Uh oh, it looks like Oliver Stone’s films are going to get that much suckier, at least in the eyes of Republicans. Per the AP:
Filmmaker Oliver Stone blasted President Bush Thursday, saying he has "set America back 10 years." Stone added that he is "ashamed for my country" over the war in Iraq and the U.S. policies in response to the attacks of Sept. 11.
I’m not sure exactly how that works, that a film becomes less good based upon what one of its makers said, but that’s exactly how Republicans think. First comes agreement, then comes appreciation. Good thing for him they already hated him based upon his prior films and statements, or his career could be in big trouble. But now they’ve got one more grievance against every film he’ll ever make again. And it’s never based on the quality of his films, but on whether or not they agree with him. They don’t.
And is there any doubt that they’re not already typing their “Oliver Stone set America back 10 years” and “We’re ashamed of Oliver Stone” idiocies as I write this? I’m not exactly sure why anyone thinks it’s witty or clever to replace one persons name in an insult for another; but that’s the way these people work. It’s like they think the “Rubber v. Glue” debate is somehow real, rather than a silly playground taunt designed by people unable to make a proper comeback.
And that’s the weird thing about conservatives: For all the insults they fling around, they’re usually so bad at it. Weird.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Can You Say Habeas Corpus?
I honestly can’t imagine how Democrats can avoid not bludgeoning the GOP with their recent bill destroying our constitution. I fear they’ll blow it, but I just can’t see how. Were I an important Democrat, this would be a total slam-dunk. If anyone didn’t know what Habeas Corpus meant already, they’d know by the time I was done.
And the thing to remember is that this is the compromise position, because the conservatives didn’t think Bush had to ask Congress for these powers. They thought it was theirs for the taking. I’m sure it was a major blow to them that they had to make all this public and admit that Congress was nominally in charge of this kind of thing. Because that means that Congress can also take this away; a position that the Bushies would never agree with.
And now it’s time for Democrats to give them their next blow, on Election Day. It’s time we all start giving America their first Latin lesson.
And the thing to remember is that this is the compromise position, because the conservatives didn’t think Bush had to ask Congress for these powers. They thought it was theirs for the taking. I’m sure it was a major blow to them that they had to make all this public and admit that Congress was nominally in charge of this kind of thing. Because that means that Congress can also take this away; a position that the Bushies would never agree with.
And now it’s time for Democrats to give them their next blow, on Election Day. It’s time we all start giving America their first Latin lesson.
Marketer-in-Chief
From the NY Times on the book Bob Woodward should have written a few years earlier:
Mr. Tenet, the man who once told Mr. Bush that it was a “slam-dunk” that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, apparently did not share his qualms about invading Iraq directly with Mr. Bush, according to Mr. Woodward’s account.
But the thing is that Tenet wasn’t making the case that it was a slam-dunk that the weapons were really there; nor was he asked to make one. Because this incident occurred four months after the Bushies had been making the case for war. And before going into the final stretch of the marketing campaign, Bush wanted to see the final sales pitch. Apparently, it was underwhelming and Tenet felt pressured to give his personal assurance that his work was adequate. But again, he wasn’t assuring that the weapons were there; merely that the sales pitch was convincing. Tenet, as Yes-Man, felt pressured to say that it was.
And of course, the sad thing is that there is nothing new in this account of Woodward’s. He already covered this territory in his last book. But for whatever reason, he never followed up with this stuff, to determine what was really going on. Nor did he convey the truth that Tenet was making assurances of the sales pitch, not the final product; which he apparently did not believe in.
Out of Control
Also from NY Times we have my two favorite Wacko Rummy passages (emphasis added):
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls.
Mr. Rumsfeld reached into political matters at the periphery of his responsibilities, according to the book. At one point, Mr. Bush traveled to Ohio, where the Abrams battle tank was manufactured. Mr. Rumsfeld phoned Mr. Card to complain that Mr. Bush should not have made the visit because Mr. Rumsfeld thought the heavy tank was incompatible with his vision of a light and fast military of the future. Mr. Woodward wrote that Mr. Card believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was “out of control.”
What an infantile freak. I’d truly feel sorry for him if not for everything he’s done to us.
Oh, and I do like how the NY Times writer points out that Bush visiting a tank factory was a political matter. A few years back, it’s likely they would merely have referred to it as the C-in-C inspecting his equipment. This is the coverage we should have had years earlier, had the awesome GOP marketing crew not successfully cowed all of our gatekeepers. And unfortunately, the cowing continues on many key issues. History will blame us all.
Mr. Tenet, the man who once told Mr. Bush that it was a “slam-dunk” that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, apparently did not share his qualms about invading Iraq directly with Mr. Bush, according to Mr. Woodward’s account.
But the thing is that Tenet wasn’t making the case that it was a slam-dunk that the weapons were really there; nor was he asked to make one. Because this incident occurred four months after the Bushies had been making the case for war. And before going into the final stretch of the marketing campaign, Bush wanted to see the final sales pitch. Apparently, it was underwhelming and Tenet felt pressured to give his personal assurance that his work was adequate. But again, he wasn’t assuring that the weapons were there; merely that the sales pitch was convincing. Tenet, as Yes-Man, felt pressured to say that it was.
And of course, the sad thing is that there is nothing new in this account of Woodward’s. He already covered this territory in his last book. But for whatever reason, he never followed up with this stuff, to determine what was really going on. Nor did he convey the truth that Tenet was making assurances of the sales pitch, not the final product; which he apparently did not believe in.
Out of Control
Also from NY Times we have my two favorite Wacko Rummy passages (emphasis added):
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls.
Mr. Rumsfeld reached into political matters at the periphery of his responsibilities, according to the book. At one point, Mr. Bush traveled to Ohio, where the Abrams battle tank was manufactured. Mr. Rumsfeld phoned Mr. Card to complain that Mr. Bush should not have made the visit because Mr. Rumsfeld thought the heavy tank was incompatible with his vision of a light and fast military of the future. Mr. Woodward wrote that Mr. Card believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was “out of control.”
What an infantile freak. I’d truly feel sorry for him if not for everything he’s done to us.
Oh, and I do like how the NY Times writer points out that Bush visiting a tank factory was a political matter. A few years back, it’s likely they would merely have referred to it as the C-in-C inspecting his equipment. This is the coverage we should have had years earlier, had the awesome GOP marketing crew not successfully cowed all of our gatekeepers. And unfortunately, the cowing continues on many key issues. History will blame us all.
Tales of Kitty Valor
I’ve promised no cat blogging before, but I just read Atrios’ pathetic tale of kitty valor and wanted to state that he’s got nothing on my kitties. Just this morning, I found a fairly large lizard with its head crushed in our door and its tail twenty-five feet away. These are some rough cats I’ve got. If I’m in a feisty mood, I might just post pictures of it tonight. Very gruesome.
And don’t even get me started on the mangled bird they left for me in my bedroom when I came back from X-mas vacation a few years back. It was still mostly alive and I had to fight it off with paperclips and a shoebox. My wife still laughs about that, but only because she wasn’t there. I’m telling you, I have no doubts that birds were once dinosaurs. Thank god for cats.
And don’t even get me started on the mangled bird they left for me in my bedroom when I came back from X-mas vacation a few years back. It was still mostly alive and I had to fight it off with paperclips and a shoebox. My wife still laughs about that, but only because she wasn’t there. I’m telling you, I have no doubts that birds were once dinosaurs. Thank god for cats.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Torture & Rot
Woohoo! My congressman thinks we should all be torturable and allowed to rot in jail at the government’s discretion. He voted for The George Bush Torture & Rot Bill. I’m one of the popular ones!! May we all burn in hell!!
The Problem with Overkill
I was just reading about how scientists have uncovered why the 1918 Spanish Flu was so deadly, having killed up to 50 million people. The short answer is that people’s immune systems were overreacting to the illness and actually caused much more damage than the flu itself. That’s why young, healthy people were more likely to die from the illness than older, unhealthier people. Because the healthy person’s immune system was stronger, and thus could do more damage to the body in its efforts to fight the disease.
And to prevent such an occurrence today would involve suppressing the body’s natural response to the illness, as well as the illness itself. It seems nature has built-in boobytraps for us, and that it’s not necessarily best to go with what seems natural.
And it suddenly hit me that we see this same thing with the neo-con’s plan for fighting terror. Rather than targeting terrorism, they go into complete overkill mode. They’re all about invading countries, imprisoning enemies, destroying civil liberties, etc. And they honestly don’t care if they sweep-up innocent people, just as long as they catch a few baddies. For them, everyone not helping them fight is the enemy.
And it’s having similar results as the Spanish Flu, except with even more dire consequences. Sometimes, it’s not best to go with your gut instinct. Sometimes, nature can fool you into doing more harm than if you did nothing at all. And it’s certainly wrong to go into a full-on attack mode when a targeted response could work much better. The Republicans think that a big gun always works better than a small gun, and they need to understand that more damage is not necessarily better. I don’t think that viruses purposefully want to cause damage, but our human virus is most certainly benefiting from the neo-con response to it.
And to prevent such an occurrence today would involve suppressing the body’s natural response to the illness, as well as the illness itself. It seems nature has built-in boobytraps for us, and that it’s not necessarily best to go with what seems natural.
And it suddenly hit me that we see this same thing with the neo-con’s plan for fighting terror. Rather than targeting terrorism, they go into complete overkill mode. They’re all about invading countries, imprisoning enemies, destroying civil liberties, etc. And they honestly don’t care if they sweep-up innocent people, just as long as they catch a few baddies. For them, everyone not helping them fight is the enemy.
And it’s having similar results as the Spanish Flu, except with even more dire consequences. Sometimes, it’s not best to go with your gut instinct. Sometimes, nature can fool you into doing more harm than if you did nothing at all. And it’s certainly wrong to go into a full-on attack mode when a targeted response could work much better. The Republicans think that a big gun always works better than a small gun, and they need to understand that more damage is not necessarily better. I don’t think that viruses purposefully want to cause damage, but our human virus is most certainly benefiting from the neo-con response to it.
Sadness
Almost every photograph of people in military uniforms on the Yahoo News page is in response to the person’s death. I was saddened by this when I first noticed the trend in 2003, and I haven’t gotten used to it yet. I’m sure I never will. The photos always show proud young people having finished a grueling training, and now they’re dead. I’m not suggesting that Yahoo needs to start running more pictures of living military people. I just want them to stop dying.
My dad was serving in Vietnam the day I was born, and I’m glad to say that he’s still with us today. I wish every military child could say the same. And I wish they could be with their parents. And I wish that all military people could have children. I wish they’d stop dying so young. It’s all so unnecessary.
It honestly hurts me inside to see these pictures. I’m not looking for them, but there they are. If everyone could feel that pain, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, too many people only feel that when it directly affects their own group. They forget that everyone is in a group; everyone has someone. Even if they don’t know them. We all have each other.
I feel cheap and petty even writing these words. This isn’t what I intended to write. But I saw yet another of these pictures tonight and had to say something. The picture’s gone now, but I’ll never forget it. And there will be yet another tomorrow. Life is important. Too many people forget. Every life is important.
My dad was serving in Vietnam the day I was born, and I’m glad to say that he’s still with us today. I wish every military child could say the same. And I wish they could be with their parents. And I wish that all military people could have children. I wish they’d stop dying so young. It’s all so unnecessary.
It honestly hurts me inside to see these pictures. I’m not looking for them, but there they are. If everyone could feel that pain, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, too many people only feel that when it directly affects their own group. They forget that everyone is in a group; everyone has someone. Even if they don’t know them. We all have each other.
I feel cheap and petty even writing these words. This isn’t what I intended to write. But I saw yet another of these pictures tonight and had to say something. The picture’s gone now, but I’ll never forget it. And there will be yet another tomorrow. Life is important. Too many people forget. Every life is important.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Desert Eagle v. Replica
I was recently reading a Dick Armey interview where he stated that the problem for Republicans in the 90’s is that they kept trying to fight Clinton in public, and how they usually lost because that was Clinton’s forum. Clinton was really good at politics and if you tried to go toe-to-toe with him in the public arena, you’d lose. I’m not sure if that was the main problem, but that was what Armey said in his criticism of Gingrich and other leaders who he think blew it.
I just started thinking about that when I saw the headline Bill Clinton defends bin Laden handling on the Yahoo main page. And then it all came to me: This is exactly what Clinton expected. He knew that Wallace was likely to do what he did with his accusations of guilt for 9/11, and was ready for the ambush with one of his own. Wallace thought he could go toe-to-toe with the Big Dog and clearly showed the world why he wasn’t worthy to be in the same studio with the former president.
And in one fell swoop, Clinton was able to defend himself on Fox News while getting headlines to tell us that he defended himself. Even if you think his defense was weak, getting Repubs to denounce Clinton’s defense is certainly a big shift from their original position that there was no defense at all. And for those looking for the right defense of Clinton, they’ve now got a famous one to cite. This was a complete win-win for the man.
And I have few doubts that Clinton didn’t expect all this when he agreed to the interview. I won’t say he’s the greatest person ever, but he sure does his homework. Wallace, on the other hand, got caught flat-footed and had his ass handed to him. And rightly so.
And this reminds me of my favorite scene from the movie Snatch:
Bullet Tooth Tony: Now, dicks have drive and clarity of vision, but they are not clever. They smell pussy and they want a piece of the action. And you thought you smelled some good old pussy, and have brought your two small mincey faggot balls along for a good old time. But you've got your parties mangled up. There's no pussy here, just a dose that'll make you wish you were born a woman. Like a prick, you are having second thoughts. You are shrinking, and your two little balls are shrinking with you. And the fact that you've got "Replica" written down the side of your gun...
[Zoom in on the side of Sol's gun, which indeed has "REPLICA" etched on the side; zoom out, as they sneak peeks at the sides of their guns]
Bullet Tooth Tony: And the fact that I've got "Desert Eagle point five O"...
[Withdraws his gun and puts it on the table]
Bullet Tooth Tony: Written down the side of mine...
[They look, zoom in on the side of his gun, which indeed has "DESERT EAGLE .50" etched on the side]
Bullet Tooth Tony: Should precipitate your balls into shrinking, along with your presence. Now... Fuck off!
And that’s how I felt of that interview. If only ex-presidents were allowed to talk like British criminals…
I just started thinking about that when I saw the headline Bill Clinton defends bin Laden handling on the Yahoo main page. And then it all came to me: This is exactly what Clinton expected. He knew that Wallace was likely to do what he did with his accusations of guilt for 9/11, and was ready for the ambush with one of his own. Wallace thought he could go toe-to-toe with the Big Dog and clearly showed the world why he wasn’t worthy to be in the same studio with the former president.
And in one fell swoop, Clinton was able to defend himself on Fox News while getting headlines to tell us that he defended himself. Even if you think his defense was weak, getting Repubs to denounce Clinton’s defense is certainly a big shift from their original position that there was no defense at all. And for those looking for the right defense of Clinton, they’ve now got a famous one to cite. This was a complete win-win for the man.
And I have few doubts that Clinton didn’t expect all this when he agreed to the interview. I won’t say he’s the greatest person ever, but he sure does his homework. Wallace, on the other hand, got caught flat-footed and had his ass handed to him. And rightly so.
And this reminds me of my favorite scene from the movie Snatch:
Bullet Tooth Tony: Now, dicks have drive and clarity of vision, but they are not clever. They smell pussy and they want a piece of the action. And you thought you smelled some good old pussy, and have brought your two small mincey faggot balls along for a good old time. But you've got your parties mangled up. There's no pussy here, just a dose that'll make you wish you were born a woman. Like a prick, you are having second thoughts. You are shrinking, and your two little balls are shrinking with you. And the fact that you've got "Replica" written down the side of your gun...
[Zoom in on the side of Sol's gun, which indeed has "REPLICA" etched on the side; zoom out, as they sneak peeks at the sides of their guns]
Bullet Tooth Tony: And the fact that I've got "Desert Eagle point five O"...
[Withdraws his gun and puts it on the table]
Bullet Tooth Tony: Written down the side of mine...
[They look, zoom in on the side of his gun, which indeed has "DESERT EAGLE .50" etched on the side]
Bullet Tooth Tony: Should precipitate your balls into shrinking, along with your presence. Now... Fuck off!
And that’s how I felt of that interview. If only ex-presidents were allowed to talk like British criminals…
The Grand Inquisitor
I’m sure you’ve now seen Chris Wallace’s embarrassing interview of Clinton on Fox News. So I’m just going to focus on Wallace himself, because it was obvious that he really didn’t expect Clinton to have any defense. Because whenever Wallace hears this stuff, he never hears a defense. Conservatives never do. The few times they actually talk to liberals about it, they’re so confident that they’re right that they don’t even listen to the answer. But usually, it’s just themselves bandying about how there was no defense of Clinton because Clinton didn’t do anything right.
As usual, they’re high-fiving themselves for winning a contest they had only imagined. The conservatives present these theories as a fait accompli, and that’s exactly how Wallace has accepted it.
And so they’ve built-up their own bizarro world of Clinton culpability and they’ve never bothered double-checking what actually happened or waited to hear a response. They’ve been given the conclusion and their borg-like minds imagine that they’ve already hashed-out the details before. It’s like someone who thinks they’re clever because they read the last page of a mystery novel, rather than wading through the bogus stuff that comes before. Except they’ve replaced Agatha Christie’s ending with a creation straight from RNC headquarters, and refuse to listen when you explain that they got it wrong.
And so we find that utterly atrocious “question” of Clinton, where Wallace raises a whole slew of issues hidden behind an accusation of incompetence, which Wallace clearly refused to hear the answer to. Because again, he doesn’t believe there was one. It’s almost as if in the fantasy interview Wallace had imagined, Clinton had simply lowered his head and cried in shame. Because he kept acting as if all of Bill’s answers were superfluous side-trips, because there wasn’t supposed to be a defense. The only answer Wallace would accept was an outright admission of failure; and as we saw, it was the only one he did accept.
Why Didn’t You…
I’ll start by combining all of Wallace’s pseudo-questions as one uber-question-statement, and then take apart each one. And seeing as how Wallace didn’t actually listen to any of Clinton’s responses, this is probably the way he remembered it too. You can just use the “…” part as Wallace’s recollection of this part of the interrogation interview.
Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of business when you were president? There's a new book out, I suspect you may have already read, called The Looming Tower. And it talks about the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.
…
May I just finish the question sir? And after the attack, the book says, that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is always 20/20 –
…
But the question is, why didn't you connect the dots and put him out of business?
…
.. bin Laden says, but it showed the weakness of the United States.
…
With respect, if I may, instead of going through '93 and ... May I ask you (INAUDIBLE) question, and then you can answer?
…
Do you think you did enough, sir?
And when you look through that, you’ll find no actual questions. Or specifically, what should have been questions were given as statements, and what he posed as questions were actually accusations. Particularly if you bring-up several specific events that you don’t want the interviewee to talk about which would serve as a defense of his actions. And had Clinton simply admitted that he could have done more, without a detailed defense, it is an implicit admission that all of those specific incidents were all screw-ups; which is exactly what Wallace wanted to hear.
Finish Him!
A real question could have been: It has been reported that Bin Laden saw our withdraw of troops in Somalia as a sign of cowardice. Do you now think that was a mistake on your part?
And then Clinton would have said what he was trying to say about how Republicans wanted an earlier withdraw from Somalia and that Bin Laden didn’t have anything to do with Somalia, nor did it embolden him. And then Wallace could have asked follow-up questions; or at least he should have, seeing as how he didn’t seem to know any of this stuff. This could have been a real learning experience for Chris, had he the least bit of intellectual honesty
But instead we get:
Why didn’t you do more?
Why didn’t you connect the dots?
And the trick question: Do you think you did enough?
And those aren’t questions; they’re accusations. He’s not asking if Clinton made a mistake; he’s asking why Clinton made the mistake. The interview had just started, yet Wallace seemed to think he had Clinton on the ropes and was going for the finisher. For Wallace, the idea that Clinton was incompetent in fighting terrorism is a cold-hard fact. It was kind of like watching a highlight reel from a real journalist; only focusing on the conclusions and not the build-up.
Yet the build-up never existed, as the charges against Clinton were obviously bogus to any who actually remembers what happened; rather than remembering the RNC’s false memories. And there was no real way to answer the “questions” that Wallace posed, because to answer those question is an admission of guilt. It was like asking the question “Why did you kill your wife?” when you hadn’t even established that she was dead.
Blame Wilson
And when you really think about it, his “question” doesn’t even make sense; at least not in the context of Somalia. It’s like Clinton was supposed to know that pulling out of Somalia would embolden a terrorist he had never heard of, and that Clinton should have done more to stop that. Shit, that’s like attacking Woodrow Wilson for not having killed Hitler in WWI…well, except that Bin Laden wasn’t involved in the Somalia thing at all; which would make Wilson even more culpable for WWII and the Holocaust than Clinton was for 9/11. But I suppose I can imagine conservatives making that argument too; if they needed to.
And when Clinton tried to explain this to Wallace, he was interrupted and told not to talk about what had happened in Somalia. Somehow, Somalia is very important context to the “question” asked, so that he brought it up repeatedly, but is an irrelevancy when answering that same “question.”
And that’s what’s weird. Clinton answered the question properly. Or at least, he did Wallace the honor of rephrasing Wallace’s accusation into a fair question, and answered that question. But in an obvious admission that it wasn’t a real question, Wallace wouldn’t accept what Clinton said. And Clinton even called him on that.
Were Chris Wallace to have any intellectual integrity, he would have accepted Clinton’s answer, or at least tried to get him to explain further, and questioned him more on what he said. But Wallace didn’t want any real response at all. He wanted Clinton to admit guilt and would accept nothing else. And a person of true integrity would never have made those cheap accusations in the first place.
And again, what Wallace seemed to expect was a weepy confession; as if all you had to do was get the question out, and the answer was so entirely undeniable that even Slick Willy couldn’t slip out of it. But he already expected Slick to pull some bull, and so Clinton’s honest and truthful response fell on deaf ears which already knew he was out of his element.
Oh wait, I forgot. It wasn’t Wallace who wanted to ask the question. It was all the emailers who asked for the response. Of course.
Ignorance
But another reason why Wallace disliked Clinton’s answers is that they were entirely unexpected to him. In fact, Clinton was so far off-base with Wallace’s very limited knowledge that Wallace couldn’t even recognize them as proper answers. He just imagined that Clinton was avoiding the question by wallowing in petty details. He brought up the context of Somalia and the Cole bombing as evidence against Clinton, yet didn’t want any response. Because he didn’t realize there was one.
And this is simply inexcusable. I had honestly imagined that Wallace had some sports-reporter background with ESPN or something before joining Fox News. I don’t know why, but that’s what I thought. So I did some research expecting to find that, but instead find he had been a well-established journalist throughout the 90’s, so he has no excuse for not remembering what really happened. And not even at Fox. He was with ABC News for 15 years, including work as a substitute host for Nightline, and had been NBC’s chief Whitehouse correspondent throughout much of the 80’s.
So there is no excuse for Wallace’s ignorance. He should have known, but is now repeating the same absurdist anti-Clinton rhetoric that the whackjob dittoheads feverishly rant about. It’s like all these people were born yesterday. He seemed to have no idea that Clinton could defend himself based on the merits. I’m sure Mike Wallace is just pining for the days he can roll in his grave over his son’s embarrassing antics. I know I would be.
P.S. I’ve now seen the exchange in question, and the most disconcerting part was how much Chris’ voice sounds like his dad’s. I’m not going to suggest that Mike Wallace was the greatest journalist in America, but I do admire the guy. Chris sounds like his old man filtered through a watery turd. Very disconcerting.
Clinton on the other hand laid the smack down so hard that I had to stop the video at several points to stop from reeling. It was just as I said: Chris Wallace was so ignorant of the truth that he couldn’t even recognize it as such. He just sat there with that stupid smirk on his face and imagined that Clinton was stone-walling; rather than appreciating that this was the correct answer to the question…assuming you were giving Wallace the benefit of the doubt by pretending he had asked a real question.
As usual, they’re high-fiving themselves for winning a contest they had only imagined. The conservatives present these theories as a fait accompli, and that’s exactly how Wallace has accepted it.
And so they’ve built-up their own bizarro world of Clinton culpability and they’ve never bothered double-checking what actually happened or waited to hear a response. They’ve been given the conclusion and their borg-like minds imagine that they’ve already hashed-out the details before. It’s like someone who thinks they’re clever because they read the last page of a mystery novel, rather than wading through the bogus stuff that comes before. Except they’ve replaced Agatha Christie’s ending with a creation straight from RNC headquarters, and refuse to listen when you explain that they got it wrong.
And so we find that utterly atrocious “question” of Clinton, where Wallace raises a whole slew of issues hidden behind an accusation of incompetence, which Wallace clearly refused to hear the answer to. Because again, he doesn’t believe there was one. It’s almost as if in the fantasy interview Wallace had imagined, Clinton had simply lowered his head and cried in shame. Because he kept acting as if all of Bill’s answers were superfluous side-trips, because there wasn’t supposed to be a defense. The only answer Wallace would accept was an outright admission of failure; and as we saw, it was the only one he did accept.
Why Didn’t You…
I’ll start by combining all of Wallace’s pseudo-questions as one uber-question-statement, and then take apart each one. And seeing as how Wallace didn’t actually listen to any of Clinton’s responses, this is probably the way he remembered it too. You can just use the “…” part as Wallace’s recollection of this part of the interrogation interview.
Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of business when you were president? There's a new book out, I suspect you may have already read, called The Looming Tower. And it talks about the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.
…
May I just finish the question sir? And after the attack, the book says, that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is always 20/20 –
…
But the question is, why didn't you connect the dots and put him out of business?
…
.. bin Laden says, but it showed the weakness of the United States.
…
With respect, if I may, instead of going through '93 and ... May I ask you (INAUDIBLE) question, and then you can answer?
…
Do you think you did enough, sir?
And when you look through that, you’ll find no actual questions. Or specifically, what should have been questions were given as statements, and what he posed as questions were actually accusations. Particularly if you bring-up several specific events that you don’t want the interviewee to talk about which would serve as a defense of his actions. And had Clinton simply admitted that he could have done more, without a detailed defense, it is an implicit admission that all of those specific incidents were all screw-ups; which is exactly what Wallace wanted to hear.
Finish Him!
A real question could have been: It has been reported that Bin Laden saw our withdraw of troops in Somalia as a sign of cowardice. Do you now think that was a mistake on your part?
And then Clinton would have said what he was trying to say about how Republicans wanted an earlier withdraw from Somalia and that Bin Laden didn’t have anything to do with Somalia, nor did it embolden him. And then Wallace could have asked follow-up questions; or at least he should have, seeing as how he didn’t seem to know any of this stuff. This could have been a real learning experience for Chris, had he the least bit of intellectual honesty
But instead we get:
Why didn’t you do more?
Why didn’t you connect the dots?
And the trick question: Do you think you did enough?
And those aren’t questions; they’re accusations. He’s not asking if Clinton made a mistake; he’s asking why Clinton made the mistake. The interview had just started, yet Wallace seemed to think he had Clinton on the ropes and was going for the finisher. For Wallace, the idea that Clinton was incompetent in fighting terrorism is a cold-hard fact. It was kind of like watching a highlight reel from a real journalist; only focusing on the conclusions and not the build-up.
Yet the build-up never existed, as the charges against Clinton were obviously bogus to any who actually remembers what happened; rather than remembering the RNC’s false memories. And there was no real way to answer the “questions” that Wallace posed, because to answer those question is an admission of guilt. It was like asking the question “Why did you kill your wife?” when you hadn’t even established that she was dead.
Blame Wilson
And when you really think about it, his “question” doesn’t even make sense; at least not in the context of Somalia. It’s like Clinton was supposed to know that pulling out of Somalia would embolden a terrorist he had never heard of, and that Clinton should have done more to stop that. Shit, that’s like attacking Woodrow Wilson for not having killed Hitler in WWI…well, except that Bin Laden wasn’t involved in the Somalia thing at all; which would make Wilson even more culpable for WWII and the Holocaust than Clinton was for 9/11. But I suppose I can imagine conservatives making that argument too; if they needed to.
And when Clinton tried to explain this to Wallace, he was interrupted and told not to talk about what had happened in Somalia. Somehow, Somalia is very important context to the “question” asked, so that he brought it up repeatedly, but is an irrelevancy when answering that same “question.”
And that’s what’s weird. Clinton answered the question properly. Or at least, he did Wallace the honor of rephrasing Wallace’s accusation into a fair question, and answered that question. But in an obvious admission that it wasn’t a real question, Wallace wouldn’t accept what Clinton said. And Clinton even called him on that.
Were Chris Wallace to have any intellectual integrity, he would have accepted Clinton’s answer, or at least tried to get him to explain further, and questioned him more on what he said. But Wallace didn’t want any real response at all. He wanted Clinton to admit guilt and would accept nothing else. And a person of true integrity would never have made those cheap accusations in the first place.
And again, what Wallace seemed to expect was a weepy confession; as if all you had to do was get the question out, and the answer was so entirely undeniable that even Slick Willy couldn’t slip out of it. But he already expected Slick to pull some bull, and so Clinton’s honest and truthful response fell on deaf ears which already knew he was out of his element.
Oh wait, I forgot. It wasn’t Wallace who wanted to ask the question. It was all the emailers who asked for the response. Of course.
Ignorance
But another reason why Wallace disliked Clinton’s answers is that they were entirely unexpected to him. In fact, Clinton was so far off-base with Wallace’s very limited knowledge that Wallace couldn’t even recognize them as proper answers. He just imagined that Clinton was avoiding the question by wallowing in petty details. He brought up the context of Somalia and the Cole bombing as evidence against Clinton, yet didn’t want any response. Because he didn’t realize there was one.
And this is simply inexcusable. I had honestly imagined that Wallace had some sports-reporter background with ESPN or something before joining Fox News. I don’t know why, but that’s what I thought. So I did some research expecting to find that, but instead find he had been a well-established journalist throughout the 90’s, so he has no excuse for not remembering what really happened. And not even at Fox. He was with ABC News for 15 years, including work as a substitute host for Nightline, and had been NBC’s chief Whitehouse correspondent throughout much of the 80’s.
So there is no excuse for Wallace’s ignorance. He should have known, but is now repeating the same absurdist anti-Clinton rhetoric that the whackjob dittoheads feverishly rant about. It’s like all these people were born yesterday. He seemed to have no idea that Clinton could defend himself based on the merits. I’m sure Mike Wallace is just pining for the days he can roll in his grave over his son’s embarrassing antics. I know I would be.
P.S. I’ve now seen the exchange in question, and the most disconcerting part was how much Chris’ voice sounds like his dad’s. I’m not going to suggest that Mike Wallace was the greatest journalist in America, but I do admire the guy. Chris sounds like his old man filtered through a watery turd. Very disconcerting.
Clinton on the other hand laid the smack down so hard that I had to stop the video at several points to stop from reeling. It was just as I said: Chris Wallace was so ignorant of the truth that he couldn’t even recognize it as such. He just sat there with that stupid smirk on his face and imagined that Clinton was stone-walling; rather than appreciating that this was the correct answer to the question…assuming you were giving Wallace the benefit of the doubt by pretending he had asked a real question.
Listening: The Best Medicine
Digby reviewed the new movie Red State and wrote:
My favorite moment was when Mrs Gill, the Mississippi director of Concerend Women For America, gets upset that she's been "worked over" by this interviewer who had just asked her what she believed in. It's clear that when the totality of Mrs Gill's racism and intolerance became manifest in the few minutes that she spoke, she suddenly realized that she had given herself away as a white supremecist and Christian nationalist. Naturally she claimed victimhood and ended the interview.
And this is just too true. Too often, these people never really express themselves in any depth and don’t realize how totally shallow and horrible their arguments really are. Whether they’re arguing with us or talking amongst themselves, they never really get beyond the key phrases and soundbites which are immediately recognizable as being specific rightwing talking points.
And so when they talk amongst themselves, it’s merely to recite more of the talking points and to nod in agreement. But there’s no effort to look beyond that, in order to get them to actually justify anything. Or to further pursue any particular idea. Why bother? You’ve already got agreement, and that’s exactly what they expected: Like minded people, thinking alike. And the fact that their rhetoric is entirely meaningless and devoid of specific context is irrelevant. Because they never get beyond the surface level to realize there’s any disagreement.
Confronting the Enemy
But it’s no better when they talk to us. They say some key word or phrase that we immediately recognize from a particular rightwing talking point, and we’re immediately all over them; questioning each soundbite as if it had been generated from the wingnut themself, yet never really penetrating beyond that to the individual’s actual belief system. We just hear the same phrases uttered in the same way and we immediately stop listening and try to talk sense into them. I know that’s what I do. Someone repeats a specific Fox News moment, and I’m simply stunned that somebody actually bought it. But they all do, and I’m stunned every time.
But that’s not accidental. That’s the way they’re taught. Every thought on every important issue will be boobytrapped with positions you’ll find offensive and insulting. Yet the meaning of the words will often not correspond with the speaker’s true opinion on the matter. They’ll just be convinced that it does, because it sounds so good. But more often than not, people are far more reasonable and nice than their arguments would lead you to believe. But the rightwing talkers don’t want you to know that. Because they want to make sure that their listeners don’t like you.
And it works. You mention a recent news story. They comment about how the Democrats are wrong for attacking Bush for it, and the race is on. Or some other bullshit. Just listen to all the rhetorical pitfalls spewing from their mouths and just remember what I said about these being intentional. Fox, Limbaugh, and the rest of them are truly poisoning their minds; reprogramming them to make them useless in regular society. It’s like a horrible virus and no one is immune.
But next time, just try letting them talk. And asking them non-leading questions to get them to say more. Not in an antagonizing way, but as if you were really interested. And get them to keep talking. Before long, they just might amaze themselves by what comes out of their mouths. That’s the basis for psychoanalysis, and if anyone needs that kind of help, it’s these guys.
And if nothing else, you’re likely to get to some real core beliefs that you might be able to start working on. But as long as they’re allowed to keep the discussion to meaningless clichés and empty rhetoric, you’ll never be able to make any headway at all. Because you’re only attacking their defenses, not their beliefs.
Humanity
I saw the same thing last week on The Daily Show. The topic was “humane” hunting, with a guy who runs a hunting grounds that uses darts instead of bullets, who said how it was actually more humane to hunt deer than to not hunt them. Or something like that. And it clearly sounded like a point he’s said a hundred times and found really convincing.
And the Daily Show interviewer just asks him “How so?” or some other open question, and the dude was totally stumped. I guess most people who heard him say that either nodded in agreement or were stunned into silence, and he had never been asked to explain that absurdity any further.
Because he clearly couldn’t. It was a stock phrase he used repeatedly, but even he couldn’t explain it. And I don’t blame him. I heard the phrase and it didn’t make a lick of sense to me either.
Let Them Talk
And that’s why you needn’t bother arguing with them. Because they just won’t understand; nor will they even try to. And if they’re going to talk anyway, just let them. Don’t argue. Just keep asking more questions. And the more they talk, the more you’ll feel sorry for them. And the more that you’ll wish that their demented little universe was somehow faithful to reality and that they’d never need to wake up from this horrible dream. And with any luck, they’ll finally start reaching that point where their own words start bouncing back to the reasonable part hidden away in their minds, and they’ll begin to realize how totally jackass stupid they sound when they’re talking.
That’s how I converted from being Republican, and I suspect that it’s the same with everyone else. You can’t talk them out of it. You can only let them talk themselves out of it. Once they finally get all that shit out in the light of day, it’ll start to sound stupid. They’ve got it all hidden away, and you need to bring it out.
But don’t let them be shy or embarrassed. Find out what they really believe. Why not? It’s not like they’ll convert you or anything. Let them talk. I mean, what’s the worst that can happen? That their insanity would feed back in on itself and make them take their rage out on you by gouging out your eyes and raping your skull? Sure. But wouldn’t it be worth it? Pain is transitory. But ridding the world of another crazy conservative is forever.
My favorite moment was when Mrs Gill, the Mississippi director of Concerend Women For America, gets upset that she's been "worked over" by this interviewer who had just asked her what she believed in. It's clear that when the totality of Mrs Gill's racism and intolerance became manifest in the few minutes that she spoke, she suddenly realized that she had given herself away as a white supremecist and Christian nationalist. Naturally she claimed victimhood and ended the interview.
And this is just too true. Too often, these people never really express themselves in any depth and don’t realize how totally shallow and horrible their arguments really are. Whether they’re arguing with us or talking amongst themselves, they never really get beyond the key phrases and soundbites which are immediately recognizable as being specific rightwing talking points.
And so when they talk amongst themselves, it’s merely to recite more of the talking points and to nod in agreement. But there’s no effort to look beyond that, in order to get them to actually justify anything. Or to further pursue any particular idea. Why bother? You’ve already got agreement, and that’s exactly what they expected: Like minded people, thinking alike. And the fact that their rhetoric is entirely meaningless and devoid of specific context is irrelevant. Because they never get beyond the surface level to realize there’s any disagreement.
Confronting the Enemy
But it’s no better when they talk to us. They say some key word or phrase that we immediately recognize from a particular rightwing talking point, and we’re immediately all over them; questioning each soundbite as if it had been generated from the wingnut themself, yet never really penetrating beyond that to the individual’s actual belief system. We just hear the same phrases uttered in the same way and we immediately stop listening and try to talk sense into them. I know that’s what I do. Someone repeats a specific Fox News moment, and I’m simply stunned that somebody actually bought it. But they all do, and I’m stunned every time.
But that’s not accidental. That’s the way they’re taught. Every thought on every important issue will be boobytrapped with positions you’ll find offensive and insulting. Yet the meaning of the words will often not correspond with the speaker’s true opinion on the matter. They’ll just be convinced that it does, because it sounds so good. But more often than not, people are far more reasonable and nice than their arguments would lead you to believe. But the rightwing talkers don’t want you to know that. Because they want to make sure that their listeners don’t like you.
And it works. You mention a recent news story. They comment about how the Democrats are wrong for attacking Bush for it, and the race is on. Or some other bullshit. Just listen to all the rhetorical pitfalls spewing from their mouths and just remember what I said about these being intentional. Fox, Limbaugh, and the rest of them are truly poisoning their minds; reprogramming them to make them useless in regular society. It’s like a horrible virus and no one is immune.
But next time, just try letting them talk. And asking them non-leading questions to get them to say more. Not in an antagonizing way, but as if you were really interested. And get them to keep talking. Before long, they just might amaze themselves by what comes out of their mouths. That’s the basis for psychoanalysis, and if anyone needs that kind of help, it’s these guys.
And if nothing else, you’re likely to get to some real core beliefs that you might be able to start working on. But as long as they’re allowed to keep the discussion to meaningless clichés and empty rhetoric, you’ll never be able to make any headway at all. Because you’re only attacking their defenses, not their beliefs.
Humanity
I saw the same thing last week on The Daily Show. The topic was “humane” hunting, with a guy who runs a hunting grounds that uses darts instead of bullets, who said how it was actually more humane to hunt deer than to not hunt them. Or something like that. And it clearly sounded like a point he’s said a hundred times and found really convincing.
And the Daily Show interviewer just asks him “How so?” or some other open question, and the dude was totally stumped. I guess most people who heard him say that either nodded in agreement or were stunned into silence, and he had never been asked to explain that absurdity any further.
Because he clearly couldn’t. It was a stock phrase he used repeatedly, but even he couldn’t explain it. And I don’t blame him. I heard the phrase and it didn’t make a lick of sense to me either.
Let Them Talk
And that’s why you needn’t bother arguing with them. Because they just won’t understand; nor will they even try to. And if they’re going to talk anyway, just let them. Don’t argue. Just keep asking more questions. And the more they talk, the more you’ll feel sorry for them. And the more that you’ll wish that their demented little universe was somehow faithful to reality and that they’d never need to wake up from this horrible dream. And with any luck, they’ll finally start reaching that point where their own words start bouncing back to the reasonable part hidden away in their minds, and they’ll begin to realize how totally jackass stupid they sound when they’re talking.
That’s how I converted from being Republican, and I suspect that it’s the same with everyone else. You can’t talk them out of it. You can only let them talk themselves out of it. Once they finally get all that shit out in the light of day, it’ll start to sound stupid. They’ve got it all hidden away, and you need to bring it out.
But don’t let them be shy or embarrassed. Find out what they really believe. Why not? It’s not like they’ll convert you or anything. Let them talk. I mean, what’s the worst that can happen? That their insanity would feed back in on itself and make them take their rage out on you by gouging out your eyes and raping your skull? Sure. But wouldn’t it be worth it? Pain is transitory. But ridding the world of another crazy conservative is forever.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
The Four-Letter-Word God
Surprise, surprise. Brent Bozell’s upset about something. NBC decided to start airing the Christian cartoon VeggieTales on Saturday mornings, but removed all the “non-historical” references to God and the bible.
One such removal was the main characters’ indoctrinating tagline at the end of each episode:
"Remember kids, God made you special and he loves you very much.”
The show’s creator insists he didn’t know about these edits until a few weeks before it started running and says he wouldn’t have approved of this, had he known; though I honestly can’t imagine how the question wouldn’t have come up. Was he really that naïve, or is he just lying? Perhaps both.
And no wonder Brent’s upset. NBC doesn’t want to pimp Christianity.
The show was edited to comply with the network's broadcast standards, said NBC spokeswoman Rebecca Marks. "Our goal is to reach as broad an audience as possible with these positive messages while being careful not to advocate any one religious point of view," she said.
Needless to say, that is both blasphemy and music to Bozell’s ears, which love to hear blasphemy. Not that he likes blasphemy, mind you, but it sure does help pay the bills.
Here was my favorite part:
"If NBC is so concerned about that four-letter-word God, then they shouldn't have taken `VeggieTales'," [Bozell] said. "This just documents the disconnect between Hollywood and the real world."
Right. The “real world” where talking vegetables praise god for making kids special. Talk about your disconnects.
If Brent goes through with this, I suspect NBC will soon be learning the same lesson of ABC’s conservative experiment (Bozo Alert!): Conservatives will not be satisfied. They don’t just want Christian-friendly or conservative-friendly content; they want to evangelize. Or more accurately, to whore-out the networks for their own agenda; which is exactly what they’ve imagined liberals have received for decades.
It looks like both NBC and ABC thought they could harness the conservative fire for their own purposes, and are now getting burned. Because while conservatives put on a decent argument, it’s entirely a sham. They don’t want fairness or reasonableness. They want everything. And unless you give them everything, they’ll have a tantrum. And they’ll probably have a tantrum anyway. They’re just like that. They don’t want to be satisfied. They just like to complain about being victimized and having tantrums; that’s just their nature. And if you so much as agree to edit out any content that non-conservatives find offensive, you will get the tantrum; every time.
So I thank Brent for making that lesson so clear to them. I’ve caught that Veggie show once or twice and I too would rather not see it in it’s edited format. But then again, I didn’t really want to see it at all. And I suspect that NBC will soon agree with me on that.
One such removal was the main characters’ indoctrinating tagline at the end of each episode:
"Remember kids, God made you special and he loves you very much.”
The show’s creator insists he didn’t know about these edits until a few weeks before it started running and says he wouldn’t have approved of this, had he known; though I honestly can’t imagine how the question wouldn’t have come up. Was he really that naïve, or is he just lying? Perhaps both.
And no wonder Brent’s upset. NBC doesn’t want to pimp Christianity.
The show was edited to comply with the network's broadcast standards, said NBC spokeswoman Rebecca Marks. "Our goal is to reach as broad an audience as possible with these positive messages while being careful not to advocate any one religious point of view," she said.
Needless to say, that is both blasphemy and music to Bozell’s ears, which love to hear blasphemy. Not that he likes blasphemy, mind you, but it sure does help pay the bills.
Here was my favorite part:
"If NBC is so concerned about that four-letter-word God, then they shouldn't have taken `VeggieTales'," [Bozell] said. "This just documents the disconnect between Hollywood and the real world."
Right. The “real world” where talking vegetables praise god for making kids special. Talk about your disconnects.
If Brent goes through with this, I suspect NBC will soon be learning the same lesson of ABC’s conservative experiment (Bozo Alert!): Conservatives will not be satisfied. They don’t just want Christian-friendly or conservative-friendly content; they want to evangelize. Or more accurately, to whore-out the networks for their own agenda; which is exactly what they’ve imagined liberals have received for decades.
It looks like both NBC and ABC thought they could harness the conservative fire for their own purposes, and are now getting burned. Because while conservatives put on a decent argument, it’s entirely a sham. They don’t want fairness or reasonableness. They want everything. And unless you give them everything, they’ll have a tantrum. And they’ll probably have a tantrum anyway. They’re just like that. They don’t want to be satisfied. They just like to complain about being victimized and having tantrums; that’s just their nature. And if you so much as agree to edit out any content that non-conservatives find offensive, you will get the tantrum; every time.
So I thank Brent for making that lesson so clear to them. I’ve caught that Veggie show once or twice and I too would rather not see it in it’s edited format. But then again, I didn’t really want to see it at all. And I suspect that NBC will soon agree with me on that.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Yea Torture!!
In regards to America’s new torture guidelines, all I can say is that I find this so upsetting that I will continue my ostrich routine until I wake-up and find that the good guys did the right thing and it all went away. Wish me luck. I’m very upset. We’re all screwed.
On the bright side, at least the current generation of leaders is leaving us with a full deck to deal with when we finally take the reins of government. I was always worried that us Gen-X leaders wouldn’t have enough to do Oh wait, I forget. The media stripped us of the Gen-X label when we didn’t all turn into heroin-addicted slackers, so I think we’re now Gen-W.
But whoever we are, we’ll certainly have a full plate when it’s our turn to run things. Thanks guys. I was always worried that America would still have some semblance of a decent reputation in some parts of the world. Perhaps even some moral authority. But I guess the Bush Gang took care of that quite handily; which perhaps was their one point of actual competence; well, besides lying and winning elections based on lies. But I suppose that too is all part of their “Let’s Screw with America” plan. One thing is clear: History will not forget these assholes. Nor will it forgive.
P.S. Would it really help if I contacted my Republican Senators or Congressman? I’ve never done that kind of thing before and feel it would be utterly futile. Convince me I’m wrong. I’m really upset.
P.P.S. Never mind. I’ve just been assured that only the bad guys will be tortured. And we’ll know that because every one of them will have confessed to being a bad guy. That changes everything. Yea torture!!
On the bright side, at least the current generation of leaders is leaving us with a full deck to deal with when we finally take the reins of government. I was always worried that us Gen-X leaders wouldn’t have enough to do Oh wait, I forget. The media stripped us of the Gen-X label when we didn’t all turn into heroin-addicted slackers, so I think we’re now Gen-W.
But whoever we are, we’ll certainly have a full plate when it’s our turn to run things. Thanks guys. I was always worried that America would still have some semblance of a decent reputation in some parts of the world. Perhaps even some moral authority. But I guess the Bush Gang took care of that quite handily; which perhaps was their one point of actual competence; well, besides lying and winning elections based on lies. But I suppose that too is all part of their “Let’s Screw with America” plan. One thing is clear: History will not forget these assholes. Nor will it forgive.
P.S. Would it really help if I contacted my Republican Senators or Congressman? I’ve never done that kind of thing before and feel it would be utterly futile. Convince me I’m wrong. I’m really upset.
P.P.S. Never mind. I’ve just been assured that only the bad guys will be tortured. And we’ll know that because every one of them will have confessed to being a bad guy. That changes everything. Yea torture!!
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Email Stock Tip of the Day
For those of you interested in my previous stock tip, I’ve got another one for you. You didn’t hear this from me, but the grapevine says there’s a great Gold & Silver stock that is currently priced at a meager $0.45 a share which is targeted to increase to a whopping $3 a share in five days. That’s like a fifty bagillion percent profit annualized. Talk about a steal! And the best thing about it is that I didn’t even ask for this great advice. It just arrived in my Inbox. Very fortuitous, this internet is.
Oddly enough, the 30-day target puts the price at $9 a share, yet the “analysts” seem to suggest that any price over $3 is a “Moderate Sell”. I guess they just don’t want us to get too greedy, or maybe they don’t want us to have to pay too much at tax time. Kind people.
Oh well, that’s my stock tip of the day. And for any of you planning to make a bundle on this tip: Good luck!
Oddly enough, the 30-day target puts the price at $9 a share, yet the “analysts” seem to suggest that any price over $3 is a “Moderate Sell”. I guess they just don’t want us to get too greedy, or maybe they don’t want us to have to pay too much at tax time. Kind people.
Oh well, that’s my stock tip of the day. And for any of you planning to make a bundle on this tip: Good luck!
Santorum's Donor Projection
What the fuck is the matter with these people? Via Atrios:
Santorum aired a spot featuring actors supposedly portraying four big donors to Casey's campaign meeting in a smoke-filled jail cell. The senator's campaign later conceded that none of the men had given money to Casey's Senate campaign and that two had contributed to Santorum's campaign, which donated the money to nonprofit groups.
Come fucking on, this is just stupid. These people have got to be stopped, for their own good. They currently know no boundaries.
Santorum aired a spot featuring actors supposedly portraying four big donors to Casey's campaign meeting in a smoke-filled jail cell. The senator's campaign later conceded that none of the men had given money to Casey's Senate campaign and that two had contributed to Santorum's campaign, which donated the money to nonprofit groups.
Come fucking on, this is just stupid. These people have got to be stopped, for their own good. They currently know no boundaries.
Why Indeed?
Via Tim Lambert at Deltoid, I read:
When NOAA press officer Laborde was contacted to discuss the e-mails, he denied that interviews were subject to approval from White House officials. Confronted with his own e-mails, however, he said, "If you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?"
And this is one aspect of the Bush Admin’s abuse of journalist methods that will perhaps always bother me: That journalists insist on confirmation of things they already know. And that just makes sense, for standard journalism. It’s not enough that they know things; they have to be able to prove things. And someone’s not lying until they admit that they’re lying. That should just be standard.
But if you already know something and your target has a history of lying to you about it, it’s time to come out with a different tact. Because the Bushies are totally onto this idea and continue to milk it for all it’s worth. They know that honesty and openness is for dopes and they can get much more through other means. Deception is so ingrained in them that it’s quite possible that press officer Laborde honestly wanted to know why he was being asked the question. To a Bushie, it’s like asking them if they want to breathe. They have no other choice.
And so you get press conferences and gaggles in which the reporters already know all the answers, but as long as the Prez or press secretary refuse to answer the question, the reporters won’t print it. Nor will they write about how they’re being stonewalled. Instead, they keep trying to weasel out the truth, aiming to trip-up Bush or an underling to accidentally admit to something. It’s like the press is so wrapped-up in the game that they’ve forgotten that they’re discussing something real.
And worst of all, even when they catch the Bushies in a lie, they still won’t outright call it that. Instead, they rely on winking euphemisms that everyone’s supposed to understand…but obviously won’t. And if you’re using an unclear euphemism to describe a lie, you might as well just call it a lie. And the Bushies will keep this up forever. It is almost never in their best interests to confess to anything and they rarely do. The few times honesty has come through, they’ve always regretted it. As I’ve argued before, for Republicans, honesty is the worst policy.
And again, I understand the need for these rules of journalism; but there really comes a time when you’ve got to see you’re being used and abused and break outside of that. The Bushies will never admit to lying or wrong-doing or anything bad. Try as you might, you’ll just be lied to, stonewalled, and deceived again and again.
And so if you already know the answer, why ask them the question? Laborde is obviously distressed about this, but when Bushies usually ask the question, it’s only for their own private amusement. They’ve turned journalism into a game and almost never lose. Journalists need to stop playing.
When NOAA press officer Laborde was contacted to discuss the e-mails, he denied that interviews were subject to approval from White House officials. Confronted with his own e-mails, however, he said, "If you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?"
And this is one aspect of the Bush Admin’s abuse of journalist methods that will perhaps always bother me: That journalists insist on confirmation of things they already know. And that just makes sense, for standard journalism. It’s not enough that they know things; they have to be able to prove things. And someone’s not lying until they admit that they’re lying. That should just be standard.
But if you already know something and your target has a history of lying to you about it, it’s time to come out with a different tact. Because the Bushies are totally onto this idea and continue to milk it for all it’s worth. They know that honesty and openness is for dopes and they can get much more through other means. Deception is so ingrained in them that it’s quite possible that press officer Laborde honestly wanted to know why he was being asked the question. To a Bushie, it’s like asking them if they want to breathe. They have no other choice.
And so you get press conferences and gaggles in which the reporters already know all the answers, but as long as the Prez or press secretary refuse to answer the question, the reporters won’t print it. Nor will they write about how they’re being stonewalled. Instead, they keep trying to weasel out the truth, aiming to trip-up Bush or an underling to accidentally admit to something. It’s like the press is so wrapped-up in the game that they’ve forgotten that they’re discussing something real.
And worst of all, even when they catch the Bushies in a lie, they still won’t outright call it that. Instead, they rely on winking euphemisms that everyone’s supposed to understand…but obviously won’t. And if you’re using an unclear euphemism to describe a lie, you might as well just call it a lie. And the Bushies will keep this up forever. It is almost never in their best interests to confess to anything and they rarely do. The few times honesty has come through, they’ve always regretted it. As I’ve argued before, for Republicans, honesty is the worst policy.
And again, I understand the need for these rules of journalism; but there really comes a time when you’ve got to see you’re being used and abused and break outside of that. The Bushies will never admit to lying or wrong-doing or anything bad. Try as you might, you’ll just be lied to, stonewalled, and deceived again and again.
And so if you already know the answer, why ask them the question? Laborde is obviously distressed about this, but when Bushies usually ask the question, it’s only for their own private amusement. They’ve turned journalism into a game and almost never lose. Journalists need to stop playing.
Dick & Don's Free Khalid Movement
What if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed finally got his day in court, whether kangaroo or not, and was found innocent? As if even the super top-secret evidence that no one was actually allowed to look at still wasn’t convincing enough? Would they release him? Maybe deport him back to his homeland for a hero’s welcome? And if that happened, would Bush finally just give-up and move back to Texas? Would he make sure to fire Cheney and Rummy first? Or would he just shoot them? Knowing Bush, that’s really hard to say.
And might this be the move Dick & Don were waiting for? As if they planned all this incompetence on purpose, and had no idea Bush could last this long? And that 9/11 was their masterstroke and expected him to fold that afternoon (which would explain why Dick had Georgie bouncing around on Air Force One). And after the Katrina disaster didn’t do the trick, they finally started moving on this free Khalid movement.
And perhaps this is all part of Dick’s Impeachment 2007 strategy, after which, he’ll rule as a competent, yet maniacal leader for the next ten years; before anointing Dick Clone III as his successor, with Jenna Bush as VP and Barb as First Lady. These guys do think ahead, and that really would make a lot more sense than what we’ve seen from Dick so far. And you know the media would just eat that shit up. They always wanted to be ruled by a cold-blooded bastard, and they’d finally get it.
But back to the original question: Could this really happen? Is there any chance in hell that they’d ever find Khalid innocent and release him? Impossible. So what’s the point? Fricking Saddam Hussein has a better chance of being found innocent, and he’s fricking Saddam Hussein! And what are they planning to do with him once they’re done? Death penalty? Probably not, thanks to that god damned martyr clause. The top guys always get away, ever since that whole Jesus debacle. Yet another case of the little guy getting screwed. Typical.
So it’ll probably just be life in prison. But isn’t that what he’s facing if we don’t have a trial? Of course. We’ll never let him free; trial or not. So what’s the point? I honestly don’t know. I’m all for trials, particularly the good ones. But I’m sure we can’t let this guy go. And I’m sure we won’t. So what’s the point? You know, it’s stuff like this why they invented prison accidents. Is it wrong for me to say that I wouldn’t mind?
And might this be the move Dick & Don were waiting for? As if they planned all this incompetence on purpose, and had no idea Bush could last this long? And that 9/11 was their masterstroke and expected him to fold that afternoon (which would explain why Dick had Georgie bouncing around on Air Force One). And after the Katrina disaster didn’t do the trick, they finally started moving on this free Khalid movement.
And perhaps this is all part of Dick’s Impeachment 2007 strategy, after which, he’ll rule as a competent, yet maniacal leader for the next ten years; before anointing Dick Clone III as his successor, with Jenna Bush as VP and Barb as First Lady. These guys do think ahead, and that really would make a lot more sense than what we’ve seen from Dick so far. And you know the media would just eat that shit up. They always wanted to be ruled by a cold-blooded bastard, and they’d finally get it.
But back to the original question: Could this really happen? Is there any chance in hell that they’d ever find Khalid innocent and release him? Impossible. So what’s the point? Fricking Saddam Hussein has a better chance of being found innocent, and he’s fricking Saddam Hussein! And what are they planning to do with him once they’re done? Death penalty? Probably not, thanks to that god damned martyr clause. The top guys always get away, ever since that whole Jesus debacle. Yet another case of the little guy getting screwed. Typical.
So it’ll probably just be life in prison. But isn’t that what he’s facing if we don’t have a trial? Of course. We’ll never let him free; trial or not. So what’s the point? I honestly don’t know. I’m all for trials, particularly the good ones. But I’m sure we can’t let this guy go. And I’m sure we won’t. So what’s the point? You know, it’s stuff like this why they invented prison accidents. Is it wrong for me to say that I wouldn’t mind?
Monday, September 18, 2006
Instapundit Loves Lewinsky?
I’ve got to agree with Alex Koppelman at Meta-Media when he suggests that there may be a real possibility of Glenn Reynolds, Mr. Instapundit, being a certifiable nutcase serial killer who enjoys torturing old people with dirty pictures of his alligator. I’m not saying that I know that first-hand. How could I? I barely have enough time to scratch-out a blogpost or two a day; forget about scouring his creepy basement for endangered senior citizens. And for all I know, they may enjoy seeing dirty pictures of his pandas while he dances naked to ABBA. I don’t know. I’m just saying that it’s a possibility that someone might want to consider dealing with before it’s too late.
And can you really know for sure what he’s doing with those scissors he bought? I mean, really? Or that he’s only used those knives of his for cooking purposes? Of course not. And while I have no cold-hard “clinical” proof that he doesn’t whack-off each night to his Bill and Monica dolls; I think I’ll decline any invitation for a sleep-over at the Reynolds household all the same.
Because you never know. Knowledge is an allusive thing which one can never be too sure of, while speculation smells so nice and fits like a glove. I mean, Insty could have nukes himself, for all we know. Or he could be an Iranian. I’ve never seen him, nor do I personally know of anyone who has. Perhaps he’s a computer. Or worse…
I’m not saying I know, simply that you don’t either. And a little of your ignorance can go a long way to paying my bills.
Update: Apparently, I’m not the only one curious about Reynolds’ supposedly zombie-free basement. Scroll down…
Second Update: I would like to clarify that I’m merely engaging in speculation, and have made clear that I have no evidence for any of this. But then again, where is any of the evidence to the contrary? There are a lot of accusations swirling about Mr. Reynolds with nary a denial in sight. I wonder -- does Karl Rove already have proof of all this, and is Insty being successfully blackmailed?
And can you really know for sure what he’s doing with those scissors he bought? I mean, really? Or that he’s only used those knives of his for cooking purposes? Of course not. And while I have no cold-hard “clinical” proof that he doesn’t whack-off each night to his Bill and Monica dolls; I think I’ll decline any invitation for a sleep-over at the Reynolds household all the same.
Because you never know. Knowledge is an allusive thing which one can never be too sure of, while speculation smells so nice and fits like a glove. I mean, Insty could have nukes himself, for all we know. Or he could be an Iranian. I’ve never seen him, nor do I personally know of anyone who has. Perhaps he’s a computer. Or worse…
I’m not saying I know, simply that you don’t either. And a little of your ignorance can go a long way to paying my bills.
Update: Apparently, I’m not the only one curious about Reynolds’ supposedly zombie-free basement. Scroll down…
Second Update: I would like to clarify that I’m merely engaging in speculation, and have made clear that I have no evidence for any of this. But then again, where is any of the evidence to the contrary? There are a lot of accusations swirling about Mr. Reynolds with nary a denial in sight. I wonder -- does Karl Rove already have proof of all this, and is Insty being successfully blackmailed?
Fishy Fishy
Apparently, cities are now using fish to combat terrorism in their water supply:
Bluegills — a hardy species about the size of a human hand — are considered more versatile. They are highly attuned to chemical disturbances in their environment, and when exposed to toxins, they experience the fish version of coughing, flexing their gills to expel unwanted particles.
The computerized system in use in San Francisco and elsewhere is designed to detect even slight changes in the bluegills' vital signs and send an e-mail alert when something is wrong.
You know, that’s pretty cool and everything, but email?? Come on, fish. How about a buzzer or something? Or a flashing red light? With our luck, we’ll get a stupid fish who types “defer salmonella” in the subject line and it’ll get sucked into the junk email folder and lost forever. I actually did get such an email in my junk folder today, but it was merely a stock tip for something worth $0.175 which is estimated to reach $0.75 within the week. I can’t wait.
But lest you think we’ve finally foiled Bin Laden for good, these fish apparently do have their limitations:
And they are no use against other sorts of attacks — say, the bombing of a water main, or an attack by computer hackers on the systems that control the flow of water.
Damn! Damn! Damn! Don’t these fish know how important this is? I know, it’s impressive enough that the fish can detect these threats, and the email thing is pretty cool. (I wonder how they type) But until these fishes get up off their asses and start defending our waters against bombs and hackers, we’re stuck relying on Bush. And with what we’ve seen so far…I’d rather go with the fish.
Bluegills — a hardy species about the size of a human hand — are considered more versatile. They are highly attuned to chemical disturbances in their environment, and when exposed to toxins, they experience the fish version of coughing, flexing their gills to expel unwanted particles.
The computerized system in use in San Francisco and elsewhere is designed to detect even slight changes in the bluegills' vital signs and send an e-mail alert when something is wrong.
You know, that’s pretty cool and everything, but email?? Come on, fish. How about a buzzer or something? Or a flashing red light? With our luck, we’ll get a stupid fish who types “defer salmonella” in the subject line and it’ll get sucked into the junk email folder and lost forever. I actually did get such an email in my junk folder today, but it was merely a stock tip for something worth $0.175 which is estimated to reach $0.75 within the week. I can’t wait.
But lest you think we’ve finally foiled Bin Laden for good, these fish apparently do have their limitations:
And they are no use against other sorts of attacks — say, the bombing of a water main, or an attack by computer hackers on the systems that control the flow of water.
Damn! Damn! Damn! Don’t these fish know how important this is? I know, it’s impressive enough that the fish can detect these threats, and the email thing is pretty cool. (I wonder how they type) But until these fishes get up off their asses and start defending our waters against bombs and hackers, we’re stuck relying on Bush. And with what we’ve seen so far…I’d rather go with the fish.
Dobson's Gang of Thugs
Wow. It took me several hours to write my post on religious war mongers, but former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) summed it up better in two lines:
"Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies. I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid.”
And that was a main point I was saying. Well, except that I don’t pray at all, and I was complaining about Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council and not James Dobson of Focus on the Family. But otherwise, the point stands. They’re both pulling the same stunts for the same reasons and they don’t care who they fool to do it.
It’s not about truth, it’s about power. And maybe they really do believe in the whole god thing and think they’re working for a higher power, but that doesn’t negate the fact that they’re deceiving their followers while illegitimately stoking fear and resentment among fellow Americans. And all in the name of preserving the “family”.
Miss You When You’re Gone
Armey went on, saying:
“There's a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn't work unless it's dumb, shallow as water on a plate. These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic. These issues become bigger than life, largely because they're easy. There ain't no thinking."
I agree completely. Sure, I don’t use faux-fancy terms like “demagoguery coefficient” because I think they are counter-productive to the whole comprehension thing, which sort of undermines the whole reason for using fancy words. But whatever. He’s right.
And what’s odd is that I never liked Armey when he was in office, but have now taken more of a liking since he became a former Congressman. I’m sure we’d still disagree on many key issues, but at least he seems to be playing by a consistent set of rules, rather than making shit up like the current batch of “conservatives” continues to do.
Why is it that you never really get to know someone until after they stop running for office? (Al Gore, I’m looking at you.)
"Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies. I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid.”
And that was a main point I was saying. Well, except that I don’t pray at all, and I was complaining about Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council and not James Dobson of Focus on the Family. But otherwise, the point stands. They’re both pulling the same stunts for the same reasons and they don’t care who they fool to do it.
It’s not about truth, it’s about power. And maybe they really do believe in the whole god thing and think they’re working for a higher power, but that doesn’t negate the fact that they’re deceiving their followers while illegitimately stoking fear and resentment among fellow Americans. And all in the name of preserving the “family”.
Miss You When You’re Gone
Armey went on, saying:
“There's a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn't work unless it's dumb, shallow as water on a plate. These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic. These issues become bigger than life, largely because they're easy. There ain't no thinking."
I agree completely. Sure, I don’t use faux-fancy terms like “demagoguery coefficient” because I think they are counter-productive to the whole comprehension thing, which sort of undermines the whole reason for using fancy words. But whatever. He’s right.
And what’s odd is that I never liked Armey when he was in office, but have now taken more of a liking since he became a former Congressman. I’m sure we’d still disagree on many key issues, but at least he seems to be playing by a consistent set of rules, rather than making shit up like the current batch of “conservatives” continues to do.
Why is it that you never really get to know someone until after they stop running for office? (Al Gore, I’m looking at you.)
Sunday, September 17, 2006
My Papal Apology
I’m saying an offensive thing about you and think you’re ignorant for taking offense. So I’m sorry for your ignorance and regret your sensitivity. Perhaps next time you shouldn’t suck so much. Sorry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
