Easy Answers To Dumbass Questions
Published by BG on Saturday, September 15, 2007 at 7:36 AM.QUESTION:
The Corner on National Review Online
ANSWER: Please refer to the "A" in ACLU for questions regarding the scope of the group's advocacy. Dumbass.
The Corner on National Review Online
What Will The ACLU Do? [Cliff May]
I think the ACLU may have a mixed reaction to this. On the one hand, it hardly accords with due process. On the other hand, it does suggest a pro-choice sensibility.
"Now, I swear to God, if we will hear anyone is with al-Qaeda, even if he is still inside his mother's womb, we will kill him."
- Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, a leader of the Dulaim confederation, the largest tribal organization in Iraq's Anbar Province.
From this story.
ANSWER: Please refer to the "A" in ACLU for questions regarding the scope of the group's advocacy. Dumbass.
Powered by ScribeFire.
I'm Sure There's SOMETHING Political In This Absurdity...
Published by BG on Friday, September 14, 2007 at 9:29 PM.Little Children: Bring On The Smooth Young Girls! - Gawker
"When a girl removes hair for the first time, it's a life-changing moment," said Stacey Feldman, vice president for marketing at the women's health and personal care division of the Church & Dwight Company, which purchased Nair in 2001.
They grow up so fast! At least that seems to be the thinking over at Nair, which has introduced "Nair Pretty, a line aimed at 10- to 15-year-olds or, in industry parlance, 'first-time hair removers.'"
Um...
Powered by ScribeFire.
Most Interesting Quote I've Read So Far Today
Published by BG on at 9:26 AM.Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » “The Terror Dream”
In The Terror Dream, [Susan] Faludi has written what I think is an important work for the moment as we try desperately to extricate ourselves from an imperialistic foreign policy and politicians who are locked into a narrative where bellicosity is equated with strength. In the wake of 9/11, the country suffered a collective trauma that Faludi argues exposed deep sexual anxieties and caused us to fall back violently and reflexively into native myths of gunslinging cowboys and fainting virgins in need of rescue as we struggled to compensate for a threatened sense of national virility
I'd maybe argue that the illusion of safety that was shattered on that day didn't assault our "national virility" as much as it regressed our self-reliance to a child-like state and allowed pre-9/11 security theater to be augmented in a number of fashions both absurd and insidious. For example, referencing the Naomi Klein video a post or two below, I think this current administration feels like they hit the lottery in the wake of 9/11 - and I mean that exactly how I said it. It allowed them to push through their ideas of the radical Friedman-esque ideas of privatization and police-state control I think the party has always desired. Maybe there is a faux-cowboy sort of aesthetic at play in those ideas - specifically in how they were sold to America - but ultimately I feel that it's more akin to the farmer letting the fox loose in the hen house purposefully, simply because he fears there maybe might be a raccoon in there or something.
Powered by ScribeFire.
A Quick Thought Experiment...
Published by BG on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 3:17 PM.Testing the theory that opposition to Democrats is vastly more important than recognizing Republican mistakes as they unfold, here are two different stories:
1) Former Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (NM), in a campaign stop today in Ames, Iowa, spoke to a group of senior citizens regarding his plans on handling Iraq. "Unequivocal and premature withdrawal is not going to solve any problems, it will cause chaos in Iraq and will spiral the Middle East into a regional struggle with radical Islamists pulling the strings. We'd have to get back over there with UN forces, which are largely US-supplied anyway, to restore order."
Richardson spoke at length to the assembled voters and offered his ideas for accelerating a return to order in Iraq. "We've been playing 'Whack-a-Mole' for three years," he said, referring to the children's arcade game in which animated moles pop up in unexpected places at unexpected times. "What we need to do is work with the individual groups in each region, much like we've done in Anbar, and encourage their militias to evolve into regional police forces working under the direction of a strong centralized Iraqi government."
When pressed by a reporter as to whether that meant choosing sides based on who's winning in each region now, and working with now-dominant factions to provide arms and training, thereby bestowing "official status" and government endorsement on their often-oppressive militia activities, Governor Richardson replied, "I wouldn't have phrased it like that, but at some point we need to pick a side - even if that's lots of sides - and help them to victory."
And the second story...
2) (T)he Bush administration’s still-stay-the-course strategy calls for stepped up training of Iraq’s security forces while selectively removing sectarian militias in and around Baghdad. The United States and Iraq plan to spend an additional $14 billion on Iraq’s security forces this year, with $5 billion coming from U.S. taxpayers and $9 billion from Iraq’s budget, according to Lieutenant General Dempsey.
As that money is spent, the Iraqi army by end of 2007 will grow from 10 to 12 divisions and will have 170,700 soldiers—nearly 35,000 more than at the end of 2006. Iraq’s police force, including national, local, and border patrol units, will grow from 192,000 at the end of last year to 198,600 at the end of 2007. Impressive—except for the fact that many of these soldiers and police boast loyalties to different sectarian or ethnic leaders rather than to their national leaders.
The unconditional training of national Iraqi security forces risks making Iraq’s civil war even bloodier and more vicious than it already is today. It also increases the dangers that these weapons might one day be turned against the United States and its allies in the region.
If there's any doubt at all, I faked the first story entirely. Richardson said no such thing. Here's the source on the second one. My question is this... can anyone make a convincing case that if arming opposing militias in Iraq had been a Democrat idea, as opposed to an administration policy, that conservatives wouldn't be using that idea to tear down Richardson as uninformed and unserious?
Really?
1) Former Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (NM), in a campaign stop today in Ames, Iowa, spoke to a group of senior citizens regarding his plans on handling Iraq. "Unequivocal and premature withdrawal is not going to solve any problems, it will cause chaos in Iraq and will spiral the Middle East into a regional struggle with radical Islamists pulling the strings. We'd have to get back over there with UN forces, which are largely US-supplied anyway, to restore order."
Richardson spoke at length to the assembled voters and offered his ideas for accelerating a return to order in Iraq. "We've been playing 'Whack-a-Mole' for three years," he said, referring to the children's arcade game in which animated moles pop up in unexpected places at unexpected times. "What we need to do is work with the individual groups in each region, much like we've done in Anbar, and encourage their militias to evolve into regional police forces working under the direction of a strong centralized Iraqi government."
When pressed by a reporter as to whether that meant choosing sides based on who's winning in each region now, and working with now-dominant factions to provide arms and training, thereby bestowing "official status" and government endorsement on their often-oppressive militia activities, Governor Richardson replied, "I wouldn't have phrased it like that, but at some point we need to pick a side - even if that's lots of sides - and help them to victory."
And the second story...
2) (T)he Bush administration’s still-stay-the-course strategy calls for stepped up training of Iraq’s security forces while selectively removing sectarian militias in and around Baghdad. The United States and Iraq plan to spend an additional $14 billion on Iraq’s security forces this year, with $5 billion coming from U.S. taxpayers and $9 billion from Iraq’s budget, according to Lieutenant General Dempsey.
As that money is spent, the Iraqi army by end of 2007 will grow from 10 to 12 divisions and will have 170,700 soldiers—nearly 35,000 more than at the end of 2006. Iraq’s police force, including national, local, and border patrol units, will grow from 192,000 at the end of last year to 198,600 at the end of 2007. Impressive—except for the fact that many of these soldiers and police boast loyalties to different sectarian or ethnic leaders rather than to their national leaders.
The unconditional training of national Iraqi security forces risks making Iraq’s civil war even bloodier and more vicious than it already is today. It also increases the dangers that these weapons might one day be turned against the United States and its allies in the region.
If there's any doubt at all, I faked the first story entirely. Richardson said no such thing. Here's the source on the second one. My question is this... can anyone make a convincing case that if arming opposing militias in Iraq had been a Democrat idea, as opposed to an administration policy, that conservatives wouldn't be using that idea to tear down Richardson as uninformed and unserious?
Really?
Powered by ScribeFire.
A Companion Video To "Shock Doctrine"
Published by BG on at 11:58 AM.Via
Cliff Schecter at Brave New Films, a short piece by filmmaker Alfonso Cuaron and Naomi Klein that serves as a companion piece to Ms. Klein's book referenced in the post below:
[Voiceover Narration]: "(Famous Economist Milton) Friedman understood that just as prisoners are softened up for interrogation by the shock of their capture, massive disasters could serve to soften us up for his radical free market crusade. He advised politicians that immediately after a crisis, they should push through all the painful policies at once, before people could regain their footing. He called this method 'Economic Shock Treatment.'"
"Only a crisis, actual or perceived, produces real change." -- Milton Friedman
Cliff Schecter at Brave New Films, a short piece by filmmaker Alfonso Cuaron and Naomi Klein that serves as a companion piece to Ms. Klein's book referenced in the post below:
[Voiceover Narration]: "(Famous Economist Milton) Friedman understood that just as prisoners are softened up for interrogation by the shock of their capture, massive disasters could serve to soften us up for his radical free market crusade. He advised politicians that immediately after a crisis, they should push through all the painful policies at once, before people could regain their footing. He called this method 'Economic Shock Treatment.'"
"Only a crisis, actual or perceived, produces real change." -- Milton Friedman
Powered by ScribeFire.
The Rise Of "Disaster Capitalism"
Published by BG on at 9:41 AM.Journalist Naomi Klein has a new book coming out next week which analyzes the rise of what she's calling "disaster capitalism," better known as the privatization of security in the wake of 9/11.
It seems obvious to me (maybe not to you) that the post-9/11 fears of Americans and the Republicans in power contributed to the perfect storm necessary to create an industry of private companies working "to keep Americans safe" through government channels. I'm not calling 9/11 a government conspiracy, but I think this administration had to be excited in its wake to finally get the opportunity to expand the military-industrial complex in previously unnecessary ways, and to give rise to a new group of entrepreneurs supporting this complex - and by extension the fear-mongering and war-purveying political goals of this administration.
Guardian | The age of disaster capitalism (an excerpt from Ms. Klein's book)
With all that we've learned about this administration's willingness to engage in warrantless wiretapping and their desire to accumulate data on Americans, immigrants and foreigners alike to (supposedly only) target terrorists, the fact that this data is being gathered and handled by private companies seems to be lost on most Americans.
Even if you assume the government is asking for the highest level of privacy safeguards to be respected by their suppliers, is it difficult to imagine a scenario where those safeguards are ignored in the interest of preserving the company's income stream? Imagine that your company has constructed a data model designed to provide a high positive ID hit rate by identifying data aberrations. Let's say you sell this idea to the government on a renewable contract under which they specify your level of discretion with the data you're allowed to integrate into the program. Now, let's assume that once your data model has real live data to chew on, it's not working as well as you promised it would, but by breaking the rules of discretion, you could generate the metrics you promised and get another hundred million dollars when your bid is renewed.
Is that a scenario that couldn't possibly play out? Let's take this next clip to the same conclusion:
The CIA operates (presumably) with the oversight necessary to safeguard the constitutional rights of American citizens. Private companies providing intelligence services are (presumably) only judged by their efficacy, and are (presumably) not responsible for balancing their efficacy with the constitutional rights of American citizens. The only incentive, then, for private companies in this field is to produce actionable intelligence.
Simply put, this allows the government to divest itself of responsibility for civil rights violations. Not only that, but this administration's habits of declaring state secrets, attempting to immunize partners in spying from litigation, and allowing mercenaries to operate in Iraq without being accountable to the Uniform Code of Military Justice pushes privatized intelligence firms into a grey area in which they may not be subject to either oversight or litigation - the only two means the people have of putting a check on their behavior.
There's a good point made halfway through the article by a deputy director of DHS, Jane Alexander. She states, "We don't make things. If it doesn't come from industry, we are not going to be able to get it." Point taken. It's encouraging, in some respects, to know that our government is working with capable suppliers to innovate new ways to handle the law enforcement problem that terrorism presents. Ms. Alexander's also correct in stating that the government doesn't "make things," so there will always (for any department - the FDA doesn't make their own scientific equipment, right?) be a need for private industry to support public goals.
Going back to a quote from Ms. Klein above:
This is the idea that saddens and concerns me the most. 99% or more of all Americans have nothing to fear at all from terrorists, but should have a more realistic idea than they do about the consequences an abuse of police-state powers could inflict on the America they claim to love. Privatization, in this new disaster capitalism bubble, is being used to separate the goals and intentions of the government from the blame and liability of achieving those goals. And as America's oblivious complicity expands, so will the goals and intentions, along with the potential for abuse in the system.
I can't wait to read this book.
It seems obvious to me (maybe not to you) that the post-9/11 fears of Americans and the Republicans in power contributed to the perfect storm necessary to create an industry of private companies working "to keep Americans safe" through government channels. I'm not calling 9/11 a government conspiracy, but I think this administration had to be excited in its wake to finally get the opportunity to expand the military-industrial complex in previously unnecessary ways, and to give rise to a new group of entrepreneurs supporting this complex - and by extension the fear-mongering and war-purveying political goals of this administration.
Guardian | The age of disaster capitalism (an excerpt from Ms. Klein's book)
As hi-tech firms have jumped from one bubble [dot-com] to another, the result has been a bizarre merger of security and shopping cultures. Many technologies in use today as part of the war on terror - biometric identification, video surveillance, web tracking, data mining - had been developed by the private sector before September 11 as a way to build detailed customer profiles, opening up new vistas for micromarketing. When widespread discomfort about big-brother technologies stalled many of these initiatives, it caused dismay to both marketers and retailers. September 11 loosened this log jam in the market: suddenly the fear of terror was greater than the fear of living in a surveillance society. So now, the same information collected from cash cards or "loyalty" cards can be sold not only to a travel agency or the Gap as marketing data but also to the FBI as security data, flagging a "suspicious" interest in pay-as-you-go mobile phones and Middle Eastern travel.
With all that we've learned about this administration's willingness to engage in warrantless wiretapping and their desire to accumulate data on Americans, immigrants and foreigners alike to (supposedly only) target terrorists, the fact that this data is being gathered and handled by private companies seems to be lost on most Americans.
And with all the snooping going on - phone logs, wire-tapping, financial records, mail, surveillance cameras, web surfing - the government is drowning in data, which has opened up yet another massive market in information management and data mining, as well as software that claims to be able to "connect the dots" in this ocean of words and numbers and pinpoint suspicious activity.
Even if you assume the government is asking for the highest level of privacy safeguards to be respected by their suppliers, is it difficult to imagine a scenario where those safeguards are ignored in the interest of preserving the company's income stream? Imagine that your company has constructed a data model designed to provide a high positive ID hit rate by identifying data aberrations. Let's say you sell this idea to the government on a renewable contract under which they specify your level of discretion with the data you're allowed to integrate into the program. Now, let's assume that once your data model has real live data to chew on, it's not working as well as you promised it would, but by breaking the rules of discretion, you could generate the metrics you promised and get another hundred million dollars when your bid is renewed.
Is that a scenario that couldn't possibly play out? Let's take this next clip to the same conclusion:
Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa), a new intelligence agency created under Donald Rumsfeld that is independent of the CIA. This parallel spy agency outsources 70% of its budget to private contractors; like the department of homeland security, it was built as a hollow shell. As Ken Minihan, former director of the National Security Agency, explained, "Homeland security is too important to be left to the government." Minihan, like hundreds of other Bush administration staffers, has already left his government post to work in the burgeoning homeland security industry, which, as a top spy, he helped create.
The CIA operates (presumably) with the oversight necessary to safeguard the constitutional rights of American citizens. Private companies providing intelligence services are (presumably) only judged by their efficacy, and are (presumably) not responsible for balancing their efficacy with the constitutional rights of American citizens. The only incentive, then, for private companies in this field is to produce actionable intelligence.
Simply put, this allows the government to divest itself of responsibility for civil rights violations. Not only that, but this administration's habits of declaring state secrets, attempting to immunize partners in spying from litigation, and allowing mercenaries to operate in Iraq without being accountable to the Uniform Code of Military Justice pushes privatized intelligence firms into a grey area in which they may not be subject to either oversight or litigation - the only two means the people have of putting a check on their behavior.
There's a good point made halfway through the article by a deputy director of DHS, Jane Alexander. She states, "We don't make things. If it doesn't come from industry, we are not going to be able to get it." Point taken. It's encouraging, in some respects, to know that our government is working with capable suppliers to innovate new ways to handle the law enforcement problem that terrorism presents. Ms. Alexander's also correct in stating that the government doesn't "make things," so there will always (for any department - the FDA doesn't make their own scientific equipment, right?) be a need for private industry to support public goals.
Going back to a quote from Ms. Klein above:
September 11 loosened this log jam in the market: suddenly the fear of terror was greater than the fear of living in a surveillance society.
This is the idea that saddens and concerns me the most. 99% or more of all Americans have nothing to fear at all from terrorists, but should have a more realistic idea than they do about the consequences an abuse of police-state powers could inflict on the America they claim to love. Privatization, in this new disaster capitalism bubble, is being used to separate the goals and intentions of the government from the blame and liability of achieving those goals. And as America's oblivious complicity expands, so will the goals and intentions, along with the potential for abuse in the system.
I can't wait to read this book.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Because Conspiracy Theories Are Fun...
Published by BG on at 8:31 AM.Remember the bomber with live nukes that "disappeared" for a little while last week, only to show up again on the other side of the country? Well, there's speculation that the plane departed with six nukes, but only landed with five:
Standown: Did US Military Lose a Nuke? (4) - Free Market News Network
By the way, I get all my news from Free Market News Network. It's how I know about the microchips and how the government and Frito-Lay have collaborated to use Cheetos as part of a global plan to inoculate Americans against the oncoming threat of popcorn lung. Anyway, I like FMNN because of their commitment to journalistic standards - that is, if you find it on a message board, it must be true.
ATS Premium: Barksdale Missile Number Six: The Stolen Nuclear Weapon, page 1
And where, might you wonder, has this weapon gone? The same poster on the message board draws this conclusion:
So the only reasonable conclusion is, of course, that the nuke from the B-52 - helmed by an Air Force crew undoubtedly all keeping silent about what really happened during their ten hours off the grid - has been "disappeared" by our government to use against American citizens so that we might blame the Iranians and rally for a retaliatory nuclear strike in Iran.
Makes perfect sense to me, although others see a larger conspiracy at play:
Standown: Did US Military Lose a Nuke? (4) - Free Market News Network
Global banking conspiracy, Enron, a "loose nuke," and the implosion of the world's financial system.
I blame Bigfoot.
Standown: Did US Military Lose a Nuke? (4) - Free Market News Network
Several alternative news sites have reported that a nuclear device seems to have "disappeared." See story and link, below, followed by previous reports, including initial FMNN Feedbacker speculation. These come on the heels of speculation that previous reports - that the recent nuclear mix-up was a warning to Iran - are disinformation.
By the way, I get all my news from Free Market News Network. It's how I know about the microchips and how the government and Frito-Lay have collaborated to use Cheetos as part of a global plan to inoculate Americans against the oncoming threat of popcorn lung. Anyway, I like FMNN because of their commitment to journalistic standards - that is, if you find it on a message board, it must be true.
ATS Premium: Barksdale Missile Number Six: The Stolen Nuclear Weapon, page 1
Six nuclear weapons disappeared from Minot AFB in North Dakota.
Five nuclear weapons were discovered at Barksdale AFB in Louisiana.
Which leads to my chilling conclusion:
Someone, operating under a special chain of command within the United States Air Force, just stole a nuclear weapon.
And where, might you wonder, has this weapon gone? The same poster on the message board draws this conclusion:
What next?
The answer has been provided several times, most recently by CIA Director and General Michael Hayden. On September 7, dressed in full military uniform, Hayden told assembled members of the Council of Foreign Relations:
"Our analysts assess with high confidence that al-Qaida's central leadership is planning high-impact plots against the U. S. homeland."
"We assess with high confidence that al-Qaida is focusing on targets that would produce mass casualties, dramatic destruction and significant aftershocks."
An eye for an eye. Use of nukes will justify use of nukes. A perfect excuse to wage nuclear war against Iran.
I suspect Hayden is absolutely correct, except for his mistaken identification of the "central leadership" that is planning detonation of a nuclear weapon on American soil.
So the only reasonable conclusion is, of course, that the nuke from the B-52 - helmed by an Air Force crew undoubtedly all keeping silent about what really happened during their ten hours off the grid - has been "disappeared" by our government to use against American citizens so that we might blame the Iranians and rally for a retaliatory nuclear strike in Iran.
Makes perfect sense to me, although others see a larger conspiracy at play:
Standown: Did US Military Lose a Nuke? (4) - Free Market News Network
6. 9/10/2007 - 2:57:2AM
BY: Adrien Monteleone
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/09/09/cndebt109.xml
In the article above, it notes that UK banks are in serious trouble of having to cough up a boatload of cash between 9/11 and 9/19. 9/14 lies smack in the middle of this. Could another false flag attack be used as some type of distraction? Most of the SEC evidence against World Com, Enron and others was lost in the WTC complex on 9/11/01. Is there a target in America that will serve the same purpose this time around? It seems the global financial system is in the process of imploding. We need to quickly identify how an attack might thwart it, or maybe make it look like it was the attack rather than bad monetary and fiscal policy that caused the economy to tank world wide. Would this just be an attack, an 'accident' or the sum of all fears - an errant nuke detonation used to justify a limited and orchestrated nuclear exchange between West and East? If the global monetary system is about to result in open worldwide revolution, and you were responsible, wouldn't you try to make it look like something else was the cause? (and take out a few of the 'masses' in the process?) Remember, most military action in any nation is the direct result of flawed domestic policy or weak leaders, most notably relating to the economy. Now imagine that on a world wide scale.
Not to to be the one to yell 'fire' but I think we need to seriously consider the possibility. We may not be able to prevent it, but if we can call it earlier and more specifically this time, it will be harder for anyone to present any 'official' explanation contrary to the truth.
My question is: Where are all the true patriots in the U.S. Military? Will they refuse to execute unlawful orders? Will they finally bring to justice our domestic enemies? When will they say, "Enough is enough!?"
Global banking conspiracy, Enron, a "loose nuke," and the implosion of the world's financial system.
I blame Bigfoot.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Pullout Leads To Civil War Leads To Regional War Leads To...?
Published by BG on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 2:53 PM.I don't link the following to try to make a point larger than this: Although there are certainly voices in the pundit class attempting to tell us all the reasons why we shouldn't pull out of Iraq, a couple of things bear mentioning. First, no one knows exactly what's going to happen if we stay or if we go (which is another topic altogether), so take that punditry with a grain of salt. Second, if past performance is any indicator of future results, a large regional war in the Middle East is unlikely at best.
Matthew Yglesias (September 12, 2007) - Containing Iraq (Foreign Policy)
Again, I don't think I'm smart enough to tell you what's going to happen - but neither is Bill Kristol. Lots of opinions, lots of possibilities, but if history is any guide we don't have much to worry about in regards to armageddon in the Middle East if we leave Iraq.
According to Matt Yglesias, at least. I read Leon Uris' Exodus once, and I kinda dig Lebanese food, but that's as far as my foreign policy credentials extend.
Matthew Yglesias (September 12, 2007) - Containing Iraq (Foreign Policy)
Kevin Drum tries to throw some water on the "Middle East in Flames" theory holding that American withdrawal from Iraq will lead not only to a short-term intensification of fighting in Iraq, but also to some kind of broader regional conflagration. Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, as usual sensible but several clicks to my right, also make this point briefly in Democracy: "Talk that Iraq’s troubles will trigger a regional war is overblown; none of the half-dozen civil wars the Middle East has witnessed over the past half-century led to a regional conflagration."
Again, I don't think I'm smart enough to tell you what's going to happen - but neither is Bill Kristol. Lots of opinions, lots of possibilities, but if history is any guide we don't have much to worry about in regards to armageddon in the Middle East if we leave Iraq.
According to Matt Yglesias, at least. I read Leon Uris' Exodus once, and I kinda dig Lebanese food, but that's as far as my foreign policy credentials extend.
Powered by ScribeFire.
An Open Letter To Conservative Bloggers
Published by BG on at 11:04 AM.Dear Righty Bloggers,
While I appreciate your enthusiasm in "covering" the Hsu and MoveOn.org* stories, there simply must be other issues out there as well from which you might draw your usual amount of righteous indignation. Might I suggest trying to tar all liberals with the New Jersey corruption case? Or perhaps there might be an uppity gay somewhere (try Canada - they're going CRAZY up there) who needs to be reminded precisely what marriage is and isn't?
I look forward to seeing you broaden your scope, as the brown people, homos and lefties can't get away with their bullshit as long as you're not asleep at the switch.
Best to you,
BG
*35 total articles between those two topics across six of the conservative blogs I read since Monday morning. There might be more too, I just looked at the subject line of the post and a Hsu/MoveOn/Soros mention was what I counted. The sites: Hot Air, Hugh Hewitt at TownHall, Michelle Malkin, Newsbusters, Power Line and Instapundit.
While I appreciate your enthusiasm in "covering" the Hsu and MoveOn.org* stories, there simply must be other issues out there as well from which you might draw your usual amount of righteous indignation. Might I suggest trying to tar all liberals with the New Jersey corruption case? Or perhaps there might be an uppity gay somewhere (try Canada - they're going CRAZY up there) who needs to be reminded precisely what marriage is and isn't?
I look forward to seeing you broaden your scope, as the brown people, homos and lefties can't get away with their bullshit as long as you're not asleep at the switch.
Best to you,
BG
*35 total articles between those two topics across six of the conservative blogs I read since Monday morning. There might be more too, I just looked at the subject line of the post and a Hsu/MoveOn/Soros mention was what I counted. The sites: Hot Air, Hugh Hewitt at TownHall, Michelle Malkin, Newsbusters, Power Line and Instapundit.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Democrats or Brown People - I'm Not Going To Say "I Told You So..."
Published by BG on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 at 12:38 PM.OpinionJournal - Extra
'America the Ugly'
Six years after 9/11, it's notable how little the politics of the left have changed.
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Powered by ScribeFire.
Sure, We'll Donate the Money to Charity....But, Don't Ask Us About Our Donators
Published by Pokerwolf on at 10:22 AM.
A Bundle of Trouble - Wall Street Journal
Welcome to the new way for politicians to bend the rules to make a ton of campaign money. I wonder how many people believe, whether it's true or not, that most if not all of Clinton and Obama's campaign funds are tainted like Hsu's money?
It's about time the door was blown off of the shady world campaign contributions. A lot of money comes from honest citizens, but an equal amount, if not more, comes through people like Hsu.
But, how willing are candidates to provide campaign donator information?
Nobody should be surprised and if it was Rebpublicans with the headline-creating problem, they'd do the same thing. The only problem with this stance is it makes the candidates look incredibly guilty. Whether they are or not.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are fund-raising powerhouses. On Saturday alone, Mr. Obama scooped up $3 million at a gala hosted by Oprah Winfrey. The candidates are happy to tout their cash hauls. Just don't ask them to identify the contributors whose money disgraced donor Norman Hsu delivered to their campaigns.
Both campaigns are donating to charity the limited direct contributions Mr. Hsu made to them. But Mr. Hsu's influence went far deeper. In 2005, he helped host a California fund-raiser for Mr. Obama, where he introduced the senator to Mark Gorenberg, a venture capitalist who is now one of Mr. Obama's biggest fund-raisers.
Mr. Hsu later became one of Mrs. Clinton's top bundlers--powerbrokers who collect many small donations for delivery to candidates. He brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars to her and other Democratic causes. The Wall Street Journal reports that many of the contributions came from "people who had no prior history of political giving or obvious means for paying."
Welcome to the new way for politicians to bend the rules to make a ton of campaign money. I wonder how many people believe, whether it's true or not, that most if not all of Clinton and Obama's campaign funds are tainted like Hsu's money?
Bundlers are now very much in the news. All the major GOP candidates have had their own controversies involving bundlers. Last month, Geoffrey Fieger, the trial lawyer who was the 1998 Democratic nominee for Michigan governor, was indicted on charges he conspired to make more than $125,000 in illegal bundled contributions to the 2004 presidential campaign of John Edwards. Back then Mr. Edwards flatly refused to identify his bundlers.
Such scandals were part of what prompted Congress to pass an ethics reform bill that is now on President Bush's desk. It would require all campaigns to disclose the identities of bundlers who are lobbyists and bring in over $15,000 in any six-month period. Both Sens. Clinton and Obama voted for the bill, and Mr. Obama would like to go further. Last week, he announced he will introduce legislation to require campaigns to disclose the identity of all bundlers and the amounts they bring in.
It's about time the door was blown off of the shady world campaign contributions. A lot of money comes from honest citizens, but an equal amount, if not more, comes through people like Hsu.
But, how willing are candidates to provide campaign donator information?
Mr. Obama is sending letters of inquiry to five donors publicly identified in the media as linked to Mr. Hsu, but his campaign says it doesn't have any records of any other possible Hsu-linked donors, even though Mr. Hsu has told friends he was careful always to let the campaigns know which contributions he had brought in.
As for Mrs. Clinton, her spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Los Angeles Times that she was declining to release the names of her bundled donors.
Nobody should be surprised and if it was Rebpublicans with the headline-creating problem, they'd do the same thing. The only problem with this stance is it makes the candidates look incredibly guilty. Whether they are or not.
NoPod's Got a Book Out
Published by BG on at 10:07 AM.So neocon dinosaur Norman Podhoretz has a book coming out, doubtlessly full of mea culpas for all the wrongheaded advice his group of imperialistic warmongering Republicans have wrought on America.
Oh, so it's not an apology then? Then what's it about? Well, if it's written by a Republican it's either about Democrats or brown people, and thanks to his neocon lineage I think we can narrow down precisely which brown people Norman wants to talk about.
Power Line: A word from Norman Podhoretz
Except, you know, for the part where the Nazis and the Commies had huge well-equipped armies against which we could position our huge well-equipped army to see who might blink first. I'm not sure a couple thousand camel-backed kamikaze pilots really pose the same existential threat, but if you're scared enough you might go along with NoPod for the ride.
That last part about making the Middle East "safe for democracy" really gets me giggling. If this were true, the US would be doing everything possible to support Maliki, as opposed to the current perceived PR push to install Allawi. You know, because Maliki was who all those purple fingers was responsible for electing. Plus, there's that tightrope that neocons and other ChristoHebrewislamoalarmists need to walk between demonizing all the brown people (Caliphate! Taliban! Burkas! Footbaths in American Universities is the first step to America under Sharia law!) they can smear in one fell swoop alongside the (at least nominal) theory that we need to allow these people to choose their own leaders and sow the seeds of democracy.
If that happens, every country gets their own George Bush, Israel is safe, America defeats the terrists, the whole of the Middle East finds Jesus, and we all lock arms on Christmas Eve and sing a global chorus of "O Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen."
And we all get ponies.
By the way, Podhoretz is now advising Rudy Giuliani. The more you know...
Oh, so it's not an apology then? Then what's it about? Well, if it's written by a Republican it's either about Democrats or brown people, and thanks to his neocon lineage I think we can narrow down precisely which brown people Norman wants to talk about.
Power Line: A word from Norman Podhoretz
For one thing, [the book] is -- at least so far as I know -- the first serious attempt to set 9/11 itself, the campaigns that have followed it in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the war of ideas it has provoked at home, into the context of the role the United States has played in the world since 1941. Seen in this light, the struggle against the forces of Islamofascism into which 9/11 plunged us reveals itself as the direct successor to the wars against the totalitarian challenges to our civilization posed by Nazism in World War II and Communism in World War III (as the cold war becomes in this scheme of things).
Except, you know, for the part where the Nazis and the Commies had huge well-equipped armies against which we could position our huge well-equipped army to see who might blink first. I'm not sure a couple thousand camel-backed kamikaze pilots really pose the same existential threat, but if you're scared enough you might go along with NoPod for the ride.
Secondly, against critics both on the Left and the Right, World War IV offers what is probably the most full-throated statement yet published of the case for the Bush Doctrine, whose effort to make the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy represents the only viable strategy for fighting and winning World War IV.
That last part about making the Middle East "safe for democracy" really gets me giggling. If this were true, the US would be doing everything possible to support Maliki, as opposed to the current perceived PR push to install Allawi. You know, because Maliki was who all those purple fingers was responsible for electing. Plus, there's that tightrope that neocons and other ChristoHebrewislamoalarmists need to walk between demonizing all the brown people (Caliphate! Taliban! Burkas! Footbaths in American Universities is the first step to America under Sharia law!) they can smear in one fell swoop alongside the (at least nominal) theory that we need to allow these people to choose their own leaders and sow the seeds of democracy.
If that happens, every country gets their own George Bush, Israel is safe, America defeats the terrists, the whole of the Middle East finds Jesus, and we all lock arms on Christmas Eve and sing a global chorus of "O Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen."
And we all get ponies.
By the way, Podhoretz is now advising Rudy Giuliani. The more you know...
Powered by ScribeFire.
It's the Right Idea, but They Don't Want A Positive Spin on the Report
Published by Pokerwolf on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 1:36 PM.
Don’t Ask Me What I Think about the Petraeus Report - Michael Yon
Read the whole thing. It's a fantastic idea, but nobody will do it.
Ask the battalion commanders.
It’s important to understand why I think battalion commanders — especially infantry commanders — are the best bet for unmitigated truth coming from just the right places on the ground; they are the best bet because they have SA: Situational Awareness. Good journalists don’t go around interviewing privates and young sergeants about strategic situations because privates and young sergeants don’t know what they are talking about. I know. I was both.
Also, you don’t want to rely heavily on people who are too high ranking, because they can be too politically compromised.
Read the whole thing. It's a fantastic idea, but nobody will do it.
How does that go BG..Christ what an asshole!
Published by StB on at 1:03 PM.
Inside Cable News:
Wow! One of the biggest buffoons in television has the audacity to say Fox News is bad for American society. Just because they offere a different point of view? Or is it because Bill O'Reilly's programs kicks your ass every night?
Seriously. This hypocrite ought to be taken off the air. At the very least, remove him from halftime of Sunday Night Football. He is an embarrassment to broadcasters every where.
Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us,- Keith Olbermann in the October 2007 issue of Playboy…
particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse
for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was.
Wow! One of the biggest buffoons in television has the audacity to say Fox News is bad for American society. Just because they offere a different point of view? Or is it because Bill O'Reilly's programs kicks your ass every night?
Seriously. This hypocrite ought to be taken off the air. At the very least, remove him from halftime of Sunday Night Football. He is an embarrassment to broadcasters every where.
But Do You Want To Have A Beer With The Guy?
Published by BG on at 6:45 AM.Ugh.
Fred Thompson is just like you | Salon News
Fred Thompson is just like you | Salon News
After Thompson finished up in Mason City, I fell into conversation with Dean Davidson, a Republican business consultant from Minneapolis, who had stopped by during a visit to Iowa to see some family. "I get so tired of the people who say they know the answers to everything," he told me, explaining the Thompson appeal. "When he talks about working on the factory floor, dirt under your fingernails, and how his parents taught him to achieve something, that's me." After an event in Des Moines, a third voter, Jim Deeds, explained the magic this way. "He's the real deal," he said. "He's not Ronald Reagan, but he's a close second."
Powered by ScribeFire.
Extremist "Hate Speech" Blogging
Published by BG on Sunday, September 09, 2007 at 4:02 PM.In my opinion, calling your average political blogger's content "hate speech" is idiotic at best, dishonest at worst. It's amusing to watch O'Reilly and (especially) the little green footballs crew foam at the mouth every time they find something on a lefty blog they breathlessly identify as "hate."
Just because it's fun to point and giggle, and not at all because I believe the people with whom I disagree are automatically engaging in "hate speech," here's Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush, along with one of his commenters, regarding the "white-hot hatred" endemic to Democrats. Noonan, by the way, is the co-author of a forthcoming book on "the corruption rampant in the Congressional Democratic party, so he's familiar with the general ethos of the pot/kettle argument.
Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: Democrats to Run Against President Bush in 2008
Wow. Who'd be starting a civil war between the basically French pussy pacifist Left and the good ol' gun-toting American Right anyway?
Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: Democrats to Run Against President Bush in 2008
Shorter Zoot: They're lucky we don't just line them all up and shoot them, but maybe we should anyway.
Remember kids - Blogs for Bush dot com is your one-stop source for all your wingnuttia invective!
Just because it's fun to point and giggle, and not at all because I believe the people with whom I disagree are automatically engaging in "hate speech," here's Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush, along with one of his commenters, regarding the "white-hot hatred" endemic to Democrats. Noonan, by the way, is the co-author of a forthcoming book on "the corruption rampant in the Congressional Democratic party, so he's familiar with the general ethos of the pot/kettle argument.
Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: Democrats to Run Against President Bush in 2008
If you click this link it will bring you to the Demcoratic Senatorial Campaign Committee website, where you will discover that after 10,000 ideas were submitted and the choices were narrowed to four and then rank and file Democrats voted, the DSCC bumper sticker for 2008 is:
"Sorry, W, I'm the Decider; Dems in 08"
Well, Democrats, as you get ready to be the "decider" next year, you want want to take note of the fact that President Bush won't be on the ballot. You go ahead and run against W, we'll run against your actual candidates, and we'll see who wins.
On a more serious note, this shows the depth of hatred Democrats have for a moderately conservative Republican like President Bush. So extremist have they become that they have developed a white-hot hatred for a man who will meet them more than half way on education, health care, social security reform and immigration. This level of hatred is very dangerous for our nation - it illustrates a hardening of positions and an unwillingness to make an attempt to see things from a different point of view. This sort of hatred is the stuff with which civil wars are made - and my advice to you Democrats is to stop it. Really. Before you go too far.
Posted by Mark Noonan at September 7, 2007 06:02 PM
Wow. Who'd be starting a civil war between the basically French pussy pacifist Left and the good ol' gun-toting American Right anyway?
Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: Democrats to Run Against President Bush in 2008
"the stuff with which civil wars are made - and my advice to you Democrats is to stop it."
You know Mark theres part of me hoping that they don't. We have the guns and ultimately, if forced, the numbers to destroy these morons completely. There is no doubt on who's side the military would be and no doubt that the country, in the long haul, would be better off without them.
Its only our sense of fair play and decency that keeps them safe, even when they are all to often violent and abusive. Perhaps this country needs a good fight to remove the divisive parts and to again present a more cohesive unified front.
I only hope that the consistent, willfully proud ignorance and naivety that many of the left show here is not representative of more than the usual 10% of loonies that exist on both sides.
Posted by: ZootAllure at September 7, 2007 06:50 PM
Shorter Zoot: They're lucky we don't just line them all up and shoot them, but maybe we should anyway.
Remember kids - Blogs for Bush dot com is your one-stop source for all your wingnuttia invective!
Powered by ScribeFire.
