Today's example from Ryan Davis:
Eli Manning appears to have everything that Peyton does not: guile, sportsmanship, leadership, and a winning persona.
What's with that?!
Offending readers with over-heated drivel on politics, sports and whatever interests me.
Eli Manning appears to have everything that Peyton does not: guile, sportsmanship, leadership, and a winning persona.
One of the great ironies of the post-9/11 period is that while violent Islamic jihadists attacked this country, there is a constantly growing network — both organized and unorganized — of in-place apologists at virtually every level of society all ready to defend them. Criticize jihadists, and people on the left will call you a racist. An Islamophobe. A bigot. I have seen this too many times to count, and the reason I call it ironic is that before 9/11, feminists routinely criticized the veil. Gay activists did not hesitate to condemn Islamic homophobia. Atheists condemned Islam the same way they condemned Christianity. After 9/11, the PC crowd suddenly included a group which they’d previously neglected, and it seemed to me that the 9/11 attacks helped the image of radical Muslims with the left in this country. And in most newspapers, and on many campuses.
it's not as if Tipper Gore stands accused. This is Hillary. Hillary of the lamp-throwing temper and f-word profanity. (Neither Hillary nor her husband questioned that she had used the phrase "f-ing bastard," only that she would have identified the ethnicity of the f-ing bastard. Even when she's throwing lamps and cursing like a sailor, she's ethnically sensitive.)
Even though they [the Bush administration] had him [Osama bin Laden] cornered at Tora Bora, they yanked the special forces out of there to send them to Iraq.
I was evidently misinformed that the Battle of Tora Bora took place sometime in December of 2001. There was not even a resolution on the table to invade Iraq at that time... the resolution was not even introduced into the Senate until October 2nd, 2002; it passed the Senate without amendment on October 11th, and was signed by the president on the 16th. And we did not send troops there until March of 2003.
So in the consensus reality -- rather than in Leahy's own private version of history -- more than two solid years elapsed between the battle of Tora Bora and the call-up of troops for an invasion of Iraq. Whatever caused us not to kill or capture bin Laden in 2001, it certainly had nothing to do with the not-yet-extant invasion of Iraq.
Has this been the Democrats' plan all along, why they took over the government schools: to so damage Americans' knowledge of history that demented demagogues like Pat Leahy can make risible claims like this on the Senate floor and not be laughed out of Congress
Professor Sabato either doesn't understand that he said what he professes not to have said, or doesn't understand the difference between statements based on personal knowledge and statements based on hearsay. He appears not to know what he has done, or that he has done wrong.
Despite having governed fairly conservatively for the past eight years in the country's most important swing state, Jeb has not seen his job approval suffer.Imagine. Unfortunately for his readers, Chuck can't quite wrap his brain around why Ronald Reagan was such a great president.
UPDATE: The USA Today blog reports: USA TODAY political reporter Jill Lawrence spoke with Sabato this morning. She reports he told her that he never heard Allen use the n-word, but believes the future senator did because "people I know and trust" have told him it happened.
Pulitzer Prize winner David Halberstam delivered "War in a Time of Peace - Bush, Clinton, and the Generals" in May of 2001. Although he covered Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, there is not a hint of a mention of Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden. That suggests that, in all his digging and interviewing on the topic of Clinton at war, Halberstam never uncovered Clinton's war on terror, or did not experience Clinton's people pounding the table and emphasizing its importance.
If a team of geniuses sat down to design a man who should never be President of the United States they would come up with John McCain. Fortunately the character flaws that make him unfit for the Oval Office also put that office well beyond his reach.
The new media motto is "Amerika, scourge of the world!" I want to make it absolutely clear that I don't question the media moguls' patriotism. I nakedly assert they have none.
Newsweek reports that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel (IL) has been using his brother Ari Emanuel, Michael Moore's agent for Fahrenheit 9/11, as a key cog in the Dems' fundraising apparatus in Hollywood.
Why are the Dems' leaders associating themselves with 9/11 conspiracy theories, and those who peddle them? Are these decisions the mark of a political party that is serious on the issue of national security?
It doesn't seem so.
Part of Chandrasekaran's criticism of the reconstruction is that our administrators were lazy and ill-informed. Can the same be said about an author who failed to check basic facts in his story and, consequently, got them wrong?
See, this is one of the reasons I HAD to leave the Democrats. There is a disconnect, a fundamental refusal to engage in reality; to look at a thing and say, “gee…maybe we should rethink our old taxing habits,” seems not to be in their make-up. Unemployment is incredibly low - lower than it was in the “full employment” 1990’s. Tax receipts are incredibly high. But tax cuts are bad.
That’s right up there with the whole Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle, whereby “strong, feminist women” were suddenly delicate shrinking violets unable to endure a ribald joke. Sexual harrassment - a serious issue - got defined downward for political expedience and suddenly the same women who had declared themselves “sexually emancipated” were cowering at a man’s appreciative glance at their legs, or a risque joke…that is, until Bill Clinton got into office and then, suddenly, we were told “boys will be boys” and “some guys have to be allowed one free grope…” or, you know…a woman complaining about sexual harrassment was “what you find when you run a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park.”
The inconsistancy, intellectual dishonesty and politically expedient double standards and rationalizations are breathtaking. I may not be a Republican much longer…but sometimes I wonder if I will ever be able to vote for a Democrat again.
the press really, really simply wants to walk away from this story. They want to walk away from the reality that they carried lying Joe Wilson on their shoulders and gave him credibility he did not deserve. They want to walk away from the fact that through all of this not one of them has asked Valerie Plame a single probing question - not about her status at the CIA, not about the forged documents that seemed to have passed through her jurisdiction - not about how she got her Joey sent to Niger to begin with, not about nuthin’. Valerie walks away and doesn’t get asked a thing.
risk pooling won’t reduce overall spending or even individual affordability. A dinner party analogy demonstrates why. If a person can’t afford a steak, letting everyone order a steak, pooling the bill, and distributing it back to individuals doesn’t make the steak more affordable. As a society, there is no other table to which to send the bill.
GMA's Disillusioned Republican Woman Not Really So Republican
Friday's Good Morning America featured a segment with Robin Roberts in Memphis with three Southern women, identified as Republicans, who are all supposedly "having second thoughts about their party" and now plan to vote for Democrats. But a quick Internet search found that two of the three have backgrounds which raise questions about their fidelity to the GOP. Janna Herbison, identified on screen as "Republican turned Democrat," declared: "I used to consider myself to be a Republican." She scolded Republicans: "Don't say they're [Democrats] aligning themselves with the terrorists because they disagree with you. That's un-American." But while Herbison was Press Secretary to Republican Tennessee Governor Donald Sundquist, best known for a failed effort to enact a state income tax, she was also the Press Secretary for the Tennessee House Democratic Caucus. The other, Robin Rasmussen, who insisted that "I voted Republican in every election since I was 18," appears to be on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood, which doesn't make it impossible for her to be a Republican, but certainly suggests she's long been politically active for a liberal social cause.
The techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized; the "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the "belly slap"; and sound and light manipulation.
“Objectivity is impossible,” pop historian Howard Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”
About Wilson, a serial liar, there is not really much more to say...
I think the most troubling questions she raises are about Patrick Fitzgerald, who "knew from the day he took office that the facts did not support a violation of the act." So why did he continue the investigation? I think he has a responsibility to answer that question.
"international critics" at the Toronto Film Festival yesterday awarded a special "Fipresci prize" to the movie Death of a President:
The film, a fictional documentary showing the assassination of President Bush, was noted by the jury "for the audacity with which it distorts reality to reveal a larger truth."
Yes sir, you read it right: the movie that begins with Bush being gunned down and concludes with a "Monsters Are Due on Maple Street"-like denouement, in which America's underlying Fascism, tyranny, and violent anti-Arab bigotry is revealed, was awarded a prize in Canada -- for being fake but accurate!
In July a reporter asked if I had ever been ethnically profiled. I happily replied, "No." I can no longer say that. The L.A. Times, for one, characterized me by race, religion, ethnicity, country-of-origin and political leanings--wrongly on four of five counts. To them I was an Iranian-American politically conservative Muslim. It is perhaps irrelevant in our brave new world of journalism that I was born in Boulder, Colo. I am not a Muslim or practitioner of any religion, nor am I a political conservative. What am I? I am, most devoutly, an American. I asked the reporter if this kind of labeling was a new policy for the paper. He had no response.
The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham's possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father's outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.
political operatives at CIA and the New York Times, with a little help from a friend who had been an ambassador (and maybe another friend at State), staged a disinformation operation that they hoped just might bring down a president.Read the details. And he wraps up:
What am I suggesting? Simply this: I suspect that there was a conscious decision within the Department of Justice (but with the willing collusion of officials at State and the CIA) to use Plamegate as a tactic to neutralize the Administration’s GWOT policy, at least as that involved the legal interpretation of sensitive issues. What other explanation could possibly make sense of the known facts? This neutralization would be accomplished not through argumentation but by knowingly abusing the criminal justice system to tie key members of the Administration in knots, using Fitzgerald, the FBI and, above all, Fitzgerald’s grand jury. Plamegate was a political-ops put up job from start to finish–at least once the CIA/State/Justice cabal got their hands on it. But because it used the FBI and a Federal GJ to hound persons who the cabal knew had committed no crime or misconduct whatsoever, it was also a gross and knowing abuse of the criminal justice system, and that’s an important matter that deserves far wider publicity than it has yet received.
In this war, this argument seems particularly despicable. We have been treated to images of broken and tortured bodies of our soldiers on television and the Internet, courtesy of the animals who oppose us in this war. No one suffers under the delusion that captured soldiers will ever return alive, let alone receive Geneva-approved treatment. Our enemy doesn't even fight according to the GC, so why should they treat our soldiers any better than they treat the civilians they target for their attacks?
If Powell and Levin and McCain can name one modern conflict where our enemies gave POWs treatment in accordance with the GC, I'd be glad to post it right here on my blog. Don't expect that kind of an update any time soon.
Why don't we also remember that Kerry put up after-action reports on his web site claiming he was the skipper of the boat described therein which was involved in very heavy fighting. Except the fighting happened before he was skipper of that boat. The reports just vanished from his site after the Swift Vets reported for duty. Do you think it was hackers?
Oh, and one of the men on the boat during that heavy fighting suffered a very bad head wound and was hospitalized for a good while. He was gone before Kerry took command of the boat. Yet somehow, he was able to speak at the Dems national convention for Kerry in 2004 about Kerry's heroism leading the boat. That's a real head scratcher.
Surely the crack investigative journalists of the NY Times and Wash Post will clear it all up for us. Maybe Mary Mapes and Dan Rather can help. And if OJ ever gets tired looking for the killer, I'm sure he can lend a hand, too.
I finally admitted to a liberal friend the obvious truth - I voted for Bush because he's both pure evil *and* the luckiest bastard on the face of the earth. I mean, seriously, look at just a couple key events:
Bush joins the Texas ANG - Kerry joins the Navy Reserves.
Bush completes TANG training for jets, flies jets, volunteers for Vietnam only to be told that the pilot skills he has aren't needed.
Kerry joins the Swift Boats at time they were patrolling off coas - the duty changes to river patrolling, Kerry gets shot at by people intent on killing him and his crew. Kerry leaves by choice after three months.
Bush skates through the last two years of his TANG duty, but does so with such foresight as to bury almost all traces of his duty record leaving only notes from a dental record exam.
Kerry works as an admirals aide for the balance of his active duty stint - but manages to get caught on tape during a meeting where assassination is discussed, travels to Vietnam while on Reserve status to meet with the enemy, has his Silver Star citation ammended twice times, publishes an anti-war book that's later debunked.
Bush: Sat for 6.5 minutes after hearing about the 9/11 attacks in a room with a bunch of kids, a teacher, and a camera crew.
Kerry: Sat for an hour, stunned to the point of inaction, in a room full of adult elected officials with no camera present.
Bush: Able to surround himself with a cadre of people able to engineer election fraud on a massive scale in Democratic-controlled precincts undetected, destroy two huge buildings in the middle of a major US city without any actual, you know, evidence left behind, destroy our basic Constitutional rights in pursuit of his neocon vision of a Unitary Executive and still have the energy to clear brush from his ranch while on vacation.
Kerry: Can't get the balloons to release on cue.
There comes a point where you just marvel at the timing of events in favor of Bush and the way the Democrats clusterfuck their way through life and decide 'fuck it - Bush'
Seriously, if the Left can't defeat the Evil that is Bush, how the hell can they be trusted to defeat actual Evil?
I knew it was coming. But it is still jarring to see the extent to which the agenda journalists of the MSM will cover for the Democratic Party, even when it means abandoning a very good story certain to attract readers and serve the public's interest.
Perhaps the sad story of MSM's collapse can be condensed in a case study surrounding this race by the poobahs at Columbia School of Journalism. Dean Nick Lemann wants his students to learn power skills in order to reinvigorate the profession. Perhaps he should preface those classes with an admonishment: First, get the facts out and get them straight.
are you worried about an "emerging network of right-wing people burrowing into the film industry with ulterior sectarian politican and religious agendas"? Maybe I'm complacent about the threat, but isn't that a little like worrying about the growing anti-Zionist foothold at The New Republic? If you put Hollywoods's entire network of right wing people in David Horowitz's living room, you wouldn't have much trouble getting to the hors d'oeuvre tray. If you tried to put Hollywood's network of left wing people in the Los Angeles Convention Center, the fire marshal would close it down.
There is something pretty hypocritical about whispering “gay” about someone as though it’s a bad thing, while mouthing the usual “not that there’s anything wrong with that” platitudes. There’s an insane sort of, “we don’t think it’s bad to be gay, but we think you do, and so we’re going to suggest and smirk and giggle that someone you like is gay, and then you’ll hate them, because you’re all homophobes, but that doesn’t mean we don’t like gays, and we’d never promote intolerance or make things more difficult for them, we’re just playing a political game…no harm done, you stupid moronic bigots!”
I always am left wondering…who are the stupid moronic homophobe bigots? The ones who really don’t care what adults do in the bedroom as long as it’s consensual, or the ones who need to constantly talk about it, speculate on it and use that speculation as a “negative?”
It’s sort of like driving behind a vegan who has six “I’m a compassionate Vegan” bumperstickers on her car. You want to ask, “who are you trying to convince, me or yourself?”
The Democrats are now either dangerously foolish because they tried to spin a serious issue and have only crippled our defenses, or they are dangerously naive because they cannot see beyond their Bush Derangement Syndrome and see when their partisan obsessions take them into dangerous waters. Either way, the left and the Dems now represent a risk to our country because they have proven to not be up to the job of protecting it. A risk that can be simply avoided by not letting them run the country right now. Maybe they will figure it out in 2008. I doubt it, but at least they get a chance to do better. In national security we don’t get second chances.
Plumer's argument amounts to an admission that the kind of big-government, intrusive spending that will come from perennial policy stands of progressives has no chance of succeeding through democratic means. The only way in which single-payer health care and greater federal protections for unions can ever pass is to have a built-in bribery mechanism to sway enough votes for massive growth in the federal government.
I agree with him on that point, and it demonstrates the corrosive nature of pork better than anything I've previously written. Fundamentally, pork undermines democracy. It greases legislation that clearly could not command a majority into law, not through superior rhetoric or demonstrated competency but through payoffs and extortion.
Last night, President Bush once again urged Americans to take terrorism seriously — a warning that hardly seems necessary. One aspect of that terrible day five years ago that seems immune to politicization or trivialization is the dread of another attack.
When Mr. Bush warns that Al Qaeda means what it says, that there are Islamist fanatics around the world who wish us harm and that the next assault could be even worse than the last, he does not need to press the argument.I don't suppose we should be surprised that the Times appears to have no clue that a significant percentage of those on the left think that terrorism is no threat. The Times hasn't a clue about much of anything.
Oh, how I wish I could lock the mainstream news anchors, the elite newspaper editors, and the wire-service presidents in a room and ask them a few questions, then just keep asking and asking until they finally broke down and answered. (All right, maybe just a soupçon of waterboarding.) For people who yammer endlessly about "the public's right to know," they're remarkably unforthcoming about anything that might hurt their patrons, the Democrats.
I'm still trying to sort out which newsmen are actively evil... and which are just useful idiots.
It becomes clearer to me with each passing day that Americans hate their fabulous economy because reporters uncritically spout depressing economic nonsense on a regular basis....
The upshot is that ever since the American economy has been influenced by globalization, the phenomenon that reporters are fretting about today (namely, the "odd" and "depressing" and "mysterious" disconnect between wages and productivity) has been in effect. But they don't seem to have the slightest clue about that. After all, their job is not to present you with the facts; it is to make you depressed about Bush's handling of the economy. And recent polls show that they are very good at their job.
[T]he disaster in New Orleans was caused, not by too little welfare spending, but by too much. Four decades of dependence on government left people without the resources -- economic, intellectual, or moral -- to plan ahead and provide for themselves in an emergency.The whole column is a must read.
Yes, this is about a failure of government, all right. It's about the failure of big government and the welfare state and the whole philosophy behind them. It is about the vital necessity to move away from government handouts and toward personal responsibility and private initiative. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that the moral difference between self-reliance and dependence on government is ultimately the difference between life and death.
Remember those phony stories that individuals and the press were spreading about Republican plans to bring back the draft after the 2004 election. Fraudulent emails were sent to college students laying out supposed Republican plans, and some in the press covered them, not as the hoax they were, but simply as a seemingly plausible story that party officials were denying.
For some years it has been that reported that employees in the United States experienced widespread, substantial declines in job security or stability over the past several decades. Various newspaper articles have suggested that big structural changes in labor markets mean that job security is a "myth," that lifetime employment with a single employer is far less likely than it was, say, thirty years ago. Workers themselves worry that their prospects for keeping a job for a long period have shrunk, that they may need several jobs during their careers. "There is, however, a striking lack of solid empirical evidence to support these claims," writes economist Ann Huff Stevens.The data:
in 1969 the average tenure for men in the job they held for the longest period during their careers was 21.9 years. In 2002, the comparable figure was 21.4 years, not much different. Just more than half of men ending their careers in 1969 had been with a single employer for at least 20 years; the same was true in 2002.