[2005.10.27 - 05:00 P.M.] BUSH PUNTS ON MIERS
And so Harriet Miers walked out of our lives, leaving us for smaller and worser things, or some such whatever.
I am displeased by this development.
What's that, you say? Don't I realize that she was horribly unqualified and had no place on America's highest court?
Well, yes, she most certainly was not "qualified". There are a number of other things she wasn't, either:
Terribly Bright: Making it less likely that she'd blaze any scary new legal ground.
Particularly Principled: Meaning that each decision would have been something of a crap-shoot, and we'd have had a decent chance of some of them breaking our way.
What You'd Call Young: So she wouldn't have been around for an eternity.
Foaming At The Mouth: A fleck of spittle here and there, but no foam.
But back to the "qualified" thing. No, she wasn't, and she probably would have been an embarrassment to the court -- Bush's embarrassment -- a living, breathing reminder of what happens when you elect a moron for president. And in the end, I simply doubt she'd have done much harm. She's not in the "Thomas/Scalia mold", after all.
The next nominee? Yah, they're going to be in that mold. Hell, they'll be well to the right of Clarence and Tony. I have a hunch the next name Bush vomits up is going to be from the Janice Rogers Brown neck of the woods. Someone who is, to borrow the Rude One's preferred phrase, monkeyfuck insane.
Constitutional right to privacy? Not.
Separation of church and state? Pssshaw.
Federal Regulation of Anything Whatsoever? You jest.
The crazy-ass right flexed their muscles, and Bush caved. Now they're going to demand a certified Winger nominee. And if that person gets through, we're all in for a very rough ride.
See, the thing you need to know about the "strict constructionist" crowd is that the America they want -- the America they're yearning for -- well, it doesn't look anything like the America that any of us grew up in. The America they want to build is a terrifying, fucked-up place, where it's every rich man for themselves and screw the rest of us, and hey, let's let the bible-thumping, gay-hating lynch mobs have their way, 'cause it's a great distraction and no one important will get hurt, and like you'd have time to exercise your freedom of/from religion anyhow now that you're working a 100-hour week. That's the America these goons want.
Unqualified? There are things worse than being unqualified. Far worse.
|
[2005.10.26 - 06:15 P.M.] STUPID SHIT THAT ANNOYS ME - ITEM 10
Roll-away luggage has to rank as one of the better inventions of the last two decades. It's one of those things that, when you see it, you wonder how someone didn't think of it much earlier. It has [HYPERBOLE] transformed the modern travel landscape as we know it [/HYPERBOLE]. Yet I cannot ignore the stupidity that this stunning engineering advance has spawned.
Each day as I walk into my office, I see people plodding along towards the revolving doors with their briefcases in tow. Yes, that's right, roll-away briefcases. I have also seen roll-away backpacks. No, not the kind of backpack you take mountain hiking, the kind the kiddies take to school.
This is wrong. This is perverse.
What's next? Roll-away purses? Roll-away wallets?
People, with apologies to Bill Maher, New Rule:
If it weighs less than 25 pounds, pick the fucking thing up.
Good friggin' grief, are we a nation of weaklings? There is simply no reason to put wheels and a handle on anything that weighs less than a bag of groceries. Stop it, OK, roll-away engineers? Do not contribute to our nation's alarming lack of physical robustness. Pick up your briefcases, you lazy fuckers. Build a muscle or two. It won't kill you.
|
[2005.10.26 - 05:50 P.M.] FITZMAS... TOMORROW?
Gotta say, the suspense is driving me a little bananas right now. Jolly old St. Fitz better be bringin' some big, shiny presents what with the way he keeps making us wait.
There was this from Raw Story today:
Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY.
Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent.
Tempting... to... rejoice... But it ain't Fitzmas until I see it on CNN.
That "second" indictment against Libby (you think that'd be the main indictment on him, no?) is the key. It's really important to me that one of these scum-sucking bastards gets nailed on the core issue of this investigation, and not on ancillary charges that arose out of the conduct of the investigation. Yes, I know that perjury and obstruction of justice are actual crimes (although I would submit that their "seriousness" should be either enhanced or mitigated by just what the perpetrator was trying to protect). Yes, I know that a perjury/obstruction trial would, at the least, be politically damaging to the White House, and might even be the perfect venue to showcase the administration's Iraq mendacity.
But when it comes right down to it, I want justice, motherfuckers.
We know that Valerie Plame's outing was a political hit. The specific motivation -- be it an attempt to discredit her husband or an act of pure political revenge -- is inconsequential. We also know the White House was behind it (although my money was on Rove as the mastermind, not "Scooter"). We know these things are true. We've just been waiting for Fitzgerald to prove them in a court of law. And I want him to do that so that, for the first time in five years, someone in this administration is actually held accountable for a specific act of wrongdoing.
Perjury and/or obstruction don't cut it for me. That's not to say that, if they're all Fitzgerald has, I don't think he should crucify these motherfuckers for them. I'm just saying that if he doesn't get them for the traitorous acts we know they committed, the scales of justice are going to remain seriously out of whack.
|
[2005.10.26 - 05:00 P.M.] FALCONS 27 - JETS 14
OK, Jets fans, let's review:
1st Series: Vinny fumbles away snap.
2nd Series: Vinny sacked, loses fumble.
3rd Series: Punt.
4th Series: Vinny sacked, loses fumble.
J! E! T! S! -- Just! End! The! Season!
OK, don't get me wrong. I like Vinny. Seems like a great guy, and I'll always have a soft spot for him after his two great seasons under Parcells, the second of which culminated in the Jets' run to the AFC Championship game.
But Vinny, you're done, OK? Go home, settle back onto your couch, crack open a beer and enjoy your retirement.
If Herm Edwards -- who, to be frank, is racking up Idiot Points by the truckload these days -- can't see that the season is a lost cause and we might as well give Brooks Bollinger a chance to find out if he's an NFL quarterback or not, well then Herm, you need to go too. Maybe you and Vinny can get together for nachos and brews on Sundays.
|
[2005.10.19 - 07:00 P.M.] THE SILENT TREATMENT
Mr. Salkowitz has an interesting post up today purporting to explain why the Democrats have remained more or less silent on the growing debacle in Iraq. Here's how he describes the key piece of the puzzle:
Seems to me that the Democratic party learned one very important lesson from Vietnam. To most of the country, advocating a strategic withdrawal from a failed conflict is the same thing as admitting defeat. There's no good way to nuance it, no amount of reasoned complexity that can make it sound good. If you walk away from a fight without winning, you lose. If you lose, you are weak and untrustworthy. Is it any wonder that Democrats want no part of that?
Rob's thinking is that the Dems are:
1.) Remembering this "Lesson of Vietnam"...
2.) Assuming that people see Iraq as "Bush's War"...
3.) Hoping people are aware that they (the Dems) have absolutely no power at the moment and so...
4.) Shuttin' the fuck up and waiting to see what happens.
If this is, in fact, what the Democrats are doing, then I see two major problems with their approach.
First, regarding item 2: As Rob notes, this war was initiated by Bush with the support of "too many Democrats". People aren't going to forget that. It wasn't a case where a handful of renegade Dem hawks got behind Bush's ill-advised adventure, either. While a majority of Democrats in the House and roughly half of Senate Dems voted against the Iraq war resolution, most of the party's leaders and other "high-visibility" types -- Daschle, Gephardt, Clinton, Biden, Lieberman, etc. -- were right out in front in the march to disaster, embracing the War President in all his glory.
Second, regarding items 3 & 4: The current political environment being what it is, the Democrats just can't assume that sitting quietly on the sidelines will get them a free pass as Iraq devolves into chaos. In fact, that might well be the worst thing they could do. Right now, one of the dominant memes in the media landscape is that the Democrats are the party with no ideas. By remaining silent on the greatest military blunder of our time, they play right into that. Trust me: Iraq could erupt into full-scale war tomorrow as a result of Bush and company's bone-headed military and diplomatic mismanagement and there would still be a sizeable chunk of our population who's first response would be "Well, sure, but what would the Democrats do differently, huh? Tell me that!"
In his closing, Rob states:
Democrats are gambling that keeping silent will earn more trust to govern in the future – when all people remember is who “lost” Iraq by leaving – than it is costing them in the present. I hope they are right, because I'm not terribly happy at the moment.
I'm right with you, bud, right with you.
|
[2005.10.19 - 05:15 P.M.] WEISBERG TAKES BOLDLY CONTRARIAN VIEW ON PLAMEGATE. MORON.
I dislike "contrarians". I think they reek of phoniness. It's perfectly acceptable to have a genuine difference of opinion with one's putative ideological allies and to stand up and state it, or to find a flaw in the reigning "conventional wisdom" and point it out. It's another thing entirely when this is one's knee-jerk response to virtually any matter currently up for public discussion. Yet there are plenty of pundits, writers, and other opinion-shapers who seem to do exactly that: They embrace disagreement for its own sake. They see staking out the "contrary" position as an appointed role. It is, in short, their schtick. Useless posers, every last one of them, hiding behind a pretense of boldness and originality when what they're really doing is selling out sound reasoning just to make a name for themselves.
Slate Magazine does not share my disdain for contrarians. In fact, they seem intent on hoarding them by the truckload. There's the "liberal" Mickey Kaus, who earns his paycheck hectoring and ridiculing left-wing bloggers. There's Jack Shafer, press critic, who can always be counted on in a pinch to draw a false equivalency between conservative and liberal media. There's the "leftist" Christopher Hitchens, who pens weekly screeds with titles like "Pussies: How The Left Is Playing Into The Hands of The Terrorists By Opposing The Simultaneous Invasion of Syria And Iran".
And then there's Jacob Weisberg.
Following the utter failure of uber-wanker Richard Cohen to convince a single living soul that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should pack his bags and go home, Weisberg has decided to step up to the plate and explain to liberals everywhere why Fitzgerald's investigation is a Bad Thing:
Opponents of the Bush administration are anticipating vindication on various fronts—justice for their nemesis Karl Rove, repudiation of George W. Bush's dishonest case for the Iraq war, a comeuppance for Chalabi-loving reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times, and even some payback for the excesses of independent counsels during the Clinton years.
Hold the schadenfreude, blue-staters. Rooting for Rove's indictment in this case isn't just unseemly, it's unthinking and ultimately self-destructive. Anyone who cares about civil liberties, freedom of information, or even just fair play should have been skeptical about Fitzgerald's investigation from the start. Claiming a few conservative scalps might be satisfying, but they'll come at a cost to principles liberals hold dear: the press's right to find out, the government's ability to disclose, and the public's right to know.
How, exactly, does one deal with such an enormous pile of bullshit? One shovelful at a time, my friends.
Let us first note Weisberg's admission that he finds those who are rooting for Fitzgerald to take down the Bushies "unseemly". This is such a classic Slate-ian tip-off word. See, like his stable-mates, Weisberg prides himself on staying "above the fray". Wouldn't want to get too wild-eyed at the prospect of someone -- anyone -- in the Bush Administration finally being held accountable for their wrongdoings. Nope. Wouldn't be proper. (Hell, Slate actually calls their comment boards "The Fray". Could they be any more blunt in their disdain for those of us who passionately advocate for our positions in the national blood-sport that our politics have become?)
Well, fuck you, Jake, and fuck your effete response to those of us who are drooling at the thought of a little justice for these bastards. Hope you brought your smelling salts, because if Plamegate breaks against the White House as hard as it's looking like it might, your fragile little heart is going to be in for a rough ride.
Now, as to those dearly-held principles we on the left are supposedly sacrificing -- civil liberties, freedom of information, fair play, the government's ability to disclose information, and the press and the public's right to know -- let's do talk about them, shall we?
Civil Liberties: Whose civil liberties am I supposed to be concerned for here? Judith Miller's? At what point did we extend the notion of free speech and journalistic privileges to encompass the actions of a reporter who apparently colluded with several administration officials in an effort to squash and discredit one of their most high-profile critics? Miller's no free-speech martyr. She's a criminal conspirator who was trying to protect her own lying ass.
Freedom of Information: Does not apply to the identity of covert agents. That's kind of key when it comes to the whole idea of having covert agents -- we grant the government the right to hide their identity.
Fair Play: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Wait, were we talking about Karl Rove? Right? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...
The Government's Ability to Disclose Information: I'm all for conducting the business of government out in the sunshine for everyone to see. The Bush administration, however, is not. For five years they have fought tooth and nail to avoid disclosing information that the public had an absolute right to know. Who was on Cheney's energy task force? What did Bush know about 9-11 before it happened? Why were we lead to believe Saddam was sitting on stockpiles of WMD's? They were forthcoming with regard to none of these vital matters. The disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity, by contrast, was an outrageous perversion of good government. If this were a matter of the government being forthright with its people, why didn't Bush hold a press conference and say "Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative"? I'll tell you why: Because it was a dirty and underhanded thing to do, and so they leaked it in a dark room somewhere, then let their bootlicks in the press launder it and furtively slip it into the national dialog. That wasn't government in the open, it was government slithering through the sewer.
The Press and the Public's Right to Know: Right to know what, exactly? To know the truth? To know if their government is keeping something from them? Certainly, we have that right. That's why we extend to journalists the privilege of being able to protect their sources -- because we worry that when those sources are telling us things that those in power don't want us to know, they might be leaving themselves open to retribution. That privilege was never meant to aid the powerful in persecuting dissenters. It was not meant to help partisan operatives stifle debate. And it certainly wasn't meant to aid in covering up criminal activities.
At the heart of Weisberg's ill-conceived attempt to defend the Bushies against the ravages of the out-of-control Fitzgerald is his belief that this whole matter was just a case of sloppy politics and inadvertent collateral damage. Rove and Libby, Weisberg wants us to believe, mentioned that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative in the heat of the Iraq/WMD/Niger debate, not realizing the full import of the information they were recklessly imparting to their media flunkies. Weisberg makes a big deal, for example, of the fact that Karl Rove supposedly didn't even know Plame's name when he spoke to Time's Matt Cooper.
I think that reading of events is exceedingly naive. Rove and Libby are grizzled political veterans. I'm guessing they just knew better than to spell everything out and make their agenda plain for all to see. Instead, they dropped offhand references. They used knowing asides. They gave a nudge where it would suffice, not a shove, and they let the Bob Novaks of the world do the rest.
Early on in his piece, Weisberg states:
You need a pretty low opinion of people in the White House to imagine they would knowingly foster the possible assassination of CIA assets in other countries for the sake of retaliation against someone who wrote an op-ed they didn't like in the New York Times.
Well, after what I've seen from this particular group of actors, Jake, my opinion couldn't be much lower. What's really startling about this entire sordid affair is that the crimes we on the left suspect Rove, Libby, and their bosses of wouldn't be out of character at all. In fact, they'd be wholly expected by just about anyone except the most egregiously "contrarian" of so-called liberals.
|
[2005.10.19 - 05:00 P.M.] BILLS 27 - JETS 17
OK, so it took me a few days to get around to this. Sue me. What to say, what to say...
Three things:
1. Vinny, old man, you've still got a great arm, but unfortunately you also still have a nasty predilection for throwing to the guys wearing the wrong jerseys.
2. To the Jets D: You let us down big time against McGahee, but I can't say I really blame you. Five straight weeks of being on the field for way more than your share of the game has to wear you out eventually.
3. Kevin Mawae: You have been the pole star that our offense sets its compass by for what seems like forever. Now you're out for the season. I shudder to think of the havoc your absence will wreak.
The only good news from last weekend? The AFC East still sucks. Especially the Patriots... heh heh.
|
