Sadly, No!

Monday, October 16, 2006
Favorite Numbers/Cut of Meat Involving the Word “Rib”/Description for Location in Real Estate [BRD]

Prime

Posted by Bravo Romeo Delta @ 06:17 PM

Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Mid-morning music video quickie, con’t

Imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery.

Posted by The Sanity Inspector @ 12:22 PM

In which a statement and its converse are equally accurate [A post by Beck]

Mushroom clouds are pretty.

Posted by Beck @ 07:43 PM

Things apposite to ‘Maya,’ according to Dragostea Din Tei (a.k.a. ‘The Numa-Numa Song’) as performed by O-Zone:

1) Hee
2) Hoo
3) Ho
4) Ha-ha

This has been a post in the mode of Protein Wisdom.

John at Crooks & Liars posted a Ramones vid tonight to mark the closing of CBGB’s.

Roy Edroso has a narrative of his foundational CBGB’s moment, in 1977.

Wolcott’s is here.

I came along later, and remember it more like this:

That girl in the red shirt was always doing that. I used to know her name, but we Jersey kids stayed a bit aloof from the nyXhc social scene, such that we had our own designated hangout area across the street from CBGB’s.

Here I must mention the great bottle-rocket battle of ’83, in which New Jersey and New York traded fire from hardened Dumpster-positions across the mock Hudson of The Bowery. The exchange was inconclusive and resumed at A7, where Jersey forces made use of the terrain, gathering in the shadows of Tompkins Square Park, and bottle-rocketed the shit out of the silly New York punks across 7th Street who totally didn’t see it coming.

Read the rest of this entry »

He may have frubbily, fustily changed all the instances of his classic pseudonym in old Powerline posts to ‘Rocket Man,’ but he’ll always be our Hindrocket, our Captain Corndog, our…

Old Canards Never Die…

…and they don’t seem to fade away, either. Tom Raum of the Associated Press revives the myth, debunked countless times here and elsewhere, that President Bush has shifted the rationale for the Iraq war over time:

President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S. is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to history-of-civilization stakes now.

Initially, the rationale was specific: to stop Saddam Hussein from using what Bush claimed were the Iraqi leader’s weapons of mass destruction or from selling them to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.

But 3 1/2 years later, with no weapons found, still no end in sight and the war a liability for nearly all Republicans on the ballot Nov. 7, the justification has become far broader and now includes the expansive “struggle between good and evil.”

Raum continues to expand on this theme, but without citing any evidence whatsoever. In fact, as we have often noted, if you listened to any of the speeches President Bush gave on Iraq in 2003 or read the Congressional authorization on the war, every rationale that has ever been discussed is there. And, as I have often said, bringing reform and democracy to the Arab world was perceived by me, and by many if not most of the war’s early supporters, as the most important goal.

Translation: If you exclude the speeches that Bush gave throughout 2002, concerning a war which was officially launched on March 19th., 2003; and if you are gullible enough not to spend roughly 30 seconds in checking the actual text of the Congressional authorization on the war, as found on the White House web site, you might be persuaded that John Hinderaker is not a figure of mirth and comedy, beloved for his crowd-pleasing antics.

Fair enough; we’ll take a handicap. Here’s a Hinderaker post from January 28, 2003:

Another phenomenal performance by President

Another phenomenal performance by President Bush tonight. His evident sincerity and resolve shone through once again; he is his own best weapon. His exposition of the Iraq situation was eloquent and compelling, and should shift the terms of the debate from here on.

And here’s a noteworthy passage from the now-famous January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address to which the above post refers:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

However, 3 1/2 years later, with no weapons found, still no end in sight, and the war a liability for nearly all Republicans on the ballot Nov. 7, Hinderaker’s justification has become far broader and now includes this expansive phrase.

Here’s Hindy talking some more.

It’s hard to know what to make of a news service that persistently retails fables as facts, or of a reporter who writes about President Bush “revising his explanation for why the U.S. is in Iraq” without, apparently, having bothered to read Congress’s Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

“(I)f absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity. Especially it is a sport to see, when a bold fellow is out of countenance.” -Sir Francis Bacon

By this we refer to the actual text of the Congressional authorization on the war, as found on the White House web site.

But maybe it’s not worth commenting on what is in reality, like a lot of AP stories these days, a campaign ad for the Democratic Party.
Posted by John at 09:24 PM

It’s true that a great number of news stories are de facto campaign ads for the Democratic Party. It’s also the case that a poo volcano, showering torrents of poo all over the entire landscape, would help sell umbrellas.

Hindenfreude: the ambivalent pleasure experienced in witnessing the crash of a flaming gasbag.

Dag, man, it’s getting to the point where you can’t even marshal a bunch of circumstantial and made-up evidence to speculate that a political operative may have been involved in covering up a possible criminal action without some litigious liberal threatening to sue you, or worse (italics and zaniness from the original):

Frank’s blog post was an opinion piece, but Fletcher seems to threaten her with a libel suit, as if he does not understand that opinion is protected by the First Amendment. Frank’s writing may be a little over the top – there is, after all, no hard and direct evidence Fletcher or his firm were involved in the anonymous release of the Foley emails – but it’s still opinion, which isn’t actionable under libel, slander or defamation law […]

Perhaps Fletcher ought to first examine his own heart in the matter Whether or not he or his firm were involved in the release of the Foley emails, Fletcher’s email to Frank makes it clear that if he had come into possession of the emails, his first instinct would have been to use them as a political hammer … [n]ot, “I would have quietly turned the emails over to law enforcement authorities for a proper investigation in order to protect the pages.”

Via Instapundit.

Gavin adds: Perhaps Insty ought to first examine his own heart in the matter. Whether or not he licks earwax popsicles and rides to work on a dildo unicycle, he makes it clear that if he had come into possession of the emails, his first instinct would have been to plan multiple child murders while masturbating furiously into a pumpkin.

I mean, that’s just my opinion, but I believe the evidence, if any, speaks for itself.

Is that you, “Gary”?

The fact is the speaker and our leadership could not have been more aggressive. The moment they found out about this, they gave Mark Foley the political death penalty.

Wow, trolling CNN? Color me impressed.

Below the fold…

Read the rest of this entry »

Why am I receiving spam that reads like random passages in Gravity’s Rainbow? Check this one out:

Above: an artist’s conception of my in-box.
Gavin adds: Hmph. So who’s the new artist? I would so have done that with more zesty aplomb and less drop-shadow. Hmph.

and as for pulvis lodge, the attics are dreadful.”and so saying, he turned back with them, and walked towards the house.
“you need not be frightened. i never heard any harm of her; and i dare say she is one of the most”with the officers!” cried lydia. “i wonder my aunt did not tell us of that .”

“but you will know it, when i tell you what happened the very next day.”elizabeth’s spirits were so high on this occasion, that though she did not often speak
actuated by one spirit, everything relating to their journey was speedily settled. they were to be off asbut nothing to justify inquiry.
and her feelings towards its writer were at times widely different. when she remembered the style ofbingley’s appearance and invitation, the mother and three daughter all attended her into the breakfast

‘Course, if they really did quote GR in their e-mails, I doubt they’d make it through my spam filter. Mostly I’m thinkin’ of the passage that starts like this:

He spreads his knees awkwardly until he can feel the leather of her boots. He leans forward to surround the hot turd…

Aaaaaaand I’m not gonna quote it any further. You get the idea.

It seems that Bush is comptemplating adding a new tenet to the Freedom Agenda: overthrowing the elected government that he helped install. Crooks & Liars has the details (my emphasis):

Matthews: David, do you believe the President is looking for an out from his doctrinaire policy of staying the course?

Brooks: Not really, no I don’t. I think they’re looking at policy options. One of those options is trying to replace the current government which seems to be doing nothing. The second option is some sort of federation which–Joe Biden has suggested as separating Iraq. A third option and by far the least likely is going in with more troops, So there’s all different three options… We have much less control over Iraq than we did two or three years ago…

Y’know, this is just retarded. There are only three groups of people who could conceivably run a government in modern day Iraq, and none of them include the worthless pro-Western technocrats that Bush will inevitably appoint. These groups are:

1.) Sleazy black marketers: unlike the bums running the current Iraqi government, these guys actually know how to deliver goods and services to the people. Sure, putting them in charge of public works would likely result in large-scale corruption and a huge inflation of government expenses, but at least shit would get done. And really, I doubt they could do anything as bad as spending $75 million to build a police academy that rains poo and pee all over its cadets.

2.) Crazed religious fundamentalists: the current Iraqi government has a wee problem in that nobody wants to die for them. And why should they? You’re talking about a government that is completely detached from everyday life in Iraq that has virtually no legtimacy among the general population. Would you risk getting suicide-bombed for a pack of losers like that? Haaaaaaail no.

The crazed religious fanatics don’t have that problem. In fact, they’ve got a loyal army of men who are all too happy to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Let’s face it: nobody wants to give their life for a bureaucratic American puppet, but everyone wants to die for Allah and get some damn virgins. Put the fundies in charge of national security, and you’ll see a dramatic turnaround in the country’s stability.

3.) Steve McQueen: With the fundies and grifters running the government, America will still need to appoint someone to look out for our interests in the region. But this time, we should avoid hiring a sissy-assed wimp like Paul Bremer for the job. Instead, we’re gonna need a rough-and-tumble bad-ass whom even the Iraqis would have to respect. Unfortunately, the one man who could possibly do such a hard job has been dead for over 20 years. Yes, I’m talking about Steve McQueen.

This will not be easy to overcome. Appointing Steve McQueen is the linchpin of the Brad Doctrine of Shit That Needs Fixed in Iraq. Without him, the entire project will fall apart. So if anyone can think of any living American who can fill Steve’s shoes, please let me know. C’mon, people. Your country needs you.

UPDATE: In the comments, reader Michael writes:

[S]ince Steve McQueen is dead, I nominate Duane “Dog the Bounty Hunter� Chapman to head up the Iraq reconstruction. He already has the support of the wingnut grassroots and Tom Tancredo thinks he’s just dreamy.

Ding! We so, so, so have a winner. I hereby nominate Duane “Dog” Chapman as our new ambassador to Iraq.

Over my scrambled eggs this morning, I read as David Brooks bungled into some nearly insightful observations about declining post-industrial towns such as Mansfield, Ohio:

This is the economic backdrop to the most important political race in the country, the Senate campaign between Sherrod Brown, a Democrat now in the House, and Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent. It’s important because each candidate comes from the most vibrant strain in his own party. Brown is a full-bore economic populist. DeWine is an independent McCainiac conservative. In two years, the national parties will be talking in just these ways, and we’re seeing a preview of that battle today.

Now, there are plenty of points there worth disputing, but it’s likely that political dynamic – economic populism vs. moderate conservatism – will shape up as the dominant theme for 2008, if only because myopic but influential pundits like Brooks will promote it. So I was interested to see where he’d take that premise, even if it fell apart under closer scrutiny.

Alas, Brooks used his remaining column inches to paint Brown as a Yale-educated phony populist class-warrior who entered politics to indulge his narcissism and discusses national security only on his campaign’s scripted terms. On the other hand DeWine, Brooks writes, is a modest, knowledgeable and respected public servant who shuns the spotlight and is also a maverick, in his own principled and moderate way. (Sigh.) This column is basically a close-focus follow-up to a column from two weeks ago, in which Brooks continues to promote the idea that Democrats flap around from issue to issue, trying to appeal to what voters say they want (!), while Republicans maintain fidelity to some sort of political/moral prime directive from which voters occasionally stray (bless their hearts…) but always return.

Elsewhere in election coverage, a recent study reports findings of the good news-bad news variety. The bad news is that local news broadcasts spend less time covering elections than they do promoting upcoming stories (is our democracy at risk?). The good news is, voters don’t get much of their election coverage from the unsavory likes of local news broadcasters.

This one’s for Gavin:

Gavin adds: Well, hardy-har. This one’s for Brad:

PS: Go Mets!

Bradrocket adds: Asshole.

At any rate, I’ll always have the greatest comeback in the history of professional sports.

PS- Mets gettin’ pwn3d by Detroit this year.