Sadly, No!

In the department of You didn’t go to law school, did you? here comes Ralph Vitolo:

New Orleans Saints receiver Joe Horn was fined $30,000 by the NFL on Tuesday for making a choreographed cell-phone call in the end zone to celebrate a touchdown.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed the amount of the fine. Horn’s agent, Ralph Vitolo, said the player will appeal.

“Fining him is one thing, but to me that’s very excessive. This is not a murder case,” Vitolo said. [Emphasis added]

Vitolo then added, “Had he killed a guy, we might have been willing to go as high $35 or $40 thousand, but this is totally bogus man.”

Maralyn Lois Polak [no, we’d never heard of her either, and yes that name is likely made up] asks the really tough questions those liberal press fat cats don’t want you to know about:

What I want to know is, if I can’t seem to keep my hair colored while walking around under so-called “freedom” in America, how did this nefarious global fugitive, fearing for his life, this Desert Rat ? sneaking from safe-house to safe-house, hiding out in a “spider-hole” ? manage to dye and maintain his brows and hair that reassuringly fake shiny shoe-polish black we’ve come to expect from his villainous bad old self?

We can only hope Judith Miller of the NYT will turn her prodigious reporting skills to this important question. Just how did Saddam manage to do all those things? Did Howard Dean have anything to do with it? Was it Rush’s former maid, that treacherous drug supplier?

As for Mrs. Polak, we hope her hair problems can soon be resolved,
for the good of humanity:

Pop quiz hot shots: See any familiar names here?

Salem Chalabi, a Baghdad-based legal adviser to the Iraqi Governing Council, said he and others involved in preparing rules for the tribunals want to keep the trials narrowly focused “on the crimes in question.”

What about here?

One of the architects of the tribunal, Salem Chalabi, said political leaders and legal specialists had already begun discussing the best prosecutorial strategy to employ. Chalabi said there was growing agreement that Saddam should be charged with perhaps only a dozen specific atrocities in an effort to keep a trial from bogging down.

Chalabi. Cha-la-bi. Where have we heard that name before? Ah yes, now we know:

Little is known about how it was drafted aside from the Justice Department lawyers’ role and that Salem Chalabi, nephew of Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, was one of its principal architects. [Emphasis added]

So, how many Chalabis do you need to take over a country?

K-Lo oils the machinery….

That corner can be a very scary place indeed.

Time for the Bottom of the Barrel moment at Sadly, No! This week we turn to Andrew Sullivan (are you as astounded as we are?) and his support never-ending admiration for President Bush (who some say is unelectable.)

President Bush says:

Bush has condemned the [Massachusetts] ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. On Tuesday, he criticized it as “a very activist court in making the decision it made.” “The court, I thought, overreached its bounds as a court,” Bush said. “It did the job of the Legislature.” Previously, though Bush has said he would support whatever is “legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage,” he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition. But on Tuesday, the president waded deeper into the topic, saying state rulings such as the one in Massachusetts and a couple of other states “undermine the sanctity of marriage” and could mean that “we may need a constitutional amendment.” [Emphasis added]

Andrew concludes thusly:

Those people who believe this president cannot speak in coherent sentences don’t realize how clever his alleged incoherence is. … All in all: a carefully tailored piece of obfuscation. It seems to me that, from this statement, we neither have an unconditional endorsement of the FMA nor an uncategorical defense of states’ rights with regard to marriage.

Meanwhile, Hillary Rodham Clinton said (in 2000:)

The most common liberal argument for civil union but against marriage was summed up by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in January. “Marriage,” she said, when pressed to take a position, “has got historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been: between a man and a woman.”

Andrew concluded thusly (same link as above:)

Those who wish to deny it, on the other hand, have been required to utter nothing more substantive than Hillary Clinton’s terse, incoherent dismissal.

Unless, of course, those are George W. Bush, in which case the more incoherent it is, the better it becomes. That will be $75,000 please.

Update: The Snarky Cat is also puzzled by Sullivan’s praise.

Inspired by The Snarky Cat’s review of Bush’s current freedom-inspiring policies, the hateful and mean spirited people at Sadly, No! decided to take another look at President Reagan’s policies, especially given some of the nonsense we’d found in the Ronald Reagan dime bill (I got my dime set on you.)

Straight from the Sadly, No! archives, we present: The Best of Ronald, Donald, and Saddam:

August 13, 1990:

”He made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,” said Donald Rumsfeld, a former Defense Secretary who, as a Middle East envoy, reopened discussions with Mr. Hussein in 1983. ”It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.”

October 13, 1984:

The United States and Iraq have so- called interests sections in each other’s capitals instead of formal embassies. There has also been an exchange of high-level visitors. Donald H. Rumsfeld, when he was President Reagan’s special Middle East envoy, visited Baghdad, as did Richard W. Murphy, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. Secretary of State George P. Shultz met in New York last week with Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister.

March 11, 1984:

President Reagan’s statement that an Iraqi defeat would not be in American interest and his suggestion that the United States would take military action if Iran attempted to close the Strait of Hormuz made clear a diplomatic ”tilt” toward Iraq. Commodity credits totaling $840 million over two years were a significant mark of American sympathy for Iraq, a food-importing nation with severe foreign exchange problems.

February 17, 1984:

The recent rapproachement between the U.S. and Iraq has only underscored the Iranian rhetoric. Iranian officials attached great significance to the recent visit to Baghdad by U.S. Middle East envoy Donald Rumsfeld, and Iraqi threats issued shortly after.

January 1, 1984:

The Dec. 19-20 visit to Baghdad by special Mideast envoy Donald Rumsfeld, the highest U.S. official to visit in six years. Rumsfeld met with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and brought a letter, the contents of which have not been made public, from President Reagan. … Rumsfeld is reported to have repeated a U.S. willingness to resume full relations at any time. [Emphasis added]

December 21, 1983:

Iraq and the US have recently renewed contacts at high levels, the most important being a meeting in Paris in May between Mr. Aziz and Secretary of State George Shultz. The US government has removed Iraq’s name from a list of countries alleged to support terrorism.

December 20, 1983:

In regard to Rumsfeld’s unexpected trip to Iraq, U.S. officials said he was expected to confer with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Iraq broke relations with the United States after the 1967 Middle East war, and Rumsfeld is the highest-level U.S. official to visit Baghdad since a 1976 trip by Philip C. Habib, then the undersecretary of state for political affairs.

April 10, 1983:

Both Washington and Moscow rationalized their willingness to sell the most advanced conventional weapons in their inventories to Tehran and Baghdad on the grounds that the sales would enable them to maintain influence in that potentially explosive region. Now that the explosion has come, the influence has vanished.

Juan Cole has more on the unfortunate US love affair with Saddam.

Blair sends us this Washington Post article with the most shocking revelation:

The Pentagon has delayed awarding a $100 million contract to run a national Iraqi newspaper and television and radio networks, a result of the U.S. decision last month to transfer political power to an Iraqi government by July 1. …

U.S. officials, meanwhile, are “in the process of explaining” to members of the Iraqi Governing Council how they think the news organizations should be run after July 1, a Defense Department official said. The U.S. officials are using the BBC and National Public Radio as models for the new government to follow… [Emphasis added]

What — you mean they’re not using FoxNews and InstaPundit as models? Horror of all horrors! Which reminds us of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog’s appearance on NPR’s Fresh Air:

Triumph: Holy crap. Listen to this. Let me ask you something. I feel like I’m being bombarded here. I know what’s happening here. I know what’s happening here. Did you ask the same questions to Kermit the Frog?
GROSS: Kermit the Frog didn’t do our show.
Triumph: Did you do this…
GROSS: He didn’t do our show.
Triumph: All right. Well, OK. How about when Beethoven did your show? Did you challenge him the way you’re challenging me? Did you ask…
GROSS: It was a different kind of interview.
Triumph: It was a different…
GROSS: It was a different kind of interview.
Triumph: OK. Yeah, I can see what’s going on here.
GROSS: Beethoven’s funny. No, it’s different.
Triumph: Oh, is that right? It’s a satire what Beethoven does. Yes, I’m just–you know, I can’t believe the government is paying for this interview. That’s what I can’t believe, you know? My money that could be going to Pekinese hookers is instead going to this, you know, Public Radio that’s obviously more slanted than my (censored) after I’ve (censored) the St. Bernard. What are we talking about? That’s right.
GROSS: Triumph, I don’t think you’re being fair, and I think if you gave Public Radio a chance, you wouldn’t feel that way ’cause I think Public Radio has always been fair to the dog world.
Triumph: I’m trying to give it a chance, but you keep bombarding me. You keep bombarding me. I’m evaluating this interview very closely is what I’m doing. You know, this is just 10 minutes of defamation, 70 minutes in dog years. You think it’s fair, Terry? You need to get into another business. That’s right. No, good. This is all going to be fodder for Harper’s magazine, for Dog Fancy magazine, which I know is liberally–there’s liberal publishers of dog fancy. I mean, that thing is like gay porn anyway.
GROSS: Well, Triumph, I really don’t think you’re being fair and I’m going to change the subject.
Triumph: Good, because I’m not going to walk out of this interview.
GROSS: No, good.
Triumph: I’m not going to do that. I’m better than that, but I am going to take a poop right now. I’m going to poop in this studio right now.

Readers are invited to submit the Iraq version of NPR shows in the comments. An undisclosed prize will likely not be awarded. [Note: this post was made before the switch to WordPress — and sadly the import feature didn’t work so the original comments are clumsily copied below.]

Comments

Car Bomb Talk: Join Abdul and Akbar as they take calls from Iraqis and “others” and give advise about choosing the right sort of car for your bombing run and how to make sure it doesn’t break down before you reach the target.

Sunni Home Companion: Join host Gar es-Illon to get the best in Iraqi musical performance and the news from Lake Whatsgoingon.

Posted by: Mike Jones | December 16, 2003 06:13 PM

All Things Censored: During which the hosts give you all the news of the day, after it’s been filtered through the Iraqi Governing Council; the United States Department of Defense; the White House; the State Department; Antonin Scalia; Jerry Falwell; Tom Ridge’s caddy; a cousin of Sen. Pat Roberts whose name, we think, is Willie; Neil Bush’s favorite Thai prostitute; Sean Hannity (the Bush family’s favorite American prostitute); the student senate of Bob Jones University; and that guy that wrote The Bible Code.

Posted by: Terry | December 16, 2003 07:16 PM

Weakened Condition: Various Iraqi pundits discuss the infrastructure of post-war, post-Saddam Iraq. Listeners hear tips on how to live without water, electricity or a job. Puzzle Master Will Shortz gives a weekly clue to the location of those weapons of mass destruction. Juan Williams and Mara Liasson reassure Iraqi listeners that no Democrat will ever again hold a position of power in the United States.

Posted by: Dr. BDH | December 17, 2003 05:09 PM

Free Air: Interviewer Tariq Aziz interviews various interviewees, some of whom walk out.

Talc of the Nation: A game show sponsored by the Iraqi Ministry of Mines, in which contestants from America, England and Spain compete for lucrative mineral rights in-country.

Posted by: Dr. BDH | December 17, 2003 05:50 PM

Missle and Shamrock: Ethnic music from terrorist groups that hate England.

O.K., I’ll stop now.

Posted by: Dr. BDH | December 17, 2003 05:51 PM

WAIT…WAIT…DON’T SHELL ME!

A weekly game show in which contestants are called at random and asked to identify locations of WMDs and/or Saddam loyalists. Losers receive a personalized exploding US Army shell lobbed into their living room by the show’s announcer, Kar el-Kassel.

Posted by: BFDiehl | December 17, 2003 06:26 PM

The Ombudsman – featuring Ahmed Chalabi on their web site answering listener’s questions about ethics.

Posted by: Old Fashioned Patriot | December 17, 2003 07:31 PM

Mourning Edition–in which tens of thousands of family members of those killed by the US occupation explain whether or not the senseless death which surrounds them increses their support of said occupation (here’s a hint–it does not)

Posted by: gazould | December 17, 2003 09:27 PM

Blair sends us this Washington Post article with the most shocking revelation:

The Pentagon has delayed awarding a $100 million contract to run a national Iraqi newspaper and television and radio networks, a result of the U.S. decision last month to transfer political power to an Iraqi government by
July 1. …

U.S. officials, meanwhile, are “in the process of explaining” to members of
the Iraqi Governing Council how they think the news organizations should be
run after July 1, a Defense Department official said. The U.S. officials are
using the BBC and National Public Radio as models for the new government to
follow… [Emphasis added]

What — you mean they’re not using FoxNews and InstaPundit as models? Horror of all horrors! Which reminds us of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog’s appearance on NPR’s Fresh Air:

Triumph: Holy crap. Listen to this. Let me ask you something. I feel like I’m being bombarded here. I know what’s happening here. I know what’s happening here. Did you ask the same questions to Kermit the Frog?

GROSS: Kermit the Frog didn’t do our show.

Triumph: Did you do this…

GROSS: He didn’t do our show.

Triumph: All right. Well, OK. How about when Beethoven did your show? Did you challenge him the way you’re challenging me? Did you ask…

GROSS: It was a different kind of interview.

Triumph: It was a different…

GROSS: It was a different kind of interview.

Triumph: OK. Yeah, I can see what’s going on here.

GROSS: Beethoven’s funny. No, it’s different.

Triumph: Oh, is that right? It’s a satire what Beethoven does. Yes, I’m just–you know, I can’t believe the government is paying for this interview. That’s what I can’t believe, you know? My money that could be going to Pekinese hookers is instead going to this, you know, Public Radio that’s obviously more slanted than my (censored) after I’ve (censored) the St. Bernard. What are we talking about? That’s right.

GROSS: Triumph, I don’t think you’re being fair, and I think if you gave
Public Radio a chance, you wouldn’t feel that way ’cause I think Public Radio
has always been fair to the dog world.

Triumph: I’m trying to give it a chance, but you keep bombarding me. You keep bombarding me. I’m evaluating this interview very closely is what I’m doing. You know, this is just 10 minutes of defamation, 70 minutes in dog years. You think it’s fair, Terry? You need to get into another business. That’s right. No, good. This is all going to be fodder for Harper’s magazine, for Dog Fancy magazine, which I know is liberally–there’s liberal publishers of dog fancy. I mean, that thing is like gay porn anyway.

GROSS: Well, Triumph, I really don’t think you’re being fair and I’m going to
change the subject.

Triumph: Good, because I’m not going to walk out of this interview.

GROSS: No, good.

Triumph: I’m not going to do that. I’m better than that, but I am going to take a poop right now. I’m going to poop in this studio right
now.

Readers are invited to submit the Iraq version of NPR shows in the comments. An undisclosed prize will likely not be awarded.

We promised ourselves we weren’t going to do this again, if only because it’s quite tedious. But today’s dish just makes you want to yell out: How the fuck did Andrew Sullivan come to the conclusion that $75,000/year is appropriate compensation for this bullshit?!?

Sullivan claims two things we find especially preposterous: 1) that he writes “tens of thousands” of words a month for the Daily Dish, with the only compensation for said work coming from reader contributions, and 2) that his blog has “displaced” a lot of his “paid” work.

We’ve offered our thoughts on these points before (here and here.) Someone argued that quoting is part of the blogging enterprise, and we don’t disagree. But when a blog becomes mostly quotes and insipid commentary, frankly we have to ask whether it is reasonable to tell your readers they should give you money. And when these quotes are from Democratic Underground, we have to ask “are you fucking kidding us?” The Daily Dish is the blog that presents itself thusly:

On more than one occasion Andrew’s website has demonstrated a power to move markets, to generate news, to set the terms of debate.

If setting the terms of the debate means getting linked to by Instapundit, then he has a point. Otherwise, just what contribution to the debate is he offering? Andrew isn’t pointing out these things for cheap comedy points (e.g. pulling an Amber Pawlik) — he’s out there writing for an audience that has a “strong following in government, the press, and business, among thinkers and policy-makers.” (Mind you, this is based on a survey that shows a large number of readers in the DC area — an assertion that while plausible remains speculative at best.) [We might go further and point out that a survey based on a self-selected sample is inherently flawed and should not be relied upon, but given that Andrew can’t even accurately report how many readers he has, it would likely all be too much for him.]

All of which is our way of saying that the most recent posts to the DD allow Mr. Sullivan to reach a new low (or is it high?) in the “nice work if you can get it” category, as Bailey the dog pointed out.

Today’s survey says:

Quotes from reader emails: 192 words.
Quotes for whatever award nominee: 306 words.
Quotes from newspaper articles: 291 words.
“Original” content: 256 words.

We’d be willing to bet that SullyWatch (who works mostly for free) posts more original (non recycled) content than Andrew does. Amazingly, he’s also able to make substantive points without quoting anonymous freepers. Yet Sullivan fancies himself the professional writer. Sadly, No!

This holds for our Festivus Caption Contest as well.

After the kind of careful evaluation you would expect from an outfit that runs a contest like this, the judges decided to award the prize to one “Dr. BDH” for entry # 6 (with # 4 a close favorite.) provided s/he contacts the management. Victory was achieved in spite of strong competition from S,N! emotional favorite, s.z. at World O’Crap. In the end however, the judges felt they could not be seen as condoning the kinds of activities with gerbils s.z. seems to be implying. (Besides, we didn’t think she’d give us her address anyway, as we are no Rittenhouse.)

Our thanks to all 5 people who entered, and to the 1,000 Corner readers who saw the contest but whose enly entry (as best we can tell) was a caption “French sign for surrender,” showing the rare comedy skills of NRO readers.