Archive for October, 2006

To Brian, who linketh yet runneth away…

Oct 23, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives

Here’s his idiot claptrap.  Here’s my response:

Holy shit, you fool, why on earth do you continue to believe we’re hippies?  My head is shaved, I shower daily, I’m wearing loafers, khakis and a polo shirt.  Yes, I occasionally smoke weed, but this is California, even rabid rightwingers smoke weed here.  And snort massive amounts of crystal meth.  But anybody who knows Mike and I would agree wholeheartedly that we are not hippies.

Not that hippies are such bad people (far better than you), it’s just that it’s hardly more of a stretch than anything else you pull out of your ass.  “If you vote Democrat, the terrorists will thank you”???

The Democrats will win if the nation *does* get serious about terrorism.  If you want marketing slogans and continuous lying, by all means vote Republican (which you already did).  If you want to believe the people who have been wrong on everything for four years for two more years, vote Republican (like you).  If you want the country run by people who seriously think they’re about to poof into a cloud of smoke any second now and end up sitting on Jesus’ lap, vote Republican (just like Brian).

Your deluded horseshit has seriously worn thin.  The only thing impressive about people like you is how you can keep being so full of shit on a daily basis.  On every issue you’ve lost the trust of the public.  Because you never tell the truth about anything.

Ultimately, though, the reason you should lose is that you aren’t the Republican party anymore, you’re the Confederate party.  You’re the people that never liked the Constitution in the first place, and when you got the first chance to really run things, you shredded it.

You may be an American, but you aren’t a true citizen of the United States of America forged by our founding fathers.  You’re just a hairless ape who lives here.

-jb

Google Sun

Oct 19, 2006 in Energy, Environment, Uncategorized

Google is installing a 1.6 megawatt solar panel array at it’s Silicon Valley corporate campus to provide thirty percent of it’s electricity needs.

The anticipated savings from future energy bills should enable Google to recoup the solar project’s costs in five to 10 years, estimated David Radcliffe, the company’s
vice president of real estate.

“We hope corporate America is paying attention. We want to see a lot of copycats” of this project, Radcliffe said.

A step in the right direction, for sure. Conservatives (who, ironically, have no interest in conservation) will routinely ridicule Google’s move for no apparent reason just like they reflexively derided a film like Supersize Me. One of the frequent criticisms I hear is that it takes a long time (usually around ten years) for a solar array to pay for itself in savings which is curious because other long term investments like 401k’s and Roth IRAs are applauded unquestioningly. And ten years in a house isn’t really a long time considering you’ve got an average mortgage duration of twenty years.

-mg

David Kuo on NPR’s On Point

Oct 19, 2006 in Christian Right, Clueless Conservatives, Religion, Uncategorized

I frequently listen to Tom Ashbrook’s long-running NPR program On Point on my way to and at work. Though never challenging it more often than not has some interesting guests and it’s infinitely more preferable than listening to Bob and Tom’s recycled fart gags. Ashbrook frequently comes across as a clueless Garrison Keillor because of his taut, tenor voice and confident tone except that in Ashbrook’s case there really is no evidence of talent. A couple weeks ago he had Chomsky on as a guest and was completely hung-up on the fact that Chomsky doesn’t regard the United States economic system as capitalistic and even laughed at him when he referred to John Dewey as a mainstream academic figure. No suprise then that after having David Kuo on to discuss his latest book Tempting Faith in which he chronicles in detail how it took him three years to realize what most of us knew in three days most of the tough questions go unasked. Here are some choice quotes taken from the broadcast:

“There is a general apathy in Washington toward the poor.”
“[When I arrived in the White House] I observed the poor were being used as a political pawn.”
“Most of what the White House has delivered [for the Christian Right] is symbolic.”
“Conservative Christians shouldn’t believe that George W. Bush is pastor-in-chief.”

I especially liked a casual comment he made about how he is now being referred to as literally “the devil” by ardent Bush crusaders since he has published his book. Since he has become critical of the administration this man of faith is now Lucifer incarnate proving once again that Glenn Greenwald was right in characterizing the current Republican party as a Bush-cult with no serious concern about conservative values.

-mg

Friendly fire, Hitch, GEDDOWN!

Oct 19, 2006 in Politics

Digby finds and comments on this transcript which contains the following jewel where Tucker Carlson completely judo flips Christopher Hitchens:

HITCHENS: If we‘re going to pay—if we‘re going to pay for this huge military establishment, then I think…

T. CARLSON: Might as well use it.

HITCHENS: Yes. Well, we…

T. CARLSON: We‘ve got all these nuclear weapons, you know, sort of languishing in silos. Let‘s use one.

HITCHENS: Well, those are—those really are—those really are useless to us, of course.

T. CARLSON: I hope so.

HITCHENS: Good point.

Doh! Another blow against the idea that booze doesn’t impact one’s ability to debate. IN PERSON! Here at Iowa Liberal, we keep it online, yo!
-jb

100% clusterfuck.

Oct 18, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives, Iraq, War on Terra

That’s all you have to realize about Iraq. It’s not that if we’d had enough troops it would have worked. It might have been not quite as bad, that’s certainly possible, but then again it probably have just meant more US troops to attack.

Many people have spent copious amounts of time debating and pontificating on paths to a peaceful Iraq, most of that wasted. We have done what we could in capturing Saddam Hussein. That was it. That was our big fat shining moment of glory. Our greatest achievement. Everything else?

Hoo-ha. Ranch dressing on a turd.

We need to pull out troops. It will, to some extent, create room for others to move in, take over, etc. The current government will react, the Sunnis will react, the Kurds will sit back smoking in cafes, but we must not delude ourselves that this is pulling out the troops to give the government a kick in the pants. The Iraqi government doesn’t need to pull itself up by its bootstraps here.
Why? In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s already a vacuum in Iraq. It’s called a civil war. At that, the government, essentially the Shiites, is doing quite well via militias. This is not a problem for them.

We have to accept that a troop pullout is necessary, and that it will very likely mean a step-up in the civil war.  There is no military solution to changing that reality.  Only a political solution.

Unfortunately, there seem to be people in the world like David Brooks who insist on being wrong every single day.  He serves a classical purpose in human history, dismissing the most necessary action out of hand.  Apparently the lazier your quip, the less value you assign to the proposition, thus fooling others into moving on.  I guess it works?

Brooks casually says Iraq simply cannot go federalist (get carved up) because the people are staunchly nationalistic.  Where’d he get this?  Who the fuck cares?  He made it up, or he might as well have.  It doesn’t matter.  It’s just plain wrong in a very simply understandable manner.

Iraq isn’t nationalistic.  Iraq is the Kurds, who are fine by themselves, the Shiites who would be fine by themselves, and the Sunnis, who want to still earn money off Shiite oil.  Currently the Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other with no small degree of enthusiasm.  Certainly one that dwarfs Mr. Brooks’ imaginary Iraqi nationalism that just makes federalism plain impossible (apparently it’s impossible here too, then).

Why?  That’s just what I wonder anymore.  Why is there so much obfuscation and mucking up over matters over which there is little serious debate?  What interest does David Brooks have in futilely attempting to keep Iraq whole?  Is it the basest form of instinctively supporting Bush?  Chomsky would say that people like Brooks are still waiting for another Saddam Hussein to come along and reign in all of Iraq, echoing Bush I’s choice in 1991 to keep Saddam in power.  He would be very close to the truth in saying so.

Of course, Brooks gets to peddle his shit in the NY Times and on cable news precisely because he offers services to those in power.  Chomsky, not so much.

Reality…it’s a hard sell.

-jb

Powertools!

Oct 17, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives, Politics

Bush in a snit?  As if it were only him.  If you’ve been peeking at any rightwing blogs lately, they’ve either become disillusioned or are crumpling up their passes to reality and launching straight into Narnia.

Or are they always like this?

JOHN adds: Saddam Husssein tells his supporters that “victory is at hand.” Well, he could be right. He reads American newspapers, and he knows what everyone is predicting for November 7.

So stupid it doesn’t even bear rebuttal…and this is a top rated blog?  I guess I’ve spared my brain a lot of punishment by avoiding Powerline for so many years, but taking a gaze at these complete wingnut moonbats (again, any phrase with “moon” in it is only applicable to those who feed at the trough of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon) helps me understand how Brian Pickrell gets noticed by the Daou Report and the NY Times (albeit for plagiarism in that case).  As abysmally dysfunctional and logically unhinged as he is, is he any worse than these guys? 

Of course, but not by much.

-jb

Babblefish dazzled by power.

Oct 17, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives, Politics

“I think he’d have an 80 percent approval rating if he could bring people into the Oval Office six people at a time and explain it all to them.”

That’s Sean Hannity after President Bush invited him and other rightwing talk show hosts in for a pep talk.  It would be curious to know what “it all” is, because apparently Hannity can’t explain it, and neither can Bush in his frequent press ramblings.  But if you could just sit next to Bush…

…you’d feel the lovin’ light of Christ emanating from him and know “it all” would be just fine.

For an hour and a half, Mr. Bush discussed his case for the war in Iraq, his immigration proposals and even the personality of his Scottish terrier Barney, who scratched on the door during the session until the president relented and let him into the office…

Barney wanted to play with the other lapdogs.

-jb

You don’t need more proof.

Oct 17, 2006 in Politics

But here is more evidence that Tony Snow is a deliberate, cynical, godless liar who thinks it’s his job to keep the idiot cake-eating peasants at bay:

As Stolberg writes, here’s Snow on “the intellectual acumen of his boss: ‘He reminds me of one of those guys at the gym who plays about 40 chessboards at once.'”

Larry Sandler writes in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “President Bush is smarter than his critics think, Bush’s chief spokesman said Thursday. . . .

“Snow said Bush questioned aides closely to learn all sides of an issue because he knows ‘you can’t be living in a dream world’ as president.”

If you can get more “Big Lie” than that, let me know.  To me, Bush’s administration has never been slick at dropping these whoppers, but this is by far one of the clumsiest efforts since Harriet Miers called Bush the smartest man she’d ever met.

Bush the chess player.  Well, we should be seeing a checkmate in Iraq before the election then.

-jb

This I like to see.

Oct 17, 2006 in Uncategorized

David Loebsack is leading Jim Leach by one point

Though Leach has made some good choices in the past (voting against the Torture Amendment, for one) his belief that the internet isn’t a truck but in fact a series of tubes was the last straw. 

-mjg

Snake Oil Nussle’s new shuck

Oct 12, 2006 in Drugs, Uncategorized

Besides the Christian Bible, Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith has got to be the most frequently invoked but least read volume on the literary landscape. In todays health-care debate between gubernatorial hopefuls Jim Nussle and Chet Culver at Drake University, Jim Nussle laid out his solution for high pharmaceutical costs and the mythical “invisible hand” plays a big part of it:

On drug costs, Nussle proposes a telephone hot line and Web site that Iowans could check for local prices on prescription medicines. The system would work like gas-station price signs, which fuel competition, he said.

This is absurd. Competition rarely exists within the pharmaceutical industry. It’s not as if a patient diagnosed with depression can go shopping for a cheaper version of Effexor. The price is dictated by those that control production so any sort of savings are made at the cost of the re-seller (on razor-thin margins, at that) and even if a more reasonable generic exists the original patent holder is more than likely to produce their own off-brand than cede good business to a competitor. Furthermore, price is rarely a factor when it comes to choosing drugs because these decisions are made by medical professionals, not the end consumer.

-mg

I don’t care if my mama says it, it’s wrong.

Oct 11, 2006 in Disappointing Dems

Rightwingers like Iowa’s village idiot, Brian Pickrell, don’t just commit logical fallacies, they speak entirely in the voice of fallacy. They begin with fallacies, stack them up, and then combine them into brand new fallacies. Unfortunately, my side of the aisle, while generally having a strong predilection towards Enlightenment principles, solid premises, and truth over truthiness, can still toss out some broken-ass thinking.

There is one particular bit of fallacious reasoning from people talking about wars in smaller countries and the resulting death tolls that has over the years wedged underneath my skin enough to draw red wrath. I had thought its use would pass, but it would not. It became a familiar technique in Chomsky’s pieces on East Timor, Cambodia and other massacres, one I found utterly unnecessary to supporting his greater arguments. And today I saw it tossed off in Salon (click on ad, try not to whine) in the War Room as Tim Grieve discussed the new study totaling deaths in Iraq.

How large a number is 655,000? It’s equal to about 2.5 percent of Iraq’s total population. If 2.5 percent of Americans were killed in a war here, the death toll would be an unimaginable 7.4 million.

Correction, Mr. Grieve. How large a number is 655,000 (set aside the margin for error for argument’s sake)? One bigger than 654,999 and one smaller than 655,001, that’s how big it is. It isn’t fucking 7.4 million. Not when you’re talking about human beings.

Every one of them was a unique individual with one birth and one death in their lifetime. Every one of their lives was a horrible stupid loss for a misguided cause. 655,000 of them is enough of a horror already. It’s long past descended into nightmare. There is no need to play with statistics to make it look worse, because for each dead person it can be no worse. They are gone into the abyss. Iraqi or American, their lives hold the same value, not more or less.

So no, it’s not like 7.4 million people in America being killed. It’s like 655,000 people in America being killed.

Is this the left that does this? Somewhere in the volumes of bullshit manufactured to support the Iraq war I imagine somebody tried to inflate Saddam’s numbers similarly, but who wants to sort through that hogwash? I just know right now where I’ve read it, but I also know I don’t read a representative sample at all, so it’s hard to say. What I will say is that I hate this cheap pathetic trick to squeeze more sympathy out of the reader. Intelligent people don’t need to be told “It’s just like 50 kazillion deaths!” because no person can comprehend the numbers that die in most wars and remain sane. Can you tell me you can fully process the weight of 50 deaths?

100?

1000?

So 655,000 is “imaginable?” 7.4 million sounds a bit more difficult to grok? Do things start to get a little fuzzy after 1,000,000?

I do understand a way in which this transmogrification of numbers can be understood sensibly, and that is as a measure of the relative stability of the nation-state as a whole. But I never sense that this is the purpose. All I sense is a number trick to get a higher body count so as to elicit an emotional reaction. If communicating the level of strife for that nation, all one needs is the percentage, not artificial inflations of human loss.

The truth is deadly enough already. Even if the study errs and it turns out to be half as many, that’s still an exponent of needless death I can’t calculate.

-jb

Zakaria surrenders…

Oct 11, 2006 in Foreign Policy, Iraq

…by failing to finish his column.  I guess he got halfway to the truth and then got spooked.  Scary realities:

Iraq is now in a civil war. Thirty thousand Iraqis have died there in the past three years, more than in many other conflicts widely recognized as civil wars. The number of internal refugees, mostly Sunni victims of ethnic cleansing, has exploded over the past few months, and now exceeds a quarter of a million people. (The Iraqi government says 240,000, but this doesn’t include Iraqis who have fled abroad or who may not have registered their move with the government.) The number of attacks on Shiite mosques increases every week: there have been 69 such attacks since February, compared with 80 in the previous two and a half years. And the war is being fought on gruesome new fronts. CBS News’s Lara Logan has filed astonishing reports on the Health Ministry, which is run by supporters of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. According to Logan, hospitals in Baghdad and Karbala are systematically killing Sunni patients and then dumping their bodies in mass graves.

Furthermore:

And the Shiites and the Sunnis have little trust in one another. At this point, neither believes that any deal would be honored once the United States left, which means that each is keeping its own militias as an insurance policy. If you were a Shiite, having suffered through a brutal insurgency and an incompetent government, would you give up your weapons? If you were a Sunni, having watched government-allied death squads kill and ethnic-cleanse your people, would you accept a piece of paper that said that this government will now give you one third of Iraq’s oil revenues if you disarm?

Conclusion?

Bush has now defined the only realistic goal left for America’s mission in Iraq: not achieving success but limiting failure.

And yet the subject of dividing Iraq is still too hot to touch for the “realist” Zakaria.  My dear, beloved Andrew Sullivan, whom as you all know I only mention when I disagree with him, is still caught in the fantasy that firing Rumsfeld will allow us to hit the reset button and start over (whew, has he really thought this through?) with double the troops.  It will never happen, but he would rather pine for that than admit what was plainly obvious to anybody who actually examined the dynamics of Iraq before the war. 

Simply put, the country of Iraq as a whole is nothing more than the clusterfuck of post WWI British map-drawers.  So I ask you, what obligation do we have to honor those daft dead blokes? 

Why are hundreds of people dying every day to honor a map drawn by people foreign to Iraq?

There is no answer.  People will continue dying, and people will continue to refuse to answer this question.  George W. Bush sure as fuck can’t answer it. 

Zakaria dances around the question:

Power-sharing agreements rarely work.  Stanford scholar James Fearon points out that in the last 54 civil wars, only nine were resolved by such deals.

Well, that would seem to point one’s reasoning in an obvious direction, wouldn’t it?  If a state fractures into two geographical groups that like shooting at each other…

D…d…duh…duh…(say it!)div…div…diviiiiiii…diviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii…

SEPARATE THEM. 

Solving the mystery of how the most important questions often go unanswered the longest could have transformative effects on society.  Intellectual conceits and deference to power bind the most intelligent minds.  Once a train has switched tracks it must go miles and miles before being able to return to that point and make a different choice.  Why do our oh-so-capable minds behave the same way? 

And why do piles of corpses and the promise of more never have the effect they are truly due?

-jb

Truth be told…

Oct 11, 2006 in Uncategorized

Tonight’s exceptional Frontline doc “The Enemy Within” about this administrations failure to take the threat of terrorism at all seriously will be available online later on tomorrow tonight.   A wide variety of other high-definition Frontline episodes are available online and are free for the download (if you can put up with the anti-Americanism).

God will protect you.

Oct 10, 2006 in Christian Right, Religion

Which is a good rationale for the church to say “Breast cancer?  You’re out on your ass, Sister!”

After all, just because the Gospels preached charity and helping the sick doesn’t mean the church has to provide health insurance for nuns or other employees who dare to fall ill, interfere with coverups of sexual misconduct, or grow old.  Fuck them.  Fuck them in their fucking asses!

Should the courts interfere?  Rarely.  But all those associated with places like Gannon University in Pennsylvania or, well, the Roman Catholic Church should be well aware of such practices and keep them in mind.

-jb

 

New ways to blow shit up.

Oct 10, 2006 in National Security, Politics, War on Terra

Contrary to signed treaties the United States has long endeavoured to weaponize space in it’s efforts to realize what is commonly refered to as “full spectrum dominance”. There are a few obvious benefits. Firstly, weapons in space would be a necessary defense against threats that have the ability to compromise space based systems of communication, commerce, etc. Secondly, given the substantial technological lead the US enjoys in space technology research and development, such systems would be useful as a new and effective lever of power both psychologically and realistically (or “realpolitik” if you’re an asshole). In a very enlightening statement published by the United States Space Command, the great interest in space as a serious theater of combat is made quite clear. The pdf file can be found here and it’s an interesting read. It’s a refreshingly sober assessment and lacks the vain histrionics most conservatives employ when talking about matters of national security.

Here are a couple of examples:

Although unlikely to be challenged by a global peer competitor, the United States will continue to be challenged regionally. The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a wwidening of “haves” and “have-nots.” Accelerating rates of technological development will be increasingly driven by the commerical sector – not the military.

The medium of space is the fourth medium of warfare – along with land, sea, and air. Space power (systems, capabilities, and forces) will be increasingly leveraged to close the ever-widening gap between diminishing resources and increasing military commitments.

New Scientist is now reporting that US leadership is making moves consistent with their openly stated desires.

-mg

The sound of scraping bone.

Oct 06, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives, Politics

That’s what you hear if you go read Iowa’s village idiot, Brian Pickrell and check out his sickening descent (assuming he wasn’t already this low) into madness. Sheer madness, rather. Is there a protruding limb for him to grasp as the GOP collapses into a steaming pile of hypocrisy and chronic dishonesty? May the clouds themselves decelerate his fall? Or will there be one last squawk before a deafening silence?

At Iowa Voice one can see the gears of self-deception turn inside Brian’s eyes. They echo the demented babbling of Limbaugh and Dennis Hastert, which is all the justification Detective Pickrell needs to put together his case files on how, somehow, some way as of yet undetected…the Democrats are all behind this!

According to Brian, there are about two dozen different angles on this from the Democrats. This is obvious, because the normal reaction to the Foley fracas would be to do the bare minimum and brush the rest under the table. Oh, whoops, that’s what got them in this trouble in the first place, isn’t it?

For instance, did you know we’re ignoring Foley? He looks to Powerline for this:

One of the reasons why the Democrats/press prefer not to talk about Foley, I think, it that they are uncomfortable about shining a light on an obvious and highly troubling aspect of gay culture: the fact that boys are viewed as appropriate objects of desire by many homosexuals.

Whew, so unlike heterosexuals, eh? Girls everywhere rest comfortably knowing that adult men won’t look at them until they’re 18. IT’S TRUE!

Oh, wait…Democrats aren’t doing any such thing as ignoring Foley, they’re just ignoring the fact that gays are naturally perverted. It’s a good thing that Republicans always try to avoid looking homophobic.

Brian offers plenty of links to the greater blogosphere to make it quite clear he isn’t coming up with this shit on his own. Well, he doesn’t come with anything on his own, but that’s beside the point. The point is this: go click away, folks. Check it out. See for yourself the mountains of evidence accumulated at Gateway Pundit and other extremely disturbed people. They’re virtually ready to pull the noose tight.

Yes, they’ve managed to conclusively prove that “Radical Gay Activists” knew Foley was…gay! And that he, a man in his late 40’s/early 50’s liked men…half his age!!

Those poor twenty-five year old babies! Some were described as being “close to underage,” even! Damn you, liberal conspirators! Dennis Hastert and the Republican leadership depended on you to get to the bottom of this.

But I go off on tangents. The evidence is there, and you don’t have to tap your Judy Garland Commemorative Red Ruby Slippers (you have them because you’re gay) three times to see it. Ready?

“I received copies of these emails several months ago, but couldn’t confirm their veracity so I did not report on them.” — John Aravosis, Americablog

The FBI had them by July, but face it, this is the smoking gun. John Aravosis didn’t run with unsubstantiated evidence.

Clearly no such inhibitions bind the Gay Ole’ Party:

“The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros.” -Dennis Hastert

You know, the guy who did nothing wrong. Wow, Brian is going to have one hell of a backstroke after he gets done with his retractions. I haven’t read him this evening, but at this point it’s just more things he’ll have to take back very soon in the future.

Learn from Brian. If it feels right, make allegations. Listen to your gut, however bloated it may be. Evidence sucks.

Truthiness rules!

-jb

p.s. All y’all muthas feel free to try finding any more evidence over at Brian’s Meltdown Extravaganza, let me know when you find anything more substantial than Karl Rove’s integrity. Or George Bush’s grasp of the Constitution.

Predator/Protector Program

Oct 05, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives, Politics

Reading Glenn Greenwald’s post on the nature of Republicans and their efforts to purge their own demons by trying to regulate the lot of us, I noted his remark on the sheer quantity of sexual predator laws that Foley was heavily involved in passing. I thought, “Well, is it a net gain then?” Did this nation ultimately profit by having a sexual predator let loose in Congress to pass laws against himself?

I therefore suggest a modest proposal. I put forth that we no longer sentence criminals to jail, but rather to Congress. Who knows better how to fight crime than criminals?

-jb

So much to deny in a day! – Part 2

Oct 03, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives

It’s not just congressional pages who need to hold onto their pants. You do too. Because you won’t believe it.

According to Brian Pickrell in a blog entry titled, “FBI Should Investigate Brian Ross,” Dennis Hastert didn’t do anything wrong, but:

What did the DEMOCRATS know, and when did they know it?? THAT’S the REAL million dollar question.

You are not dreaming. He really is that stupid. Need more evidence?

Add another thought, here (ed. note: Brian used the word “thought” BWAH HA HA HA HA). What 16-17 year old saves their instant messages for 3 years? None, that’s who. So somebody has set this all up, I’m sure.

Brian’s fantasy world clearly outstrips George R.R. Martin’s 3,100 page-plus A Song of Ice and Fire series.

I’ve got IM conversations on my computer that are almost ten years old. Why? Because I haven’t fuckin’ deleted them yet. Good one, Det. Pickrell!

Why ABC reporter Brian Ross needs to be investigated isn’t entirely clear either. Prosecuting reporters is kind of a reflex for authoritarian idiot babies like Brian. The problem with Brian Ross is that a few days of investigation have uncovered a flood of evidence that GOP leaders would have found if they hadn’t been trying to brush Foley’s indecency under the carpet.

But Brian knows, he just knows in his little ole’ heart that there’s Democrats behind this! They had all of this assembled, and they just waited until they could drop their own October surprise on the GOP. No evidence yet, but it fits (my dementia)!

I’m not making excuses for Foley…

He’s just making excuses for those who turned the other way, as long as they’re Republican.

-jb

p.s. Do you need to be told that he’s trying to bring Clinton into it? No, you already knew he was that pathological.

So much to deny in a day!

Oct 03, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives, Politics, War on Terra

More from the NYT on meeting that Brian at Iowa Voice doesn’t want to believe happened (I don’t like linking to the feeb, but if you go read his site you’ll see I’m being 100% literal).  White House records now confirm it.

A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.

I admit, it’s amazing to believe that the White House hasn’t classified all such records and kept them from the public.  It would hardly be out of character for them to do so.  It makes me happy to see something in the Executive Branch still work like it’s supposed to.

-jb

Faded Glory*

Oct 03, 2006 in Uncategorized

An easy way to push workers around is to increase “labor flexibility”.  One technique is to fire the full time staff and hire a slew of part time people.  Not only can you forget about pesky benefits you also have effective new bludgeons like retaliatory scheduling available to you.   If you’ve worked a retail job you know exactly where I’m coming from.

Wal Mart, always advancing their Brooks Brothers clad battalions against the flagging defenses of the Wagner Act, have taken up a new offensive.  Predictably, the battle plan includes paying their employees less.  Not exactly a surprise attack to those sporting a blue smock.

-mg

    

What Republicans get off on.

Oct 03, 2006 in Uncategorized

The torture of fifteen year old boys.

-mg

You can get away with one new fact if it’s a doozy.

Oct 02, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives, War on Terra

Woodward’s book is generally the sound of a man waking from a long, long slumber, accompanied by a slight turning of the back to those who might pat him on it. Clueless conservatives will deny everything and say “It’s old news!” at the same time, as they’re so good at doing.

Except Woodward came up with one new little tidbit that is just endlessly fascinating. After all this Path to 9/11 science fiction, it turns out that George W. was offered bin Laden’s head if he’d pony up $500 million (note: That’s about 2000 times cheaper than Iraq is going to cost before we ever get out.) The New York Times has some more detail today.

But Condi Rice blocked the pass. The White House has wasted no time lying about it, claiming that’s not how she recalls it, but who fucking cares what they say at this point? Has there been a less credible administration in our history? Anybody with a lick of sense (not Brian Pickrell, Iowa’s village idiot) knows they have no compunctions about denying plain facts.

Woodward has been a sad case of a fallen journalist in recent times, fellating this administration for far too long. His fudging on the Plame matter happened far too recently to indicate a complete change of heart, but perhaps this book represents the boundary of credit that a semi-reasonable person can afford this administration. They were finally too much of a gang of screw-ups, to the point where Woodward would have had to join in on plain making shit up.

So faint praise for him, but bravo on the one new fact.  The righties will attack the messenger, but it won’t work on Woodward.  The meeting happened.  The offer was there.  Further reporting will only clarify this.  All sad sack Bush-o-philes will have is “But Condi said…” and nobody will care.

The narrative is dead.  Bush was offered bin Laden.  He was so tuned out that it didn’t even get to him.  Condi didn’t make a mistake…she was honoring her boss’s wishes perfectly.  Al Queda pre 9/11:  zero priority.

Post 9/11 ain’t been so hot either.

-jb

Brian pisses on the ashes of 9/11

Oct 01, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives

Oops, he enabled comments again.

So Brian looked at the poll showing that the majority of Americans blame Bush more than Clinton for not capturing bin Laden, and said, “Nobody disputes that!” The problem? 71% of Republicans dispute it, of course.

Anyway, we were having a lovely little comment debate which was mostly civil. Then Brian started comparing the attacks under Clinton to 9/11. I said:

Compare the five attacks on Clinton’s watch to the one on 9/11?

Try doing a poll to see if more than 20% of the population can identify more than two of the attacks on Clinton’s watch. Then ask how many know about 9/11. Hint: the difference isn’t attributable to “liberal media bias.”

Well, I warned him, didn’t I? But he proved absolutely unable to restrain himself:

As for your poll about how many remember two other attacks, well I don’t know about that. If people have been so brainwashed as you into believing the the Clinton legacy, then who the hell knows WHAT they remember?

Sometimes, one must simply hang one’s head low and wonder how a human can become so irretrievably lost.

-jb

UPDATE: Ah, as usual, when Brian faces utter humiliation and defeat, he responds in the only way he knows how: He’s closed comments (after deleting my last one) on that post and tried blocking my IP again.

Idiot weakling.

p.s. The link he didn’t want his readers to see?   Turns out the CIA came to Condi Rice with a chance to kill bin Laden pre-9/11…and got brushed off.  It also features this tidbit:

(George) Tenet also claims that his alarm over Bin Laden was downplayed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who asked, “Could all this be a grand deception?”

Classic Rumsfeld.

This is not news.

Oct 01, 2006 in Journamalism

From the “No shit” department:

As depicted by Mr. Woodward, this is an administration in which virtually no one will speak truth to power, an administration in which the traditional policy-making process involving methodical analysis and debate is routinely subverted. He notes that experts — who recommended higher troop levels in Iraq, warned about the consequences of disbanding the Iraqi Army or worried about the lack of postwar planning— were continually ignored by the White House and Pentagon leadership, or themselves failed, out of cowardice or blind loyalty, to press insistently their case for an altered course in the war.

Wow, thanks for the bulletin, Woodward.  Who would have ever thought?  But I guess it amounts to one more “serious” person finally figuring out what leprous liberals have known for four years and expecting a pat on the head for it.  How close are we to having all the “right” people on board?

-jb

p.s. Woodward does get a pat on the head for revealing a meeting the 9/11 commission wasn’t told about.  Turns out Bush had a chance to nail bin Laden before the attacks and didn’t!