Fisking Parker.

Travis at SN! has an outstanding smackdown of Kathleen Parker's version of "the liberal media doesn't care about white victims" piece.

Oy.

Yesterday, I see Andrew Sullivan linked approvingly to not only Hanson but to Putz.

Andrew has linked to us a couple times, and I do think his contributions on torture, on the GOP's theocratic impulses, and his willingness to take on the crazies on the right are commendable.

But oy.

Glenn Reynolds thinks Brian Williams and Brit Hume are like Tokyo Rose.

Yet another "stab in the back":

...the Japanese psychological warfare effort during World War II included radio broadcasts that could be picked up by American troops. Popular music was played, but the commentary (by one of several English speaking Japanese women) always hammered away on the same points;

1 Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.
2 This war is illegal.
3 You cannot win the war.

The troops are perplexed and somewhat amused that their own media is now sending out this message.

I've never heard Fox or NBC call Bush a liar or assert that the war is illegal. On the other hand, I did see William F. Buckley claim the war is lost -- so maybe that's what they're talking about.

Hanson.

I can't decide what the putziest thing about the latest Hanson is, in which he makes the following startling discoveries:

1) The Bush Administration is condescending and has nothing but contempt for critics.
2) If it weren't for that pesky oil the Middle East would be no problem.
3) That "it’s a good idea to...never gratuitously, maliciously, or unfairly personally attack anyone."

Here's what Hanson wrote about former President Carter last September:

"In his dotage, Carter is proving once again that he is as malicious and mean-spirited a public figure as he is historically ignorant. And for all his sanctimonious Christian veneer, and fly-fishing, ‘aw shucks blue-jeans image, he can’t hide an essentially ungracious and unkind soul. . ."

No one does self parody like Hanson.

Pantload

GOLDBERG: And you know, but I do think that what Cheney has learned after a lifetime in Washington as a power player, is that the person who holds the secrets has power. And he is using that for what I would say, or probably what he believes to be certainly good ends. A lot of people disagree on that, but he's trying to do best as he can and he sees holding onto power as a tool to do that.

That, of course, is the defining mentality of the Authoritarian Mind, captured in its purest essence by Jonah. Our Leaders are Good and want to protect us. Therefore, we must accept -- and even be grateful -- when they prevent us from knowing what they are doing. The less we know, the more powerful our Leaders are. And that is something we accept and celebrate, for our Leaders are Good and we trust that the more powerful they are, the better we all shall be.

Indeed.

BTW, the guy who wrote that has a book out.

Dribbling absurdists.

Digby calls last night's debate for Obama, and makes a funny.

But she doesn't speak for most conservatives.

Mmm-hmm.

(h/t Sullivan)

Heh.

What We Call the News
|Funny Jokes at JibJab

Have You Forgotten?

Speaking at the Naval War College, Bush gave a progress report on "the surge." He told the audience:

Let me begin with Anbar province. You can see here on the map, Anbar is a largely Sunni province that accounts for nearly a third of Iraqi territory. It's a big place. Anbar stretches from the outskirts of Baghdad to Iraq's borders with Jordan and Syria. It was al Qaeda's chief base of operations in Iraq. Remember, when I mention al Qaeda, they're the ones who attacked the United States of America and killed nearly 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001. They're part of the enemy. They're extremists and radicals who try to impose their view on the world.

The punchline is that, at the beginning of his address, Bush referred to his audience as "the best and brightest of the United States military." And yet he inexcusably treated them like utter feebs.

Day laborers.

Another nail in the coffin of Putz's "no one was really mad at the immigrants just the politicians'" meme courtesy of K-Lo. (h/t Atrios)

I don't blame any American for wondering. Did you see the NYTimes picture of the illegal immigrants immigration-bill proponents brought to the Senate??

As a Senate friend said to me about it: "all they did was remind people what the problem is. These guys aren’t living in the shadows—they’re walking around unabated in the United States Capitol. Why, if you’re trying to make the case for amnesty, would you remind people of the local 7-11, where you sometimes can’t get to your car for all the day laborers? Dumb, dumb move."

Sure doesn't sound like it's directed at Trent Lott, does it?

Why So Coy, Peggy?

Peggy Noonan:

It happens that I know how my grandfather's sister Mary Jane became an American. She left a paper trail. She kept a common-place book, a sort of diary with clippings and mementos. She kept it throughout the 1920s, when she was still new here. I found it after she'd died. It's a big brown book with cardboard covers and delicate pages. In the front, in the first half, there are newspaper clippings about events in Ireland, and sentimental poems. "I am going back to Glenties..."

But about halfway through, the content changes. There is a newspaper clipping about something called "Thanksgiving." There are newspaper photos of parades down Fifth Avenue. And suddenly, near the end, there are patriotic poems. One had this refrain: "So it's home again and home again, America for me./ My heart is turning home again, and there I long to be./ In the land of youth and freedom beyond the ocean bars/ Where the air is full of sunlight, and the flag is full of stars."

Years later, when I worked for Ronald Reagan, those words found their way into one of his speeches, a nod from me to someone who'd made her decision, cast her lot, and changed my life.

I think I remember the last time I told that story. I think it was to a young Mexican-American woman who was a speechwriter for Bill Clinton. I think she completely understood.

Who is this former speechwriter? It's probably Carolyn Curiel, who is on the editorial board of The New York Times.

That Noonan didn't find it necessary to say so is baffling. Any theories?

This is what Glenn Reynolds' readers sound like.

So Putz sicced his readers on his Mother Jones interview neck rub. They didn't like all of the mean things the intolerant lefties were saying about him in comments, so they responded. This was very useful because Putz doesn't allow comments -- so now we know what they'd sound like if he did.

Here's a sampling:

Wow, what a bunch of pussies MoJo readers are!

Wow, even for the wacko left, these posters are serious idiots

Yup - the left is still full of self-righteous blithering morons

Truly a disgusting, inaccurate, unsophisticated, childish performance. "thinly-veiled shill for the GOP" -paul Hey, pal, sane people ARE shills for the GOP.

Comments like the ones here make me proud to be a Republican, and proud to have voted for Bush.

The rest are mostly self-righteous concern trolls of the, "it's sad you can't tolerate another point of view" variety. Blah blah blah. But it's just amazing that these people seem totally baffled by the anger directed at their beloved Pundit and don't get the following:

1. Reynolds calls "the left" traitors on a regular basis;
2. People who read Mother Jones tend to be on the left; and,
   
3. People don't like being called traitors.

A good number of the posts object to a comment accusing Putz of being a "racist."

Now, I have no idea if Putz is a racist or not, but this is a guy who thinks its funny to misapply the term "civil rights" to guns, played Katrina for laughs, has very strange taste in t-shirts, and, it should be pointed out -- has accused those opposed to the war in Iraq of racism.

Whether he is a bigot or not, it certainly wouldn't be impossible for someone to get that impression, and as he's made the same accusation against others, he's certainly not above such charges himself.

Thanks, Mother Jones, for giving us a glimpse of how Putz's readers think.

Joined at the Hip

What I've done is going to be puzzled over and studied and followed... forever. -- John Doe

Yes, I may be at 30 percent in the polls, but in 20 or 30 years, they’ll appreciate what I’ve done. -- President Bush

Why Don Surber Sucks

"God bless, Lee Greenwood."

Dean Barnett: still an idiot.

Our boy DB on the Edwards/Coulter confrontation:

For what it’s worth, I don’t claim to be an aficionado of arcane Hardball facts, but until yesterday I was not aware it was a call-in show. If I knew it was, I would have called in many times in the past to offer Chris Matthews some constructive criticism, e.g. limit yourself to 20 Red Bulls a day.

How did Elizabeth Edwards have a call in number handy when to the rest of the viewing public’s knowledge no such number existed? A cynical individual might conclude that there was nothing spontaneous about Ms. Edwards’ outrage whatsoever, and that the whole incident was big set-up co-hatched by the creative minds at Hardball and the Edwards Campaign.

Yeah, that's it! A big setup hatched by those liberals at MSNBC to make Ann Coulter look bad!

Only here's what really happened.

So how did the Ann Coulter/Elizabeth Edwards confrontation happen? Before Tuesday‘s HARDBALL appearance, MSNBC promoted that viewer comments and questions would be part of the program.

TAMMY HADDAD, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, HARDBALL: The Edwards campaign called to ask if it was possible that Elizabeth could talk to Ann Coulter live on the air, and we told them yes.

SHUSTER: In turn, Haddad had a conversation with Coulter.

HADDAD: I talked to Ann before the show and told her that we had gotten a call from the Edwards campaign and that Elizabeth might call in. And she was fine with it.

Barnett goes on to say that Edwards was "hiding behind his wife's apron-strings." He's just bitter that Edwards is absolutely flattening Hew's candidate, the Mittster, in every objective poll.

Way to Go, Jeff!

On many questions involving federalism, Roberts's views resemble those of Rehnquist rather than O'Connor, and, in this sense, he would not change the balance of the Court. And, in other areas of concern to liberals--such as his willingness to uphold precedents with which he disagrees--Roberts may turn out to be more concerned about judicial stability and humility than either Rehnquist or O'Connor, which suggests he might even move the Court to the left.

-- Jeffrey Rosen, 9/12/05

This term, Chief Justice John Roberts fully agreed with Justice Samuel Alito in 92 percent of the nonunanimous Supreme Court cases in which he voted. His rate of total agreement was 89 percent with Justice Antonin Scalia and 85 percent with Justice Clarence Thomas. (The stats are courtesy of the good folks at Scotusblog.) Any hope liberals and moderates had that the Roberts court would be modest in its ambition were dashed this week with the parade of 5-4 decisions (conservatives win, liberal-moderates lose). Roberts wrote today's decision to scrap two school-district plans that took race into account in sorting students among different public schools. Earlier this week, he wrote opinions that cut back on students' free-speech rights and gutted key provisions of McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform. He has also been part of the five-justice majority that upheld the federal "partial-birth" abortion law, told Keith Bowles that he could not appeal his death sentence because he'd filed a day late—based on the say-so of a federal judge—and precluded Lilly Ledbetter from suing for discrimination because she waited too long to bring suit, never mind that her low pay was ongoing.

All of which is to say that John Roberts is proving to be an extremely conservative chief justice.

-- Emily Bazelon, today

Dignity.

Also: um, ouch.

Lessons in Civility

If the Left is the party of love and compassion, how come so many of them are such assholes?

-- Jay Nordlinger, National Review Managing Editor

Racism.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), disputing Putz:

"There's racism in this debate. Nobody likes to talk about it, but a very small percentage of people involved in this debate really have racial and bigoted remarks. The tone that we create around these debates, whether it be rhetoric in a union hall or rhetoric on talk radio, it can take people who are on the fence and push them over emotionally."

Why is WP.com Running Ads for NewsMax?

(click to enlarge)

Nice.

...Newsmax isn't just any conservative magazine. It's one willing to go where even The American Spectator wouldn't. Since its launch in 1998, Newsmax has become a juggernaut of over-the-top tabloid reporting and commentary focusing obsessively on the Clinton scandals. The brainchild of Christopher Ruddy, a former reporter at Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review who specializes in Vince Foster conspiracy theories, Newsmax has built a vast audience by publishing virtually any allegation.

I realize the Post is hurting, but come on -- how much did Newsmax pony up for the soul of such an august paper?

Rick Moran is not very bright.

Over at Right Wing Nuthouse, Rick Moran says all of this "stabbed in the back" talk from the left is a devious device to "deflect attention" from their dastardly campaign to undermine "the morale of the American people."

Really.

What I and I hope other conservatives will blame the left for is a deliberate, coordinated effort to undermine the confidence of the American people in the war by carrying out a campaign of personal destruction against President Bush while positing several crazy, paranoid conspiracy theories of their own.

Wait a minute. All of that sounds exactly like "stabbed in the back" doesn't it?

So yes, blame Bush and his people for what they should be blamed for; the incompetent prosecution of an ill-planned war. But if blaming the left for deliberately seeking to break the will of the American people to carry on the struggle to at least the point we could leave behind some semblance of a viable Iraqi state means that I will be called a back stabber, allow me to coin a phrase: Bring It On.

So apparently, Moran objects to the left calling him a "back stabber" even though:

1. no one on the left is doing so and while;
2. he accuses the left of conspiring to undermine the war effort, or, to put it another way --- stabbing the Commander in Chief and the troops in the back, thereby;
3. validating the left's accusations that the right is using a "stabbed in the back" meme to rationalize the loss of the war.

Priceless.

Der Dolchstoss, redux.

Here we go again:

JUST BACK FROM IRAQ, J.D. JOHANNES HAS A COLUMN ON RICHARD LUGAR: "Is it possible to win a war on the ground, and lose it in Congress?"

No.

People do seem to like Bill.

After Rudy! bashes Clinton for not invading someone after the '93 WTC bombing, John Cole offers some helpful advice to the GOP field:

ATTN: Republican Candidates
The President you want to attack to help yourselves in the polls is named BUSH, not Clinton.

As Atrios would say: na ga ha-ppen.

Because it's always someone else's fault.

With the Putz and the rest of the Bushies like Austin Bay, Iraq is always someone else's fault. Always. Never the Great Leader's. Never Don Rumsfeld's or Dick Cheney's. Never the inherent screwed-upness of the mission itself.

No, it's the fault of the Democrats, the media...now it's our elections.

COMPETING CLOCKS ON IRAQ: "the military clock in Baghdad, the Iraqi government clock, and the US political clock in Washington." Biggest strategic bind: "the U.S. political cycle."

We've been taking casualties in Iraq longer than we did in World War I, World War II and Korea. But it's our "political cycle" that will keep us from achieving the Great Victory.

Mmm-hmm.

Just a Reminder

From yesterday's Rasmussen:

This week’s GOP poll also finds former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney earning 12% support and Arizona Senator John McCain attracting 11%. Romney is viewed favorably by 56% of Republicans nationwide and McCain is viewed favorably by just 55% (40% have an unfavorable view of the former frontrunner).

The day before the numbers were released, Dean Barnett wrote, "John McCain had no chance in this race, and the polls were right all along – at no point was he actually the frontrunner."

Quite tellingly, Mr. Barnett's hasn't mention his man Mitt -- who has damn near identical numbers -- since then. Has Dean realized that his characterization of McCain might also apply to Double Gitmo Dog Torturer? (via Atrios)

That would be disheartening, yes?

Townhall Putziness.

Scott at World O' Crap dug up this little Dennis Prager turd about the white victims of the PC liberal media Duke lacrosse players hilariously titled "The rape of a name is also a rape":

The rape of a name can be as vicious a crime and as destructive an act as the rape of a body. Sometimes the rape of a body is worse, sometimes the rape of a name is worse.

Retorts Scott:

Yes, nothing is sadder than a name huddled on a gurney in the ER with a black eye, a broken collarbone, and severe vaginal tearing. A body, on the other hand, pretty much deserves what it gets for wearing provocative clothes and being corporeal.

Hehindeedy.

'08: Dems beating Republicans.

Barack and Hillary are beating everyone. And scroll down and look how Pretty Boy Edwards is thrashing K-Lo's boy Willard.

I wonder if it will ever occur to Putz and Hew and the rest of the Victory Caucusers that invading Iraq then waiting around for the pony was a really, really bad idea.

Nah.

Pajamas Putziness.

One of our favorite neocons, Claudia Rosett, is ticked off that Tony Blair is going to be the new "Peace Envoy" to the Middle East. But it's not what you think.

She's not upset that it's Tony Blair -- he supported her war after all. She's just pissed that his title has the word "peace" in it.

If Tony Blair is to be dispatched to tread the diplomatic routes of the region, let’s arm him (whether he likes it or not) with a title that might at least suggest there are limits to the threats and attacks that we will tolerate. Call him Tony Blair, “War Envoy” to the Middle East.

Yeah, that will make all the difference, Claudia. We need to show those A-rabs we mean bidness.

And you know, now that I think about it, we should rename everything to put "War" in the title. The Nobel Committee can give out a Nobel War Prize. And Robert Gates can be Secretary of War -- just like the good old days.

Oh, and that neocon think tank you work for -- the Foundation for Defense of Democracies? Let's call it the Foundation for Democracies' Wars.

Much better.

Dear Dean Barnett: It's called the Google.

Dean, over at Hew Hughitt's place, writes:

62% of the kids [polled by the NYT] would opt for the socialist experiment of a single payer system. In a way, I guess this is good. I think it was Churchill who said “If you’re not a communist when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re still a communist when you’re old, you have no brain.”

Speaking of having no brain...Churchill never said that.

Dr. Helen accuses The New Republic of deleting comments to make Ann Althouse look bad.

Dr. Mrs. Putz, weighing in a little late on the Althouse/Orr dustup, writes:

What I love is the comment section at TNR where almost all of the comments are supportive of Orr--and there are almost no comments supportive of Prof Althouse--except Prof Althouse. Looks fishy to me--I wonder if Orr's elitism extends to editing out comments that disagree with his position?

Now what does Ockham's Razor tell you is more likely?

1) That Christopher Orr went through and deleted every comment that he found disagreeable or;
2) That most TNR readers think Althouse's "onion rings" post -- and subsequent hysterical defense of said post -- was batshit crazy.

I'm gonna go with 2, but that's just me.

"Every talented writer is entitled to be a bore on at least one subject..."

-- Ross Douthat, on why he deserves a wingnut sinecure

"A Tragic Legacy."

Glenn Greenwald's book is up to #13 at Amazon. For good reason.

The GOP base does amuse.

(GOP): Lose two wars?
(Wingnut Base): No problem.

Shred the Constitution?
We're good.

Fuse Christianity and government?
You betcha.

Let a mid-size US city drown?
Yawn.

Corrupt the political system and get sent to prison?
Big yawn.

Demonize the gays?
Good.

Expose a CIA agent?
Yeah right.

Illegally imprison and torture people?
Fine.

Lose both houses of Congress?
Hey, win some. Lose some.

Politicize the justice department?
Whateva.

Let the brown people in?
THAT'S IT -- I'LL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN EVER AGAIN!!!!!!!

Nah, there's no anger directed at immigrants.

Putz's gal the anchor baby Michelle Malkin is encouring her wingnut followers to send this to the RNC.



Note the repetition of the word "illegals." The scary shadowy dark unwashed masses, overrunning the country with their filfthy children. The idea that the US government is "catering" to these unworthy law breakers. The "La Raza" sticker above "Pesos."

Nah, no anger or animosity directed at Mexicans at all. That's all for Trent Lott!

BTW, can anyone make out what's in that small circle near W?

Glenn Reynolds and El-Rusbo: ideological soulmates.

This speaks volumes (TS also posted below).

R.I.P. G.O.P.: Out in the car I heard a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh talking about the immigration bill moving forward. I think the Republicans' situation is looking pretty grim, and I wonder, what impels them to make such a self-destructive
move? Limbaugh was wondering too.

Just think about this for a minute. Limbaugh's audience is the far-right base of the GOP. And Putz not only listens to Limbaugh, but he agrees that the Senate Republicans, because they're apparently not calling for the mass deportation of 12,000,000 people -- are somehow "self-destructive."

Later, the nonpartisan wonders:

WHAT SHOULD REPUBLICANS DO as the GOP seems to be committing suicide? I dunno -- saving the GOP isn't my job, and if the Democrats weren't worse on national security I wouldn't mind much. (And the GOP advantage there seems to be shrinking anyway).

But you've got three basic choices: Exit, voice, and loyalty. That is, quit, bitch like hell, or hold your nose and vote.

Problem is, people have been exercising "voice" a lot and it's clear that President Bush, Trent Lott, et al., don't care and aren't listening. So if you don't want to hold your nose, you've got to exit, either to a third party, to a GOP candidate you like, or to another engagement on Election Day -- go fishing, perhaps? I think the GOP's vulnerability to a third party challenge has just gone way up.

Where to begin?

First, the Republicans' advantage on national security isn't "shrinking" --- it's gone, dead, ruined for a generation. That's what happens when you lose two wars. The only people who think the Democrats are "worse" are the Bush dead-enders, the 26-percenters -- like Putz and Limbaugh. No one cares what they think except themselves.

Second, why is that when Republicans buck their base, they are "committing suicide" but when Democrats actually listen to theirs (see Lamont, Ned), it's "damaging" to them?

Regarding the Whereabouts of BTC News

BTC News proprietor Weldon Berger sends along this note:

The site developed a massive technical glitch that had it eating up hosting resources to the point where the hosting service shut it down and I couldn't figure out what was causing the problem. I'm in the process of revamping it now, and hopefully it'll be ok. I essentially nuked it, and now I have to redesign it, but for the moment it's back up and running.

Sit tight. The Crow we know and love, that greenish slayer of Hitchens and Dickerson, will be back soon. As Betty herself says: If it says 'news,' it must be true.

If Only

Things Fall Apart (Updated!)

"Sacrifice"

Putz:

AN ARMORED SUPER-HUMVEE: Armor's nice, but there's a big sacrifice in cost and mobility to up-armoring everything.

Only someone who considers constant casualties "background noise" could be so cavalier.

It's weird that Putz employs the word sacrifice to describe the monetary burden of protecting our soldiers -- which, thus far, hasn't cost Americans jack shit -- but not their needless deaths.

Pajamas Putziness.

Looks like Dr. Mrs. Putz has a new Pajamas Media column, "Ask Dr. Helen." Her first column today purports to answer the question, "What kinds of things should an adult be able to do?"

Dr. Mrs. Putz's list:

Drive a stick shift
Er, okay.

Be able to swim a reasonable distance
Is "reasonable distance" really necessary here?

Surf the web and answer an email
Sure.

Understand and be able to use a basic handgun
WTF?

From emails to packing heat. I sense a political agenda, don't you? Probably not surprising, since, if you recall, Dr. Mrs. Putz hearts Tom DeLay.

She'll fit right in at Pajamas.

Baby Steps, BT.

Sure, Putz's plan leaves a lot to be desired, but it's still better than this, right?

3. What should the U.S. do in Iraq now?

Win.

Or perhaps not. It's looney tunes, but you gotta admit it's pithy.

Putz has a cunning plan!

Now why didn't Gen. Petraeus think of this?

535 COMMANDERS-IN-CHIEF: Now it's Richard Lugar calling for a new strategy. Maybe we could do something to stop Iranian troops entering Iraq? I don't think he has anything so useful in mind, though.

And maybe, after we secure that Iranian border, we can invent a teleportation device that can read the minds of everyone in Iraq and selectively beams all the insurgents terrorists who want to attack us to Gitmo, where they can be reformed by another device that will covert them into happy country club Lutherans.

I doubt we'll do something so useful, though.

Glenn Greenwald: "A Tragic Legacy"

Glenn Greenwald's new book is now available. Here's two good reasons to go buy it and make it a best seller:

1) It's Greenwald, so it'll be good.
2) It will really piss off Putz.

Cheers,

Blue Texan

Proof that least 50 high school students are more principled than Glenn Reynolds.

Alas, you'll never see the likes of this from the law professor.

President Bush was presented with a letter Monday signed by 50 high school seniors in the Presidential Scholars program urging a halt to "violations of the human rights" of terror suspects held by the United States.
...

The handwritten letter said the students "believe we have a responsibility to voice our convictions."

"We do not want America to represent torture. We urge you to do all in your power to stop violations of the human rights of detainees, to cease illegal renditions, and to apply the Geneva Convention to all detainees, including those designated enemy combatants," the letter said.

Meanwhile, Putz is breaking the big news that terrorists torture people.

Pajamas Putziness.

Someone get Dick Miniter an editor. Stat!

In today’s Sunday Times of London, I am breaking some distrubing [sic] news about Iran’s role in the insurgency in Iraq and about the CIA purported failure to warn our British allies about a plot to shot [sic] down their helicopters.

A messy start, but it's nice to see Dick actually acknowledging that there's a real insurgency in Iraq and it's not just the creation of the liberal media.

They succeeded, unfortunately. Minutes after take off, a Royal Navy Lynx helicopter was struck by a missile. The burning chopper plunged with [sic] a comet, smashing into a concrete house in shiite [sic] neighborhood in Basra.

Getting hit with a missile sounds bad enough. But "plunging with a comet"? How the hell did the insurgents manage that?

Informants, telephone intercepts and missile parts proved that Iran supplied the “insurgents” with an SA-15, a post-Soviet sophisticated surface-to-air shoulder-fired missile system.

D'oh! In just a few sentences, Dick has downgraded the insurgency with sarcastic quotes. Because, as everyone knows, that word is just PC liberal spin. They're all terrorists.

Dick needs to hire an editor to catch this stuff, lest he help the terrorists win the war of words. It's understandable how he could miss these details -- he's a very busy man.

I actually disagree with Atrios on this one.

Quoth Duncan:

As a couple of people have suggested in comments here and at MY's place, it appears that the lunatic foreign policy provisions of Adam Yoshida, prime proponent of the "keep smashing the hornet's nest with a baseball bat while liberally dosing it with insecticide until the pony appears" theory of foreign relations, have now been thoroughly mainstreamed in the guise of the Very Serious Roger Cohen.

If anyone should be annointed the dean of the smash-the-hornet's-nest-wait-for-the-pony school of foreign policy, it's Putz.

Recycling Hitchens

Putz:

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS on why it's stupid to try to satisfy Angry Muslims: "Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do."

Very clever! Come to think of it, this might actually be a useful template...

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS on why it's stupid to try to satisfy Angry Muslims wingnuts: "Rage Boy Michelle Malkin keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy Michelle Malkin, and that I am not prepared to do."

Wow. All this time I thought Hitchens was a raving jackass. All he needed, apparently, was a better editor.

Please, Powerline, Don't Never Change

Photo by Ann Althouse

Assrocket et al sure knows how to treat their readers like idiots:

We went to what was advertised as An Evening with Stephen Stills at the Pantages Theater downtown Minneapolis on Saturday evening. The show was divided into two halves...

No shit?

On a more serious note, I could use the assistance of InstaPutz readers. What has a more detumescent effect, the prospect of a Golden Girls orgy or this?

As we left the show and walked out onto the street in front of the theater, we found lesbians on parade celebrating GLBT Pride. The signs largely proclaimed "I Love Dykes." We met the parade as it doubled back onto the Nicollet Mall toward where we had parked. This time around, we saw a few stray signs demanding to "Eliminate gender binaries." I'm not sure what that means, but I'm pretty sure I love gender binaries, and I wonder if there isn't at least a potential conflict between loving dykes and hating gender binaries.

Because there's no racism or xenophobia on the right, redux.

Point:

But it seems to me that most of the anger out there isn't about the immigrants at all, but about the arrogance of, and the transparently disingenuous arguments made by, Trent Lott and the other folks in Congress and the White House in support of the bill.

Counterpoint:



Counterpoint:



Counterpoint:





See also here.

Consider the Source

Putz thinks that Pete Hegseth -- who's on the payroll of the Manhattan Institute, is a pal of Powerline, and nutty enough to have told Chris Matthews that opposition to the war is "definitely going to undermine that effort" to stabilize Iraq -- is the right man to give those of us who think the war sucks a "reality check." Shah. I'd be more convinced if Hegseth hadn't ended his agitprop with this:

In his op-ed, Sen. Levin invoked the example of Abraham Lincoln, who endured years of challenges before finding the right generals and strategy to win the Civil War. After four years of uncertainty in Iraq, America finally has both the general and the strategy to turn the tide. The question is whether 2007 will unfold like 1865 or 1969.

President Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. He was right. And to me, that sounds more than a bit like the situation our country faces today. What path will we choose?

If Hegseth's grasp of history is any indication -- the American civil war "more than a bit" resembles Iraq, not because of anything relating to the war, per se, but because President Bush is an obstinate fucking jackass who cares not about public opinion and a mounting death toll -- methinks his relationship to reality is kinda tenuous, if non-existent.

But, hey, good for the Washinton Post!

UPDATE: Batshit insane Bill Quick seconds Hegseth's crap. The company Putz keeps is just delightful.

Objectively pro-al Qaeda.

Tristero:

Back in '02 or '03, Glenn Reynolds averred that those who opposed the Iraq war from the start were "ojectively pro-Saddam." Today, all we need to do is to generalize Reynolds' important principle. Then, we apply it to the media's commendable effort to tell the story of the GWOT straight, no chaser, ie, in the simplest clearest terms possible. Therefore:

To oppose Bush's "surge" means you objectively support al Qaeda's efforts in Iraq.

Even clearer:

To oppose the Bush surge essentially means you're a member of al Qaeda.

And for purists who want the clearest possible message, just eliminate "essentially."

Speaking of PBS...

This month, PBS is airing a documentary produced by the religious right that asserts that the seperation of church and state is a "myth."

Can't wait to hear the cries of bias/outrage from Gateway and Putz.

Further Evidence that Spencer Ackerman Has Gone to a Better Place

Nitpicker:

Think of all the greats whose writing once graced the pages of The New Republic: Auden, Hart Crane, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Joyce, Mencken, D. H. Lawrence, Orwell, Virginia Woolf, Yeats, Edmund Wilson, etc. But, since Marty took over, it has dwindled to the point that, when Stephen Glass was busted for making up stories, it was only shocking in Washington. In the real world, people saw two column inches in their local paper and thought, Is that still being published?

I continue to subscribe for reasons that Sam Johnson would understand -- the triumph of hope over experience.

PBS is a Commie Liberal Organization Like Glenn Reynolds is a Libertarian

Putz whips out the old PBS-is-biased trope, linking to the ever-scrupulous Gateway Pundit, who writes, "Just think- your tax dollars that are paying for the salaries at this openly liberal organization!"

Oh? Because last time I checked, PBS is still, fiscally-speaking, at the mercy of the CPB, which is still filled to capacity with Bush appointees, including Cornerite Warren Bell. Yes, that Warren Bell.

And, as MM notes, a few years back a CPB poll -- confirmed by horse-trader Ken Tomlinson -- found that "a plurality of Americans see no bias on either PBS or NPR, that just one in five respondents detected a liberal bias in public broadcasting, and that one in 10 detected a conservative bias."

GP is mos def nostalgic for the days when the WSJ editorial board had a show and Tomlinson could investigate Bill Moyers with impunity. (Good times!)

It's easier for Putz and GP to cry "liberal bias" than to admit their real grievance with PBS: There's not enough anti-Muslim programming!

23%.

That's the number of Americans who approve of Dubya's fine stewardship of the Iraq war. An all-time low.

Fred Thompson Addicted to Amputee Strippers?

Of course not. But there's about as much proof of that as there is for this:

A HILLARY FAN hiding behind a blog?

The idea's been floating around since Peggy Noonan's last column.

Danny Glover writes that "Noonan provided no evidence to support her suggestion that Hillary Is 44 is somehow part of the Clinton campaign" and "That anyone would suspect, without strong evidence, a link between a campaign and a random, anonymous blogger is unfair" -- but that hasn't deterred Putz from employing a question mark to mask a specious claim.

Surely, if The New York Times or some other em ess em outlet ran a story claiming that, say, HughHewitt.com was funded by the Romney campaign, Putz would be up in arms.

You'd think he might be a tad hesitant to jump on a follow-the-money bandwagon without proof. Remember when he described a Washington Post profile of Bill Roggio as "shabby misrepresentation" and "mistreatment", simply because the Post implied that Roggio had ties to the AEI? We do. Stephen Kaus debunked the nonsense, even while he memorably praised Roggio's "myopically optimistic dispatches."

Look for the Hillary story to fall apart, too.

Straight from the Weimar playbook.

If you haven't seen the fascinating film Max, with John Cusack and Noah Taylor, I recommend it. Set in early '20s Vienna, Taylor plays a young Hitler, and Cusack, an art dealer. All of this "stabbed in the back" talk from Putz recently got me thinking about the movie, because it touches on the origins of this theme.

The phrase originates with an older NCO, who coaches Hitler and his fellow army veterans on speech-making..

Officer

So men, I want you on the street today, and here's the message: "Stabbed in the back."

Enlisted Man

By who, sir?

Officer

Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. What matters is that Germany is absolved from having lost the war and prepared to wage the next one. Fellow loses a game, he doesn't want to play anymore. You tell him he lost because someone else cheated, then you have to hold him back from picking up the cards again.

Later, Hitler, who'd previously been an uninspiring speaker, uses this theme to great effect. It's easier to imagine it another way.

Hitler

We are being stabbed in the back! We won this war! Our boys fought like lions! Like lions! So why in the name of Providence are we giving away square miles of land speaking of surrender and abandoning six million of our fellow Germans the troops?!

Because we have been stabbed in the back! By the profiteers media and the maggots Democrats and the parasites anti-war Left.

And make no mistake, Germany's America's greatest enemy lives within.

Glenn Reynolds wonders why the left is so defensive after he accuses them of treason.

Putz has updated his "the left wants us to lose the war" post, linking to this lunatic:

A little Instapundit post like this one can cause such a reaction from my little blog bitch Olliver Willis and Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly......is......there must be some truth to it. Stuff just doesn't get that kind of reaction unless you feel guilty about err something, like say maybe selling out your country for political gain?

So when someone calls you a traitor and your reaction is anger -- that just proves it's true.

What an ass.

It's not that Glenn Reynolds wants America to win the war on terror. It's that he wants Bush to win.

(for another update, please see new post above)

I'm starting to see a pattern here.

Putz on 5/24:

I'm starting to think that they [lefty bloggers] don't follow the news all that closely. It's true -- as Michael Yon noted in an earlier email -- that Anbar isn't perfectly peaceful. But it's also true that it's changed quite drastically since it was being written off last year. That's news -- if you care about reality, rather than just rooting for America Bush to lose.

Putz today:

I don't think that the left wants to lose the war on terror, exactly -- they just want Bush to lose the war on terror.

Hey, Mother Jones -- for your next issue, why don't you ask Putz about how much you love seeing American soldiers die just so Bush looks bad?

UPDATE

Drum notes,

You can almost smell the stink of desperation from the pro-war crowd. The next couple of years is going to be a nonstop frenzy of books, articles, TV shows, op-eds, radio segments, blog posts, and white papers about how everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East. Anyone will do, as long as it's not them.

Pretty much.

UPDATE 2

Yglesias:

Glenn Reynolds once again busts out the passive voice stab-in-the-back. Note also the hilarious idea that something might happen "if things go badly in Iraq" as if at the moment everything's going swimmingly.

The Simpsons Cat Lady makes Christopher Orr tired.

Christopher Orr, writing about the Althouse/onion rings incident, writes:

In a series of posts to the comments section last night, Ann Althouse took issue with my earlier item regarding her sexual analysis of the Hillary Clinton "Sopranos" ad. I am, evidently, a "prissy stick in the mud" with a "low level" of "diligence and comprehension." By the time she wrote a later post at her own site, she had worked herself into the full froth that will be familiar to anyone who saw her iconic bloggingheads meltdown, referring to me as "the most pathetic member of the swarm." She's demanded multiple apologies.

I fear the best I can do is to say that I'm rather sorry to have engaged her at all. Readers can judge for themselves my diligence, comprehension, prissiness, etc. But for the record:

1) I never claimed that she "threatened to sue" a blogger who insulted her; I described her as "suggesting she could sue him," which she did. My main point, as she knows, was to point out that exactly three sentences after complaining that the blogger wrote "sexual things" about her, she theorized that he had a small penis and would therefore prefer phallic calamari to vagina-like onion rings. A lovely subsequent Althouse post drove this same point home visually. (Honestly, that may be it for me and fried food.)

Now we feel partially responsible for all this since Instaputz was the target of the law suit/small penis stuff.

All we can say is: Heh.

A truly putzy post.

What's the putziest thing about this post?

ATTACKING TALK RADIO via legislation? If you can't beat people, silence 'em! Trent Lott will probably sign on.

UPDATE: I see that Hillary and Boxer are denying the report, but I gather Inhofe is standing by it. Frankly, I think they're lying -- the Democrats, and many of the Republican inhabitants of Incumbistan, like Trent Lott, would be happy to shut up talk radio, and all the other alt-media, too. If they say otherwise, I don't believe them.

Is it:

A) That Putz considers that nutjob James Inholfe a credible source
B) That the story turned out to be bogus, but Putz still insists Clinton and Boxer are "lying"
C) That the nonpartisan is taking up for Michael Savage and El Rushbo

or

D) That Putz says the Democrats "can't beat" the GOP -- after the '06 midterms

Monika Bauerlein of Mother Jones responds.

(updated below)

So Monika Bauerlein has responded to all of the angry comments at MJ's site and says this:

...this is not a "get to know Glen Reynolds" interview; it's one of dozens of interviews that we conducted for a package on politics 2.0, asking various bloggers and netizens for their view on how technology is changing politics. We didn't ask Reynolds OR the other interviewees (including Jerome Armstrong, Esther Dyson, Howard Dean et al.) about general political topics either; that wasn't the point. With Reynolds, we were specifically interested in his views on why the right is so far behind in the blogosphere--interviewing only lefties on that topic would have made a pretty boring conversation. Check out the rest of the package at motherjones.com/fightdifferent.

How nice. Why didn't she just interview Karl Rove?

She just doesn't get it.

I may have missed it, but I don't recall Jerome Armstrong claiming to be "nonpartisan" while breezily linking to fringe loonies viciously attacking Republicans. And I don't remember Esther Dyson calling Republicans traitors or accusing them of being on the side of the terrorists. And when did Howard Dean link to homophobic epithets or suggest that the freedom of the press probably is overrated?

Ms. Bauerlein, all due respect: there are plenty of bloggers on the right who aren't dishonest Bush-following hacks: John Cole, Andrew Sullivan and Greg Djerejian come to mind.

Look 'em up.

UPDATE

Ms. Bauerlein responds again. She still doesn't get it.

Oh, and of course we would interview Karl Rove! I can think of a few choice questions.

But I'm guessing, Ms. Bauerlein, those "choice questions" wouldn't be the kind of softballs you lobbed Putz.

Let's try this another way: do you think the Weekly Standard would interview Atrios and ask a bunch of breezy questions about the Internets? Do you think the National Review would give John Aravosis a tongue bath interview like you gave Putz?

I don't.

"Come on. You’re not Bob Woodward."

George Packer:

When I interviewed Richard Armitage a few months ago, he told me that at the White House there is, even now, “agnosticism about the size of the problem.” I asked him how anyone could fail to know. “Come on,” Armitage growled. “You’re not Bob Woodward. Secretary Powell told the President and I told the President—personally in front of his crowd—two years ago that we were not winning. . . . It was not filtered. We had plenty of information.”

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but isn't Armitage saying that Packer isn't a clueless fuck?

Mother Jones, are you listening?

Some of the comments below the Mother Jones foot massage of Putz:

I'm not sure MJ decided to lend its luster to this hack. Anyone familiar with his "writings" can't take him seriously as en expert on much of anything, except home gadgets perhaps. I'm disappointed that MJ didn't take him on as the thinly-veiled shill for the GOP that he is, rather than treating him as some kind of unaffiliated expert on campaign strategy. Shame on you.
--
Last time I read anything from Mother Jones. Shame on you.
--
wow. instapundit is a partisan republican hack who falsely claims to be a libertarian. Don't give him a platform.
--
I expect better of MJ - where were the real questions? Shame. You can, and have, done better. Why was Mr. Reynolds given a pass? Smart, fearless journalism would have turned him into toast (or milquetoast as the case may be).
--
What's next, MJ interviews Ann Althouse?

If they do, I hope they ask her about the onion rings.

Peggy Noonan: The Clinton Fetish Continues

Hillary Clinton (above)

Peggy Noonan's column begins:

Hillary Clinton doesn't have to prove she's a man. She has to prove she's a woman.

Believe it or not, the fact that Noonan doubts the existence of Senator Clinton's ovaries is not the worst part of the article. Without proof, she connects Clinton to a website that, she says, "reads like The Warrior's Id."

"In tone," Noonan says, "the site is very Tokyo Rose."

Now, it's one thing for Noonan to say that the site has a traitorous odor, but it's quite another for her say that it

appears to be the subterranean part of Hillary's campaign, the part that quietly coexists with the warm, chuckling lady playing the jukebox with her husband. ... It is the war room part. I suspect the site is a back door to that war room.

Note to The Wall Street Journal: If you're going to accuse a candidate of slagging another candidate -- anonymously -- the word of an incoherent, intermittently sadistic, cobwebbed lush should not be good enough.

When Rupert Murdoch buys and dismantles your ass, don't expect me to shed any tears.

UPDATE: Sez Mr. Nyhan --

Note all the insinuations that Clinton's campaign is involved with the site: "[T]here is another side of the Clinton campaign, and I found some of it this week," "This appears to be the subterranean part of Hillary's campaign," "I suspect the site is a back door to [Clinton's] war room." But there's no evidence that any of these suggestions are true. The website states "We are not affiliated with the Hillary For President Exploratory Committee, or any official Hillary Clinton organization in any way" and the domain is registered anonymously. In short, Noonan is asserting a connection based on sheer speculation.

Steve Bainbridge, on the other, thinks that Noonan's kool-aid tastes mighty sweet. "If Hillary's campaign is behind this website, they shouldn't be able to hide behind a proxy registrant," he mewls. Yes, but Steve, why should the onus be on Hillary's campaign to prove a negative?

Hey, I heard Rowling's got a new book out! Let's hope it's not as venomously anti-American as the last one, eh Steve?

About That Interview...

This is bad, too:

MJ: What about bloggers going to work for candidates?

GR: When campaigns hire a blogger, they get a lot of expertise. The blogger, once they work for a candidate, they become part of the candidate's operation. But the glow wears off pretty fast. Everybody knows they're not independent anymore. Once I get an email from a blogger I know is working for a campaign, I treat it as campaign spam, because that's what it is.

I see. So it's a no-no if bloggers are on a campaign's payroll -- a la Patrick Ruffini. Makes sense.

But what if, as in the case of Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett, the majority their output hinges on the success of a particular candidate? (witness Barnett's lapping up Romney's non-innovation as if it were an Emma Bloomberg nipple-slip)

Tell us, Putz, what sets a volunteer hack apart from a paid hack? We'll see you in comments.

Dear Mother Jones...

Mother Jones' pathetic "interview" with Putz is absolutely brutal. Whoever prepared those questions should be fired, because it's exactly this kind of press which perpetuates the falsehood in the media that Putz is a reasonable, polite, mainstream nonpartisan. (Updated Below) (updated again)

Here's a few questions MJ should've asked:

• Do you believe it should be the United States' policy to assassinate Iranian civilians?
• You say you're a libertarian. When was the last time you voted for a libertarian candidate?
• What does "winning" in Iraq actually mean, and how much longer do you think that will take?
• If the United States doesn't "win" by your standard, who will be responsible?
  
• Throughout the war and before he was fired, you insisted that Donald Rumsfeld was being unfairly criticized for his performance and called the generals who did so "cowardly." Do you have second thoughts about that after he was fired?
• Also, from 2003-2006, you insisted that more troops in Iraq weren't necessary. But when the President called for more troops, you changed your mind. Why?
• You claim the GOP lost the midterm elections because of pork. Do you have any polling evidence to support this theory?
• Do you really believe, as you wrote, that Andrew Sullivan is a "bigot" when he maintains that the GOP has a problem with "Christianism" -- that is, Christian activists in the GOP who fuse a specific religious doctrine with politics?
• Why do you think so many Republicans have a problem with evolution?
• Are you against the Bush Administration's use of torture? If so, why haven't you called for the resignation of those responsible?
• I'm sure you're aware that the Cato Institute has been documenting the Constitutional abuses by the Bush Administration for years. Are you concerned about that, as a libertarian?
• You claimed, again and again, that Valerie Plame wasn't covert. But Patrick Fitzgerald clearly indicated that she was, and, in any case, if she wasn't, why would the CIA ask the DOJ to investigate her outing? How did you arrive at such a false conclusion?
  
• Who are you supporting in 2008? Ron Paul or another libertarian candidate?
• You've been an enthusiastic supporter of the surge since it began, and have written extensively about how it's working. Do you still believe that?
  

Just for starters.

UPDATE

Please tell MJ that they should not be giving dishonest partisans like Putz a platform like this.

Be polite.

backtalk@motherjones.com

UPDATED AGAIN

Monika Bauerlein, the editor-in-chief of Mother Jones, has replied to the criticism of the interview. See my response here.

Then & Now

NYT:

The Central Intelligence Agency will make public next week a collection of long-secret documents compiled in 1974 that detail domestic spying, assassination plots and other C.I.A. misdeeds in the 1960s and early 1970s, the agency’s director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, said yesterday.

In an address to a group of historians who have long pressed for greater disclosure of C.I.A. archives, General Hayden described the documents, known as the “family jewels,” as “a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency.”

From the Council of Europe Report on CIA Secret Prisons:

At one point in 2004, eight persons were being kept together at one CIA facility in Europe, but were administered according to a strict regime of isolation. Contact between them through sight or sound was forbidden... and prevented unless it was expressly decided to create limited conditions where they could see or come into contact with one another because it would serve (the CIA's) intelligence-gathering objectives to allow it. ...

The air in many cells emanated from a ventilation hole in the ceiling, which was often controlled to produce extremes of temperature: sometimes so hot that one would gasp for breath, sometimes freezing cold.

Many detainees described air conditioning for deliberate discomfort.

Detainees were exposed at times to over-heating in the cell; at other times drafts of freezing breeze.

Detainees never experienced natural light or natural darkness, although most were blindfolded many times so they could see nothing....

There was a shackling ring in the wall of the cell, about half a metre up off the floor. Detainees' hands and feet were clamped in handcuffs and leg irons. Bodies were regularly forced into contorted shapes and chained to this ring for long, painful periods.

Republican treasurer of South Carolina busted.

Coke.

The best part: he was Rudy!'s state campaign chair.

Clear majorities.

In his latest concern-troll "our politics is broken" post, Putz writes:

And I agree with this part, too: "The root problem is a bipartisan inability - or refusal - to adopt policies supported by clear majorities of the American people."

Glad you agree Putz.

59% of Americans want the troops to start coming home.
64% support benchmarks.
68% want to withdraw immediately, or within the year.

61% favor stricter gun laws.

We're pretty sure your parents are wincing, VDH.

Hanson:

When I was growing in rural California in the 1950s and 1960s, my FDR parents winced at the nut right-wing fringe.

He then goes on to say, in effect, left wing nuts are worse than right wing nuts. Not surprising, of course, since he's a right wing nut.

26%.

Looks like that Gallup poll I posted earlier was the good news for the Bushies.

Selfishness.

Nitpicker asks a good question.

And on the Ledo deck at noon, we've got shuffleboard and wingnuttery.

Where do I sign up?



Alaska? Wimps. They should be crusing down the Tigris or Euphrates, surveying the Great Victory.

Whatever.

They'd just better make sure the ship has handrails for Robert Bork.

Putz's mancrush on Fred Thompson.

Oliver's noticed:

Blogging from his usual position on Hugh Hewitt's lap, Dean Barnett is so hot for flip-flopping Mitt Romney's floating body web tool he says its all brand new. But in fact, Mark Warner did it... almost two years ago. Like Glenn Reynolds turning into a total fanboy when Fred Thompson does something everyone else has been doing, I guess it doesn't count until when your particular idol does it. Weird folks.

Indeed.

"I am big. It's the penises that got small."

And the part about suing someone -- "a few sentences after suggesting she could sue him for writing "sexual things about me"" -- you've missed the context! I wrote: "If I were a Yale law student, I'd sue him..." with a link to this story about Yale law students suing some people who reprinted a photograph of someone and made sexual remarks about it. I disapproved of the lawsuit, which you can see at that link, which is why I wrote "If I were a Yale law student." Get it? It means pretty much the opposite of what you thought. Really, why are you writing for TNR when your diligence and comprehension are at such a low level. You owe me an apology for writing that I threatened to sue someone!

--Althouse

Putz and Pajamas thrilled over news of Chinese pollution.

You probably heard that China predictably passed the US in CO2 emissions.

So naturally, Pajamas Media attacks envirnomental groups.

An Inconvenient Truth: China has surpassed the US as the world’s largest producer of CO2, the chief “greenhouse gas” said responsible for Global Warming. What will environmentalists say? Barking Moonbat Early Warning System thinks they will say nothing.

(Er, except that it's the lead story on Greenpeace International's home page.)

Putz also seemed downright giddy about the news, declaring weirdly, "That didn't take long."

What Pajamas and Putz seem to be forgetting is that China has a population roughly four times the size of the US.

Chinese environmental officials have said that while total emissions are going up, they are still less than one quarter of those of the United States on a per capita basis. Because China's population of 1.3 billion people is more than four times that of the United States, China spews about 10,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per person, while in the United States it is nearly 42,500 pounds per person.

And throw in the fact that countries like the US, as Greenpeace notes, have exported manufacturing to China.

That's not to say China gets a free pass. It's just funny that an outfit like Pajamas suddenly cares about CO2 emissions when their founder, Roger L. Simon, thinks that the fact that we still have a winter is a sign that this 'global warming' thing is just a myth.

Does the Vanguard News Network Have an Internship?

Confederate Yankee:

The six-month contract I was hired into in 2005 is finally closing at the end of this month after three extensions, and a few folks have suggested that I should investigate attempting to find a new media journalism gig, either here in the Raleigh area, or one from which I could telecommute.

I know via Sitemeter that a few media outfits check in on this site on occasion, so I'm wondering...

Any takers?

Repeat after me, perspective employers: Jamil Hussein, Jamil Hussein, Jamil Hussein...

Bush down again in the Gallup.

32%.

The rich white man just can't get a break in this country.

This really makes me sick.

AN INTERESTING PARALLEL:

Imagine this: In a Southern town, a woman accuses several men of rape. Despite the woman's limited credibility and ever-shifting story, the community and its legal establishment immediately decide the men are guilty. Their protestations of innocence are dismissed out of hand, exculpatory evidence is ignored.

The Duke rape case, right? No, the Scottsboro case that began in 1931, in the darkest days of the Jim Crow South.

The two cases offer a remarkable insight into how very, very far this country has come in race relations, and alas, in some ways how little. For race is central to why both cases became notorious. In Scottsboro, Ala., of course, the accusers were white and the accused was black. In Durham, N.C., it was the other way around.

Read the whole thing. One constant factor -- the news media's performance sucked both times.

Just absolutely grotesque. Here's the fate of the Scottsboro boys, who were charged in 1931:

In July, 1937, Clarence Norris was convicted of rape and sexual assault and sentenced to death, Andy Wright was convicted of rape and sentenced to 99 years, and Charlie Weems was convicted and sentenced to 75 years in prison. Ozie Powell pleaded guilty to assaulting the sheriff and was sentenced to 20 years.

What's totally missing from Putz's ridiculous analogy, of course, is any mention of class. I'm pretty sure the Duke kid that just landed the 6-figure gig on Wall Street fared better than these guys, don't you?

The reason Putz and his ilk were so obsessed with this local news story is because it feeds their "white males are under seige in this country" narrative. Just pathetic.

Wait, Isn't There a War On?

Putz has occasionally told us not to worry our pretty little heads about, among other things, religious discord, Bush's not-so-small government tendencies, gay marriage (there were "bigger issues on the table," he said), talk of a draft or an abortion ruling.

Why? Because "there's a war on."

Well, we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet suddenly it's in the best interest of liberals to care about Salman Rushdie's knighthood?

Where're your priorities, Putz?

Just to be clear, Honey Bunny, this is not to diminish the craziness of the "furore." I agree that this is worth writing about. Alls I'm saying is that Putz, who gleefully told us that everything is secondary to war! war! war!, doesn't have much right to tell us where we should channel our energy.

ALSO:

LIBERALS HAVE FAILED TO DENOUNCE, AND HENCE SUPPORT, THE POTHOLE AT FIFTH AND MAIN.

Calling It "Performance Art" Doesn't Give You License to Be a Fool

Althouse says:

Instaputz displays a picture of me and then says sexual things about me. If I were a Yale law student, I'd sue him, and I could even leverage my way into federal court with a copyright claim. (I have a Creative Commons license on my photographs in Flickr, but he omits the required attribution and, in any event, it's obvious that I didn't take this picture so the license isn't mine to give.) By the way a "putz" is a little penis, so he might want to order the fried calamari instead of the onion rings.

I'm a little puzzled that Ms. Althouse finds something "sexual" about this:

And Ann, so long as you're discussing symbolism: what does your facial expression in the above photo -- which is kinda reminiscent of the fifteenth letter of the English alphabet -- represent?

Indeed, "O" is the 15th letter of the English alphabet. But my mind -- unlike the professor's -- isn't in the gutter. If she knew me at all, she'd know that one of my great passions is origami. For example:



Finally, Ann, what's with the fixation on small penises? First, Scott Lemieux and now this...

UPDATE: I'm sure what this means, but it contains a whiff of mockery.