Git Carter
I can't remember exactly how the newsreader put it, but as I was listening to NPR this evening, it was reported that British playwright Harold Pinter had won the Nobel for literature ---and the woman says that his prize might be seen as part of the Swedish Academy's growing antipathy towards President Bush and America. This would be because Pinter is very explicit in judging America to be the most reviled society in the history of the world.

Might's ass, you know?

If these socialist rectal thermometers could dig up Che Guevara and hang a medal around his neck, they'd do it with moist eyes and starched pants. They just gave the anti-American Mohammed el-Baradei their little peace prize for no apparent reason, just as they gave the worst President of my lifetime his own medal a few years ago ---as an explicit rebuke to his own country. And the wretched bastard took it, too.

Fuck a bunch of cracker-assed commies. Sweden stopped mattering centuries ago. The Nobel is a concoction of Leftist conceit and self-delusion. Fuck 'em all.

"A Favorable Straw"
Tom Maguire says that this is potentially good news for those hoping that no indictments are handed up to the White House in the Plame Matter:

[...] four senior House Democrats wrote to [special prosecutor] Mr. Fitzgerald in a letter dated Oct. 12, urging him to issue a final report to Congress when he concludes his inquiry. Such a report, they said, should address "all indictments, convictions and any decisions not to prosecute."

The letter was signed by the top Democrats on their respective committees: John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, Judiciary Committee; Jane Harman of California, Intelligence Committee; and Tom Lantos of California, International Relations Committee. The letter was also signed by Rush D. Holt of New Jersey, the senior Democrat on the intelligence panel's policy subcommittee.

A report, the letter said, would assure the public that "the investigation of this serious matter has been undertaken with utmost diligence and has been free of partisan, political influence."

The representatives said Mr. Fitzgerald had the authority to issue such a report under the terms of his appointment as special counsel at the Justice Department.

Are these top Democrats thinking that Fitzgerald's investigation is about to wrap up without any frogmarched architects to show for it? Maybe. But we know that the statutes under which a prosecution might come are either extremely narrow or potentially chilling (see this post from Monday on the latter point). If Fitzgerald declines to prosecute those whom everyone expects will be prosecuted, the conspiracy freaks will absolutely hyperventilate.

There is only one bottom line here: Democrats want to see Karl Rove indicted. That would mean more to them than a dozen Tom DeLays ---whom they regard as merely sleazy--- while Rove's destruction would be metaphysical and spiritually redemptive to these wankers.

Let us hope they are disappointed. I simply cannot bear to see Joe Wilson elevated to the status of cult hero he so desperately craves.

The Worst Metaphor I've Read All Day
Mood:  loud
Over at Eschaton, where I've been contracted by K*** R*** to play a cross between Groucho Marx and an Everlast punching bag, the regulars are always imploring each other to "ignore the trolls." It's a laughably illogical thing to do because it's a wish born dying. Nevertheless, these people cannot help themselves.

Tonight, though, came the following gem which I simply must record here for posterity and the sake of bad writing. Thanks to commenter Quentin Compson, here's an all-time classic:

Please do not feed the retards. Please, I love to watch them die in pools of impotent ignoring.

Psycholinguists, start your engines!

Blithering
Mood:  don't ask
This is what the President of the United States said today in response to a reporter when she asked why the White House has found it necessary to reassure conservatives that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian (emphasis mine, although you can bet it's pretty much his):

People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas. I remind people that Harriet Miers is one of the -- has been rated consistently one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States. She's eminently qualified for the job. And she has got a judicial philosophy that I appreciate; otherwise I wouldn't have named her to the bench, which is -- or nominated her to the bench -- which is that she will not legislate from the bench, but strictly interpret the Constitution.

First ---and last--- of all, this is rank stupidity. When I was thinking about who might make a good Supreme Court nominee, it didn't occur to me that it should be one who meets James Dobson's standards of evangelical purity. If Dick Durbin, who is a traitor, is also a cocksucker for intimating to John Roberts that there might be some question raised about Roberts' Catholicism during his confirmation hearings for the Chief Justiceship, then what does that make your people for suggesting that everybody needs to get behind good old Harriet because she's an evangelical?

That is to say, fuck this crony bullshit. Fuck it with its halo on and fuck it for being ill-considered, unprepared, and supremely disappointing. I don't know who this fucking egomaniacal clown of a minister is, but I wouldn't waste my third bar-piss of the night on the knot in "Doctor" Dobson's tie. Be "assured" of that, you name-dropping, influence-peddling cross-monger. You aren't the arbiter of jack shit outside of your own little Jonestown, so sod off. Hit the bricks. Go sink your putt.

And, Mr. President, I'm going to hold my tongue for you, but you best get your head and your ass wired together and tend to what I voted for you to do: win this war against the towelheads. If you have to pull a Nixon and wander off into the woods of Camp David while we carpet bomb every motherfucking village in al-Anbar, then do it. If you have to go next door and firebomb Damascus, then do it. I didn't vote for you because I like your common touch; I voted for you because I expect you to deliver devastation to the enemies of Civilization. Do it and quit trying to convince people that this choice of yours for the SCOTUS wasn't the enormous fucking disaster we all know it is.

Great Timing
I saw KEYE-TV's Keith Elkins interviewing Jason Earle a while ago and just had to wince. Earle, who is the son of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, has chosen today to formally announce that he will run for Representative in the Texas State Legislature.

Unfortunately for Jason, an hour or so before this interview, his dad got subpoenaed by the lawyers for Tom DeLay.

I don't know what Jason's qualifications are for elective office, but we do know that he has very large balls to be running for the House in Republican-dominated District 47.

Have fun, kid, because that's all you're going to get out of this little trip you're on.

This One's for Jeffrey
Hey, you little son of a bitch! Looks like your favorite team isn't playing the White Sox tonight.

Too bad, you wretched little interferer.

Enjoy.

The Bounds of Silence
Now Playing: that sound FOX uses when a bulletin item comes up on the screen
Professor Reynolds directs our attention to this very interesting Jack Shafer column in Slate in which we face the practical consequences of prosecuting government officials who talk to reporters about any sort of classified subject. If Patrick Fitzgerald is looking to indict Karl Rove and Lewis Libby under the broadest possible anti-espionage law, writes Shafer:

What would the long-term journalistic implications be? For one thing, no Department of Defense, National Security Council, Department of State, or White House staffer with security clearances would ever speak—on or off the record—to any reporter about any sensitive topic. The sheer legal exposure would prove too much. Knowing they're explicitly liable for indictment, they'll just stop talking to reporters.

At which point, the health of the body politic would suffer. I assume that even ignorant assholes (i.e., Democrats who take the Sunday paper) understand the chilling effects of this, too.

Maybe. But, for now, we must endure the farce of anti-Bush Leftists making a show of their concern for the safety of intelligence agents.

Loudmouth Matthews
What is this incredible crap that Chris Matthews is talking on Hardball right now? Is anybody listening to this gibberish? He and Howard Fineman and some fruitbat from Vanity Fair are just the worst cageful of shit-flinging monkeys I've seen in a while.

Get a grip, Matthews. Your boy Joe Wilson isn't any sort of prophet or martyr to the anti-war cause and nobody gives a damn what his opinions of the War for Iraq are.

The FACT is that Wilson was WRONG about the Saddamites' attempts at procuring uranium in Africa ---and the United States Senate as well as an independent governmental inquiry in Britain said so.

Wilson is the single best example I can think of to demonstrate the old totalitarian strategem of repeating a lie often enough until it becomes the truth. Big Media has absolutely misreported what Wilson found out on his Nigerien vacation ---and nobody seems willing to point this out. Why?

Freeh's Interview with Wallace
I enjoyed former FBI director Louis Freeh's interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes tonight. I don't know how much of what Freeh said is true, but I do enjoy seeing a major organ of the liberal media establishment giving in every once in a while to a meaningfully anti-Clinton point of view.

I hope we hear more about Clinton's conversation with Abdullah: did Clinton really hit him up for a donation to the Double-Wide Library Fund? Jeeze. And Clinton declined to go after the plotters of the Khobar Towers atrocity because he was trying to make nice with the mullahs in Iran? That deserves a lot more attention in the Big Media, I think.

My favorite statement from Freeh was that he refused to leave his job until it was no longer possible for Clinton to replace him. That's a remarkable judgement on Clinton's indifference to law enforcement in itself, don't you think?

Eighteenth Inning?!
WTF?!

Oh, man! A certain someone I know must be crawling the walls by now.

Ha, ha. Hang in there, Mary-Bess!

Fisking Steve Soto
Now Playing: "Cold As Ice" by Foreigner
Steve Soto is complaining that CBS News is so timid from the ass-beating they took last year over the infamous Killian Forgeries that they are now taking orders from the White House.

No. Really. Soto begins:

During the flap over Dan Rather’s botched “60 Minutes” story on Bush’s TANG service and the memos used in that story, I had focused my fire on the fact that the Mighty Wurlitzer had never disproved the content of the memos, but managed to kill the story by blasting the sloppiness of CBS News and the composition of the memos themselves. The issue that remained at the end of the day, after the left and the right boomed their fire and fury about the memos, was the issue of how poorly CBS News had performed in putting the story together in the first place.

Soto keeps calling the Killian Forgeries "memos," but they are not. They are forgeries. They are made-up bullshit that never existed as memos in any sense whatsoever.

And Soto persists with the absurdly Ratheresque claim that these phony documents ---which, again, he doesn't actually acknowledge are phony--- are accurate in their substance, even if ---mumble, mumble--- they are, uh, somehow ---mumble, mumble--- fake.

This wasn't about "sloppiness" or poor quality control ---and it still isn't incumbent upon the Bush White House to prove the negative.

Soto continues (all emphases mine):

That story has surfaced again, with tonight’s “60 Minutes” piece on former FBI Director Louis Freeh, wherein Freeh gets to tout his book and allege that Bill Clinton went easy on the Saudis when it came to going after Al Qaeda and those behind the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. Freeh goes so far as to claim that not only did Clinton let the Saudis off the hook, but he put the arm on them at the meeting for a contribution to his presidential library project.

What does Soto mean by saying that "that story has surfaced again"? What do the Killian Forgeries, Dan Rather, and Mary Mapes have to do with the new Freeh book?

Absolutely nothing. But Soto wants to tie them together, anyway, and hopes you don't recognize the illegitimacy of his efforts. He continues:

The issue of media accountability and evenhandedness came up at the end of last week when Howard Kurtz revealed that CBS News, still smarting from the whipping they got from the White House over the TANG memo disaster, had slanted the story so much that they refused to allow a rebuttal to Freeh’s charges in the piece unless it was the president himself who agreed to go on camera, something that “60 Minutes” has never required Bush to do.

I never found any evidence that Kurtz made such an explicit claim. Is Soto the one making the claim that CBS News will only accept Clinton's direct denials of Freeh's claims because of their bad experiences with the Rathergate debacle? That is pretty astounding, if true. Soto goes on:

With pressure building over the last several days for CBS News to provide a balanced piece tonight instead of a piece of GOP propaganda using a man who himself blocked John O’Neill from going after the Saudis, Kurtz reports that morning that “60 Minutes” will allow a rebuttal of sorts tonight in the piece through the addition of a statement from somewhat discredited Clinton national security advisor Sandy “I stuffed the papers in my pants” Berger that will contradict Freeh’s claims. Berger is the less-than-perfect choice for this assignment, and CBS News will probably point this out during the piece.

So, after all this bluster and nonsense, it turns out that CBS News is going to let someone speak on Clinton's behalf after all ---the only problem being that it's a convicted thief and liar who'll be doing it. Well, who's fault is that, Steve? Doesn't the fact that someone is coming on to defend Clinton make any difference?

But what is really troubling about this story, aside from the chutzpah of someone like Freeh accusing anyone else of going easy on the Saudis, is the agenda shown by CBS News in going after Clinton on this story, given that they were ready to air this story tonight without a rebuttal and without talking to anyone who was at the meeting in question. You see, CBS News was ready to air this story tonight on Freeh’s claims, when it turns out that Freeh himself wasn’t even at the meeting wherein he claims that Clinton asked the Saudis for a contribution and went easy on them regarding the Khobar Towers bombing.

But on whose authority are we accepting that fact? How do we know that Mike Wallace didn't make an effort to talk to those guys on camera? I mean, if there were so many witnesses who are so interested in defending Clinton's honor, why can't they come on camera and do so?

And worse yet, Mike Wallace was told that there were at least five people who attended the meeting who could dispute Freeh’s allegations, and he was also told that Freeh wasn’t even at the meeting himself. Yet Wallace, “60 Minutes”, and CBS News were ready to put the smear on Clinton tonight anyway.

What smear? Berger's on deck to say that Freeh's not telling the truth. And the other witnesses are free to come on any venue they want (maybe Madame Couric's program or Air America?) to deny the accusations. There's five of them, after all! And, unlike Jerry Killian, I'll bet they're all alive, too.

This is the kind of media treatment the GOP buys for itself by slapping around CBS News over the TANG disaster. It looks like Andrew Heyward, chief at CBS News, was quite ready to be the White House’s puppet, after getting a hall pass from them in the aftermath of the TANG mess. And had it not been for Kurtz’ piece in Friday’s Post, which was the first time the Clinton camp had even heard that CBS News was ready to run the smear without rebuttal, Heyward was all set to deliver exactly what the White House hoped from its investment.

As I already told Soto, I'm not going to even ask for any evidence that the White House has bought or obtained editorial control over CBS News because we both know it's bullshit, from floor to ceiling.

I've seen more responsible analysis on the walls of pub restrooms.

Not incidentally, here's the link to the Kurtz column from last Friday which Soto references. See if you find anything about the White House paying or pressuring CBS News with regard to this Freeh story.

45-12

A Tenth Circle of Hell
You may not have heard of it before, but there's a tenth circle of Hell for those who make snappy comebacks to something you've written based on a misconstruction of your grammar and/or spelling errors.

(Now, make me a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

*Poof!* You're a peanut butter and jelly sandiwch.

Grrrr....)

Sliders
We've discussed this before, but it's at least as fitting that Joe Wilson or David Corn or even someone in the CIA itself should be indicted for the very alleged outing of Valerie Plame as anyone in the White House.

After all, the CIA itself confirmed to Bob Novak and other reporters that Plame worked for the Company. And it was Wilson who fed background information to Corn ---which almost certainly included his wife's position--- in an effort to get their mutual propaganda ball rolling.

As I warned a few ninnies last night, if Rove is indicted, Joe and Valerie Rosenberg are going to get more attention than they ever dreamed of.

The BBC: A Confirmed Kill
With great thanks to Glenn Reynolds, go have a look at this fantastic post at Sir Humphrey's wherein the BBC are exposed as a bunch of goddamned liars and propagandists for the fashionably al-Qaedist amongst us.

There's no point in trying to explain this blow by blow. Just go and see how the anti-Western Left operates.

This is why the blogosphere exists, friends.

When the Stamp Is Unimpressed (v.2.0)
And what about this:

A day after Bush publicly beseeched skeptical supporters to trust his judgment on [White House counsel Harriet] Miers, a succession of prominent conservative leaders told his representatives that they did not. Over the course of several hours of sometimes testy exchanges, the dissenters complained that Miers was an unknown quantity with a thin r?sum? and that her selection -- Bush called her "the best person I could find" -- was a betrayal of years of struggle to move the court to the right.

At one point in the first of the two off-the-record sessions, according to several people in the room, White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism." Irate participants erupted and demanded that he take it back. Gillespie later said he did not mean to accuse anyone in the room but "was talking more broadly" about criticism of Miers.

Laugh if you must, but the saddest part of this is that a woman as accomplished as Harriet Miers should be thought of as unqualified for anything. I am sure she is a very disciplined, competent, and shrewd woman who deserves better than this. I just hate the way Bush has sold this. He and his allies are so tin-eared that they don't even recognize how foolish they sound in guaranteeing her conservative bona fides.

The Supreme Court is a curiously regarded part of our system of government. It is often reviled, but maybe just as often revered. It makes and breaks the greatest issues of our times. And it is not to be trifled with. That is a lesson learned by Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Bush the Younger, I believe, will learn this, too.

When the Stamp Is Unimpressed
I found this a curious story:

WASHINGTON — A prosecutor tried to persuade a grand jury that Rep. Tom DeLay tacitly approved illegal use of campaign money and became angry when jurors decided against an indictment, according to two people directly familiar with the proceeding.

"The mood was unpleasant," one person said Wednesday, describing Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle's reaction.

The people familiar with the proceeding insisted on anonymity because of grand jury secrecy.

I don't know. Does this mean that Earle will now be obligated to investigate the grand jury or his own office?

One person said the sole evidence Earle presented to the grand jury that declined to indict was a DeLay interview with the prosecutor in August. DeLay reportedly said he was generally aware of activities of his associates.

The person said Earle tried to convince the jurors that if DeLay "didn't say, 'Stop it,' he gave his tacit approval."

Oh, well. The Democrats never wanted DeLay like they want Karl Rove. Maybe they'll get their Christmas presents early this year. Some say tomorrow.

Let's have it. Let's have it out.

From the Archives of The Daily Texan: The Red River Shoot-Out to Relocate?
Now Playing: originally published 11 August 1993
I was looking through the online archives of The Daily Texan for the following story and lucked out finding it. I won't vouch for the fidelity of the text to what was actually published because I see that there are a lot of mistakes in other columns of mine archived at the site linked above. (And, so, I have fixed a few typographical errors.)

Nevertheless, the following column has particular relevance to recent word that the University of Texas and Oklahoma University are possibly looking into rotating their annual showdown between Norman and Austin ---leaving Dallas and the Texas State Fair out of it all together.

My opinion of this has not changed:

Last week, the Daily Texan reported that a group from Oklahoma wishes to change the venue for the annual football classic between the universities of Texas and Oklahoma. The so-called Sooner Chamber of Commerce is attempting to have the game played in Austin and Norman alternately. But let's have none of that.

The reason this group wants to switch sites is so that the money spent in Dallas each year (estimated to be $15 million to $20 million) can be spent instead in each of our towns. But, to be frank, there's no way that that kind of revenue could be generated in Norman (and probably not here, either). Furthermore, I can think of entire countries with whom I would rather do battle over trade issues than the City of Dallas and its various chambers of commerce. If the proposed change were argued from a position of genuine viability, one might agree to it. But, Dallas ---with its hotel space, nightlife and familiarity with unruly mobs--- is the logical spot for such a big event. The "Battle on the Red River" is so firmly ensconced in Dallas that only a godless commie would try to move it. Not that we're talking about the removal of the papal seat from Rome to Avignon, but surely tradition holds some sway.

Our two universities have been meeting this way in Dallas since 1929. The fact that the Sooner Chamber of Commerce is in a recessionary mindset hardly justifies such a break with tradition. The curiously named director of the Chamber, Elmer "E.Z." Million, has suggested that "even if the Board of Regents doesn't support the proposition, the Legislature will mandate that the game go on a home-to-home basis." This sounds particularly meddlesome. If the controlling body of Oklahoma University wouldn't agree to the change, then what is Elmer up to? Surely he can find something else to take over the heads of OU's officials.

Part of what makes the "Texas-OU Weekend" so famous is that it inspires a pilgrimage of debauchery that draws the opposing schools and their fans into neutral territory: Dallas and the Cotton Bowl. It provides a chance for both schools to go on the road and have an inordinately good time. Indeed, for some, the game is just an excuse to get up to Dallas and be decadent. Besides, neither of our schools wants to be responsible for all the shenanigans and brouhahas that the other would inevitably engage in on our campuses. It is best that we leave that burden with the folks who know all about it.

Considering that Oklahoma has historically recruited such a disproportionate share of its athletes from this side of the border, it could at least show some gratitude by leaving well enough alone. By playing us each year in Dallas, Oklahoma is, in effect, paying homage to the wellspring of its talent.

Rather than throwing out a 64-year-old tradition, let's stand firm and insist that the game stay in Dallas. Maybe neither of our towns is benefiting from the dollars generated by the "Texas-OU Weekend" ---but that shouldn't be the deciding factor when it comes to sportsmanship and memories.

Yes, to answer your inevitable question, it is nauseating to read something you wrote in your early 20s. But I had been thinking about this column lately and wanted to share it with the class.

The Earle of (Ham) Sandwiches
Now Playing: "Lost in the Supermarket" by the Clash
Contrary to what some people I argue with believe, I am not obligated to like or support Tom DeLay. But, however much of an asshole he is (and, oh, is he ever one), I think people who wish to be intellectually honest should question why the Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is grand jury-shopping:

A Travis County grand jury last week refused to indict former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as prosecutors raced to salvage their felony case against the Sugar Land Republican.

In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.

Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.

Earle's statement on Tuesday said he took money-laundering and conspiracy charges to a third grand jury on Monday after prosecutors learned of new evidence over the weekend.

I think this case is going to collapse faster than me sitting down on a breakaway chair. What fucking flimsiness.

It's unclear whether those grand jurors refused to indict DeLay on money-laundering charges, a first-degree felony, because of the evidence or because it was given to them on the last day of their 90-day term.

Earle did not say in his statement what new evidence surfaced over the weekend. White, who said he doubts the evidence exists, challenged Earle to reveal it. Prosecutors also called [District Judge Mike] Lynch's grand jurors over the weekend to poll them on how they would have voted on money-laundering charges if they had been given the chance.

Then prosecutors tried again Monday with a new grand jury.

When Monday's grand jury, impaneled by District Judge Brenda Kennedy, a Democrat, reported for its first day, Earle was there to ask them to indict the second most powerful Texan in Washington.

About four hours later, the new felony indictments were returned.

Tools.

Slowly Shaking My Head
Now Playing: "The Closer I Get to You" by Roberta Flack and Donny Hathaway
President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers continues not only to baffle the hell out of me, but also to annoy me.

No matter what the causes or effects of this nomination are, we already know that Miers is neither a well-known Constitutional scholar nor a highly-regarded jurist. We have plenty of those of every color, gender, and ideological affiliation ---but she is not one of them.

Instead, she is someone whom the President knows and trusts very well. Which is important and necessary in its own context. But to say that she will approach her duties as a strict constructionist and that she is the best person for the job he could find and that we just have to get to know her to realize how able she would be on the Supreme Court of the United States is to say that her ass is the property of the man who puts her on that bench. And that is not judicial independence. That does not in any way meet the standard that we should expect of our highest court.

Okay, so a lot of our Justices over the centuries have not been judges first. Which, I will accept, is something that might give the Supreme Court a more ideologically diverse character than if it only consisted of graduates from the appellate cloisters. But this nomination smacks of cronyism in a very big way and I will not support it unless, somehow, Miss Miers just comes out and impresses the hell out of me.

So, for the first time in a long time, the confirmation hearings for a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States will prove valuable. We should at least be glad of that.