Subscribe via RSS Feed

Archive for October, 2009

And All That…

[ 0 ] October 31, 2009 |

Go Ducks, go Phils, go have a safe and happy Halloween!

Open thread for all three…

Daddy Blogging (Special Saturday Edition)

[ 0 ] October 31, 2009 |


Available at an LGM-approved retailer near you.

By that standard, we’re all already everybody else.

[ 0 ] October 31, 2009 |

I understand from all my email that Jack Cashill has posted another Obama/Ayers article. I wonder what non-tendentious conclusions he’ll draw this time?

  1. Ayers and Obama both describe the crisis in the Chicago school system as “perpetual.”
  2. Ayers and Obama both complain about increasingly larger educational bureaucracies.
  3. Ayers and Obama both criticize the “status quo.”

In short, the liberal politician and the liberal academics both air liberal grievances. For some reason, Cashill finds this compelling. The reason, of course, is that Cashill’s not that bright. Need more proof?

  1. Ayers and a ’60s radical in Obama’s book both bitch about the Man.
  2. Ayers and a ’60s radical in Obama’s book both think education is a tool belonging to the Man.

Cashill is actually shocked by the fact that Bill Ayers, a ’60s radical, makes statements similar to those made by ’60s radicals. He believes the fact that Bill Ayers, a ’60s radical, and other ’60s radical use the same language to be incriminating.

He must be the only person to watch a Cheech and Chong movie sober and wonder, on account of them talking so similarly, whether they weren’t actually the same person.

Scozzafava Out

[ 0 ] October 31, 2009 |

Conservative third-party candidate knocks GOP nominee out of the race in NY-23.

I think we can be pretty confident that this won’t be followed by a series of claims about how Republicans are bad for having a “litmus test” on abortion, despite the fact that their position is the minority one…

The Tories and Europe: More of "What the Hell"?

[ 0 ] October 31, 2009 |

I was going to write something about this, but that’s too easy: the “drug czar” of the UK gets the sack for very publicly disagreeing with the Government’s drug policy, and terms Gordon Brown and the cabinet “irrational luddites”. He has a point, but it’s too simple to point out the hilarity of a Government, in its waning days, ignoring its chief scientific advisory panel on drugs. Could they be scrounging for votes instead?

Rather, I’m perplexed by this bit of amateur diplomatic tomfoolery. What the hell is Cameron playing at? First, partially through the hack handedness of the otherwise steady William Hague, shadow foreign minister, Tony Blair’s chances of being named the new EU President have faded dramatically. While it looks as though it is typical Euro-dithering that has led to the rejection of a Blair candidacy, it doesn’t help to have the opposition in your own country (and likely next Government) publicly reject you.
I have to admit, I don’t understand this for two reasons. First, why threateningly come out against one of your own citizens for the top job? It smacks of petty politics domestically, and in to the EU the threatening tone of Hague’s remarks instantly remind all and sundry of the not-exactly-cooperative approach adopted by earlier Tory administrations. Second, I don’t see the value in European leaders wanting a “chairman rather than a chief”. A recognizable, public face as the putative leader or figurehead representing the EU will help not only abroad, but within the EU itself. Not noted for its democratic transparency, distrusted by more than just the British, and perceived to be run by faceless Eurocrats in Brussels, such a “president” would help raise the profile of the EU within the EU.
Then the Tories did themselves no favors with Cameron’s recent stunt in writing a letter to the Czech president which appears to be encouraging the Czech president to delay being the final signatory to the Lisbon treaty until after a Tory election victory in (likely) May of 2010. It’s always sound to piss off, say, Sarkozy, Merkel, and José Luiz Rodríguez Zapatero, the latter of whom matters because Spain will hold the rotating EU presidency from January to July of 2010. The Tories will already have the lion share of the anti-EU vote in 2010, so I’m not too sure just what they’re playing at.

Friday Cat/Freakishly Large Baby Blogging

[ 0 ] October 30, 2009 |
From orrin and henry

Henry — drugged up and minding his own business — is harassed by the BOUS.

Friday Daddy Blogging

[ 0 ] October 30, 2009 |


Miriam and Elisha

What exactly does Joe Lieberman have to do to get sanctioned?

[ 0 ] October 30, 2009 |

Inquiring minds want to know.

Recall that after, if I may be permitted to reach for le mot juste, thoroughly ratfucking the Dems last November, Lieberman was threatened with the loss of his committee chairmanship, but kept it after promising to be a good boy from here on out.

I guess he has just too much integrity to keep his promises.

Thanks for ruining Halloween, G.D.

[ 0 ] October 30, 2009 |

Seriously. Now I have to convince my wife to dress up as Hannah Giles.*

*Not really. I’m dressing as one of these Civil War reenactors. Because, as you know, the best costumes always require tedious explanation.

The Will to Stupid

[ 0 ] October 30, 2009 |

Serwer does the necessary business to this idiotic David Brooks column:

We’ve been hearing some version of the “is Obama tough enough” argument since he started running for president, and as always, it’s really less about Obama’s individual tenacity than whether or not he possesses the same sterling moral qualities that led the questioner to their principled beliefs about public policy. In other words, it’s not “is Obama tough enough” but “is Obama tough enough to do what I want him to do?” And in this case, Brooks wants Obama to show some Green Lantern-style willpower and let everyone know the U.S. is there to stay indefinitely.

Right. Brooks writes:

I’ve called around to several of the smartest military experts I know to get their views on these controversies. I called retired officers, analysts who have written books about counterinsurgency warfare, people who have spent years in Afghanistan. I tried to get them to talk about the strategic choices facing the president. To my surprise, I found them largely uninterested.

Most of them have no doubt that the president is conducting an intelligent policy review. They have no doubt that he will come up with some plausible troop level.

They are not worried about his policy choices. Their concerns are more fundamental. They are worried about his determination.

These people, who follow the war for a living, who spend their days in military circles both here and in Afghanistan, have no idea if President Obama is committed to this effort. They have no idea if he is willing to stick by his decisions, explain the war to the American people and persevere through good times and bad.

So, in other words, they’re actually worried about his policy choices? One choice would imply a lack of determination, while the other choice would reflect more Will, Grit, and Determination than Kaiser Soze? The stupidity here is palpable; if Obama were determined right now to withdraw every last soldier from Afghanistan, he’d earn not a whit of credit from the True Grit Brigade. Determination only, ever means one thing; more troops, more commitment, open ended, with no genuine evaluation of goals, means, or metrics.

I know that you can’t expect much from Brooks, or from the rest of the True Grit Brigade, but Jesus; we just had eight years of a President who put grit, determination, and will ahead of any effort to actually evaluate matters of policy, and NO ONE thinks that this brought about good outcomes. Why don’t we all get DETERMINED, and GRITTY, and use our INFLEXIBLE WILL to modulate down the stupid just a bit? Wouldn’t that maybe be helpful?

Justice: Better Too Late Than Never

[ 0 ] October 30, 2009 |

Well, it’s nice to know that this appalling story at least has a moderately happy ending.

Misogynist Crank of the Day

[ 1 ] October 30, 2009 |

“A. She Was A Who-were.”

I’m surprised Farley — whose contempt for the man of letters in question might exceed my own — didn’t beat me to this. But via Edroso, academy of the overrated charter member Gore Vidal shares some of his legendary wit on the subject of child rape:

In September, director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland for leaving the U.S. in 1978 before being sentenced to prison for raping a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in Hollywood. During the time of the original incident, you were working in the industry, and you and Polanski had a common friend in theater critic and producer Kenneth Tynan. So what’s your take on Polanski, this many years later?

I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

I’ve certainly never heard that take on the story before.

First, I was in the middle of all that. Back then, we all were. Everybody knew everybody else. There was a totally different story at the time that doesn’t resemble anything that we’re now being told.

What do you mean?

The media can’t get anything straight. Plus, there’s usually an anti-Semitic and anti-fag thing going on with the press – lots of crazy things. The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, Polacko – that’s what people were calling him – well, the story is totally different now from what it was then.

I can’t actually say I’m surprised to hear these sentiments expressed by this prominent “leftist” rather than by a reactionary Alberta judge, but wow. (Trying to pretend that poor Roman was unfairly persecuted for raping a 13-year-old because of homophobia, though, might embarrass even Anne Applebaum.)

Page 1 of 141234510...Last »