Saturday, January 22, 2005


Have fun.




I would imagine that if you're a TV pundit/columnist/editor and you're discussing the president's recent inaugural speech, it's probably appropriate to disclose that you helped shape it.

Erect Purple Frog

Radical Cleric SpongeDob Stickypants links to a children's website which prominently features an erect purple frog.

The site describes the frog as:

The local "tough guy," this boistrous bully makes life miserable for everybody else, especially Tad. He has a habit of always eating—even in the middle of picking on folks, he's snatching bugs. Along with Bubble Gum, Bully is the unwitting agent for carrying out Cottonmouth's schemes.

Morning Thread

Chat away.

Friday, January 21, 2005

The Liberal Media -- Primetime Edition

Yesterday, Media Matters examined the guests on the 3 cable nets from 7am-5pm on 1/20. Today they covered it from 5-11 on the same day.

Substitute Cat Blogging

Wiley and Gizmo will return as soon as I get a cable. Until then, here's Chilis, the cat owned by my tall blonde Venezuelan friend from St. Louis:

Memories... how they fade so fast...

Sniff. I'll miss them.

Jan 21, 2005 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House has scrapped its list of Iraq allies known as the 45-member "coalition of the willing," which Washington used to back its argument that the 2003 invasion was a multilateral action, an official said on Friday.

The senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the White House replaced the coalition list with a smaller roster of 28 countries with troops in Iraq sometime after the June transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government.

The official could not say when or why the administration did away with the list of the coalition of the willing.

Late Night

Have fun.

Cat Blogging

Sorry...can't find the USB cord. Cats will appear as soon as it does...

Evening thread.


The conservamediaborg had started to go after CBS over their "liberal bias" because they dared to put Kennedy on as the sole guest last Sunday on Face the Nation. Of course, Face the Nation has had a Republican-stacked guest list since the election.

...apparently Russert and friends are unconcerned with things like "balance." Sunday's guest list:

Ambassador John Negroponte, Rep. Bill Thomas, Stephen Hayes and Robin Wright
NBC News


Matt Haughey of PVRblog has a good post up about how ridiculous notions of IP in the digital age are really stifling innovation.

Lawsuits are killing innovation. It's a common story in the world of technology. Any time a company produces a disruptive technology that does something cool, they have to have a legal department that is bigger than their engineering unit to survive, and that sucks for business, sucks for customers, and sucks for the technology industry. I work around lawyers all day and I wish this was a bigger issue with the public.

Anything that helps customers enjoy TV, movies, or music is a target for lawsuits. We saw it with the Rio mp3 player (what, exactly, was illegal about playing a mp3 on a portable player?). We saw it with ReplayTV and TiVo. We see it in the entire DVD region-coding disaster that gets region-free players pulled from the US Market. The content company dinosaurs are so wed to their antiquated business models that they'll send off their legal department to attack at the slightest provocation (this includes imagined potential profit losses).

At this point, TiVo has a lot of customers and a lot of supporters in the US. I believe if anything, they need to move more of their resources into technology innovation and damn the torpedoes -- continue to make technology that makes customers happy, regardless of what Hollywood thinks. I believe if there is a concerted effort by the content industry to kill TiVo, it would not be successful like it was with ReplayTV, as there are just too many (happy, well-off, voting) TiVo customers to grapple with, much less the court of opinion that rarely goes to Hollywood's advantage.

TiVo, every day it's looks more and more like you're finally on the ropes, but it's time to start fighting back.

Agreed. And, all the technology companies involved in this stuff should find ways to band together and present a united front, mobilizing some of their happy customers on their behalf as well.

One of the most ridiculous "features" that many (all?) mp3 player manufacturers have is that they prevent you from uploading mp3s from them back to a computer. This is an incredibly annoying feature, which of course does absolutely nothing to prevent illegal piracy. I mean, you can pass the things around on USB thumb drives or burn them to CD or email them or whatever. MP3 players basically are USB thumb drives with a bit of software and an earphone jack.

At this point, if I were, say, Apple, I'd be just daring the industry to go after me on something like that. Just pull it out of the next firmware release and see what they do.


Go have a bit of fun seeing people smack Tim Graham around over his ridiculous complaining about the media coverage of the Armstrong Williams affair.

Frankly, this story hasn't gotten enough coverage -- and for some reason no one seems too concerned about the Bush administration's clear violation of federal law.

Dot Sex

It's really annoying when there's someone who thinks he's happened upon a truly new and breathtakingly simple solution which is neither new nor breathtakingly simple.

Despite the best filters, pornography could still find its way onto children's computer screens -- but perhaps not for long.

A Maryland lawmaker believes he has come up with a simple, cost-free way to block online pornography, television station WBAL reported.

Even the most innocent, innocuous commands while searching the Internet can turn up sites that make parents blush and dive for the delete button, the station reported.

The solution? Calling porn what it is by adding ".sex" to the end of the Web site address.


What took so long? Why didn't anybody think of this before?" he said others say.

Well, others have and they realize it's completely unenforceable and just generally a really bad idea. The wee problem is, of course, defining what sexually explicit materials are. And, it'll have a chilling effect because even mostly "non-sexually explicit sites" would have to be concerned about ocassionally crossing that line, not to mention what to do about medical and other advice sites.

I think it's a great idea to have a voluntary porn domain. It won't solve the problem entirely, but I'm sure a big chunk of the pornosphere would happily migrate there. But, mandating it just isn't going to work.

The WSJ Knows Something No One Else Does

Michael Powell Out?(sub. req.)

The bad news is that we are told that Michael Powell, one of Washington's better bureaucrats, is calling it quits today after four years at the helm of the Federal Communications Commission. You read it here first.

All Class

I'm sure we'll hear about this for months:

Nor has the other side forgotten Kerry. When the former candidate emerged on the West Front of the Capitol yesterday morning and his smiling image was broadcast, the crowd booed and groaned. One man could be heard to call out, "Loser!" Kerry took his seat alongside an old friend, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), and quickly got to the task at hand: projecting both equanimity and magnanimity.

They Get Letters

The Ridgecrest Daily Independent:

Newspaper shouldn't print Liberal voices


Thank Goodness for such literate and intelligent men as Julius Wolfson, Derek Cooper, Ron Scott and May Shaw.

I just can't understand why more good conservatives haven't spoken out against the dangerous opinions of rabble-rousers such as Phyllis Lilly, Linda Robin and that R C Johnson person. Why does The Daily Independent print the degenerate views of poisonous Liberals who hate freedom?

As Mr. Scott points out, the glorious Constitution is there to protect the rights of Christians to profess their faith. This country was founded by good Christians and the Constitution guarantees our right to express our religion.

It just is completely beyond me how we have allowed Liberals to deny us this guaranteed right.

Oh, they raise ridiculous arguments like other (false) religions would be "upset" if they were forced to pray alongside the righteous in schools or council meetings.

Surely those others would appreciate the opportunity to be saved. As God's chosen people, we Christians have the right to express our religion and praise tolerant, patient and merciful God, and I don't want to read any more letters from Liberals suggesting non-believers should be allowed to express their superstitions just because we Christians can express ours.

The Founding Fathers were God-fearing men and never intended the first Amendment to promote other superstitious beliefs.

Ridgecrest used to be filled with right-minded, polite and decent people.

I can't believe the vicious slander of some people who have the nerve to portray or suggest Jesus behaved as a Liberal.

Jesus makes his position very clear. The wisdom of an "eye for an eye" would never occur to a Liberal.

Liberals are always talking about peace at any price, when Jesus said: Do not think I have come to bring peace, but a sword.

Liberals hate people who have managed to raise their station in life, and instead insist on giving money away to the irresponsible: Store yourselves treasures for Heaven for where your treasure is, there your heart is also.

No one can serve two masters, either your are a good conservative with God or you are not with God. Remember: A bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

Billie Miller


Thursday, January 20, 2005

Wanker of the Day

Well, it's an hour early - this is really tomorrow's wanker, but nonetheless....

Cal Thomas!

Deep Thoughts By Dick Cheney

One of these is real:

a) We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it.

b) A good way to threaten somebody is to light a stick of dynamite. Then you call the guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone. "Hear that?" you say. "That's dynamite, baby."

The Liberal Media

Just a typical day.

Eff the Furriners

To the extent that anyone actually watched, I imagine Bush's speech, which I finally forced myself to read, went over like a lead balloon.

We went to war with Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. In the aftermath of 9/11 a lot of otherwise semi-sensible people were too easily led down the path of supporting the endeavor. When weapons were not found, ex post it became a humanitarian mission about spreading freeance. A large number of those people who supported the Iraq war, and now sorta feel badly about it, have consoled themselves with this idea, with some of them doing so inbetween suggestions that we just "mow the whole place down."
But, the US generally, and the Republicans specifically, don't really want to expend blood and treasure to go help out a bunch of furriners. They don't want to spend any treasure to help out Americans. Most I think would prefer to mow the rest of the entire world down, or at least wish it just wasn't there at all.

I'm starting to think that people voted for Bush so that he could make things right, and thus justify their support for him and his little adventures in the first place. But, Bush is going to continue to do things very wrong -- and this inaugural speech was a sign of that.

And, yes, troll repellent, freeance is truly a wonderful thing and we should take steps to encourage it. I wish we were.

Shorter Tom Friedman

Who's up for another 18 holes?

Open Thread

All yours.

SpongeDob Stickypants

Wolcott has an excellent idea. Let it be so.

SpongeDob Stickypants.

Afternoon Thread

Have fun.

Wanker of the Day

Howard Kurtz: Atrios

Funny, I don't remember liberal pundits making an issue of this during Clinton's first inaugural, when American soldiers were fighting and dying in Somalia.

The first soldiers were killed in Somalia on August 8, 1993.

(thanks to reader p)

... yeah, I goofed. Apologies all around. First KIA was in January before the inaugural.

We're All Terrorists Now

Even the Florida Marlins:

"I thought that we already appropriated money to help them move to Vegas," he said. "I was very disappointed that they publicly announced the negotiations and discussions with Las Vegas, and I don't negotiate with terrorists."

What the hell is with Republicans.

(thanks to reader j)


What the hell was the Nation thinking running this cartoon.

Morning Thread

Chat away.

You Link It, You Own It, II

Scott Rosenberg takes issue with my previous "You Link It, You Own It" post. I mean, basically I just agree with him - he just posted the longer version of what I wrote, fleshing it out a bit. There are lots of ways to link to something, and obviously if you link to it with the caveat "this is bullshit" you aren't "owning it." And, nor did I mean "you own it" in a legal sense. I just meant that in the context of "credibility," one major credibility issue is how credibly you act as a filter for every bit of information on the internets that floats across your transom. If I link to something saying "go read this" then I've put my stamp of approval on it. It's bullshit to come back two hours later and say "uh, well, I didn't write it, I just linked to it... not my problem."

And, quite importantly, there's an obvious distinction between blogroll-type links and links in posts. Drudge links to about every major media site in the world -- he's obviously not responsible for all of their content. But, a link in a post without a note of skepticism or a word of caution is an implied endorsement. I'm responsible for directing people to good information -- if I send them to nonsense on a regular basis I'll catch shit, unless I'm a conservative blogger in which case I'll win awards. I know that insitutional web sites always worry that they'll be held accountable for every single link on their page, and that's just silly - they shouldn't be. But drawing attention to a media outlet with large amounts of content and drawing attention to a particular story are entirely different things.

I'd say one of my better blogging qualities is that my bullshit detector and my "too good (or too bad) to be true" detector work pretty well. I've linked uncritically to a few stupid things over the years, but on the whole my record's pretty good.

The Sheriff -- Transcribed

I never actually had a chance to listen to Mike Signorile's sheriff interview. But, here's the transcript -- it's even funnier than I expected.

The most hilarious bit comes near the end, where Mike's thanking the guy and trying to get him off the phone, and then suddenly... the sheriff has a question.

M: Thanks for giving us this interview today, sir. It--
H: Can I say one more thing?
M: Yes.
H: Okay. Do you want to describe what homosexuals do to each other?
M: Are you asking me a question?
H: Yeah. Why don't we just, you know, if it's not such a terrible thing, a despicable thing, just in common language, let's put up here[?] what these gays do to each other.
M: Well, you know what they do, sir? They fuck, just like straight people fuck. That's what they do. Okay? You know, straight people--
H: --All I'm saying is [unintelligible]
M: You know, you put your dick in your wife's vagina and a lot of you Christian conservatives also put your dicks in other women's cunts when you're not -- you know, when you're married, and are hypocritical. So gay people, yeah, they fuck just like you fuck. That's what they do. And for many of them it's an act of love--
M: And for others of them, just like many of you heterosexuals, it's an act of sheer pleasure, because we live in a free society.
H: Well, tell Congressman Rangel and Senator Hillary Clinton-- You give them my regards.
M: I certainly will, sir. Thank you for joining us today.
H: Okay. Goodbye.

Someone has issues...

Wednesday, January 19, 2005


That sounds about right.

Late Night

Have fun.

Torture Lou

For old times' sake.

Lie Back and Think of Bobo

An E&P columnist has a bit of fun with our dear Bobo.

Sgt. Falafel O'Reilly

There's a reward for anyone who can corroborate O'Reilly's claim to have seen combat in Central and South America.

What He Says

Big Media Matt:

At the same time, this is a chance to get out of the defensive crouch on Social Security and start attacking. A plan that doesn't have the support of the House Ways and Means Chairman or the Senate Finance Committee Chairman is in no danger of passing in the near future. Democrats would be well-advised to spend less time focusing on defending their position and more time launching vituperative attacks on the Bush view. It would be a shame to just let Bush wiggle out of this without paying a major price.

Indeed. The president's agenda is going down in flames. Time to keep punching.

I'm starting to think we may hear as much about social security privatization in the state of the union address this year as we heard about MARS in the last one.

Wanker of the Day

Hugh Hewitt.

Afternoon Thread

Savor that new thread smell.

Reid on Social Security

The President's plan is a dead horse not because of partisan politics but because it is a privatization plan based on massive benefit cuts, risky Wall Street accounts and $2 trillion in new debt. It will undermine Social Security at a time when we should be looking to strengthen the program and help Americans save.

And if a 50 percent benefit cut is not enough, now we learn Republicans are aiming to push even deeper cuts for America's women. Any suggestion that women do not deserve the same benefits as men is just plain wrong.

Retirement security is America's promise to all its workers, and I will ensure that promise is kept.

More Max

Max has a few more things to say about Social Security. Go read and then return.

I really want to highlight something that he writes because it's something which I don't think has actually penetrated the skulls of our ethical media. While it's difficult to talk about the "Bush plan" when no such plan actually exists, the media don't seem to understand that an element of the possible plans is that actual government benefits will be reduced by the amount in your private accounts. In other words, they aren't just talking about cutting guaranteed benefits - they're talking about reducing your actual benefit by the amount you pull out of your account.

Tivo to Go

It's arrived! It's arrived!

And there was much rejoicing throughout the land.

Dead Horse

I think that's what Mr. Thomas will find in his bed.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) predicted yesterday that partisan warfare over Social Security will quickly render President Bush's plan "a dead horse" and called on Congress to undertake a broader review of the problems of an aging nation.

Thomas, one of Capitol Hill's most powerful figures on tax policy, is the highest-ranking House Republican official to cast doubt on the president's plan for creating individual investment accounts. He said that as an alternative, he will consider changes such as replacing the payroll tax as Social Security's financing mechanism and adding a savings plan for long-term or chronic care as "an augmentation to Social Security payments."

Not quite sure what this is about. I caution any Dems about getting suckered into a "bipartisan plan" to "reform" the system which will be magically switcherooed by DeLay's goons on the conference committee.

No Crisis

There is no crisis in Social Security.


Poor Arnold Kling. Max demolishes him.

Morning Thread

Have fun.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

He Cavorted With Terrorists

The latest justification for war, from Condi, courtesy of the Daily Show...

Both Right

Some people argue that we should respect Martin Frost for doing what he had to do to win a tough congressional race. Accepting that argument for the moment -- I do! I'm all for Democrats doing what they have to do to win. And, I can respect skillful politicians who know how to win in districts which are basically against them.

But, while those people should potentially be respected for doing what they need to do to win in their districts, that doesn't mean they should run the party. I don't know why that needs to be explained.

And, perhaps more importantly, this line of reasoning praises cynical politicians for their election-winning strategy. But, um, as far as I noticed, none of the Republican-lite politicians who faced significant challenges actually won their races. And, what they did do was a twofer -- They LOST and they helped discredit their party. Thanks!

Again, congrats on doing what you needed to do to win your district. But, you know what? That doesn't mean you're the right person to run the party. And, even more importantly - YOU LOST.



Sorta Weird

The wingnutosphere is all excited about this column written by "LTC Tim Ryan, Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq."

Here we have "Lieutenant Colonel Tim Ryan, the commander of the 223rd military intelligence."

And, here again we have an LTC Ryan being accused of behaving rather inappropriately towards someone who came forward with torture allegations:

The Army has already dealt with one case of abuse by soldiers stationed at Samarra. At a recent court-martial in Fort Hood, Texas, four enlisted soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division in Samarra were convicted of manslaughter for forcing two handcuffed Iraqi men to jump off a bridge over the Tigris River during an interrogation. One of the Iraqis drowned. The soldiers' commanding officer, a lieutenant colonel that regularly worked with agents of the 223rd, was administratively disciplined for helping to cover up the incident.

Not long after Marciello left him, Ford said, Madera, accompanied by an unknown male captain, entered Ford's tent and told him to get ready because he was going to be "medevac'd" to Germany immediately. "What the hell is going on here?" Ford remembered demanding, but Madera told him to "be quiet," that he "had to leave," and that she would explain once they were airborne. She escorted him to a waiting Humvee that took them to the base airstrip, where a C-130 was warming up on the tarmac.

"Madera ordered me to lie down on a gurney that had been in the rear of the Humvee so she could strap me down. I again asked what was going on, only this time a lot more pissed off. I said that I was perfectly able to walk." Ford said Madera insisted, telling him it was the order of "[Lt. Col. Timothy] Ryan and Artiga" that he be "bound and secured" when taken "out of country." "I saw that I had no choice and finally said OK, anything just to get the fuck out of there," Ford recalled. With the help of the male captain, who Ford said identified himself as a medical officer, Madera strapped him to the gurney.

Just then, Ford claimed, Ryan, Artiga's superior officer, pulled up in his Humvee and walked over to where Ford was lying on the gurney. "He looked down at me and said, 'Don't worry. We are going to get you the best treatment available.' I was enraged at that point, and it was a good thing I was strapped down. I just stared back at Ryan with looks that I hoped could kill, but I didn't say nothing. What was the point? He had won that round."

Ryan did not respond to interview requests for this story.

anyway, no clue what that all means.'s his bio. Anyway, I just found it weird that there were two Lieutenant Colonels named Tim Ryan who were identified as being part of different units. Maybe the military peeps can make sense of it.



Parental Notification Laws

What happens when judges get control your uterus. Here are the comments of a judge denying a minor's request to get an abortion without notifying her parents:

The legislature, in its infinite wisdom, has determined that an unborn child who never has had even the ability to do any wrong, could be put to death so that his mother can play [sports]. ...
"Ah, but this young woman has more ambition than to play [sports]. Her possible ... scholarship is but the means to the end of her becoming a [health--care provider]. But what is the duty of a [health--care provider]? To save lives. Should her child die so that, possibly, she might later save other lives?

There may be physical complications to an abortion. There may be psychological complications or consequences. She said that she does not believe that abortion is wrong, so, apparently, in spite of her church attendance, there won't be spiritual consequences, at least for the present.


This is a capital case. It involves the question whether [the minor's] unborn child should live or die.

The Sheriff

Just go listen.

MLK Would Be Appalled By Attacks On Christmas

Perhaps the "funniest" O'Reilly yet.

Morning Thread

Have fun.

Big Business Hearts Socialism

I've said it before -- universal health care is inevitable. And, I've said what I think the motivating factor will be -- big business will demand it.

I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. But, it will happen -- not because of a peasants' revolt, but because one sector of the economy finally recognizes that they're getting screwed over by another one.

...and, to add -- if it doesn't (I think it will), it's because the fellow travellers of the PNAC crowd, the ones who managed to ensure that the 21st century won't be dominated by American foreign policy, will ensure that we won't dominate economically either. In other words, if it doesn't happen it's because larger forces at work have destroyed the American economy.

Monday, January 17, 2005

Rotting Soul

Will anyone ever just call bullshit? There's no scenario which can possibly be conceived by mere mortals such that there was intelligence which suggested the inaugural could be a target but about which subsequent intelligence has led us to conclude were false alarms.
Tom Ridge's job for the last couple of years was to screech "Orange!" when told.

And I remember when pundits were "outraged!" over the possibility that someone would dare politicize that sacred day of 9/11.

Suckers and tools. The lot of them.

If only David Broder were still alive...

Only 34?

Salon gives us 34 Bush administration scandals worse than Whitewater. Of course, Whitewater wasn't actually a scandal, so it's rather like saying "34 scandals worse than no scandal at all," but somehow I imagine that point will be lost on our press.

Speaking of Whitewater, the Times has yet to address their fraudulent Whitewater reporting (in fact, current and former Timesers defend it to this day). But, hey, maybe someone will find the time to ask Jill Abramson about that at this ethics conference thingy.

And, yes, it was before her time, but last I checked Jeff Gerth was still on the payroll...

Promoting a Program vs. Promoting Policies and Potential Policies

The WaPo has an article up about PR firms fearing a backlash over the Williams issue.

But, I want to draw a distinction which seems to have been greatly lacking in all of this. It's one thing federal dollars to inform people of the ins and outs of federal programs (say, telling people the facts the new Medicare drug program and telling them how to get it), yet another to tout such programs and credit dear leader for them ("president bush has given you this wonderful new Medicare program!!!!!"), and still another to promote potential policies (killing social security).

Mock Them Into The Ground

August adds to an earlier post writing:

I think there are way too many times when we actually bother to entertain these attempts from warbloggers to feel much more important about what they're doing than they actually are. I think shows like Crossfire would have survived- and thrived- if people on the left just responded to Bob Novak by saying "are you fucking kidding me?" and staring his bullshit down with supressed laughter until he ran off the stage crying. Conservatives try to implicate the left for "lowering the discourse." They're not worried about us lowering- or raising- the discourse. They're worried that we might get a clue and stop engaging them in discourse.

We've raised Ann Coulter to new heights by trying to counter her. She doesn't care. Michael Moore is delegitimized by the Right by means of sarcasm and humor. Dean was destroyed by jokes about the scream. If Crossfire opened every show with "and look what that crazy bitch said today," followed by a shot of Paul and James laughing their asses off, Ann Coulter would be the leggiest assistant corporate attorney in Accounts Recieving right now.

The right-wing bloggers don't want to hear our rebuttals. The President doesn't want to hear the Democrats' counter-proposals. History will never look back on this time and discuss how changes were made through the art of rational bipartisan discussion. But I'm damn sure history has a chance to look back on this era... and laugh.

I definitely agree. It's something I've said before in one way or another, though I obviously forget it at times too. One thing they have, which we don't, is a media willing to perpetuate all their bullshit. Michael Moore didn't become a object of derision and hate for a large chunk of the population because morons like the Perfesser and Hugh Hewitt ragged on him -- Michael Moore became an object of derision because people like NBC's Lisa Myers ran a well-advertised "fact-checking Farenheit 9/11" segment which amazingly didn't check a single fact. Since our equivalent of "Al Gore invented the internets!!!!" for some reason doesn't hit the mainstream, we continue to hope that maybe our more reasonable stuff will be picked up by the few decent mainstream sensible journalists (mostly at the Post, despite its flaws).

But, nonetheless, we shouldn't forget the value of reminding people of the jokes that they really are.

Martin Frost Hearts Bush

Yea, that's who should be running the DNC. Tim Russert is rubbing his hands with glee with the prospect. As is Karl. can also watch it here (taking some of the bandwidth share).

More Roemer

In addition, the guy's a whiner:

The candidate told a gathering in St. Louis that he wanted to have "a conversation" on issues but that he is "having trouble doing this because of negative campaigning and litmus tests."

His voice rising, Roemer added, "I like a good fight. But don't put my arms behind me. Give me a chance to talk about my values. And don't litmus-test me."
Roemer aides said he was angry over an opposition research memo being circulated in Washington and Democratic circles that outlined his voting record, which sometimes did not follow party lines.

I think I'm starting to understand this guy. For too long he's held had a seat at one the most media-blessed table in DC - the table of Moderate Democrats Who Can Do No Wrong.

Cut the crap. The job isn't for you. Go join the bipartisan panel to kill social security, or whatever.

Resisting Temptation To Steal Punchline

So go read Tbogg.

Think of the Kittens




It's so easy being a conservative. It's like it gives you a license to be wrong 150% of the time.

Tech Fun

So, a laptop committed suicide as I mentioned (won't power up at all). I wanted to pull some important data off the hard drive before sending off to repair-land, so I tried plugging the drive into an old laptop. Hardware was compatible, but wouldn't boot (presumably loaded up with all kinds of incompatible drivers). So, next I tried accessing it from DOS. But, the drive's NTFS and DOS no likey NTFS so that didn't work.

Finally, I found a little laptop-drive-to-USB port adapter online. Tune in next week to see if that works...


I haven't been following the ins and outs of the DNC Chair election process because I just haven't had it in me to follow another election. But, I think Tim Roemer and Martin Frost have pretty much disqualified themselves for the job.

Whatever the job is, it's a job for a partisan. Partisan doesn't necessarily equal mean and nasty, but it does mean someone who doesn't propogate the other side's talking points about your team.


Thomas Continued

Following up on this post, here's the transcript of what an Alabama state SC justice said about Clarence Thomas, sent in by a reader:

PARKER: ``Just moments before I placed my hand on the Holy Scripture, Justice Thomas soberly addressed me and those in attendance. He admonished us to remember that the worth of a justice should be evaluated by one thing, and by one thing alone: whether or not he is faithful to uphold his oath _ an oath which as Justice Thomas pointed out is not to the people; it's not to the state; it's not even to the Constitution, which is one to be supported, but is an oath which is to God Himself.''

I think this somewhat different than the reporter communicated in his article, though it's ambiguous writing not deliberate deception. He's referring to the oath of office, not some general oath or commitment. And, the oath itself, arguably, is to God (on bible, so help me god, etc.).

...let me just add that while I think Thomas is off the hook in some sense, it's precisely this kind of thing which bothers me about the "ceremonial deism" defense of seemingless "harmless" mixing of religion and government (God in pledge, on money, etc...) While a reasonable person will probably conclude that all Thomas meant was that the oath of office was to God, and therefore of paramount importance to keep, there's still the implication that for these judges, even in the context of serving the state they still consider God to be the higher power, and that view has been enshrined by various forays into ceremonial deism. Now, thinking God is a higher power is not especially surprising -- He is God, after all, and if you believe in Him of course his Almightyness will trump the puny power of the state. But, in the context of being a judge, a strong intertwining of your job and your religion raises legitimate questions about what you do, as a judge, when God's law and man's law collide.

It's not about belief in God as a higher power, it's about belief that you personally are sure that you know just what God's Law is, and how He would want you to carry it out. If I had those kinds of beliefs, I'd be a bad judge, because of course God's Law (as I am certain of it) would trump man's law...

Bobo's World

Actually it's a twofer. Bobo's world AND department of utterly incorrect and misleading headlines:

Gay clients challenge domestic violence charges

The Associated Press

CLEVELAND - Some attorneys are attempting to use Ohio's new gay marriage amendment to defend unmarried clients against domestic violence charges.

The constitutional amendment, which took effect on Dec. 1, denies legal status to unmarried couples.

In at least two cases last week, the Cuyahoga County public defender's office has asked a judge to dismiss domestic-violence charges against unmarried defendants, arguing that the charges violate the amendment by affording marriage-like legal status to unmarried victims who live with the people accused of attacking them.

This isn't specifically about gay clients, it's about umarried clients, gay, straight, man-on-dog, whatever.

(tip thanks to int argc)


After hearing about this story of "liberal bias" I emailed the student and asked for a copy of his essay, which I never got, as I was curious. Here it is. James Joyner wastes time explaining why it sucks.

As for the accusation that the professor told the student to seek "psychological treatment" -- well, my guess that if that happened it was not in response to the essay itself but as a response to the post-grade complaining in the office or other patterns of behavior. Professors can be jerks, but dispensing advice to get mental health help is generally a place one stays away from.

(via pandagon)

Flip Flop

He loves gay people, he hates gay people, he loves gay people...

Don't Forget Syria!

Actually, forget Syria:

WASHINGTON - As the hunt for weapons of mass destruction dragged on unsuccessfully in Iraq, top Bush administration officials speculated publicly that the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.

Whether Saddam Hussein moved the WMD — deadly chemical, biological or radiological arms — is one of the unresolved issues that the final U.S. intelligence report on Iraq’s programs is expected to address next month.

But intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

...another pet theory down the toilet.

Money Where Their Mouths Are

Unlike the General, I think an ad touting the Dinar as a great investment opportunity is the perfect thing to be running on right wing blogs.

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Late Night

Have fun.

Did He Say It

An Alabama SC justice claims, according to a Birmingham News reporter, that Clarence Thomas told him:

[A] judge should be evaluated by whether he faithfully upholds his oath to God, not to the people, to the state or to the Constitution.

This is indeed a big deal, no matter what your personal religious views happen to be. Did he really say it? Will anyone else in the media bother to try to find out?


and, oy, laptop suicide...grr

Little Katie Communist

Aside from the fact that she's etirely unsuitable for the job, it's clear that in terms of public relations CBS hasn't got a clue. In the pantheon of network TV news people who the Right considers to be "evil librulz," Dan Rather is #1 and Katie Couric is #2. Now, this belief has no basis in fact, but nonetheless if they were to hire her they could look forward to more years of being bashed for librul bias.

I'm not suggseting CBS should hire a conservative to placate the mouth-breathers, but if they're going to hire a "liberal," they may as well hire a real one (assuming they can find one), instead of one of the Right's favorite liberal bogeymen.
From Time:

Katie Couric A network source tells TIME the Today Show co-anchor has been approached about the job. If she could be persuaded to jump, CBS would have to wait 16 months—when her NBC contract is up. But the network could name an old hand like Face the Nation’s Bob Schieffer or Early Show host Harry Smith as a caretaker until then.

Tivo to Go

Hey, uh, Tivo? Still waiting...

You Link It, You Own It

Since blogger ethics are all the rage, let me clue the conference participants into an unwritten but well-understood blog issue - you link it, you own it. And, more importantly, the less something you link to has the stamp of official authority, the more you've taken responsibility for it. That is, if I link to the paper of record, then I own the responsibility for it 10% and they own it 90%. But, if I link to "some person on the internets somewhere" who has no established institutional credibility (or lack of) then I own it 95%. In other words, the less likely it is that anyone would have heard about something without my bringing it to their attention, the more I've taken the responsibility for verifying the information.

Wanker of the Day

Stephen Hess, Brookings Institute, regarding Social Security:

Nobody denies that it's a serious question and future train wreck. The debate itself is worthy.

Bollocks. The problem here is that Brookings is a "liberal" think tank whose pronouncements quite often form the left flank of acceptable discourse in the country. It isn't "liberal" and it never was -- once upon a time it was slightly center-left, and now it's center-right.(via Marshall)

Sunday Bobbleheads

document the atrocities.