A question for the ages

.

Abu Ghraib happens in US prisons every day

Supervised by people like Charles Graner, who was a prison guard in civilian life.

. . . Darby viewed hundreds of photographs showing naked detainees being abused by U.S. soldiers.

"It was just wrong," Darby said. "I knew I had to do something."

He said that he asked Graner, a Pennsylvania prison guard in civilian life, about the photographs. Graner replied: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.'"

Punishment and Amusement
The Washington Post 5/22/04

Why did Graner figure he could get away with it? Simple - because people like Bush judicial nominee William Pryor argued for his right to do what he did at Abu Ghraib.

William Pryor vigorously defended Alabama's practice of handcuffing prison inmates to hitching posts in the hot sun if they refused to work on chain gangs or otherwise disrupted them, arguing that the practice did not violate the prisoner's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court rejected Pryor's arguments, citing the "obvious cruelty inherent in this practice."

William Pryor - Sourcewatch

As Graner's Wikipedia entry notes:

On 16th January Graner was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, a dishonorable discharge, and the loss of all benefits.

No senior officers have been charged.

David Brooks is a blithering idiot.

.
Roe's Birth, and Death

Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views.

For liberals to "impose their views" would mean forcing conservatives to have abortions whether they want them or not. (although in the case of Brooks' own mother, this might not have been such a bad thing) It's much the same with gay marriage and most other conservative bugaboos. In NO cases are conservatives being forced to do things that are counter to their values. Their moronic claim is that the mere existence of things that are counter to their values violates their rights.

Ann Coulter's most important and influential work

.
Her blog.

Ann's blog has been online for at least a couple of years now, and is chock-full of wonderful bits of Coulter wisdom like:

>
>
>

and:

>
>
>

I do have to admit, it's much more accurate than her print work.

Idiotic tech support question of the week

.
Luser: Our time zone is two hours ahead of California, right?
Me: Right.
Luser: So if someone sends me an e-mail at 10:00 California time, will it arrive here at 10:00 our time?
Me: You mean will the e-mail travel back in time to arrive before it was sent? No.
Luser: Oh.

Interesting how all the best anti-Bush stuff comes from conservatives.

How Preznit Chimpy got rich

The potentially embarrassing details of how Bush turned a $606,000 investment in the Texas Rangers into a $15-million plus bankroll can be found in American Spectator's revealing cover story, "George Strikes It Rich."

According to reporter Byron York, "far more than tales of youthful drinking and carousing, the record of Bush's rise to wealth reveals how he became what he is today. It's a complicated tale of family connections, hard work and sweet deals, topped off by a taxpayer-subsidized baseball bonanza that may leave some Republicans feeling queasy about how their candidate got rich."

Essentially, as York explains, in the early 1990s Bush and his fellow Ranger owners did what has become standard operating procedure for America's pro sports teams: They got rich by extorting $135 million in taxpayer money from the people of Arlington, Texas, for a new ballpark.

Hints were dropped that the Rangers would leave if they didn't get a new field. Local pols touted the $100 million in economic benefits that a new stadium would allegedly bring. Voters were duped into approving a half-cent sales tax hike.

Bush and Co. wheeled and dealed and eventually weaseled out of their promises to pay their share. In the end, they not only ended up getting a $190 million ballpark for free, they got the state legislature to OK the condemnation and seizure of 200 acres of adjacent privately owned land that they then commercially developed themselves.

The story about Bush mocking the woman in Texas who was executed came from well known conservative buttwipe Tucker Carlson, if I recall correctly.

With profuse apologies to Frank Frazetta

the Pink Chimp presents Fristan: The Catslayer

We got BOTH kinds of news - fair AND balanced!

Reid Calls Frist's GOP Politics 'Radical'

So I'm reading the story and come to the "On the Net" part at the end, where there are links to relevant outside sites, to see:





The first link is to the right-wing whackjobs who are sponsoring the anti-Dem telethon Sunday, and the second link is to whackjob Valhalla. In a story about the Democratic leader and the Republican leader, they couldn't make ONE of the links be to the Dems?

Darn that old "liberal media" anyway.

I'm not a neo-con assclown; I just play one on the Internets

Via Atrios I discovered that "Wheel of Fortune" host Pat Sajak apparently fancies himself quite the conservative Republican spokesprick, with an online archive of utter stupidity to prove it.

Sample:

[I]t’s an uphill battle to convince most Americans that anything having to do with the UN is very important to the United States.

The idea that this is due to the fact that "most Americans" are TV-watching morons never seems to occur to Pat. Which is strange when you think about it, given what he does for a living.

I always get a kick out of conservatives running down the UN, too. When I was attending public school in the US in the fifties, the UN was going to be the world's salvation. The US, through the UN, would lead the world to peace and freedom. All that changed, however, when the US lost control of their creation.

So these days, in classic sour-grapes denial, Americans act like the spoiled little rich kid who takes his bat and ball and goes home if he doesn't get his way every time. The UN is "irrelevant" and something to be mocked and derided.

Here's another snippet of Pat's "wisdom" from his site:

Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.

Aw, poor Pat. He feels so inadequate when he argues with liberals! Probably because he realizes that deep down, he really IS a greedy bloodsucker, just like those nasty ol' liberals keep implying, and he's a conservative and a Republican because he intends for this to continue for the foreseeable future.

While it's certainly understandable that someone's who has experienced the personal success of Sajak would support the status quo, he doesn't have to be such a fucking asshole about it. He makes Bruce Willis look suave and sophisticated.

I agree with Atrios - this needs publicity. There are lots of WOF watchers who aren't conservative OR Republican, and hopefully some of them will become EX-watchers once they realize how contemptuously Sajak views them.

Sajak needs to learn the Bill Maher lesson - if your living depends on being popular, highly controversial statements aren't so good an idea.

Notice who's missing from the list?

Bombings

The USA has bombed the following nations since the end of WW2. (Original from Australian Options Quarterly No. 31, Summer 2002.)

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1965-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvadore 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-2002
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yogoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001
Iraq 2003

Did you catch it? Which US President is NOT represented in the list above?


Give up?



The much maligned Jimmy Carter, pretty much the ONLY President in the last century who didn't bomb anybody.

Jimmy Carter was the closest thing to a decent man we've had in the White House in quite some time. Anyone who runs him down should be ashamed of themselves.

You know who this is really going to screw?

“Clearly there are some Democrats and many Republicans who place the interests of corporations above those of citizens,” said David Swanson, an activist with Progressive Democrats of America, who organized the anti-bankruptcy bill web site, DebtSlavery.org.

House passes bankruptcy bill

This is really going to screw my wife's best friend, who's a Republican.

Her husband works construction, so his income is seasonal. They have two kids, so they're ALWAYS hurting for money. My wife has already bailed her out once, back before Christmas, when she was going to borrow from one of those payday loan places.

It's damn lucky for her my wife isn't as hardhearted as I am - I'd have told her something along the lines of "You voted for this - now you get to live with it."

Despite owning 90% of everything worth having . . .

Conservatives persist in whining because they can't have it ALL.

Despite numbers, Democrats remain in charge
Chris Adamo

Conservative morale is regularly boosted as one poll after another conclusively shows that the country is leaning further and further to the right. National election results of recent years (in truth, the only polls that matter), irrefutably confirm this point as well.

But all is not as it seems in Happy Conservativeland.

Yet such key agenda items of the counterculture as same-sex "marriage," increasingly liberal education practices and philosophies, and the demolition of the country's standards of morality all suggest that the concerns and energies of the conservative grassroots do not necessarily translate into positive changes in policy. The social climate of the nation is being moved relentlessly to the left. How can this be?

Last time I checked, it was called "civilization" and seemed to be all the rage amongst non-conservative types.

Even before the 2004 elections, Democrats were scrambling to prove to mainstream America that they were indeed the party of patriotism and traditional values. In certain key races, some Democrats even attempted to create an impression of allegiance to the Bush administration. Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle went so far as to run campaign ads portraying himself in the company of the President.

The fiend. How dare he attempt to make it look like he was in the company of the President, just because he was exactly that on numerous occasions?

Though Daschle's ploy ultimately failed, and South Dakota's contested Senate seat went to Republican John Thune, the ploy remains a cornerstone of Democrat strategy. Hillary Clinton, presidential aspirant and wife of one of history's greatest political chameleons, is clearly embracing this tactic. Sadly, for Democrats to win by such a means requires "cooperation" from the Republicans, which is all to often the case.

Yes, Republican cooperation is the secret to the Democrats' success in controlling . . . well, not much of anything these days.

Worse yet, in the wake of the elections, Democrats have simultaneously engaged in another strategy. Having lost faith with the public for lack of an agenda, it stands to reason that they recognize the political advantages of preventing Republicans from advancing the conservative cause. All too often, Republicans take the bait and back away from principled stands on major issues.

That's undoubtedly the problem - that Republicans fail to simply throw caution to the wind and wear their whackjobbery on their sleeve, so to speak.

Sadly, though conservatives continue to dominate the electoral process, those whom they put in office lack the most necessary component to succeed. Liberal tactics are vile and despicable. They are also the essence, for better or worse (and in this case definitely worse) of leadership qualities that many on the right, and Republican political operatives in particular, totally lack.

No matter how many times I read the above paragraph, I cannot for the life of me figure out what this clueless fuck is babbling about. Republicans need to be MORE vile and despicable? Liberals are the essence of leadership?

In what must either be a political "death wish," or the epitome of abject cowardice and stupidity, Republicans are once again backing away from the difficult issues that would clearly delineate their conservative position. Thus they make it easier for Democrats to appear as "centrists."

It's not exactly difficult for the Dems to appear as "centrists" when the ideology of today's average GOP voter ranges from jingoism to fascism to out-and-out raving lunacy.

Worse yet, where Republicans abandon any fervent advocacy of worthwhile issues for fear of appearing extreme, Democrats quickly move in to assume the "moral high ground." No clearer example of this unfortunate phenomenon exists than the present debacle involving the President's judicial nominees.

Was that one trainwreck of a segue, or what?

With liberal judges regularly flouting the law and any constitutional precepts undergirding it, Republicans had a golden opportunity to contend for pro-Constitution nominees on the grounds that it is the job of such people to uphold that document. Thus, the prevention of such appointments by obstructionist Democrats is an undisguised effort to continue the desecration of the Constitution.

Yeah, if those obstructionist Democrats would just give in, we could get on with one-party rule followed by a return to aristocracy and the Divine Right of Kings, like the Founding Fathers intended.

Yet few if any Republicans are willing to contend for the President's nominees in such a manner, fitting though it may be. Hence, as debate heats up, it is the Democrats who are casting the whole controversy as a heroic effort on their part to "protect" the American people from the supposed ravages of "conservative extremists" on the bench.

You know, I just can't understand why anyone would feel queasy about conservative extremists as judges. Wouldn't YOU feel confident knowing your fate was in the hands of a whackjob like, say, Chris, or Peggy Noonan, or Rush Limbaugh?

The manufactured "controversy" surrounding House Majority Leader Tom Delay represents nothing more than the same battle on another front. Knowing how timid Republicans tend to be in the face of major political firestorms, the liberal media/Democrat cabal now attempts a character assassination of the Texas Republican, predicated on charges that are at best, selectively leveled and vastly overblown.

And at worst, good for 20-to-life at Huntsville.

Unfortunately, the liberal press did not have to look very far in order to find a Republican "moderate" who was willing to carry their water. Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut, in an effort to undermine Delay and thus move the Republican Party to the left (the undying hope of GOP liberals) unleashed a blistering attack on him, ultimately calling for his resignation.

Despite the best efforts of leaders like Tom DeLay, some Republicans STILL persist in not only having a conscience, but using it! We must purge our party of these traitors!

Irrespective of their numerical minority status in the Congress, Democrats are clearly defining the terms of the debate and ultimately, seizing the reins of leadership. But it is an effort at which they simply could not succeed, were it not for the disgraceful manner in which the invertebrate wing of the Republican Party has shied from the battle and thereby ceded leadership to them.

Yes, it's not at all fair that Democrats just seem to be natural leaders while Republicans couldn't lead a wino to the liquor store with a trail of quarters.

Yeesh. Where do they get these bozos, anyway?

Personally, I think this is a GREAT idea.

DeLay seeks congressional review of Schiavo case

Yeah, go for it, Tom. Remind everybody just how big a dickhead you are.

DeLay: "It's . . . it's . . . it's CLINTON'S fault!"

"Well shit, that always worked before."

DeLay Urges GOP to Blame Dems Over Ethics

Why there are so few conservative college professors

The problem is not, as most conservatives would have you believe, that college administrations are biased towards liberals. The problem is not that there are no conservatives qualified to teach.

No, the problem is actually rather simple: no students. I don't mean there are no students in college - I mean that there are no students willing to pay some greedy, selfish fuckhead to teach them how to be greedy, selfish fuckheads. Most people who want to be greedy, selfish fuckheads seem to able to figure it out for themselves - a college degree is not necessary.

Why Democrats lose and will continue to do so.

Democrats would be wise to . . . give careful consideration to what thoughtful conservatives are saying about the role of the judiciary in our public life

A New Idea for Democrats: Democracy

We lose because we don't stand together. For all the myriad faults of the conservatives, that ain't one of 'em. They may not be rational or even sane, but they stick up for each other.

We don't. We're always ready to squabble with each other - a trait often exploited by our enemies, who then sit back and laugh at us while we savage each other.

Many Democrats - particularly those in power - actually appear to prefer the company of the other side to our company. Do you really think John Kerry cares more about you than he does his Republican colleagues? Don't be silly. Kerry, like most other Democratic leaders, would fuck you in an instant to help or protect GOP scumbags, and that's a fact, Jack. So would Joe Lieberman. Or Al Gore. Their membership in the club and how they're viewed by the opposition is more important to them than we are.

But you know what's REALLY sad? The devotion of these pitiful sycophants is repaid with scorn, derision, treachery, and malice. Ask Al Gore what sucking up to the Republicans got him. Or Tom Daschle. Or Max Cleland.

I'm not asking for lockstep unity, like the other side. I'm just asking that we stop shooting ourselves in the foot. Now is not the time to find fault with those on your side - there will plenty of time for that once the battle is won.

And as for Joe Klein - FUCK what "thoughtful" conservatives - or any other kind - think about it.

Strike Three:

For years, nobody on Washington's K Street corridor was closer to DeLay than Abramoff. They were an unlikely duo. DeLay, a conservative Christian, and Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew, traveled the world together and golfed the finest courses. Abramoff raised hundreds of thousands for DeLay's political causes and hired DeLay's aides, or kicked them business, when they left his employ. But now DeLay, too, has problems—in part because of overseas trips allegedly paid for by Abramoff's clients. In response, DeLay and his aides have said repeatedly they were unaware of Abramoff's behind-the-scenes financing role. "Those S.O.B.s," Abramoff said last week about DeLay and his staffers, according to his luncheon companion. "DeLay knew everything. He knew all the details."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7446492/site/newsweek/

And it looks like the Bugman is OUTA THERE!

Because it's easier than a real post, that's why.

Since I'm too cheap to buy an iPod, you'll have to settle for an iTunes Party Shuffle drawn from the "My Top Rated" playlist. (this gives a much better insight into the poster's musical tastes than a random ten IMHO)

Girl Of My Dreams - Bram Tchaikovsky
Truck Stop Girl - Byrds
El Rayo-X - David Lindley
Louisiana 1927 - Randy Newman
Cruising - Hungry Chuck
When I'm Dead And Gone - McGuiness Flint
Fire Woman - Cult
Everytime I Roll the Dice - Delbert McClinton
Peace and Quiet - Librarians
The Frug - Rilo Kiley

If Tom DeLay ends up taking it up the poopchute in prison

I may have to reconsider the existence of a supreme being.

Strike One:

"He [DeLay] is an absolute embarrassment to me and to the Republican Party," U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Bridgeport, told more than 50 Greenwich residents yesterday morning at Town Hall.

"Do I think Tom DeLay will be the majority leader by the end of this term? No," Shays said. "I don't think Tom DeLay is going to survive."

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-shays3apr10,0,7959855.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines

Strike Two:

The No. 3 Republican in the Senate said Sunday that embattled House Majority Leader Tom DeLay needs to answer questions about his ethics and "let the people then judge for themselves."

Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record)'s comments seem to reflect the nervousness among congressional Republicans about the fallout from the increased scrutiny into DeLay's way of doing business.

DeLay, R-Texas, has been dogged in recent months by reports of possible ethics violations. There have been questions about his overseas travel, campaign payments to family members and his connections to lobbyists who are under investigation.

"I think he has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves," said Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050410/ap_on_go_co/delay_1

Strike Three: ????

Hey, SHE said it; not me!

Michelle Malkin fucks up big time and posts the truth by mistake:

But, hey, I'm just a c**t. And a whore. And I should just shut the f**k up. Right?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002024.htm

As I've already mentioned, SHE said it; not me. Is it MY fault that I agree with her this once?

The Ministry of Truth meets the Mighty Wurlitzer

How the GOP Machine creates its own reality

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about
enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued.

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/2004-10-16b.html

Created Reality: Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, and Louis Freeh were responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident

Timeline for reference:

August 21 and 22, 1992 - Ruby Ridge Incident
November 3, 1992 - Clinton beats George Bush the First to become 42nd US President
January 20, 1993 - Clinton takes office
February 11, 1993 - Reno nominated for AG
March 12, 1993 - Reno takes office
July 20, 1993 - Freeh nominated for FBI Director
September 1, 1993 - Freeh begins term as FBI Director

The meme usually starts with the "News for MBFs" sites like NewsMax:

Clinton Must Fire Reno for Condoning Brutality
Wilson C. Lucom
Friday, May 12, 2000
President Clinton must fire Attorney General Janet Reno for allowing a second illegal act of brutality by men under her command.

The first act of illegal brutality was the killing of an unarmed woman at Ruby Ridge.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/5/12/184002

And Judicial Watch:

FREEH BENEFITS FROM CLINTON-RENO COVER-UP: NEVER PUNISHED FOR RUBY RIDGE AND OTHER MISCONDUCT

Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption, announced today a new investigation of the cover up of former FBI Director Louis Freeh’s role in the Ruby Ridge scandal.

Judicial Watch will begin to seek information on this new scandal and demand that the new Bush Justice Department investigate as well. Larry Potts, a former FBI official and Freeh friend who issued illegal “shoot on sight” orders which led to the death of a woman clutching her infant at the hands of a FBI sharpshooter, now works for Bill Clinton’s private investigator Terry Lenzner.

“Any student of Freeh’s role in the Ruby Ridge cover up understands that Freeh wired the internal FBI investigation to try to help his friend Larry Potts escape punishment. That’s called obstruction of justice. The Bush Justice Department should not only investigate Freeh but the Clinton Justice Department’s role in ‘pardoning’ him,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/1003.shtml

From there, it bounces merrily around the Whackosphere, picking up faux credibility with each orbit:

But our American Domestic War criminals are called HEROES when they follow the murderous orders of Janet Reno and burn more

than 80 innocent Christians to death, or kill Randy Weaver's wife, 14 year old son, and his dog for no reason.

http://www.trilobyte-mag.com/kerrey.htm

Until it reaches the so-called mainstream:

Few members of the Clinton administration have engendered as much controversy as Attorney General Janet Reno. She was praised for her role investigating the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber but criticized for her handling of the Ruby Ridge incident

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/admin/reno.htm

And becomes common knowledge:

When it comes to freedom and privacy, never did The Daily Star or its left-wing, liberal, Democratic ilk ever point fingers at the worst attorney general in our history, none other than Bill Clinton’s heroine Janet Reno.

Remember when Vickie Weaver, with her baby in her arms, was assassinated by Clinton/Reno snipers at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, after they had already murdered her 13-year-old son, Samuel?

William Eckardt, Oneonta

http://www.thedailystar.com/opinion/letters/2005/01/lt0131.html

Despite the inarguable fact that it's NOT FUCKING POSSIBLE for Clinton, Reno, and Freeh to be responsible for what happened BEFORE THEY TOOK OFFICE.

Who could imagine that they would freak out somewhere in Kansas

Kansans overwhelmingly voted to add a ban on gay marriage and civil unions to their state constitution

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050404/ap_on_re_us/marriage_vote_1

It's sobering to realize that there's a better than two-to-one chance the next person I encounter will be a whackjob.

Ah, spring!

Whack-jobs, meet Whack-jobettes.

If that's not an "Ewwwwww!" moment, I don't know what is.