Walter Cronkite (the one who signaled the end of the Vietnam war) on Larry King last night said we should end the Iraq war now - we have a very good excuse for doing so - we can no longer afford paying for both the war and for our natural disaster repair. He said it wouldn't be a case of 'cut and run' - we would continue to repair the intrastructure of Iraq, but would discontinue our very costly military war.
Posted by DOT at October 1, 2005 06:35 AMThe Gropenator is at it again with his photo-ops. This time it was to capitalize on the LA fires:
In classic Arnold photo-op style, he was standing at a podium in front of two firetrucks and was flanked by about 15 to 20 firefighters. He completed his short schpeel about the progress our firefighters were making and then opened the forum up to questions.
The first reporter asked the Gropenfuhrer why he had vetoed four bills which would have provided firefighters with extra funding, new streamlined procedures, new helicopters and safety equipment. Arnold brushed off the question saying "I don't think we should bring politics into this" and also added that he is a big friend of the firefighters because he actually played a firefighter in one of his lame movies.
The next reporter challenged Arnold's response by noting that the firefighters standing behind the Governor were ordered to do so--thus politics must play a role. The men behind Arnold all looked like props; some of them even smiled and nodded when the Governor spoke. Arnold has a long history of photo-ops--the pothole incident in particular.
Posted by Agi T. Prop at October 1, 2005 07:13 AMOn the heels of the Bennett controversy, perhaps it’s an apropos time to get some opinions on racial sensitivity.
I must say, to the center-left’s credit, some liberals have actually taken a principled stance on the benefits of open and honest discussion. A particularly good example was had at dKos when actual reality-based liberals handed Armando his ass over his diary on the subject.
My question for the left leaning hoards is how much respect do you show towards blacks?
Let’s take a few scenarios and see what develops.
1. You are supervising a number of people. One person (a black) does a particularly bad job on an important project that you knew by past experience this person was fully capable of. Would you:
a. Try to understand that years of oppression have left unhealed scars that somehow influenced the outcome of the work product.
b. Rip this person a new asshole (just like you would to any of the white workers).
2. You stop at an ATM machine, withdraw $500 (you count to be sure), place it in your purse and go home. Within an hour, a carpet cleaning crew (black) arrives to remove all the Merlot stains from last night’s “Bush Sucks” party. After they leave, you reach in your purse to give your spouse enough money to restock the wine rack and find $100 missing. Do you:
a. Immediately assume you miss-counted at the ATM because to do otherwise would perpetuate the myth that “all black people steal”.
b. Call the carpet cleaning company and demand the return of the money along with the firing of the thieving bastard.
3. You are speaking with a group of people at the local tavern. One person (black) makes a particularly assertive statement that you know for a fact is wrong. You try using your most diplomatic method of explain why his statement was wrong but the individual continues to insist he is the one that is correct. Do you:
a. Defer to this individual because pointing out the flaws in his argument would impact negatively on his background and/or education.
b. Ask him exactly how fucking dumb is he (just as you would if the individual was white).
Of course, any answer from the “a” choices would denote a condescending liberal attitude which is the hallmark of 21st century racists.
for west and the rest of the witless trolls: how does it feel to represent a failed, corrupt ideology and to stand for corrupt, criminal, alleged leaders? You all love to come here and espouse your ridiculous ignorant right wing crap. WHY? at best we ignore you..all you do is show your ass and make fools of yourselves..save us all time and fly on over to powerline of lgf's or some other bullshit right wing site..pack of asswipes
Posted by headxray at October 1, 2005 08:08 AMchristians have oppressed us atheists for far to long. we have to see all that gawd crap in every store during there holidays. our children have to have it forced on them in our tax funded schools.It's become the theme for a lot more new movies. ATHEISM HAS NO IDOLS, CHURCHES ,TV CHANNELS, MONUMENTS , PREACHERS. This nation that i love is not a nation under gawd, it's a nation under the rule of democrity and law. Seems like the people who fear the govrenment, and have 100's of guns tend to elect scary politicians that make the govrenment scary. Break the cycle vote democrat, we will make sure you have a nice non-polluted place to hunt :)
Posted by theleftnut at October 1, 2005 08:33 AMI'm really, really disappointed in the deliberately baffled stance that America's media are evincing toward the whole Judy Miller thing.
I heard Daniel Schorr this morning talking about how "strange" the whole thing seemed. Then he mentioned that it had been going on "longer than Watergate"--without mentioning that about ten months of that delay is because of Miller and Cooper--and said, with no mention of his source for this inside opintion, that it was unlikely to produce Watergate-like results. Then he said the really sad thing was that Judy's predicament arose because the media are so unpopular in America that Judy couldn't stand up to the courts successfully, and it was sad that journalists have lost that trust with the public.
It is sad, Dan. But not for the reasons you think. It's sad that journalists have come to think of themselves as above all ethical considerations, thinking that--because they don't write a story--they have the right to cover up crimes for their associates. And it's sad that you, Dan, have more feeling for "journalists" like Miller than you do for America.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 08:46 AMOh, neat! I just noticed that j.west is cribbing from The Book of Questions. I've got one:
You're a prominent conservative, who's made a career out of belittling the ethical/moral decisions of others, in the advancement of a political party. You're on a radio show, discussing a thesis from Freakonomics, which says that abortion has underfunded Social Security.
Do you:
a) come up with a reductio ad absurdem argument that assumes, as one of its premises, that black people are more likely to commit crimes,
-- or --
b) come up with a reductio ad absurdem argument that is equally absurd, but does not begin from the premise that nature, rather than nature, accounts for higher rates of criminality in Black America?
If you said (a), you're Bill Bennett. If you're wasting the time to defend Bill Bennett, you're a Republican stooge who wishes the Party were a little more right-wing, 'cause you'd really prefer to be a Fascist stooge.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 08:56 AMLeftnut,
Christmas is the right-wing’s secret weapon. While shopping just the other day, I overheard this conversation between a young black girl and her mother.
Girl - Momma, I want the Condi Rice action figure for Christmas with the concert piano and Russian phrase book.
Mother - (Whack up side the girl’s head) You’ll take the Cynthia McKinney doll with the People’s Workers Party dress up clothes and like it.
Girl - But Momma, I want to learn a different language and play an instrument and be Secretary of State or President some day.
Mother - (Whack again) Girl, I brought you into this world and I’ll take you right back out.
Girl - (Under her breath) I’m gonna be so fine in my Condi boots some day…..
Yes, it’s all a plot by us devious right wing bastards to win the voters of tomorrow.
Posted by j.west at October 1, 2005 09:02 AMdj,
No need to defend Bennett, the clear thinkers in your party have done an excellent job for me.
But I did think it a good time to help point out the condescending attitude towards blacks that I believe is prevalent on the left. It seems to be part of a general character feature of liberals – the tendency to overreach in all things.
Posted by j.west at October 1, 2005 09:12 AMyou keep showing your ass, west..
Posted by headxray at October 1, 2005 09:19 AM25 questions about the MURDER of New Orleans
(emphasis mine)
Posted by Sharon at October 1, 2005 09:34 AMNo need to defend Bennett, the clear thinkers in your party have done an excellent job for me.
Oh, yeah? Which party would that be?
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 09:42 AMwest, i think her mom was a white cheapskate from the right and did not want to have to stop paying her 10% church tax to buy her daughter that concert piano.
Posted by theleftnut at October 1, 2005 10:08 AMb) come up with a reductio ad absurdem argument that is equally absurd, but does not begin from the premise that nature, rather than nature,
Hmm. Shoulda been 'nature, rather than nurture,'
Ahh, laziness.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 10:12 AMNow that the Plame case is back in the news, I still have to wonder about what the investigation is about.
As taken from the Miller/Cooper appeal, the case started like this:
“2. In the fall of 2003, the government began an investigation into whether federal law had been violated in connection with the unauthorized disclosure by government employees of information concerning the identity of a purported CIA employee.”
Then, further into the document we find this:
In a memorandum opinion dated November 10, 2004, the district court relied on the grounds stated in the court's July 20, 2004 opinion, and on the additional ground that the new subpoenas "stem[med] from legitimate needs due to an unanticipated shift in the grand jury's investigation," were not issued in an attempt to harass, and thus were not unreasonable or oppressive.
Now, if the original investigation was to find out if federal law had been violated by government employees disclosing information of a CIA employee, and then there was an “unanticipated shift” in the grand jury’s investigation, what is this case about?
There have been mounds of speculation on what is happening in this case and precious little hard facts. Really, this document is about the best source of accurate information that is available.
Another fact that escapes easy explanation is the following:
The opinion concluded that the Special Counsel had not only established the need for Miller's and Cooper's testimony, but had satisfied what Judge Tatel viewed as the appropriate balancing test for "leak" cases: "[C]onsidering the gravity of the suspected crime and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars the subpoenas."
The key words being “low value” concerning the leaked information. If the case is still about government employees and unauthorized disclosure, wouldn’t the value of the leaked information be high, taking into account Tatel refers to the gravity of the suspected crime?
You might recall that I hold the view that it is Valerie and Joe who will take the frog march on this one, but I would like to hear any plausible explanation that take the known facts into account.
Mr. J. West:
Speaking of "low value", your posts certainly qualify. May I ask you for your address? I would like to send you a very special rectal thermometer.
Posted by tempus at October 1, 2005 12:14 PMYou might recall that I hold the view that it is Valerie and Joe who will take the frog march on this one...
Feel free to contact me if you'd like to make a bet on this one. I'll offer you odds, in fact.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 12:16 PMdj,
Why not take a stab at explaining the quotes in my post?
I would really like to hear some alternative views.
Posted by j.west at October 1, 2005 12:28 PMHey, like I said, I think you'd be a fool to bet that Joe-n-Valerie are taking the dive for anything. If you feel like putting your money where your mouth is, you've got my email.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 01:05 PMdj,
That post is like hitting the big red "EASY" button.
It amazes me that anyone with even a passing interest in this case would completely ignore the one piece of solid information available and rely entirely on rank speculation.
Posted by j.west at October 1, 2005 01:36 PMIt amazes me that anyone with even a passing interest in this case would completely ignore the one piece of solid information available and rely entirely on rank speculation. j.west
You, one who considers "minutia" such things as the jurisdictional authorty of a district attorney actually said that. LOL
Stop it man, my sides are hurting. ROFL
Posted by rlp at October 1, 2005 02:12 PMAgain, if you think it's more likely that Wilson/Plame are at fault than Rove/Libby, I'm giving odds!
Didn't think so.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 03:53 PMIt must be rough trying to be a Republican stooge these days; I empathize. But stoogerizing is what you're doing here, and clearly you aren't going to support your relentless BS with something more substantial.
So I might as well try to see whether you're so stupid that you'd bet on the GOP side of this one, or whether you think we're so stupid that we would take your stoogefaction seriously.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 04:24 PMheh, indeed, dj.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 1, 2005 04:43 PMActually, as long as there are Americans who can't open a can and watch Oprah at the same time, there will always be a reliable flock of trolls.
Posted by tempus at October 1, 2005 05:37 PMj.west's earlier little quiz reminded me of the sexual harrassment seminar we have to go to every two years. While it is mostly bearable, some of the senarios border on the ridiculous -- like, "Jane goes to a strip club with her male co-wokers for a cheap buffet lunch. Later, one co-worker blah blah blah" I'm not kidding.
So, I have a little quiz for you guys to test j.west's theory from a different angle. (Based on a true story.)
You go to the supermarket and get just enough to carry in two hands, including let's say a six pack of your favorite brew. Walking out to your car in the parking lot, you notice a young white (I'm only adding this becuse of j.west's premise) male on a bicycle talking with a white woman -- maybe 60-65 years old. As you walk past, you hear the woman say, "I don't have any cash on me, really, sorry." As you are unlocking your door, the bicycle boy rolls up behind you and says, excuse me ma'am/sir Do you:
a. Listen politely to his plight and give him the change in your pocket without judging his story.
b. Ignore him and then have him berate you about having enough money to buy beer.
c. Express your dissappointment in his activities and then listen to him berate you about having enough money to buy beer.
d. Other.
just curious :)
Posted by dorita at October 1, 2005 06:07 PM
Mr. T. Dale DeLay, aka, "The Hammer" has been slightly demoted. He is now "Dale, the whisk broom."
Cheers,
James K. Sayre
a. Listen politely to his plight and give him the change in your pocket without judging his story.
b. Ignore him and then have him berate you about having enough money to buy beer.
c. Express your dissappointment in his activities and then listen to him berate you about having enough money to buy beer.
d. Other.
So the old lady is hard up for cash? Interesting...
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 06:35 PMDid anyone see America's Most Wanted tonight? I was online with my sister, and saw Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay's names on the show. Does anyone know what that was about. I gathered it was about someone being murdered, but couldn't get the connection between that and Delay/Abramoff.
Posted by Judith at October 1, 2005 06:49 PMAbramoff's partner [Kidan] arranged with some hit-men to assassinate a guy [Boulis] who wasn't going along with some of his business arrangements. The money to pay the hit-men came out of the corporate account that Abramoff and Kidan ran together as heads of the company. But it's so possible that Abramoff knew nothing about any assassination. And anyway, it's not like any Republicans ever spoke with Abramoff.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 06:57 PMbut I would like to hear any plausible explanation that take the known facts into account.
No you don't.
Posted by Judith at October 1, 2005 07:11 PMJudith and dj,
Funny that you should mention this attempted "hit", I had not heard of this previously, but I scanned Truthout and found this. The revelations just keep coming and coming!
Posted by rlp at October 1, 2005 07:16 PMRip, that is an explosive article. I can tell you that having DeLay and Abramoff's names appearing on AMW during primetime TV is not in their best interest. Millions of Americans watch AMW.
The snippet on Perle was interesting also.
Thanks for the information.
Posted by Judith at October 1, 2005 07:30 PMAbramoff may end up floating in the Hudson River.
Posted by Judith at October 1, 2005 07:33 PMOr sinking.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 07:40 PMOr sinking.
I must confess the image I kept getting while reading the truthout article was of a man in cement boots!
I hear ya! I never realized that Abramoff was not only GOP-corruption dirty, but full-on MOB dirty. I wonder, after seeing Fitzgerald [yeah, THAT Fitzgerald...] busted a member of Abramoff's network, whether the whole GOP/K-Street edifice is in danger.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2005 08:16 PMWhen I was in college, my progressive friends and myself had to self finance our political activities out of our own limited funds. Time and time again, we saw less talented right wing students get set up with scholarships and other forms of support. Over the years, the pieces have slowly fallen into place and the picture has become clearer. This whole ediface that I could only feel the brunt of at an early age can now be seen through the distance of time, and it's good to see it falling apart.
There are times when events reach a critical mass such that things can not stay the same. I feel like this is such a time. Right now, someone connected with the History channel, or something like it, needs to compile the record of the crashing of the GOP machine. It's a nationwide network, fueled, pun not intended, by Texas oil money, plus some other reactionary plutocrats. The whole massive structure may have been started by the Powell Manifesto . In fact, analyizing the PM may be a good place to start.
The Pentagon today listed Mr. Tom DeLay as a weapon of mass destruction. Accordingly, Mr. DeLay will be confined to his penthouse washroom in Washington, and has been ordered to do whatever former president Jimmy Carter wants.
Posted by tempus at October 1, 2005 09:05 PMlook, the republican party is full of LEADERS. i will follow them, no matter what - murder, war profiteering, insider trading, denigration of intelligence assets, cronyism, no matter. supporting the GOP is the only way to protect the country from rampant oral sex!
Posted by jay west at October 2, 2005 06:26 AMand i LOOOVVVE $3 gasoline! yay team bush!
Posted by jay west at October 2, 2005 06:27 AM