I'm listening to the CNBC replay of this morning's edition of Meet the Press with Howard Dean and the only thing he's said that I can agree with ---and I'm paraphrasing here--- is that the Schiavo Case will prove to be a turning point in how the public regards the Republican Party as a party of individual rights and small government. And that's true. Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum and the other hardline Republicans have gravely harmed the GOP with these flashes of evangelical madness. It still appalls.
As for Howard Dean, he's still an angry little twitch of a man. I wouldn't trust him with a sack of shit.
My Momma accidentally came across this blog the other night ---as she does once or twice a year--- and she said that my foul language is just too hurtful. Or something like that. Well, I agree ---at least about the language I used in my post about Terry Moran and Newsweek. I was just venting, of course, but foul language is no substitute for good writing.
I went and saw Revenge of the Sith Friday night with some friends who had a free pass for me. It was all digital. And it's a pretty good movie, too. Very interesting to see the origins of Darth Vader.
My old friend Jones and I were remembering going to another Star Wars movie some 22 years before ---and in almost the same spot (near Highland Mall here in Austin). But Return of the Jedi was a disappointing commercial of a movie. This one, though, is so visually interesting that it's hard not to like it. And it ties up all the loose ends.
I never bothered to see Attack of the Clones, though. Phantom Menace was such a kids' movie that I figured Clones would be just as bad. Who knows? Maybe I'll look at it some time if it comes on the TV.
As for Revenge of the Sith, you can't not see it if the Star Wars saga is of any interest to you at all. It explains everything that led up to the original movie. Check it out.
Whiny Little Prick
So ABC News correspondent Terry Moran goes crying to Scott McClellan that the White House is putting pressure on Newsweek magazine to explain why they fucked up and how the Koran is actually treated ---by regulation--- by the United States military? What a whiny little prick! Newsweek shouldn't have to be told that their shit reporting has been the trigger to murder and rioting in the streets of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They should own up to what they did when they let Michael Isikoff spread his anti-military propaganda in their pages.
What about journalistic ethics, Terry? What the fuck is this bullshit about the White House "pressuring" the goddamned media? Newsweek published a lie: let them be as conspicuous in copping to that as they were in running with it in the first place.
People who are better with animals than they are with other human beings are sociopaths. At the core of this incontrovertible fact is the issue of control. If you do not have decent social skills or sufficient intellectual capacity, then the easiest relationship to cultivate is one of pure dominance. This is when a sociopath turns on an animal, most conveniently one that he owns and has made dependent upon himself.
When such people start making clothes for their dogs, it's time to withdraw.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 11:18 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Monday, 16 May 2005 11:19 PM CDT
Sunday, 15 May 2005
Appearing Soon in a Memory Hole near You Mood:
don't ask Now Playing: "Maps" by the Yeah Yeah Yeahs
In an obvious cave-in to pressure applied by Chimpy McHalliburton's Rethuglikkkan $torm Troopers, Newsweek magazine is now reporting that they were wrong about the story from Gitmo that our guys are, among other things, flushing the "Holy Koran" down the toilet in order to offend their Muslim prisoners.
I don't care whether that part of the story is true or not. It's not like our personnel would be doing this to rare or valuable copies of the damned thing ---with old annotations or some special provenance--- so what the hell? These things just get replaced.
But the important part of this story of anti-war propaganda is that it's actually caused rioting in the streets of Afghanistan ---leaving more than a dozen dead. That's bad PR ---and something we don't need.
Oh, and can you feel the heat from the usually mild-mannered Glenn Reynolds? He writes of Newsweek:
Two points: (1) If they had wrongly reported the race of a criminal and produced a lynching, they'd feel much worse -- which is why they generally don't report such things, a degree of sensitivity they don't extend to reporting on, you know, minor topics like wars; and (2) If a blogger had made a similar mistake, with similar consequences, we'd be hearing about Big Media's superior fact-checking and layers of editors.
People died, and U.S. military and diplomatic efforts were damaged, because -- let's be clear here -- Newsweek was too anxious to get out a story that would make the Bush Administration and the military look bad.
Yes, but they do regret the violence their lie has occasioned.
Yeah, As a Matter of Fact, They Do Have an Obligation
Charles Johnson posted this picture taken by one of his readers at today's big rally in Washington, D.C. ---sponsored by Free Muslims Against Terrorism.
Something I Wrote at The Left Coaster and Pasted Here Because I'm Too Lazy to Elaborate
I think I'm starting to tease out what you guys are: you're economic isolationists who only go in for multiculturalism if it's not tied to globalization. Do I have that right?
Why don't you go with this some more? Why don't you stand more with those like Hillary who want an end to illegal immigration? She knows that that's a perfect policy to appeal to the disaffected worker in this country who sees his wages depressed by cheap Mexican labor.
We aren't benefited by this huge influx. Not culturally, politically, or economically ---except in the short-term. But the liberal-Leftist view of a borderless world is hallucinatory. You can't argue for protecting the job of the average worker or advocating better health coverage for him if you're also selling him out in the face of this deluge from Latin America.
Too many of you here are griping about the ideological impurity of certain Democratic politicians when you can't even see your own ideological illogic.
America for Americans. Try believing that sometimes.
Time to Quit Smoking That Chronic, Dave Now Playing: "I'm So Tired" by the Beatles
What the hell's going on with Dave Chappelle? Now he's run off to South Africa and the third season of his Comedy Central show's been cancelled?
Get your head out of your ass and get home, Dave. You're a very funny man and you need to share your stuff. So quit smoking that chronic and get it together.
Must See TV Mood:
a-ok Now Playing: "Mull of Kintyre" by Paul McCartney
You'll love this:
A DEFIANT George Galloway is to defend himself before US senators next week in the oil-for-food row, and last night predicted he would "give them hell" when he enters the lions' den.
Their allegations are that he received vouchers for millions of barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein.
The Scottish MP, who dismissed the claims as absurd, told his aides when he heard of an invitation from Washington: "Book the flights, let's go, let's give them both barrels," adding quickly: "That's guns, not oil."
If this actually happens, it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Be especially sure to watch how the American Left associates itself with this dhimmified fuckwad. It will be most instructive.
Getting over It
Anti-Bush liberals and Leftists don't want John Bolton to become this country's ambassador to the United Nations because they value that organization more than they should. They profess concern that Bolton will show the worst possible face to the rest of the world community at the UN; yet, you don't have to probe too deeply into Leftist opinion to find that our country and its leaders are already hated the world over. But most especially at home by these same people who think that Bolton could actually make world opinion worse. Really? Is it possible for a grown-up to believe that Bolton will be so singularly abrasive and belligerent that he will shift the whole paradigm of geopolitical self-interest?
What's happened is that the Left's rhetoric has been so overblown in this instance that they can no longer be taken seriously on this.
John Bolton will be the next American ambassador to the UN. Y'all may as well start getting over it now.
Just got back from voting in the City Council elections. They also had a vote on whether to expand the smoking ban to just about everywhere.
I voted for Margot Clarke because I think she's hot. Don't ask me why. And if I could have voted for that Asian chick, I would have.
I voted against the ban. I have absolutely no problem with banning smoking in restaurants and such, but when it comes to bars and clubs, a smoking ban is plainly ridiculous. When people drink, they smoke. Even people who don't usually smoke will do so if they're also out drinking and having fun.
Too, I voted against the ban because I resent seeing so much money and slickness being spent on abrogating what should be a business owner's decision. Yes, smoking is for suckers and there's no good reason to do it, but people do ---and that's their choice, except insofar as it's an addiction.
Context Is Everything Mood:
As Charles Johnson reports, there will be no court-martial of the young Marine who "double-tapped" the wounded terrorist in that Fallujah mosque last year. As the craphounds at the Associated Press put it:
SAN DIEGO -- A Marine corporal who was videotaped shooting an apparently injured and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque last year will not face a court-martial, the Marine Corps announced Wednesday.
A review of the evidence showed the Marine's actions were "consistent with the established rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict," Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, said in a statement.
Damned straight. Our man had been around the day before when another so-called "injured and unarmed Iraqi" was concealing an IED underneath his own body ---and detonated it, killing one Marine and injuring five others. That had been about a block from the mosque into which these filthy rats had retreated and where NBC reporter Kevin Sites followed our boys when he and his cameraman captured the so-called war crime on tape.
Enough of shit. The vermin who are resisting us in Iraq aren't freedom fighters or Minutemen (as Michael Moore, who is a traitor, characterized them); they are murderers who use their own so-called holy sites as ammo dumps and snipers' redoubts.
Fuck 'em all.
And a good thought goes out to that young Marine and his buddies. Thank you for your bravery and your service to our country. I am, as are all your countrymen, in your debt.
It's Still Sweeps Week, Right? Mood:
suave Now Playing: "Don't Stand So Close to Me" by the Police
I am firmly ---indeed, throbbingly--- opposed to this stupid proposed ban on sexually suggestive dancing by high school cheerleaders and drill team members here in Texas. It is my God-given right as a mammal and a taxpayer to ogle young women half my age as they gyrate in whatever miraculous fashion they so desire.
(Thanks to this website for the lovely picture of the Kilgore Rangerettes.)
Vote Aqui Mood:
irritated Now Playing: "Never Say Never" by Romeo Void
Have some of thiscrap:
Voters would have to bring photo identification to cast a ballot in Texas under a bill that House members are considering, but opponents say the requirement would drive the poor, minorities and disabled from the polls.
You know what? If having to present a government-issued photo ID to an election judge or a poll worker is just too burdensome for you, then maybe you shouldn't vote.
No, I've thought it over some more: don't vote. Just fuck off.
Back in February, Steve Soto of The Left Coaster wrote that
Sure, it would have been better for the incoming Bush Administration to continue what was underway between Seoul, Washington, and Pyongyang when they came into office. And, yes, as a result we have lost four critical years where we could have had inspectors on the ground and controls in place to stop the North from becoming a nuclear player capable now of spreading weapons to terrorists. The responsibility for those developments rests squarely on the heads of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, not Bill Clinton.
This is just incredible nonsense. No, we could not have had any such inspectors or controls ---not if you regard North Korea as a sovereign country and not if you accept the hard fact that Kim had already developed weaponized nuclear capabilities right under the noses of the worthless IAEA inspectors.
But the great do-nothing President of the Deluded Left must be defended at all costs, see.
In December 2002, North Korea kicked the IAEA inspectors out, declaring that they had "restarted" their efforts to extract plutonium.
In January 2003, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In February 2005, Kim announced that he did, in fact, have nuclear weapons.
Are we to believe, as Soto does, that Kim did not already have nuclear weapons prior to these withdrawals and admissions? How can Bill Clinton not be held responsible for the unchecked nuclear developments in North Korea? It was happening on his watch. But because Kim gets noisy on Bush's watch, he somehow gets all the "credit."
In 1994, Clinton sent former President Jimmy Carter to negotiate the so-called Agreed Framework deal with Kim ---basically a large bribe package to keep that nutty kimchi pot from working on more nuclear technology. But it was all a lie: Kim continued to export technology and work on his own missile delivery systems and uranium enrichment activities throughout the 1990s.
And none of it has ever really been suspended. If Kim closes one facility down, he opens another. It's a whole lot of three-card monty which allows Kim to pull the same shit that Saddam used to: blame Uncle Sam, demand more bribes, insist on the peaceful applications of nuclear technology, withdraw from this treaty, criticize that one. It's a joke. As is this other observation from Soto:
What also rests on the head of Bush and Cheney is the fact that while we have 150,000 troops tied down occupying the one member of the Axis of Evil that posed no such threat to us, this administration has allowed the other two members of that Axis to become real threats.
This is a typical criticism of the anti-Bush Left. Typical in that there's no thought invested in it other than what partisan posturing requires. What Soto and his like-minded friends are really saying is that we wouldn't be in danger from Kim if only we had more soldiers and Marines on the DMZ. Really? We don't have enough nuclear cannon fodder in South Korea as it is? What can our infantry do against a Rodong missile carrying a nuclear warhead? Nothing.
I will say it again: there is no politically acceptable military solution to the problem of a nuclearized North Korea. Kim and his cronies must either be brought down in a coup or the country will eventually become such a basket case that a revolution will destroy it. But there is no conventional response we can mount in the face of nuclear weapons.
Of course, if Kim ever succumbs to syphilis, he may very well go out in one last blaze of glory. But will Bush be to blame if we are compelled to vaporize Pyongyang?