The President's radio address:

Great stuff this week: (emp add)

• Democrats in the House and the Senate also recently passed their annual budget resolutions. Their budgets would raise your taxes and raise government spending in Washington.
• ... this would be the largest tax increase in our Nation's history ...
• Our Nation cannot afford such reckless taxing and spending. Under my Administration, we have kept your taxes low and restrained government spending in Washington.

The Democrats are not raising taxes with budget resolutions. They are making budgets based on the tax law passed by Republicans in 2001. More at Obsidian Wings.


posted by Quiddity at 3/31/2007 10:40:00 AM

Howler doesn't mince words:

In the wake of last week's Chris Matthews' Show (vid & transcript @ Carpetbagger), the one where the guests make merry over the U.S. Attorney firings, view it as mere Democratic sniping, and show a complete lack of interest in the integrity of the Justice Department, Bob Somerby writes: (excerpts, emp in original)

For starters, let’s describe a long-standing pattern: The RNC sends out a script, and journalists look for ways to promote it. In this case, the Matthews panel supported, en masse, an RNC framework: Dems are just playing partisan politics in their pursuit of these firings. All the pundits supported this script. But they found different ways to do so.

Here’s the key point of understanding: Depending on the positions they hold, different scribes will find different ways to support an RNC script. At conservative journals, scribes can simply recite the RNC line, no matter how stupid or bogus it is. But if you work for a mainstream news org, you have to be somewhat more clever.

Almost surely, that explains [Time's ME Richard] Stengel’s odd remark on the Matthews Show. To state the obvious, the attorney firings look like an actual scandal, so Stengel couldn’t say what pundits on Fox have constantly said: This whole thing is just a non-story. On the other hand, he wanted to agree with the general line set out by his host, Chris Matthews. Matthews was stressing all the bad faith involved in the Democrats’ unseemly conduct.

... everyone played along last Sunday. Incredibly, all five pundits aped Matthews’ line, saying the Dems were just playing politics. No one offered an obvious thought: Democrats should be probing this conduct. It’s the way our system works.

That's a different point of view than that of other bloggers that were appalled at what happened on Matthews' show. For them, it's a question of "How could these journalists be so clueless?" or superficial or lazy or wrapped up in the beltway conventional wisdom. But Somerby says it's a mistake to think that way. That instead, the guests on Matthews' show are there to peddle the RNC script of the week. Which makes it a waste of time to analyze their performance in terms of journalism or to expect much from them if they even know they are being criticized.


posted by Quiddity at 3/31/2007 09:36:00 AM

Housekeeping:

This blog switched to the New Blogger a couple of weeks ago. But there appear to be changes required to fix links (e.g. for archives). This will be attended to in the near future.


posted by Quiddity at 3/30/2007 08:26:00 PM

Newsweekly?



More at Radar Online, Carpetbagger Report, Political Animal.


posted by Quiddity at 3/30/2007 07:37:00 PM

The Broder Bounce:

Bush’s job approval 33%

posted by Quiddity at 3/30/2007 10:14:00 AM

The Republican choice:

In a Politico (yes) article, Republicans Fear 2008 Meltdown, we read:

Republicans across the country are warning that increasing public discontent toward President Bush, the Iraq war and the GOP brand in general threatens to send the party's 2008 campaign planning into a tailspin.

[...]

How to restore the GOP brand? "That's what we're struggling with, honestly," said Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). "Do you positively brand yourself, or do you negatively brand the other side?"

What do you think they will do?


posted by Quiddity at 3/29/2007 05:19:00 PM

Overpaid Circuit City workers:

Kevin Drum flags a story that's been making the rounds: Circuit City is firing workers (technically they're being "laid off") that are being paid too much. From the Los Angeles Times story: (excerpts)

The electronics retailer on Wednesday laid off 3,400 people who earned "well above" the local market rate for the sort of jobs they held at its stores.

Company spokesman Bill Cimino said Circuit City wanted to be honest with its sales associates so they would understand the reason for the layoffs. "It had nothing to do with their skills or whether they were a good worker or not," Cimino said. "It was a function of their salary relative to the market."

Among those who lost their jobs Wednesday were 321 people who worked in the Los Angeles area's 44 stores. A total of 621 workers at 90 stores in California were laid off.

Circuit City wouldn't give details about what it paid its nonunion workforce or the prevailing market rates, noting that they widely vary across the country.

Analyst Richard Weinhart with BMO Capital Markets in New York estimated that people who work in consumer electronics stores earned $8 to $13 an hour.

So, how much are these retail-sales-Rockefellers getting? The answer is found in a story in Los Angeles' other newspaper, the Daily News: (excerpts)

At $15 an hour, Richard O'Neal was one of the better-paid salesmen at the Circuit City in Woodland Hills. His career there ended about 8:15 a.m. Wednesday in a mandatory meeting for workers being laid off.

O'Neal said he was told he can re-apply for his job after 10 weeks - if he's willing to work for minimum wage. Currently, California minimum wage is $7.50 an hour. However, company spokesman Jim Babb said new hires will earn more than minimum wage, though he would not specify an hourly rate.

Timing of the layoffs, two weeks before performance reviews that often come with pay raises, spooked a Circuit City employee who was not laid off and earns $10.50 an hour. He refused to give his name because of a policy that employees not speak to the media.

Looks like $10.50 an hour is what you can expect at Circuit City in Los Angeles, which is not a cheap place to live. At 2080 hours a year (52 weeks * 40 hours), that comes to:

$21,840 / year

And Republicans wonder why there is economic anxiety in this country.


posted by Quiddity at 3/29/2007 04:54:00 PM

Under the weather:

Few posts this week since this blogger has been battling a bacteria that seems to be going around Los Angeles (sort of like a strep throat). So it's up to the white blood cells, specifically neutrophils, to wipe the bastards out. Speaking of neutrophils, they are the kind of suicide bomber you want on your side. Read about the "respiratory burst":

Neutrophils are active phagocytes, capable of ingesting microorganisms or particles. However, they can only execute one phagocytic event, expending all of their glucose reserves in an extremely vigorous "respiratory burst".

The respiratory burst involves the activation of an NADPH oxidase enzyme, which produces large quantities of superoxide, a reactive oxygen species. Superoxide spontaneously dismutates to hydrogen peroxide, which is then converted to hypochlorous acid (HOCl, also known as chlorine bleach) by the green heme enzyme myeloperoxidase. It is thought that the bactericidal properties of HOCl are enough to kill bacteria phagocytosed by the neutrophil, but this has not been proven conclusively.

and

Neutrophils deal with defense against bacterial infection and other very small inflammatory processes and are usually first responders to bacterial infection; their activity and death in large numbers forms pus.

Some of your white blood cells give up their all in order to create some chlorine bleach! That's amazing. And a good thing too.


posted by Quiddity at 3/28/2007 09:58:00 PM

David Broder's repeats himself:

From Sunday's column: (emp add)

• "... the results of the 2006 midterm election [are that] Democrats [now hold] narrow majorities in the House and Senate ..."
• "It seems doubtful that Democrats can help themselves a great deal just by tearing down an already discredited Republican administration with more investigations such as the current attack on the Justice Department and White House over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys."
• "At some point, Democrats have to give people something to vote for ... [such as] liberal measures that would expand the role and cost of government ..."

This is basically what Broder said a week ago, that Democrats should lay off the Republicans and start writing "liberal" legislation - even though it wouldn't go anywhere because of the "narrow majority" in the Senate, and Bush's veto pen.

The result of holding hearings is, besides exposing corruption and incompetence, to further increase the advantage Democrats hold over Republicans, so that in subsequent elections the Democrats will be able to pass into law "liberal measures".

Pace Broder, it is likely that Democrats can help themselves by going after the Republicans.

FOR FUN: Read the comments at the Post appended to the Broder column.


posted by Quiddity at 3/25/2007 06:38:00 AM

Still in the news:

Reuters

Texas legislator proposes $500 to stop abortions

A Texas legislator has proposed that pregnant women considering abortion be offered $500 not to end their pregnancies.

Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick, who also is a conservative radio talk show host, said on Friday the money might convince the women to go ahead and have babies, then give them up for adoption.

Patrick, you may recall, called for a boycott of Bill Maher's television show Politically Incorrect over controversial statements made by the comedian following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly. Stupid maybe, but not cowardly."

posted by Quiddity at 3/24/2007 08:52:00 PM

Good news everybody!

Dennis Miller has a radio show that starts this Monday. Here are the lucky cities: (all AM)

• Los Angeles - KRLA
• Chicago - WIND
• San Francisco - KNEW
• Dallas - KSKY
• Houston - KTRH
• Philadelphia - WNTP (That means Atrios can listen to him.)
• Detroit - WDTK
• Seattle - KKOL
• Minneapolis - KYCR
• Denver - KNUS
• Orlando - WORL

UPDATE: The blog, Talking Radio, where the above information comes from, is pretty interesting and has information on lots of stuff - including liberal talk radio. The blog tilts left but seems to be an objective source for facts and figures. Check it out.


posted by Quiddity at 3/24/2007 08:04:00 PM

The Gonzales defense:

What seems to be emerging, dimly, is the following defense for Alberto Gonzales.

• All actions that were part of the process of coming up with a list of USAs to be dismissed were done by staff under Gonzales. That Gonzales was not involved in any "discussions" throughout this time.
• Gonzales role was limited to a final review and Go/No-Go decision.

posted by Quiddity at 3/24/2007 02:16:00 PM

Something to watch for:

As the scandal with the US Attorneys and Gonzales unfolds, Bush will be questioned about a number of things involving time and topics. Details, in other words, that are part of the charges (and part of a defense as well). But that sort of thing is something Bush is very bad at. When it comes to Iraq he can latch on to simple tropes like Fighting Terrorism, or Democracy For All, and mostly get away with it.

But when it comes to things like an email on the 21st of November, leading to a meeting with Gonzales on the 27th, followed by the firing on December 7, and why different accounts were peddled, Bush won't be able to give a coherent reply. He'll look stupid. Watch for it.


posted by Quiddity at 3/24/2007 10:51:00 AM

Flattering:




posted by Quiddity at 3/23/2007 09:20:00 PM

Strange times:

In the wake of the announcement that Elizabeth Edwards had a recurrence of cancer, I decided to read and listen to conservative commentators to see what they had to say.

• Sean Hannity - He understood the Edwards' decision. His dad died of cancer.
• Hugh Hewitt - Understood the decision. His mother (or mother in law) died of breast cancer.
• Dean Barnett [blogger at HughHewitt.com] - Understood. He is dealing with cystic fibrosis.
• NRO's Corner Crew (Byron York, Mona Charen, Kathryn Jean Lopez] - All supportive.
• Jonah Goldberg

  I am no fan of John Edwards as a politician, but given the facts as we know them, I don't see anything wrong whatsoever with him staying in the race. The guy's been married for a long time. His wife shares his views and obviously wants him to be president. People react to illness differently. When my Dad was in the hospital for months he made it very clear that he didn't want me putting my life on hold. It would have driven him crazy if I hovered constantly and, it would have given him the sense that I'd lost hope in his recovery. He liked hearing the "news" about my life. So we talked often, I visited often. It wasn't an easy call, of course. But ultimately you do what you think helps most or hurts least. These are the sorts of complicated, emotional decisions families make. That's why they're called families. I think it would be in very poor taste to second guess the Edwardses on this. I also think it would be in very poor taste if Edwards exploits this in some overly political way. But he hasn't done that and may never do it. He had to give a press conference. And, from what I hear he did it with class and dignity. So, again, as long as the facts are what they are, leave them alone. They deserve that much.

• Captain Ed - Understood. His wife is dealing with serious medical issues.

That was on Thursday, the day the news broke.

Friday morning, I tune into the Laura Ingraham show to see what she's got to say. For those who don't know, Ingraham underwent breast cancer surgery in 2005, followed by a nine-month treatment period. She opened her show by noting that she'd been asked to be on cable news program Thursday night to discuss breast cancer (but declined for a variety of reasons). Then she talked about how she understood the Edwards' decision. And that when she was being treated, one of the things that kept her going was her radio show. That those three hours a day were often the only 'normal' times of her life. (Since then she's recovered fully.) And then she said -

That during those nine months while she was battling cancer, she had heard from Elizabeth Edwards. A mutual friend had brought them in contact (from what she said, it sounded like it was via email). Elizabeth had been encouraging Laura during that period and when Ingraham was better, Elizabeth emailed:

I see you're in fighting form. I'm not sure that's such a good thing!

Laura said she didn't want to hear any crap from her listeners about Elizabeth Edwards.

PERSONAL NOTE: I was taking an early morning walk (6 AM) and listening on a portable radio. It was cool and quiet and as Laura Ingraham's story unfolded, especially when she said Elizabeth Edwards had been in touch, it was like "Wow!"   I'll never forget it.


posted by Quiddity at 3/23/2007 06:10:00 PM

The Edwards announcement:

It was hard not to be moved watching them tell the nation about their situation. Some appropriate words from Andrew Sullivan:

So, despite earlier reports, Edwards will not suspend his campaign. Good for him. And if anyone did not know of Elizabeth Edwards' extraordinary character before, they do now. What I saw in this press conference was the reality of family values - not the rhetoric, not the divisiveness, not the politics, just the reality of an actual family dealing with real issues. We all face such issues. Cancer survivors and their families know it all too well. So do those of us who live with HIV, diabetes, Parkinsons and many other diseases that patients can now live with, rather than die from. In this, John Edwards is doing a public service. He was admirably candid about his wife's cancer being treatable, if not curable. That paradigm is increasingly common - and it's affirming to see someone in public life live through it so positively, so admirably and so passionately. She shouldn't give in to it. One key to surviving serious illness is to live positively and candidly while you treat it. With HIV, I learned to repeat to myself a triad that was essential to surviving any serious medical condition: Own it, face it, beat it. That's what the Edwardses did today, and they will help a lot of people through their example.

The campaign should go on, as life goes on. It should neither help nor hurt it. But I will say this: Elizabeth Edwards is a truly remarkable human being. And her marriage is an inspiration to all of us.

posted by Quiddity at 3/22/2007 09:53:00 AM

Shorter Robert Novak:

CIA director Michael Hayden, even though nominated by Bush, is a Democratic stooge.


posted by Quiddity at 3/22/2007 06:09:00 AM

Creating reality:

From Ron Suskinds' New York Times Magazine article Without a Doubt (17 Oct 2004):

[A White House aide said] "... when we act, we create our own reality."

Josh Marshall writes about the USA purge: (excerpts, emp add)

The president fired US Attorneys ... who didn't harass Democrats with bogus voter fraud prosecutions. [T]he evidence is clear, overwhelming and undeniable.

[W]e know directly from the accounts of the players involved ... that these were cases in which Republican operatives and activists complained to the White House and Republican members of Congress that certain US Attorneys weren't convening grand juries or issuing indictments against Democrats, even though these were cases where all the available evidence suggests there was no wrongdoing prosecuted.

At most points in our history the idea that an Attorney General could stay in office after having overseen such an effort would be unthinkable. The most telling part of this episode is that they're not even really denying the wrongdoing.

The "reality" the White House was trying to create was the "reality" that "Democrats are corrupt".

Marshall notes, correctly, that "It's a direct attack on the rule of law", which it is. But it's also another example of using (or pressuring) government agencies to create a reality that benefits Bush, Republicans, or whatever is on the administration's agenda. It's yet another in a series of politics overriding professional judgement. Don't forget:

• The pressure to override the professional judement of the CIA regarding Iraq's weapons capabilities and al Qaeda links.
• The pressure to override the professional judgement of the Pentagon regarding the number of troops needed to secure Iraq, post-invasion.
• The pressure to override the professional judgement of climate and environment experts at NASA and the EPA.

And so on.

It's all image and message. And they've been pretty good at it (especially with players like Fox News Channel helping out). But with anything that's not reality-based, it eventually bumps up against the real world, and then it's on to Stage Two: claiming it's all politics and partisanship.

At this point in this adminstration's second term, it's hard to see how this particular US Attorney story is going to change anybody's mind about Bush. It's strictly a team sport now. You're with Bush's team or you aren't (and not being on Bush' team doesn't mean you're necessarily pro-Democrat). Is the USA scandal going to shave five percentage points off of Bush's approval numbers? It might, but probably won't.

Expect to learn more this year, as the Congressional committees probe the workings of various executive branch agencies, of falsehoods peddled and professional judgement ignored. But don't expect it to translate into further public alienation from Bush - that's already happened (30-ish percent approval). However, you might - just might - see a change in attitude by Big Name Pundits and by Big Media. That would be nice to see.
posted by Quiddity at 3/22/2007 05:18:00 AM

Is this smart?

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running a radio spot in Heather Wilson's district, criticizing her for her role in the USA firing (specifically of David Iglesias).

What is the utility of doing this 21 months before the next election? True, there is a call for her to release telephone records, but that seems more like a job for the Congressional Ethics panel.

In any event, having a campaign organization get into this will delight Republicans. They can point to it and declare that "it's all politics", when it's more serious than that.


posted by Quiddity at 3/21/2007 07:31:00 PM

Booooring!

Is there anybody out there, like me, who is totally uninterested in the Hillary-1984 ad and the "Obama connection"?

It's March of 2007, for goodnes sake. Are we going to have to endure 2008 presidential politics from here on out? What a turn off. What a waste of energy.


posted by Quiddity at 3/21/2007 02:20:00 PM

Don't cry, Ronnie!

Time magazine has this on their cover:


But as Troubletown points out this week, there's no reason for Reagan to be sad.


posted by Quiddity at 3/21/2007 01:03:00 PM

Prediction:

That new Grand Canyon Skywalk.

Someone's going to jump over the low glass barrier one of these days. I'm really surprised they didn't make it much higher (or even fully enclosed).
posted by Quiddity at 3/21/2007 12:37:00 AM

David Broder is correct:

The Dean writes:

You have to feel a twinge of sympathy now for the Bush appointees who suddenly find unsympathetic Democratic chairmen such as Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Patrick Leahy and Carl Levin investigating their cases. Even if those appointees are scrupulously careful about their actions now, who knows what subpoenaed memos and e-mails in their files will reveal about the past?

Don't you feel a twinge of sympathy for the Bush appointees that violated the law, used the government for partisan gain, gave sweetheart contracts to cronies, overrode experts at NASA, the EPA, and the FDA?

Sure you do.

Also, the Dean cautions against investigating too much:

Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives.

Absolutely. Instead of finding out what's been going on, far better to write "big issues" legislation that will get stuck in the need-60-votes Senate or vetoed by Bush.


posted by Quiddity at 3/18/2007 03:47:00 AM

Winston Churchill didn't fire his Attorney General:

So why should Bush?

Seriously though, this firing of the USAs goes right to the heart of the White House. Bush probably knew of, and approved, the removal of attorneys that weren't "playing ball" to screw Democrats. It's the kind of thing Bush would revel in since he's always found personal strength in knocking down people.

Expect Bush to keep Gonzales for as long as possible, because with Gonzales gone (and Miers), that leaves Rove and Karen Hughes as the last of the old-timers surrounding, guiding, and defending Bush.


posted by Quiddity at 3/17/2007 02:30:00 AM

Say it in plain English!

All this talk about whether or not the president can remove U.S. Attorneys for "policy", "political", or "partisan" reasons fogs up the issue. Just say what it is:

Bush wanted to use the Department of Justice to affect the outcome of elections.

NOTE: "Partisan" is almost the right word, but has a whif of "policy" about it. This is not a dispute about the right of the president to shape policy. It's about thwarting the democratic process.


posted by Quiddity at 3/16/2007 08:58:00 AM

Rove, Gonzales, and the attorney purge:

Don't you remember? Here's what John DiIulio, former director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said years ago: (emp add)

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you’ve got is everything — and I mean everything — being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

"Everything" includes the Department of Justice.


posted by Quiddity at 3/15/2007 10:22:00 PM

Alan Greenspan, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein see eye to eye on screwing IT workers:

Ezra Klein: (emp add)

I, FOR ONE, WILL WELCOME OUR HIGH-TECH IMMIGRANT OVERLORDS.

Apparently, without many folks noticing, Nancy Pelosi switched the chairmanship of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law from Texas's Sheila Jackson-Lee to California's Zoe Lofgren. The importance of the move is geographic: Lofgren is a Silicon Valley Democrat, and thus exquisitely attuned to the tech industry's desire for more work visas for highly skilled immigrants.

Matthey Yglesias: (emp add)

High-Skill Immigrants

I sort of agree with this Investor's Business Daily editorial calling for more H-1B visa slots. I actually, however, agree much more with the logic than with the specific conclusion, since the H-1B program has some problems. The issue, at the end of the day, is that the United States should be allowing many, many, many more high-skill immigrants to enter the country. Such immigration has all the benefits of our current high levels of low-skill immigration (good for overall economic growth, good for the immigrants, etc.) but absolutely none of the costs in terms of increased inequality.

Indeed, quite the reverse -- high-skill immigration would make America more egalitarian. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, engineers, accounts, political pundits, professors, etc., we should be encouraging these people to come to our shores.

Alan Greenspan: (emp add)

Greenspan did put forward a proposal on how to reduce the growing inequality of incomes in the United States — admit more skilled immigrants into the country.

The former Fed chief said that increasing the number of immigrants with sought-after skills would increase the labor supply of these workers in the United States and hold down the wage gains of all workers with these skills.

In that way, Greenspan said, the gap between skilled and unskilled workers would be lowered. He said it was critical to find ways to address growing income inequality in the United States.

The gap between skilled and unskilled workers would be lowered. And holding down wage gains means more profits for the owners of capital. Everybody's a winner.

MORE: What if every worker became a serf? Then there would be no income gap within a huge swath of the population. Alan, Ezra, and Matthew would be most pleased.


posted by Quiddity at 3/15/2007 09:23:00 PM

Hooray!

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has confessed to:

• The organizing, planning, follow-up and execution of the 9/11 attack.
• The 1993 World Trade Center operation.
• Training shoe bomber Richard Reid.
• Planning to assassinate Pope John Paul II.
• Planning to assassinate Pope John Paul I.
• Organizing the Bali attack.
• Personally killing Richard Pearl.
• Thwarting the Bay of Pigs operation.
• Engineering the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.
• Starting the Reichstag Fire.
• Stealing the Washington State gubernatorial election.
• Sabotaging O-rings that resulted in the Challenger explosion.
• Enticing people with poor credit histories to sign up for adjustable rate mortgages.
• Faking climate data in order to (falsely) show global warming is a threat.
• Building, and then hiding where no one can find them, mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq.
• Sending more Spam e-mail than anybody else on the planet.
• Arming the Puerto Rican nationalists that attacked Truman while he was residing in Blair House.
• Cracking the Liberty Bell.

It's amazing what truths you can learn from torturing somebody, isn't it?


posted by Quiddity at 3/15/2007 06:32:00 AM

Shorter David Broder:

Past performance of Republicans cannot be used to predict future electoral results.

Excerpt:

... the only thing we know for certain about the 2008 election is that we know none of the vital facts that will determine its outcome.

For some good fun, read the comments appended to the essay.


posted by Quiddity at 3/15/2007 04:43:00 AM

Visualizing the Iglesias situation: (updated)

This is only for the David Iglesias / New Mexico politics story (background at TPM here).



There's a lot more going on than what this diagram shows. At least six of the eight fired attorneys can claim to have been removed for being insufficiently "political". Also, there may have been communication between the White House and the New Mexico senator and representative. This is an evolving story.

UPDATE: New elements added with information from TPM (Bush connection).

And then there is this commentary by Andrew Sullivan: (excerpts, emp add)

We now know that a political purge of U.S. attorneys was directed by the president through the attorney-general, and was enabled by the Patriot Act.

It seems to me pretty obvious that they've been caught trying to rig the justice system to perpetuate Republican control of the House and Senate. It seems to me that this originates with the president and Karl Rove. And it seems more than obvious to me that Alberto Gonzales should resign.

posted by Quiddity at 3/10/2007 10:12:00 PM

David Sirota on the Obey flap:

If you like pragmatic politics, this post by Sirota will make sense.


posted by Quiddity at 3/10/2007 12:58:00 PM

A Wikipedia entry that's sillier than what you find at Conservapedia:

Hard to believe, but true. Check out Mel's Hole.

On the page, there is this cautionary note:

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.

No kidding!

UPDATE: The entry has come to the attention of a couple of Wiki-editors and they don't like it (although it may manage to survive as a Paranormal entry). It might get drastically shrunk or removed entirely.

As remarked in comments, it's got a charm all its own; it would be a shame if it were to go.


posted by Quiddity at 3/08/2007 06:19:00 PM

"law-abiding Republican":

Michael Barone - Michael Barone! - writes the following about the Domenici - attorney purge business: (emp add)

As was revealed in Tuesday's congressional hearings on the scandal, David Iglesias described the phone call from Domenici as follows:

"He wanted to know if the [indictments] would be filed before November. ... I gave an answer to the effect of I didn't think so. ... He said, "I'm very sorry to hear that," and the line went dead, the telephone line went dead. I thought to myself, did he just hang up on me? ... He didn't call back; I didn't call back. I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that something bad had happened, and within six weeks I got a call from [senior Justice Department official] Mike Battle saying that it was time for me to move on."

Domenici would not have made that call had either a Democrat or a law-abiding Republican been in the White House. He would not have had the temerity to throw his weight around to such an outrageous extent.

Barone says we don't have a law-abiding Republican in the White House. Does that mean impeachment is just around the corner?

UPDATE: Semi-hoax. TPM explains.


posted by Quiddity at 3/08/2007 09:43:00 AM

The people at Victory Caucus are insane:

Via Mona at Unqualified Offerings, we learn of this post at Victory Caucus: (emp add)

Medical Care for our Heros at WR

Written by Snooper
Wednesday, 07 March 2007

President Bush has promised to support the efforts of the Wounded Warrior Commission today. And, rightly so. Having had visited wounded warriors previous to this recent alleged scandal, I had noticed the utmost in professional care of our wounded but questioned certain conditions of the fascilities. It was explained to me that the budgets were not satsifactorily adequate to tend to the cosmetics but to the medical care of the wounded.

This is yet another incident of deceit and lies by the Defeatists. It is true that some conditions of the facilities at Walter Reed are less than satisfactory. However, to accuse the President and others of atrocities is less than homest. I dare say that this "event" is yet another distraction by the Defeatists and their henchmen of the MSM to distract from the fact that the Global War On Terror has turned favorably towards the United States. And, the Defeatists cannot accept the Good News

The cosmetics? Defeatists? Henchmen of the MSM?

No time for a big post right now, but the right wing is getting more and more unhinged as it loses influence.


posted by Quiddity at 3/08/2007 12:01:00 AM

Victoria Toensing is a liar:

From the NewsHour discussion on the Libby verdict: (selections, emp add)

VICTORIA TOENSING: Fitzgerald came up to Ari Fleischer and said, "Hey, I'm going to give you immunity, and I don't even know what you're going to say." Now, that shows he had some kind of an agenda.

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: I don't know of any offhand. There are always arguments during the trial about admissibility of evidence of the instructions given to the jury, but let me reflect on something that was ... that was said a moment ago about politicization. Not even the president of the United States, anyone in the administration, has attacked Mr. Fitzgerald on the basis of a political motive for bringing this case. And I'm very surprised at that, to hear that.

VICTORIA TOENSING: I don't make that, so let me ... of course not. I question his judgment.

posted by Quiddity at 3/07/2007 04:10:00 PM

Is the Washington Post lying in your face?

Here's what they write in their editorial about the Libby verdict:

In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.

A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false ...

How about that "conversations with journalists" bit? Allows for all sorts of unverified charges. So let's stick to the record instead. The Post says:

• [Wilson] suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter.
• [Wilson] alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.

What did Wilson actuallly write? On the "Cheney dispatched" front, Wilson wrote: (emp add)

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. [...] The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

No Cheney. Cheney's office. (If you're hurling charges, make sure they are accurate.) Not Cheney dispatching Wilson. The agency dispatching Wilson.

On the "alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration" front, Wilson wrote: (emp add)

In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally).

As to the broad contours of the whole affair, that the Bush administration invented or exaggerated the "threat" posed by Iraq, the Washington Post doesn't give a damn.


posted by Quiddity at 3/07/2007 02:38:00 AM

What a combo!

On PBS's NewsHour tonight:

The first three items are: Lying, corruption and incompetence, and corruption.

Re corruption at Walter Reed, see this: (via John Cole): (excerpts, emp add)

"We have learned that in January 2006, Walter Reed awarded a five-year $120 million contract to a company called IAP Worldwide Services for base operations support services, including facilities management," Waxman continues. "IAP is one of the companies that experienced problems delivering ice during the response to Hurricane Katrina."

Before the contract, over 300 federal employees provided facilities management services at Walter Reed, according to the memorandum, but that number dropped to less than 60 the day before IAP took over.

A year ago, the Government Accountability Office ... dismissed a protest filed on behalf of employees at the Army’s Walter Reed Medical Center, ruling that the employee group had no standing to challenge the outcome of a public-private job competition ...

While the initial employee bid was $7 million less than that of IAP Worldwide Services, a mid-stream solicitation change resulted in a recalculation of the bids by all parties and in IAP’s bid coming in $7 million lower ...

posted by Quiddity at 3/06/2007 03:26:00 PM

How low can they go?

Riffing on the Coulter/Edwards flap, we read this by Atlas Shrugs: (emp + color in original) (h/t Wolcott)

As far as Coulter's out of the left field "faggot" remark goes -- it may have been a poor choice of words but further Atlas investigation reveals John Edwards campaign has a mostly gay staff and rumors about his sexuality are rife. Just for knowing.

The fact is if there is any true to these rumors, that perhaps Edwards is gay, shouldn't we know that? Shouldn't we know if this man is deceiving his wife, children, country and living a lie?   Shouldn't we know if a man that represents the party that celebrates gay rights is so ashamed of it, he lives a ginormous lie? Regardless of your position on gay marriage, regardless of whether you celebrate or merely tolerate the gay lifestyle, we ought to know if John Edwards is a liar and a hypocrite.

Never, never underestimate the depths to which the right will go in order to attack someone.

[link fixed]


posted by Quiddity at 3/05/2007 06:08:00 AM

It's time to start freely using the word "liar":

It's a waste of time, mostly, to complain about the "tone" or "offensiveness" of speakers like Ann Coulter and whoever that Atlas Shrugs person is. It puts the accuser (you and me) in a defensive/inferior position, partly because the charges are that somebody's feelings got hurt, which is usually perceived as a weakness.

Far more effective, and emotionally neutral, is the charge that Coulter and Shrugs are liars. As a result, nobody is reaching for the smelling salts. In fact, it's the more adult position (e.g if a child lies, the adult doesn't get tremulous, but just calls the kid out on the falsehood and then tells him to shut the hell up).

Whatever the right wing cabal (and that includes Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage) is saying, requires a response, and declaring their statements and charges as KNOWINGLY FALSE is probably the most effective way to do it. And you do that by calling someone a liar.

For example, consider these statements from a recent Coulter piece: (28 Feb 07)

• Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.
• Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates ...
• Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works.
• "Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind ...
• Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians ... [2 falsehoods there; Stalin was no liberal]

Those are all completely false. Coulter knows they are. Therefore she is a liar.

[Somewhat irrelevant Atlas Shrugs material omitted.]

There are plenty of liars out there; many are in the Bush administration. And expect more as 2008 rolls around.

It's time to, well, be dismissive of this alternate-reality, falsehood-peddling, trying-to-offend-you crowd. But don't get upset. Don't get mad. Just say they're liars. It's that simple.

CODA: Yes, lying is done by people throughout the political spectrum. We're not naive. But you have to set a threshold and see who is the greater offender (currently the right) or you'll be stuck in the quicksand of relativism - something Nader supporters are especially good at. (Did I offend Nader supporters again? Oops!)


posted by Quiddity at 3/05/2007 12:29:00 AM

Sorry to disappoint:

Inspired by Digby, this blog did the Dirty Word Tally and came up with only 33 entries. Formula: (in Google)

site:uggabugga.blogspot.com "shit" OR "piss" OR "fuck" OR "cunt" OR "cocksucker" OR "motherfucker" or "tits"

And almost all the hits were from comments or cited quotes from elsewhere (e.g. when Yglesias said "Fuck you" to Glenn Reynolds in a dispute).

This out of about 2,000 posts, so the density is low, cleaner than TPM and Hugh Hewitt. But really, it's all silly. Blogs are read for their content and the reader will decide if the blog is worth visiting based on the quality of the work. We're all adults, aren't we? (Don't answer that, you smart-alecks.)

Trying to make a point with irrelevant metrics, which is what newsbuckit did, is yet another example of the right trying to take your eye off the ball. Kos is accused of 146,000 uses of foul language. What do you expect? Some of those posts, including comments, can reach half a meg in size (HTML, which is a lot of text).

As long as we're discussing the "meaning" of comments, let's not forget that bastion of the center, Yahoo. Until they disabled comments earlier this year, every news story had a comment thread. And to pass the time, I would look at lots of the comments. Some were funny. Some had foul language (usually in the "fvck" format). And many, many contained explicit calls for violence. Kill Bush. Kill Cheney. None of this "too bad the bomb in Pakistan failed". But outright, get the rifle and shoot-at-the-president kind of stuff.

So, if "the left" can be accused of wanting to off Bush, it is fair to say that "the center", as represented by the Yahoo readership, is even more out for blood. The left is actually more pacific than the center. So O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, should denounce, well, the country as a whole. That's the ticket. America hates America. America is deranged.

Which, when you think about it, is really where so many of these right-wingers are at. They have managed for a long time to claim representation for the center, mostly with moral posturing. But in reality, they are a fringe, and that fact is becoming more and more obvious (although hasn't penetrated the skulls of Broder and the beltway). You can fool a lot of people for a long time, but eventually the scam wears out. That started about a year ago.

CODA: When was the high-point for the right? I'd say it was when Limbaugh was invited to be a commentator for the NFL in 2003. In September of that year, Limbaugh got tossed for his remarks about Philly quarterback McNabb. So, if you want to find a high-water mark for the right's polemicists, September 2003 is probably your best choice. (And for liberals, that time period was very depressing t live through, if you recall.)


posted by Quiddity at 3/04/2007 07:09:00 PM

This just in:

My blogger account is deteriorating by the hour.

Just ate a post. Not clear what's going on. Have Wordpress blog in development should things totally go bad.


posted by Quiddity at 3/04/2007 01:28:00 PM

Enough already!

From today's Meet the Press:

SEN. GRAHAM: ... [In the Middle East] the moderates are being shut out by the extremists. Small in number in terms of the overall population, but a desire to win at any and all cost. Do we have the desire to win? Do we have the desire to stand beside imperfect moderates, who I think are the future of the Mideast? Are we going to let car bombs and extremists run us out of Iraq? And where do you go? Where do you deploy to if you lose in Iraq? Because if al-Qaeda tastes the blood of Americans leaving and they can say with certainty they broke our will and ran us out of Iraq, and we go to Kuwait, they come wherever we go. The Gulf states are next. If we lose in Iraq, the moderate Gulf states are next. People like King Abdullah in Jordan, they’re on the hit list. We cannot allow Iraq to fail, because if you fail in Iraq, every moderate voice in the Mideast has a death sentence on their head.

MR. RUSSERT: It sounds like the domino theory that we heard in Vietnam.

SEN. GRAHAM: It’s not a domino theory, it’s their own words. It’s not me saying what they’re going to do, it’s them saying what they’re going to do. And I believe them.

Believing in somebody's big talk without an appropriate analysis of capabilities is foolish. Or rather, it's a false argument. But we've heard this sort of thing before. Many times. It's getting repetitive.


posted by Quiddity at 3/04/2007 01:19:00 PM

2000 children:

From an AP story, Military faces growing ranks of bereaved:

Of the 3,350 Americans who died in Iraq and Afghanistan through early January, 1,586 of them - 47.3 percent — were married. Those fallen warriors left behind 1,954 children, according to the Pentagon's Manpower Data Center. More recent deaths have pushed that figure past 2,000.

Compared to the heavily draftee combat troops of the Vietnam war, today's volunteer fighting force is older, more reliant on National Guard and Reserve citizen-soldiers, and more likely to be married.

posted by Quiddity at 3/03/2007 11:54:00 PM

Anyone familiar with the new Blogger?

After being forced in some mysterious way to use my google email account as a login (which I hate to do, since it's not the quiddity alias), I can make posts to this blog. However, on the Dashboard, there is this message:

This blog is still on the old version of Blogger.

Along with a warning graphic to the left. Clicking on the Learn More link associated with the warning doesn't help. All it talks about is Blog Owners, Team Blogs, Team Members, and Moving Accounts to the new version, without defining what those terms mean. Nor is there any way for the user to find out if his blog is a Team Blog. The implication is that until the (impossible to discern) Blog Owner moves his account over, some new features will be unavailable.

Tip to all you s/w developers out there: Have a competent UI person who knows how not to assume things evaluate your new product roll out.

A decision tree, helpful for users, might run something like this:

Is this a Team Blog? Here's how to find out: do X, Y, Z

• No - minimal action required, everything switches over when you do X, Y, Z.
• Yes. NOTE: There are steps the Blog Owner must take and steps for other users.
  Who is the owner? Find out who the owner is by doing X, Y, Z.
  • If you are the owner, do X, Y, Z.
  • If you are not the owner, do X, Y, Z.

Something like that. A step-wise instruction set with clear branch points that can be understood and acted upon. Fat chance of that, these days. (And it's not just Google/Blogger, everybody is lazy in this regard.)

Whatever. It would seem to me:

That there is an old and a new version of your blog.

Accounts should have absolutely nothing to do with the versions. Why is a user asked to "switches their account to the new version of Blogger"? An account is an account. If an application changes (e.g. Yahoo email), you select (or it's forced on you) the new application, and login as before. What's this about "switching accounts"?

Any helpful observation in comments will be most appreciated (and please, no links to Blogger Help pages!)


posted by Quiddity at 3/03/2007 08:23:00 PM

New book to be released this spring:



Based on this.

UPDATE: Lawyers, Guns and Money make a very pertinent observation:

Particularly instructive is--especially with respect to foreign policy--how much of what defines an "extremist" is based on virtually unfalsifiable attributions of motivations rather than on specific policy preferences (you know the routine--"OK, you were right about the Iraq War, but you're saying that because you hate America, so it doesn't count!") ...

Accusing people of harboring bad thoughts is a classic right-wing technique.


posted by Quiddity at 3/03/2007 01:20:00 PM

Bush the lyricist:

Some recent comments he made about the situation post-Katrina:

People's lives are improving,
and there is hope.
Times are changing for the better.

I'm inspired every time I come here,
to see progress and the spirit alive.
Times are changing for the better.

First time I came after the storm hit,
piles of rubble ... communities wiped out.
But times are changing for the better.

posted by Quiddity at 3/03/2007 12:46:00 AM

Ann Coulter and the "faggot" issue:

Background from Think Progress

Speaking today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered.

From Hugh Hewitt's place: (Dean Barnett writing)

Idiotic. Disgusting. Stupid. Moronic.

I guess you could say that Ann loves to shock us, but at this point, who’s shocked? She obviously can’t behave well enough to attend a respectable political gathering. It’s not a lack of intelligence. It’s an indifference to self-control and a preening sort of narcissism that compels her to need the spotlight, even if it’s unflattering.

---

With this in the comments section:

What is her hang up with homosexuality? Previously, Coulter has put "even money" on Sen. Hillary Clinton "coming out of the closet," said Bill Clinton shows "some level of latent homosexuality," and called Vice President Al Gore a "total f*g."

Ed Morrisey (Captain's Quarters):

Coulter Said What?

Ann Coulter is speaking at the moment, and drawing a huge crowd -- with longer lines than those for the Rudy Giuliani. She's definitely one of the stars here at CPAC, and I listened to the audio stream for a bit while she opened her speech. I had to take a phone call, though, and I missed a critical, and infuriating, throw-away line. Michelle Malkin reports (from two chairs down):

"I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."

Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann.

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn't require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as "faggots" or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.

The American Mind

Ann Coulter almost made it through her CPAC speech without looking like a complete buffoon. She wasn’t funny, she rarely is, but she’s an attention whore. Near the end of her speech she said she wouldn’t talk about John Edwards because ” you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot.’” She’s now on non-speaking terms with any gay and lesbian friends.

Michelle Malkin:

Ann Coulter just finished her riff on Al Gore, tossed out some cute jokes ("You can understand why Hollywood is concerned about global warming. You know what heat does to plastic."), and ended with a cheap one-liner about John Edwards being a "faggot." (Paraphrasing) She said she would refrain from commenting on Edwards because "if you say faggot, you have to go to rehab."

A smattering of laughter.

Not from this corner.

Crickets chirping.

From Coulter's point of view, it was Mission Accomplished. All she wanted was to get the Edwards-faggot idea "out there". Are we now going to have reporters ask Edwards or his staff, how he feels about being called a faggot? The mud sticks.

Of some interest are these posts by Andrew Sullivan. He's beginning to wake up.

1 (emp add)

"I was going to talk about John Edwards but these days, you have to go into rehab if you say the word 'faggot,'" - Ann Coulter, cheered to the rafters at CPAC today. No wonder she and Mickey Kaus get along so well.

When you see her in such a context, you realize that she truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism, especially among the young. The standing ovation for Romney was nothing like the eruption of enthusiasm that greeted her. One young conservative male told her he was single and asked for her cell-phone number. Other young Republicans were almost overwhelmed in her presence. "When are you going to get your own show?" one asked, tremulously. Then there's her insistence on Christianism as the central message for Republicans: "There are more people voting on Christian moral values than on tax cuts." This from an unmarried woman who wears dresses that are close to bikinis on the morning news. Hey, it's Democrats who are Godless.

Her endorsement of Romney today - "probably the best candidate" - is a big deal, it seems to me. McCain is a non-starter. He is as loathed as Clinton in these parts. Giuliani is, in her words, "very, very liberal." One of his sins? He opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton. That's the new standard. She is the new Republicanism. The sooner people recognize this, the better.

2 (emp add)

A reader writes:

I'm confused. Wasn't it Andrew Sullivan who declared Ms. Coulter to be nothing more than a "performance artist" who need not be taken seriously? I believe that, in July 2006, when Ms. Coulter referred to Al Gore as a "total fag," liberal commentators were aghast. But you dimissed her anti-gay hate as "high camp," a mere "vaudeville act." After all, it wasn't as if she used the word, "fag," in a perjorative way - it was just an inside joke, right?

Now comes Mr. Sullivan to declare Coulter the "standard bearer [of] the new Republicanism, one who "truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism." Presumably that heart and soul includes hatred of homosexuals.

Well, which is it -- high camp vaudevillian or true face of the conservative movement? And where does that leave you?

It's a fair point. I once called her a "drag queen posing as a fascist." But I didn't mean that as a compliment. My only response to my reader is that seeing her live in front of a young, cheering crowd made me feel a lot less complacent. Being a gay man in a crowd that cheers a woman denigrating someone for being a "faggot" is an educative experience. Seeing college kids line up to worship her tore me up. These kids deserve better. They're young and smart enough to be interested in conservatism - and this is what they are getting? From a stage where two presidential candidates just spoke? I guess I've been a bit of a smug ironist who just got mugged by conservative reality.

Conservatism is dying in America. There are no serious policy issues being debated. It's cruelty and hate that propels the movement now.


posted by Quiddity at 3/02/2007 08:32:00 PM

Thanks, Republican congress!

Thanks for passing a totally worthless bill changing Daylight Savings Time - instead of real reform like CAFE standards. Now, many of us will have to screw around with our computers to get them to work properly.

UPDATE: For those with Windows 98 computers, bringing in TZEDIT.EXE from here:

ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/services/technet/samples/ps/win98/Reskit/CONFIG/TZEDIT.EXE

Seems to work.


posted by Quiddity at 3/02/2007 07:15:00 PM

asdf

me no like new Blogger. unclear how changing the login from the old username to a Google e-mail account would preserve the alias established for the old username. apparently it does, but the underlying logic is not clearly demonstrated anywhere in the Blogger help pages.

In brighter news, Kudos to Google for reversing its recent "improvement" of Google Image search. When it started out, you would get a page with thumbnails along with dimensions and URLs. A couple of weeks ago it was changed so that that information was only displayed when the cursor was moved over a particular thumbnail (Javascript enabled browsers). Which was clearly a deterioration in functionality. The good news is that somebody at Google woke up and realized that the new feature was nothing more than flash, and they removed it. Unlike the fools at Yahoo who still to this day, haven't worked all the bugs out of their Yahoo TV listings page, three months after the "beta" launch.


posted by Quiddity at 3/02/2007 07:14:00 PM

Psst! Over here:

In case you are wondering about Tom Friedman's latest op-ed, the one where Atrios said "it appears the Tom Friedman has been possessed by a psychotic nutjob", then check out this blog post. It's got most of the column (which can also be found in K-Drum's comment thread). In it, Friedman makes clear his disdain for Arabs. Here is some of what he wrote:

When you cannot find a single garden in your city, but there is a mosque on every corner — you know that you are in an Arab country.

When you see people living in the past with all the trappings of modernity — do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country.

When religion has control over science — you can be sure that you are in an Arab country.   [That's a good one, Tom!]

When clerics are referred to as “scholars” — don’t be astonished, you are in an Arab country.

When you see the ruler transformed into a demigod who never dies or relinquishes his power, and nobody is permitted to criticize — do not be too upset, you are in an Arab country.   [Just like Mao's China]

When you find that the large majority of people oppose freedom and find joy in slavery — do not be too distressed, you are in an Arab country.

When you hear the clerics saying that democracy is heresy, but seizing every opportunity provided by democracy to grab high positions — do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country. ...

When you discover that a woman is worth half of what a man is worth, or less — do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country. ...

When land is more important than human beings — you are in an Arab country. ...

When fear constantly lives in the eyes of the people — you can be certain you are in an Arab country.

But wait! There's more! Friedman also writes:

...Occasionally an honest voice rises, giving you a glimmer of hope that others will stand up. The MEMRI translation Web site (memri.org) just posted a poem called “When,” from a Saudi author, Wajeha al-Huwaider ...

The good folks at MEMRI, don't you know. From Wikipedia:

Yigal Carmon — MEMRI's President. Carmon is fluent in Arabic. He served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Intelligence Branch from 1968 to 1988 ...

Read about the controversy here (that it's more of a propaganda operation than a research institute).

If, as Friedman says, the Arabs are unredeemable, then why not kill them all?


posted by Quiddity at 3/02/2007 08:08:00 AM

Bill Kristol should shut up:

Regarding the Cheney / Huffpo comments flap, Bill Kristol writes:

Huffington and Puffington

Arianna disapproves of those of us who called attention to the comments posted on her site Tuesday morning lamenting the failure of a suicide bombing in Afghanistan Tuesday to kill Vice President Cheney. These commenters "make up a very, very small unrepresentative portion of our readers," she now assures us.

How does she know? If the HuffPost commenters are unrepresentative of HuffPost readers, how does she divine the views of her readers?

Enlighten us, Arianna. Poll your readers. Ask them: Are they pleased that the attempt against Vice President Cheney failed? Are they grateful that he is alive and well? Do you hope the U.S. prevails in Afghanistan? In Iraq?

And if the poll turns out the way you hope, perhaps you should arrange to moderate the commenters so they don't convey the impression that your readers are--as you put it--"unhinged" and "fringe."

Posted by William Kristol on March 1, 2007 12:08 PM

This, from Kristol, whose website does not allow for comments!


posted by Quiddity at 3/01/2007 01:43:00 PM