interested.
It seems a fella could take that large shot of the deep core sample of the universe and make hisself an awfully nice background for his computer. Yeahp, it sure does seem that way.
IMAO's Veepstakes
Good comedy from IMAO. We're not sure that Megatron can actually serve as Kerry's Vice President (he lives in Massachusetts as well), but other than that, a fine list of potential veeps.
Thanks to Right Wing News.
Thoughts on Kerry's Support of Clintonian Unilateralism
Why the screaming Drudge siren? Isn't this just another in a long list of Kerry flip-flops?
We think not, for several reasons.
One, this puppy is on videotape. That does nothing to contribute to the actual seriousness of the offense, but it does make it more powerful in terms of impact.
Two, because Kerry is attempting to have it both ways on Iraq (and everything else), his complaints and whines are cast in proceduralist terms. He ducks substantive questions in favor of procedural nit-picks.
Well, the "We need our precious effing allies" nit-pick is his core nit-pick. And if he's taking a perfectly-opposite position in 1997, it, shall we say, tends to cast doubt on the sincerity of his childish whining.
And Three-- this guy is claiming that Bush cooked up Iraq for political purposes. That he put our boys in harm's way for nothing but personal political advantage.
Well, if John F.U. Kerry flip-flopping on the core complaint about Bush's foreign policy, what on earth can we say about that?
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that John F.U. Kerry decides matters of life-and-death based primarily on partisan political considerations. Note we don't say "ideological grounds;" some people may not like ideology, but at least ideology can be faithful to a core set of ideas and therefore consistent.
No, this guy is making life-and-death, war-and-peace, blood-and-treasure decisions based upon the mere party affiliation of the President leading the country.
And this is the guy who purports to be so exquisitely concerned about our troops?
Yeah, he's concerned about our troops-- when it's a Republican President ordering them into war.
When it's a Democrat, he's not quite so animated about their safety.
ACE OF SPADES FLIP-FLOP FLASHBACK: Compare to Bill Clinton's "Unholy Axis" speech about the intersection of Iraq, WMD's, and terrorists, here.
It's a long speech. But we boldfaced the most crucial bits for you.
We don't recall anyone objecting to this speech at the time. And we're sure that that has nothing whatsoever to do with the viciously cynical political opportunism of the Democrats.
Kerry in 1997: F--- France and Russia Too
Likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has repeatedly slammed President Bush for not getting the cooperation of European allies before attacking Iraq last year.
But in 1997, Kerry praised President Clinton for preparing to attack Iraq by deploying ships, aircraft and troops over the objections of France and Russia.
In a Nov. 1997 audiotape broadcast by WABC Radio's Monica Crowley on Monday, Kerry painted Clinton as resolute for putting U.S. war plans against Baghdad in motion.
...
Kerry praised the Clinton White House for thumbing its nose at our European allies.
"Clearly the allies may not like it," said the top Democrat, before suggesting that France and Russia were spineless.
"Where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity," he railed.
Kerry also praised the White House for giving the United Nations the brush off.
"The [Clinton] administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by [U.S. weapons inspector Richard] Butler."
Kerry defended President Clinton's go-it-alone war plan as the best way to protect U.S. national security, telling "Crossfire," "I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests."
Said WABC's Crowley after airing the revealing tape, "It's obvious that the real reason Kerry was for military action last time around in 1997 and not now, is because the last time it was a Democratic president thinking about doing it."
Newsmax has it.
Bin Ladin Looking to Relocate For Shorter Commute
"Sources" say he's looking to move back to Afghanistan. This might mean that the Pak army is finally serious about hunting him down.
One question, though: Who are these "sources" who are always so willing to inform the enemy what we know and what we believe?
DeLay: Kerry's Got Kim's Vote
Say what you will about DeLay, but frequently he's the only Republican with the balls to say what needs to be said:
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) says foreign leaders support his campaign against President Bush, but that ought to concern American voters, a prominent Republican indicated.
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), says Kerry is right -- rogue leaders, including North Korea's Kim Jong Il, do support Kerry -- because he's perceived as being less tough than President Bush has been on rogue regimes.
...
Last week, the Financial Times reported, "Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on Nov. 2 would lead to a softening in US policy towards the country's nuclear weapons programme."
Said DeLay in a press release, "If Kerry locks up Paris next, he's going to be tough to beat."
Yes, bloggers noted this earlier. But which other political leaders have?
Awesome: Scrappleface on Kerry v. Kerry
Another one we missed somehow. Big chuckles on this one.
We've really got to start reading more blogs.
Thanks to Instapundit's Tech Station Central column on Kerry.
If You Can't Persuade the Current Voters, Just Create New Ones More to Your Liking
California Democrats, fretting that the California voting population just isn't juvenile and liberal enough for them, want to allow fourteen year olds to vote.
Coordinated 9-11 Ad "Outrage" Just Happened to be Sponsored by Teresa Heinz
What an effing coincidence, eh? 57 Varieties of liberal bullshit.
I'm sure none of us saw that coming.
Scroll down from there for another great article quoted and linked by FloridaCracker, this one about Kerry's odd belief that we should have used troops unilaterally in Haiti... to prop up the thug Aristede.
NOTE: We're just adding a dividing line to clearly separate this item from the next, which doesn't have a headline.
In case you were really worried about it or somethin'.
_____________________________________________________
Today's Top Ten
An essay by a junior high school student, "What Christmas Means to Me and Why," was selected for publication in the school newspaper. The principal, citing separation of church and state, refused to run it unless the sentence "It is also the day that Christians celebrate Christ's birth" was changed to "[Christmas] is also a day that people celebrate love." -- reported by Terpsboy
Cf.
The most amazing complaint, championed by the Times and repeated by all the know-nothing secularists on television, is that Gibson insisted on "rubbing our faces in the grisly reality of Jesus' death." The Times was irked that Gibson "relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours"-- at the expense of showing us the Happy Jesus. Yes, Gibson's movie is crying out for a car chase, a sex scene or maybe a wise-cracking orangutan.
The Times ought to send one of its crack investigative reporters to St. Patrick's Cathedral at 3 p.m. on Good Friday before leaping to the conclusion that "The Passion" is Gibson's idiosyncratic take on Christianity. In a standard ritual, Christians routinely eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ, aka "the Lamb of God." The really serious Catholics do that blood- and flesh-eating thing every day, the sickos. The Times has just discovered the tip of a 2,000-year-old iceberg.
But the loony-left is testy with Gibson for spending so much time on Jesus' suffering and death while giving "short shrift to Jesus' ministry and ideas"--as another Times reviewer put it. According to liberals, the message of Jesus, which somehow Gibson missed, is something along the lines of "be nice to people" (which to them means "raise taxes on the productive"). -- Ann Coulter
Yes, it does appear that there are certain tenets of Christianity which will have to be repudiated in the interests of "civility" and "tolerance." But don't worry-- only minor little things, trivial details really, will have to be changed. Like oh, believing in the divinity and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, for starters.
If the liberals and the press have demanded that any other people give up their faith, we've not heard of it. It only seems to be Christians who are to be subjected to this sort of progressive re-education.
In case our actual religious background matters, we were born Christian but we're actually agnostic. We're pretty darn Jew-friendly, but we do think it is a rather extravagant demand that Christians give up the Christian religion in the interests of interfaith amity. And we would like to preserve the option of joining the religion of our birth at a later date, if we so chose, without having someone lable us "hate-mongers" and "anti-semitic" for doing so.
And this all causes us to wonder about what other parts of the Christian faith will have to be modified to better agree with the belief systms of our politically-correct overczars.
...from the special one-time Home Office at Lynchburg, Virginia...
Top Ten Mandated Changes to Make Christianity More Politically Correct and "Inclusive"
10. "Christian fish" logos must be certified by the EPA as dolphin-safe
9. Key lyric of Martin Greenbaum's hippie-Christian anthem, Spirit in the Sky, changed from "I've got a friend named Jesus" to less-divisive "I've got a friend named Walter"
8. Good Friday officially renamed "Passable Friday;" Ash Wednesday officially renamed "the Day Before Thursday"
7. Placards displaying "John 3:16" outlawed at sporting events; spectators wishing to display their spiritual beliefs may substitute oversized foam-finger bearing the corporate slogan "Dude, You're Getting a Dell!"
6. The requirement that an actual belief in Christ is required to be a Christian ruled discriminatory; churches must offer alternative methods of qualification, such as "celebrating the magical joy of a baby's smile" or "just sitting in the park, thinking about Nature and shit"
5. Christ's words are modified to make them less "harsh" and "hostile" to non-believers; "I am the Way and the Light" changed to "I am the Way and the Light, if you believe in that kind of thing, and assuming that's your bag"
4. By government fiat, Christian Heaven becomes history's first open-enrollment paradise; no particular belief system is required for entry, but applicants must have either a high-school diploma or eight weeks of N.E.A.-approved adult education (in cooking, basic automotive maintenance, or modern Spanish flamenco guitar)
3. Common name "Christopher" -- from the Latin for "Christ-Bearer" -- declared intolerant and offensive; by court order, all men named Christopher have their first names immediately changed to "Mitch" (also acceptable: Walter; see Number 9 above)
2. New Testament rewritten to delete references to Caiaphas and other Jewish priests; henceforth, Christ is accused of blasphemy by Hans Gruber and the German mercenaries from Die Hard
...and the Number One Mandated Change to Make Christianity More Politically-Correct and "Inclusive"...
1. Christian Trinity officially changed from Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to Easter Bunny, Santie Clause, and the Ghost of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (a.k.a., "The Spirit of Diversity")
I, John Kerry, Is a Freaking Moron-- A continuing series
How we missed this jaw-dropping Time interview is quite beyond us.
Luckily, The Blog With the Worst Name on the Internet quotes from it extensively and comments upon it.
The derisive comments are almost superfluous. As Triumph the Insult-Comic Dog might say, it's almost like throwing poop at a steaming pile of poop.
UPDATE: And now Steven den Beste is throwing poop at this poop as well. And few fling feces better than den Beste.
A Professional Top Ten List
From David Letterman's March 5 show:
Top Ten Signs Hillary Clinton Wants to Be Vice President
10. The Washington, D.C. TJ Maxx has sold out of pantsuits.
9. She's practicing sitting around doing nothing.
8. Instead of pretending to be from New York, she's pretending to be from key battleground states Ohio, Florida and Michigan.
7. Bragged to reporters the next "Hillary-Gate" is going to be off the hizzook.
6. Says she wants to be the first female Vice President since Gore.
5. Just purchased a large amount of Halliburton stock.
4. Called Century 21 to ask about listings for undisclosed locations.
3. Well, there's the "Kerry/Clinton" tattoo.
2. Firing up the ol' paper shredder.
...and the number one sign Hillary Clinton wants to be Vice-President...
1. If it would help she'd have sex with Bill.
...................
Well, okay, that beats today's John Kerry list to hell.
A lot of credits owed here:
Found at Free Republic...
...who got it from the Media Research Center's daily Cyberalert...
who got it from the Dave Letterman show, whose website can be found at
CBS.com.
Oh, That Politically-Correct Insanity
Spoons links to this indispensible round-up of political correctness run amok.
Remember, to hear liberals and lefties tell it, political correctness is a fictitious bugaboo that exists only in the minds of obsessive conservatives and which is then used to dishonestly frighten moderates.
But see for yourself. Here's one:
An essay by a junior high school student, "What Christmas Means to Me and Why," was selected for publication in the school newspaper. The principal, citing separation of church and state, refused to run it unless the sentence "It is also the day that Christians celebrate Christ's birth" was changed to "[Christmas] is also a day that people celebrate love."
And that's not nearly the worst.
Anti-Scientific Philistines Might Have Blocked Archaeological Discovery in Iraq
Were it not for Geroge W. Bush's determination to liberate Iraq so that the prehistoric cradle of Western civilization could be opened to archaeological exploration.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq (news - web sites), torn apart by years of war and sanctions, remains so rich in hidden ancient wonders that a leading expert believes the world's archaeology books will have to be rewritten over the next decade.
Does John Kerry oppose history itself?
Also, be sure to scroll up for a theory that the Chicago fire was not started by Mrs. O'Leary's much-maligned pyromaniacal milk-cow, but by a fragment of a comet.
John Kerry: Saddam's Choice
John Kerry is bragging that the world, which prefers a weak America resigned to playing sugar-daddy and punching-bag and doormat for the world, wants him as President.
Because they know, of course, that John Kerry wants a weaker America too.
Oh, That Liberal Bias
... is the name of a terrific new blog. Instapundit links to a story that the blog itself has apparently broken; OTLB discovers that the Los Angeles Times is very interested in Justice Scalia making speeches before ideological groups with business before the court, but apparently takes no notice whatsoever when leftist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg does the exact same.
...from the new Home Office in Pocatello, Idaho...
Top Ten Issues John Kerry Has Not Flip-Flopped On
Warning: This Top Ten is not so much "funny" as it is "true."
10. "Vietnam was the most unethical and wrongful war in history... except for my four-month stint in it, which was heroic and noble"
9. "If you're not watching Juding Amy, you're missing the sharpest and most compelling legal drama since Kate Brasher"
8. "George W. Bush is an arrogant, reckless, irresponsible, and dangerous President in American history... plus, he's like a total dickweed who 'lied' to me"
7. "I 'support the troops' in the sense that I say 'I support the troops.' I do not, however, support supplying, arming, or armoring them. I am not, after all, some sort of warmonger"
6. "I am firmly against taking money from 'Special Interests.' I am not, however, necessarily against taking money from ' Very Special Interests,' many of which have been kind enough to donate to my campaign"
5. "Say what you will about theme restaurants, but no one does Nachos Supremo like the good folks at Bennigan's"
4. "My voting record is my lifelong expression of my patriotism... therefore, any questioning of my voting record is, ipso facto, a questioning of my patriotism"
3. "The Beatles are overrated. For my money, the world's greatest rock-n-roll band is, was, and always will be The Travelling Willburries"
2. "I am stridently against the issue of Gay Marriage. Not against Gay Marriage itself, you understand. Just the issue of it, being discussed, debated, and used against me"
...and the Number One Issue John Kerry Has Not Flip-Flopped On...
1. "I believe the children are our future... unless their mothers choose to abort them. But I think that's obvious"
Arrested Development: The Most Conservative Show on Television?
We have a vested interest in pointing this out. Arrested Development is easily the funniest show on TV right now, and maybe the funniest since Seinfeld, or at least since Just Shoot Me.
And yet it's struggling to find viewers. It'll be cancelled unless it does, and that would make us at Ace of Spades HQ very sad.
If the fact that it's funny isn't enough to get you to check it out, how about the fact that it is reliably conservative in outlook?
The premise is that the Bluth family was once very wealthy. But the Dad -- and the Mom, too -- engaged in all sorts of illegal activities so that the Dad is now in jail, and their company is almost bankrupt. All of the adult children are dysfunctional and lazy and shiftless and, while not necessarily politically liberal, they do seem to have most of the failings and biases of the limousine liberal culture.
Except for Michael Bluth, who is mostly ethical, upstanding, responsible, and good-hearted. And a business-school graduate (boo!), a widower who married young (hiss!), and who actually understands the sometimes subtle connection between hard work and the production of wealth (running dog capitalist!)
The rest of the family is nothing but layabout parasites. One is an aspiring actor. Another has spent the last thirty years in graduate school. Etc.
In one episode, the sister, completely unemployed, claimed to be "concerned" about the Florida wetlands , but it was clear she had no idea what she was talking about.
"When you say you're for the wetlands," Michael quizzes her, "what are you saying you want people to do about the wetlands?"
The sister guesses, "Dry them?"
" Save them," corrects Michael, who, like many a conservative, has found himself in the position of knowing more a liberal position than the liberal he's arguing with.
Anyway, we wouldn't have bothered to note the stealth-conservative samzidat messages going on here, except that the last show went from "stealth" to "overt."
In the episode, Heather Graham plays a ditzy anti-war ethics teacher, who Michael's twelve-year old son (George Michael) has a crush on. George Michael asks his dad if he believes in preemptive war, as the teacher is (of course) against it.
"Absolutely," Michael Bluth says. "It's pre-emptive. You know, it happens before something else. If you can predict aggression and you want to squash it..."
Later, at a student-teacher meeting, Michael sees various bulletin-board style displays the students have made up at the teacher's behest. They all seem to feature Saddam Hussein and rainbows and valentines-- i.e., the teacher seems to be teaching the class that Saddam Hussein is actually a hero of some kind.
"Is it just my imagination," Michael notes as he looks at a rainbow-festooned poster showing a heroic Hussein and his palaces, "or does this rape-room have the same floor-plan as our kitchen?"
When he meets the teacher, Michael soft-pedals his support of pre-emptive war and talks very vaguely, the way conservative guys do when they're smitten with a liberal chick. And who can blame him? The teacher is played by Heather Freaking Graham, remember.
Later, the son George Michael prepares his own Saddam Hussein display. It's a photo-collage of Hussein, in the shape of a big "I love you" valentine. The son explains to his dad: "[My teacher] loves Saddam Hussein."
Michael thinks the kid must have it wrong. "I'm sure she doesn't love him. I'm sure she's interested in him as a subject."
The son is unconvinced, but offers, "...Right. That's what I meant."
A later shot features a kid in the teacher's class holding a cupcake upon which is an icing-drawing of Saddam Hussein wearing a beret. The kid ultimately throws the cupcake to the ground.
Finally, the father brings the kid's valentine photo-collage to the teacher. The teacher wrongly thinks that the father made it himself. "That's so sweet," she says with giddy happiness, "I love Hussein."
The father is again nonplussed by this. "You mean you're interested in him."
"Oh yes," the teacher says by rote, the way many liberals do. "He's a monster." But she's as giddy as a schoolgirl as she admires the pictures of Hussein. "Where did you find this one of him in a Speedo?"
What does one make of this? It's one thing to portray a conservative in a sympathetic light; on rare occasions, the media does so, if only to establish a claim of being non-biased.
But have you ever seen in any popular media an anti-war liberal who is portrayed as actually loving Saddam Hussein?
Check the show out. Not only will you laugh yourselves silly, but you'll be keeping on the air the only show we know of that's actually dared to note the obvious about some in the "anti-war" left.
On That Little Iraqi Provisional Constitution Thingee
Sometimes we don't bother linking/mentioning important news because 1, we assume you all know it already, and 2, we don't see any interesting take.
The signing of the Iraqi provisional constitution is just a good thing. A great thing, really. What else can one say about it?
Well, Oxblog has something more interesting to say than a well-deserved "Hooray!" He notes that many in our unbiased and objective media -- believe it or not -- spun the Sistani walk-out as an embarassment and a disaster and yet have not, as of yet, corrected their error by proclaiming the signing to be triumph every bit the equal of the three day "failure."
It's an odd thing, isn't it? When the unemployment rate increases by .3% under Bush, it's the worst thing that every happened in the history of the universe; when it falls .3%, it's a nothing little trivium consigned to page A26. When Sistani's delegation walks out on the signing ceremony, it's an absolute disaster and embarassment for Bremer and Bush; when they walk back in and sign on the line, it's soft-pedaled as a minor development.
No wonder the media can so easily excuse Kerry's flip-flopping-- they flip-flop themselves on the importance of developments on a daily basis. When an event is bad for Bush, it's incredibly important. When the circumstances change and the previous bad event is reversed into a positive, suddenly it's not quite so important as previously suggested.
It's similar to the New York Times reportage on Bush's poll numbers. Did you ever notice that, if you go by the front-page headlines, Bush's poll numbers have done nothing but fall throughout his term? When his numbers fall, that's a front-page screamer headline. When they go up again, it's something that gets mentioned after the gay-wedding announcements.
Thanks to Instapundit for the link.
UPDATE! FloridaCracker's got links to the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights it specifies. We haven't read them yet, but we're sure all a lot of you would like to.
|