s.z. at World O’Crap calls on her cast of non-accredited private detectives and reveals the secret identities of several of the internet’s biggest anonymous stars of blogging, and ours:
Blog: Sadly, No!
Real Name of blogger: Dr. Seb No!
Address: 9 Brottenwurstenslagen Way, Munich, Germany
Occupation: Supervillian, international spy
Family: Wife: Amber; son: Frederick.
And what a disappointment that son has been.
As we recover form jet lag, we offer this small sample of the upcoming Sadly, No! guide to the proper care and feeding of wives, ripped from the real life of our secretives selves. The following conversation took place after the angry and bitter man behind S,N! had spent an afternoon at a local caf? with his wife:
Wife of Sadly, No!: That was a real nice caf?.
Sadly, No!: Yes, it was.
Wife of Sadly, No!: A nice place for a couple in love to spend an afternoon.
Sadly, No!: And for us.
Wife of Sadly, No!: [unintelligible] [censored] [unintelligible]
So there you go. Use such witty lines at your convenience, risk and peril. Thank you.
A few posts below we linked to Brad DeLong’s comments on the poor excuse for a story published in the Washington Post about Bush’s “budget” proposal. We learn now from Professor DeLong that Jonathan Weisman, who wrote the article, has responded to DeLong’s concerns.
(If by “responded” you mean “told him to go fuck himself because rewriting White House press releases is obviously ok if you’re under a deadline.” And yes, you will be surprised as to how accurate that summary is.)
And yes, the Washington Post is part of your liberal media, why do you ask?
The Sadly, No! inbox cannot lie:
From: [name deleted]
Subject: Re: sadlyno.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:06:46 +0100 (CET)
To: sadlyno.comHello,
I am creating a web directory, [name deleted,] and would like to include your website Sadlyno.com under the “spirituality/angels” category. If you’d like to be added, please follow this url:
[url deleted] [Emphasis added]
Those are some pretty fucked up angels if you ask us. Do we think this is the right kind of placement for us? Sadly, No!
s.z. at World O’Crap declares war on Canada, if by “Canada” you mean “that asshole David Frum and his bitch wife Danielle Crittenden.”
Fun for the whole family, provided that the whole family hasn’t been put off by our use of vulgar language above.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page is set to spin this morning:
For the first time in his Presidency–and the first time in Washington since 1995–Mr. Bush is requesting that domestic, non-defense spending be restrained.
One might argue that it all depends on the meaning of restrained, but some things are worth pointing out. Under Clinton, overall discretionary spending increased by an average of 3.4 per cent annually. (1994-2001.) Overall spending went up an average of 4.03 per cent annually.
For extra amusement, can we get the WSJ to explain, in terms simple enough even we can understand, on what basis does the GOP portray itself as the party of fiscal discipline exactly?
As for the deficit, so long as it’s not back at the record-setting Reagan levels, it’s ok:
the nation is hardly in a fiscal crisis. The 2004 deficit estimate of $521 billion is 4.5% of GDP–well below the 5%-6% records of the 1980s
Don’t worry about your cholesterol level Mr. Taranto, it’s not nearly as bad as it used to be. Besides, the WSJ fucks itself in the ass shoots itself in the foot when it points out that the post-Bush budget projection years are covered with red ink:
The Bush Administration has added to this problem with its recent prescription drug bill that in just two months has already ballooned to $530 billion over 10 years, not $400 billion as promised last fall. In truth, even that number will look cheap once seniors figure out that Uncle Sam is paying their drug bills. These promises will have to be addressed with Social Security and Medicare reform sooner or later.
Yes, sooner or later. We’re guessing President What we have here is an intelligence failure is banking on later = 2008. Thanks for your sound and prudent fiscal management Mr. President. And the WSJ’s big finish?
The entire political class has lived the past decade on easy street, spending as if the voters would never notice. If Mr. Bush means what he says in this budget, the good news is that those days are over.
Sadly, No! The entire GOP sure has, but Clinton did manage at least two things Bush hasn’t (as far as we know) been able to do: one has been to hold federal spending growth roughly within inflation. (And you know what the other is, so don’t ask us.)
Tomorrow, the good generous mean-spirited people of Sadly, No! take their act on the road and shall attempt to enter the US (Department of Homeland Security travel warnings and visa regulations willing.) In order to offer you this exciting new feature, Sadly, No! will not be updated tomorrow.
While this should not come as a surprise to anyone, the change of venue is not expected to provide an improvement in the quality of Sadly, No! posts.
You may not need to be a professor of economics at Berkeley to figure out that Bush’s budget projections have holes big enough to drive mobile biological weapons trailers through them, but it seems to help. Professor DeLong asks:
Isn’t the fact that extending the Bush tax cuts would blow an annual $250 billion hole in the budget in the 2009-2012 presidential term worth mentioning in the first ten paragraphs–not in paragraph 26?
The full story can be found here.
Jonah Goldberg, one of many who whines endlessly about the liberal media, offers this irony-impaired comment this morning:
I’ve now met a fairly wide assortment of liberals, Democratic activists, reporters, scribblers etc over the last year — in green rooms and at cocktail parties. And while none of my conversations were on the record, I can report that there’s an astonishing amount of animus towards John Kerry. Lots of reporters just hate the guy. They think he’s arrogant and condescending (largely because he is). Even Democrats who were terrified of Dean winning the nomination because they feared he’d be unelectable, want nothing to do with Kerry. Obviously, this isn’t a universal sentiment. But it is a very real factor. But once the media gets over its shame for misreporting the whole Dean boom-that-wasn’t I predict they will turn on Kerry very hard. We’re already seeing a little of it now.
Come to think of it, this is funny on many levels, just one being the notion that a guy who wins a primary and a caucus can be liked by no one. (Just like Andrew Sullivan’s earlier claim that Gore is always political death, even though Al Gore won all elections he has entered until 2000, and managed to win the popular vote in the one he did “lose.”)
Warning: If the idea of Jonah Goldberg writing about nipples scares you (and it should,) stay away from The Corner today.
Why, H-U-S-S-E-I-N, of course! President Bush speaks:
We do know that Saddam Hussein had the intent and the capabilities to cause great harm, we know he was a danger. And he was not only a danger to people in the free world, he was a danger to his own people; he slaughtered thousands of people, imprisoned people. […]
Danger George W. Bush, danger! It’s nice to see he is on the same page as Condi:
When you have a case of a very dangerous man in a very dangerous part of the world who refuses to account for large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and who has used them before…
When you’re dealing with a very secretive regime that is out to deceive, that refuses to account for very dangerous material – Saddam Hussein was given an opportunity to tell people if he had destroyed this – could the president of the United States really allow those unaccounted-for weapons stockpiles to sit in Iraq? […] This was a dangerous man.
Not in an imminent danger sort of way — more like in a danger related program activities sort of way.