We at the Hammer tend to chafe at the very notion of "guilty pleasures". Egregious examples abound in all forms of art, which any of us can easily point to, while still proscribed by the bounds of our individual tastes. Some people feel that John Cage's 4'33" represents some sort of æsthetic pinnacle. To us it sounds like a guy sitting at a piano and refusing to play it. It's an empty frame. This sort of pissing contest, as you see, is entirely subjective.
We prefer to draw our line on the side of craft, versus art. We like people who have the brains to be artsy, and/or the guts to be fartsy. So there's Bach, and there's Iron Maiden. Each employs a certain level of craft, so each is valid, though certainly not equally. We have Motörhead right next to Mozart in our CD collection. You get the idea. Here there is craft; somebody is doing something that takes some level of specialized skill. Whether or not you happen to enjoy the particular product as part of your consumption ritual, theory and technique were studied and applied to a measurable extent.
As opposed to, say, hanging a couple hundred orange bedsheets around Central Park. Is it just us, or does all of Christo's stuff seem like a high school prank? Hey, I got an idea -- let's go toilet-paper the Reichstag!
The notion of craft extends into television as well, of course. The multiple layers of satire of The Simpsons require the convergence of several disciplines, as do the tightly-written, well-characterized stories of The Shield and Deadwood. And even "reality" TV, as hopelessly contrived and schlocky as it is, also has a small measure of craft, most notably in the realms of editing and incessant promotion. At its heart, Survivor is obviously just another soap opera, albeit one with unlikeable, average-looking people who desperately need a bath and a job. (Not unlike Deadwood in that regard, but at least there is a wealth of writing and acting on that show.)
This is all a fancy way of dancing around our own "guilty pleasure", Desperate Housewives. Much has been made of its overhyped appeal, but to us it's pretty simple -- milfs. Men like milfs, and Desperate Housewives has them in abundance. We'll put up with a cheesy night-time soap for some hot milf action.
There. We just saved you from having to watch another stupid profile on Good Morning America or The View, or hear another ridiculous story about what a tough time Teri Hatcher is having getting laid. And that's what we're really after here. ABC is ruining whatever small enjoyment of hot milf action we were getting in the first place. This may be the first time in TV history that a constant barrage of lame hype has caused a Golden Globe-winning series to jump the shark barely halfway through its first season.
The problem is that as the series has gained popularity, especially after the infamous Monday Night Football promo, it has aired much less frequently, taking two- and three-week breaks for the past several months. When a significant part of your fan base is men -- who have notoriously itchy remote fingers to begin with -- you're killing your show that way.
The show is a trifle, and it knows it as much as we know it. That's much of its appeal. And it does function as a canny satire of suburban sexual mores. But obviously, the sexual appeal can be outsourced anywhere on the internets, with or without Teri Hatcher. We're getting bored, you network programming idjits, and we're not exactly chomping at the bit for Jake In Progress. So get it together, or we're goin' back to the milf sites.
We've got hands; we can jerk ourselves off. We don't need programming pinheads to do it for us.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Bullshitpalooza™: The Road Show Continues
Speaking of the fake town-halls, as we have been for longer than we should have had to, Pravda has more fun facts about them:
Quick, someone get him a peanut-butter-and-bacon sandwich and a bottle of Vicodin, stat!
Because he really, really wants to hear your concerns, so long as you agree with him. Don't agree? Well, tough titty, because it's not like he knows his stuff well enough to actually debate it.
People keep talking about how "bold" Bush's "vision" is, whether it's remaking the Middle East, or remaking Social Security. I think they are mistaking boldness for fecklessness and insouciance. No matter how many facts and figures you pummel the guy with, he just plugs along, la la la la I CAN'T HEEEEAAR YOU!
And his usual chorus of iconodules would rather commit seppuku than admit that Dear Cheerleader was selling snake-oil to the rubes, using the time-tested huckster method of pre-screened shills and ringers. "Bold" means you can defend your ideas in an honest fashion; Bush deliberately avoided bringing all this up before his "accountablility moment" last November, and has spent most of the last two months pimping this thing, and has yet to debate any of the fine points -- or even the broad strokes -- with anybody.
This should tell even the most slavish bootlicker something, but again, I think they already know; admitting it would make their heads explode. They would undergo the mental anguish of a Dungeons & Dragons character changing alignment.
It doesn't even seem to occur to Mr. Darr that his mother might know something about this issue that he doesn't. At any rate, good thing they weren't so rash as to include Mother Darr and her silly concerns to the "conversation".
You really have to wonder about people who so un-self-aware, so utterly lacking in self-reflection, that they'll just go along with this stupid shit. Game shows and sitcoms are more spontaneous than these "conversations".
Well, I guess that makes it all better. Mrs. Hendrix and Mr. Farnsworth weren't actually handed scripts per se and made to rehearse, they just made the cut of interviewees based on their endorsement of Dear Leader and His Plan, which, according to Tom DeLay, hasn't been written yet.
Uh, no, asshole -- you show your hand first. Seniors may enjoy hopping the occasional charter to Atlantic City or Reno to play a few slots, but they're not usually into playing Texas Hold 'em over whether or not they get to live on cat food. At a certain point, you have to just assume that any sentient being realizes this, and that Bush's obvious reluctance to talk about facts and figures and plans is deliberate, that it would be tantamount to a con man explaining the mechanics of his grift.
The mostly white audience in this mostly black southern city clapped wildly as Bush took what he called the "presidential roadshow" to its 14th state Friday. He was greeted like Elvis -- adoring fans hooting and hollering, and hanging on his every word.
Quick, someone get him a peanut-butter-and-bacon sandwich and a bottle of Vicodin, stat!
The few dissenting voices in the Cannon Center for the Performing Arts were quickly silenced or escorted out by security. One woman with a soft voice but firm opposition to Bush was asked to leave, even though her protests were barely audible beyond her section in the back corner of the auditorium.
Because he really, really wants to hear your concerns, so long as you agree with him. Don't agree? Well, tough titty, because it's not like he knows his stuff well enough to actually debate it.
The carefully screened panelists spoke admiringly about Bush, his ideas, his "bold" leadership on Social Security.
If the presentations sound well rehearsed, it's because they often are. The guests at these "Oprah"-style conversations trumpet the very points Bush wants to make.
....
These meticulously staged "conversations on Social Security," as they are called, replicate a strategy that Bush used to great effect on the campaign trail. But instead of appealing to his political base in hopes of driving up turnout, Bush this time is targeting a far narrower audience of swing voters in the Senate -- centrists who so far appear unswayed by the president's public salesmanship.
People keep talking about how "bold" Bush's "vision" is, whether it's remaking the Middle East, or remaking Social Security. I think they are mistaking boldness for fecklessness and insouciance. No matter how many facts and figures you pummel the guy with, he just plugs along, la la la la I CAN'T HEEEEAAR YOU!
And his usual chorus of iconodules would rather commit seppuku than admit that Dear Cheerleader was selling snake-oil to the rubes, using the time-tested huckster method of pre-screened shills and ringers. "Bold" means you can defend your ideas in an honest fashion; Bush deliberately avoided bringing all this up before his "accountablility moment" last November, and has spent most of the last two months pimping this thing, and has yet to debate any of the fine points -- or even the broad strokes -- with anybody.
This should tell even the most slavish bootlicker something, but again, I think they already know; admitting it would make their heads explode. They would undergo the mental anguish of a Dungeons & Dragons character changing alignment.
The White House follows a practiced formula for each of the meetings. First it picks a state in which generally it can pressure a lawmaker or two, and then it lines up panelists who will sing the praises of the president's plan. Finally, it loads the audience with Republicans and other supporters.
To help make its case, the White House recruits people such as Mark Darr, 31, an insurance agent from Benton, Ark., who joined the president on stage at a forum in Little Rock last month. In a subsequent interview, Darr said he believes he was chosen because he went to college with one son of Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee and provided insurance for another.
After the governor's office called, Darr said, he began receiving one call after another from the White House, quizzing him on his thoughts on Social Security and his family history, just as they did all the other candidates. "I'm sure they wanted to . . . make sure they weren't going to embarrass the president," Darr said.
Not so his mother. At first when he mentioned that she receives Social Security, he said, White House aides seemed eager to add her to the panel. Then they called her. "She wasn't really for the private accounts, so they didn't decide to use her," Darr said.
It doesn't even seem to occur to Mr. Darr that his mother might know something about this issue that he doesn't. At any rate, good thing they weren't so rash as to include Mother Darr and her silly concerns to the "conversation".
The night before the event, the chosen participants gathered for a rehearsal in the hall in which the president would appear the next day. An official dispatched by the White House played the president and asked questions. "We ran through it five times before the president got there," Darr said.
You really have to wonder about people who so un-self-aware, so utterly lacking in self-reflection, that they'll just go along with this stupid shit. Game shows and sitcoms are more spontaneous than these "conversations".
Erma Fingers Hendrix, 74, a retired nurse who also participated in the Little Rock event, said she believes she was picked because she has been active for years in Republican women's clubs in Arkansas and campaigned for Bush in 2000 and 2004 -- once even introducing him at a campaign rally just before he was elected president. "The ones who contacted me in 2000 probably said, 'Erma's easy to work with,' " she said.
Hendrix said the administration official who helped them practice educated the panelists on the plan without scripting them.
"It was just a matter of learning," she said. "We just really talked about what was going on, what the president was proposing and what did we think about it. . . . They didn't prompt me what to say or how to say it."
Don Farnsworth, 74, a retired pilot and Air Force major, described a similar session before Thursday's event in Montgomery, Ala.
"They had a couple people on the staff come down and introduce us all," he recalled. "We all went into a small room, and they told us what they were looking for was what our ideas were on the president's Social Security plan." By then, he said, the interview process had thinned out the group. "They found out how we felt about it, and I guess that's how we got chosen."
Well, I guess that makes it all better. Mrs. Hendrix and Mr. Farnsworth weren't actually handed scripts per se and made to rehearse, they just made the cut of interviewees based on their endorsement of Dear Leader and His Plan, which, according to Tom DeLay, hasn't been written yet.
With signs saying "Protecting our Seniors" flanking him, the president talks at length at these events about his desire for bipartisanship and a solution to save a troubled system for future generations. Nothing is said of the benefit cuts White House officials privately acknowledge will be part of any Social Security deal.
....
Unlike the seniors at these events, most older Americans, when polled, express deep skepticism about private accounts. And many Republicans are dubious. Bush, who continues to calibrate his pitch, told the audience here the solution is simple: Members from both parties should lay down their arms, come to the table and hammer out a compromise.
"There's still people saying, 'I'm not so sure I want to get involved,' " Bush said. "Now is the time to put aside our political differences and focus on solving this problem for generations to come."
Uh, no, asshole -- you show your hand first. Seniors may enjoy hopping the occasional charter to Atlantic City or Reno to play a few slots, but they're not usually into playing Texas Hold 'em over whether or not they get to live on cat food. At a certain point, you have to just assume that any sentient being realizes this, and that Bush's obvious reluctance to talk about facts and figures and plans is deliberate, that it would be tantamount to a con man explaining the mechanics of his grift.
Senatorial Social Security Sanity
Some small measure of sanity seems to be overtaking Congress, as Bush's dismal bullshit-palooza campaign continues unabated.
Yeah. God forbid he rescind even a small part of the tax-cut gravy train. That's the real "third rail" for Bush. Social Security is just something for him to test his "mandate" against. Guess what, Slick -- your only mandate is with a nekkid guy who can't decide if his name is James or Jeff.
Like Tom DeLay, Cheney let an unfortunate truth (from the standpoint of the marketing campaign) out of the proverbial bag. Five trillion dollars over twenty years, so $250 bn per year, starting in 2009. And what's the shortfall starting 2027 going to be?
It's a good thing the Democrats, even the usual fence-sitters, seem to be finding Jesus on this subject. They had best be aware that the attempt to "compromise" will be the next phase of the marketing campaign. It may happen at the end of this summer, the better to position Dems as stodgy bastards who won't play nice; or it may happen during the midterm campaign season. It's probably dependent on just how much fuzzy math can be concocted and contorted to make this non-existent plan look like a good idea. So far they're sucking wind, but as I said before, they've got every ass-spelunker looking for numbers to pull out when the time is right.
Regardless, the Democrats who compromise on this will be targeted in the midterms, because they'll be seen as politically weak. Give 'em some backbone; call their offices or e-mail them and tell them not to budge. If they hear it enough, they'll listen; if not, they'll just put their finger to the prevailing winds. With this lazy, incompetent media, anything's possible there.
Next phase may or may not involve Bush getting a Mohawk and wearing 20 pounds of gold chains and medallions around his neck. Frankly, I think he'd be better off going the Flavor Flav route -- gold toof and giant clock around the neck -- than Mr. T, but I suppose we can agree to disagree.
But his disingenuousness on this is remarkable. He doesn't want to "work together". "All ideas" are not "on the table". I don't know who he thinks he's fooling with this shit, but aside from his Potemkin town-hall crowds, it appears his political capital is just mouth-breather scrip -- he can only spend it in the company store.
By the way, Senators Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME), and Chafee (R-RI), come on over to the light. We could use a few good senators. They call you RINOs anyway; why not prove 'em right, and give 'em a hearty "fuck you very much" on your way out?
President Bush's bid to add individual accounts to Social Security faces such formidable opposition in the Senate that its supporters may be unable to bring it to a vote, according to a Washington Post survey of senators.
An overwhelming majority of Democratic senators said they will oppose, under any circumstances, Bush's plan to allow younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into individual investment accounts that would follow them into retirement. A few others said they will not support such accounts if they require substantial government borrowing. Even many Republicans say that is inevitable because the alternative involves unacceptably large cuts in benefits or tax increases to replace the diverted taxes or both.
Yeah. God forbid he rescind even a small part of the tax-cut gravy train. That's the real "third rail" for Bush. Social Security is just something for him to test his "mandate" against. Guess what, Slick -- your only mandate is with a nekkid guy who can't decide if his name is James or Jeff.
Vice President Cheney has said the Bush accounts would cost "trillions of dollars." Democrats put the price tag at $5 trillion over 20 years.
In the clearest sign yet that Bush's efforts to win bipartisan support are flagging, several Democrats whom the White House has been courting said they will not support the accounts at all. They include Sens. Thomas R. Carper (Del.) and Mary Landrieu (La.). Three other Bush targets -- Sens. Kent Conrad (N.D.), Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) -- said they will not support individual accounts financed by heavy borrowing.
Like Tom DeLay, Cheney let an unfortunate truth (from the standpoint of the marketing campaign) out of the proverbial bag. Five trillion dollars over twenty years, so $250 bn per year, starting in 2009. And what's the shortfall starting 2027 going to be?
It's a good thing the Democrats, even the usual fence-sitters, seem to be finding Jesus on this subject. They had best be aware that the attempt to "compromise" will be the next phase of the marketing campaign. It may happen at the end of this summer, the better to position Dems as stodgy bastards who won't play nice; or it may happen during the midterm campaign season. It's probably dependent on just how much fuzzy math can be concocted and contorted to make this non-existent plan look like a good idea. So far they're sucking wind, but as I said before, they've got every ass-spelunker looking for numbers to pull out when the time is right.
Regardless, the Democrats who compromise on this will be targeted in the midterms, because they'll be seen as politically weak. Give 'em some backbone; call their offices or e-mail them and tell them not to budge. If they hear it enough, they'll listen; if not, they'll just put their finger to the prevailing winds. With this lazy, incompetent media, anything's possible there.
Bush, who has needed the support of some moderate and conservative Democrats to push through his major initiatives, yesterday appealed to all Democrats to cut a compromise. "If you see a problem, members of Congress, regardless of your party, you have an obligation to come to the table," he said in a speech in Louisville. "Let's work together to solve it. All ideas are on the table." Once the public realizes the seriousness of Social Security's long-term problems, Bush said, "I pity the politicians who stand in the way of a solution."
Next phase may or may not involve Bush getting a Mohawk and wearing 20 pounds of gold chains and medallions around his neck. Frankly, I think he'd be better off going the Flavor Flav route -- gold toof and giant clock around the neck -- than Mr. T, but I suppose we can agree to disagree.
But his disingenuousness on this is remarkable. He doesn't want to "work together". "All ideas" are not "on the table". I don't know who he thinks he's fooling with this shit, but aside from his Potemkin town-hall crowds, it appears his political capital is just mouth-breather scrip -- he can only spend it in the company store.
By the way, Senators Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME), and Chafee (R-RI), come on over to the light. We could use a few good senators. They call you RINOs anyway; why not prove 'em right, and give 'em a hearty "fuck you very much" on your way out?
Thursday, March 10, 2005
It's A Good Thing
[While Heywood's sleeping off yet another lost weekend, Hammer of the Blogs is pleased to welcome today's guest blogger, domestic maven/concerned investor Martha Stewart.]
It's wonderful to be here with you all. I'm so glad to be home now. Perhaps you've heard the good news. But I'm still under house arrest, so there's more hard time for me. Anyway, it's such a privilege to be guest-blogging today. My GPS ankle bracelet keeps chafing, and I'd shank a newborn in the neck with a sharpened toothbrush for a cappuccino, but it's just great to be back in my own little hut.
All I have from my time in the belly of the correctional beast are memories, bittersweet memories of cold, frequently lonely nights. Well, and the tattoos. I have got to get these teardrop dealies under my left eye lasered off ASAP. The spiderweb on the elbow I'll probably keep; there's a sentimental story behind that one. (Asian Lucy, call me when you get out!)
Oh, that reminds me! I always love sharing new discoveries with my friends and fans, things that they can use to brighten their own drab lives. Here is a very special Martha recipe for pruno. It's an exotic concoction of oranges, fruit cocktail, ketchup, and sugar, specially heated and fermented for several days. I love all those things, and now I can put them all together and enjoy myself while doing it! The "American Me" in you will thank me later.
Well, enough small talk. Let's take a look at the first entry in the old mail slot, shall we? It appears that one of the soldiers involved in the capture of Iraqi baddie Saddam Hussein is claiming that the famous spider-hole capture was staged.
A Lebanese ex-Marine telling this to the Saudi media? Hmmm, nothing odd about any of that. That reminds me, I need to collate my hummus and tabbouleh recipes; they're getting hard to keep straight. And I don't know how I'd last in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia; nothing but earth tones and black. Black can be helpful for what my ex-cellmate calls the "bootylicious woman", but I just couldn't live without a little ocher and cerulean in my life.
One thing I learned in my hard stretch was that, no matter where we are physically, deep down inside each of us hides in our own spider-hole sometimes. As Yeats once wrote, "The night is young, and I cannot linger, so look out butt, here comes my finger". It's probably not the Yeats you're thinking of, but the butch who ran our cell-block, Ramona "Salt Lick" Yeats. There's a funny reason for that nickname, as you might guess. By the end of my first week around Ramona, when my jaw and tongue muscles finally stopped aching, I knew one thing for sure -- almost everything tastes better with a dash of cinnamon, or in a pinch, a packet of ketchup swiped from the mess hall.
But as outlandish as Sergeant Rabeh's story sounds at first blush, I recall the story of another fresh-faced West Virginia maiden, with pouty lips, milky thighs, and perky, inviting breasts. I remember how her story got redecorated a bit, here and there, for theatrical effect.
"Snatch squad". God, that makes me tingle in places I didn't know existed until last October. And oh, I just love that nice Bruckheimer man's CSI franchises, don't you? If I could be the watercress in a Marg Helgenberger/Melina Kanakaredes hors d'œuvres, I'd consider wearing white before Memorial Day. Mmmm, Helgenberger.
Well, she sounds like a lucky girl. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to manipulate your own media coverage from behind bars. I don't know how the rest of the girls on my cell-block managed to do it.
Thanks for reading, and remember -- buy stuff with my name on it!
It's wonderful to be here with you all. I'm so glad to be home now. Perhaps you've heard the good news. But I'm still under house arrest, so there's more hard time for me. Anyway, it's such a privilege to be guest-blogging today. My GPS ankle bracelet keeps chafing, and I'd shank a newborn in the neck with a sharpened toothbrush for a cappuccino, but it's just great to be back in my own little hut.
All I have from my time in the belly of the correctional beast are memories, bittersweet memories of cold, frequently lonely nights. Well, and the tattoos. I have got to get these teardrop dealies under my left eye lasered off ASAP. The spiderweb on the elbow I'll probably keep; there's a sentimental story behind that one. (Asian Lucy, call me when you get out!)
Oh, that reminds me! I always love sharing new discoveries with my friends and fans, things that they can use to brighten their own drab lives. Here is a very special Martha recipe for pruno. It's an exotic concoction of oranges, fruit cocktail, ketchup, and sugar, specially heated and fermented for several days. I love all those things, and now I can put them all together and enjoy myself while doing it! The "American Me" in you will thank me later.
Well, enough small talk. Let's take a look at the first entry in the old mail slot, shall we? It appears that one of the soldiers involved in the capture of Iraqi baddie Saddam Hussein is claiming that the famous spider-hole capture was staged.
Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted in the Saudi daily al-Medina Wednesday as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army.
"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.
"We captured him after fierce resistance during which a Marine of Sudanese origin was killed," he said.
A Lebanese ex-Marine telling this to the Saudi media? Hmmm, nothing odd about any of that. That reminds me, I need to collate my hummus and tabbouleh recipes; they're getting hard to keep straight. And I don't know how I'd last in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia; nothing but earth tones and black. Black can be helpful for what my ex-cellmate calls the "bootylicious woman", but I just couldn't live without a little ocher and cerulean in my life.
He said Saddam himself fired at them with a gun from the window of a room on the second floor. Then they shouted at him in Arabic: "You have to surrender. ... There is no point in resisting."
"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh said.
One thing I learned in my hard stretch was that, no matter where we are physically, deep down inside each of us hides in our own spider-hole sometimes. As Yeats once wrote, "The night is young, and I cannot linger, so look out butt, here comes my finger". It's probably not the Yeats you're thinking of, but the butch who ran our cell-block, Ramona "Salt Lick" Yeats. There's a funny reason for that nickname, as you might guess. By the end of my first week around Ramona, when my jaw and tongue muscles finally stopped aching, I knew one thing for sure -- almost everything tastes better with a dash of cinnamon, or in a pinch, a packet of ketchup swiped from the mess hall.
But as outlandish as Sergeant Rabeh's story sounds at first blush, I recall the story of another fresh-faced West Virginia maiden, with pouty lips, milky thighs, and perky, inviting breasts. I remember how her story got redecorated a bit, here and there, for theatrical effect.
"I examined her, I saw she had a broken arm, a broken thigh and a dislocated ankle," said Dr Harith a-Houssona, who looked after her.
"There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound - only road traffic accident. They want to distort the picture. I don't know why they think there is some benefit in saying she has a bullet injury."
Witnesses told us that the special forces knew that the Iraqi military had fled a day before they swooped on the hospital.
"We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital," said Dr Anmar Uday, who worked at the hospital.
"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."
There was one more twist. Two days before the snatch squad arrived, Harith had arranged to deliver Jessica to the Americans in an ambulance.
But as the ambulance, with Private Lynch inside, approached a checkpoint American troops opened fire, forcing it to flee back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch.
....
The American strategy was to ensure the right television footage by using embedded reporters and images from their own cameras, editing the film themselves.
The Pentagon had been influenced by Hollywood producers of reality TV and action movies, notably the man behind Black Hawk Down, Jerry Bruckheimer.
"Snatch squad". God, that makes me tingle in places I didn't know existed until last October. And oh, I just love that nice Bruckheimer man's CSI franchises, don't you? If I could be the watercress in a Marg Helgenberger/Melina Kanakaredes hors d'œuvres, I'd consider wearing white before Memorial Day. Mmmm, Helgenberger.
Sadly, almost nothing fed to reporters about either Lynch's original capture by Iraqi forces or her "rescue" by U.S. forces turns out to be true. Consider the April 3 Washington Post story on her capture headlined "She Was Fighting to the Death," which reported, based on unnamed military sources, that Lynch "continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds," adding that she was also stabbed when Iraqi forces closed in.
It has since emerged that Lynch was neither shot nor stabbed, but rather suffered accident injuries when her vehicle overturned. A medical checkup by U.S. doctors confirmed the account of the Iraqi doctors, who said they had carefully tended her injuries, a broken arm and thigh and a dislocated ankle, in contrast to U.S. media reports that doctors had ignored Lynch.
Another report spread by news organizations nationwide claimed Lynch was slapped by an Iraqi security guard, and the U.S. military later insisted that an Iraqi lawyer witnessed this incident and informed them of Lynch's whereabouts. His credibility as a source, however, is difficult to verify because he and his family were whisked to the U.S., where he was immediately granted political asylum and has refused all interview requests. His future was assured, with a job with a lobbying firm run by former Republican Rep. Bob Livingstone that represents the defense industry, and a $500,000 book contract with HarperCollins, a company owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox network did much to hype Lynch's story, as it did the rest of the war.
Well, she sounds like a lucky girl. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to manipulate your own media coverage from behind bars. I don't know how the rest of the girls on my cell-block managed to do it.
Thanks for reading, and remember -- buy stuff with my name on it!
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Splendiferous Magnicality
[Heywood is taking a few days off, to further contemplate his navel. Today's guest blogger is boxing promoter/man about town Don King.]
Hello, friends and boxing fans, and welcome to my perspicacious invocation of magnitudinal trilarity. I have not blogified before this juncture, but in a way, you could say that Don King was the original blogitator. The Rumble In The Jungle? That was Don King. The Thrilla In Manila? All King, baby. Just as you typinating nerdophiles come up with phraseonology to demonstrate your cleverosity, so I started it all back in the day, to make a buck or two off Muhammad Ali's brain getting sloshed around in his cranial crevassity.
So lessee what the first tale of interstational complicity we have here. Whoo-ee! Looka like Hezbollah sponsored a King-tastic demonstration in Beirut to support the Syrianite occupation troops.
Now, Don King don't know no Lebananians from no Syrianites, but Don King do know about them Black Muslim bean-pie bow-tie motherfuckers. Goddamn they drive a hard bargain. They don't believe in no interest, and they worried about communitarian developmentation all the damn time! Don King like communties and shit too, but damn, a brother gots to take time out for a brother, see? I knew some of those bastards in prison too. They don't crack for shit, but at least you don't have to watch yo' ass around them. That booty-bandit shit get you kicked outta the Brotherhood with a quickness.
Let's lookee a quote or two here from the article-izer. Y'all din't think Don King know muthafuckin' HTML, do ya? Recognize, fool!
It's impressive if they charged fifty bucks a head and ten bucks for a bottle of water. Depends on what the promoter's piece o' the action is. I usually get 15% off the top for my promotional considerosity, then another fifteen for managerial expertisiousness. International venues I get an extra 20% from the gross for splendiferous magnicality, and if you don't know what that shit is, that's why you ain't lightin' cigars with Franklins. I need another 25% for overhead, because more people will show up and buy $75 glasses of Cristall if I can put John Travolta and P. Diddy up ringside.
You know what you really need for your rally, man? A boxing match. I can help you out, but it'll cost ya. I'm a man of God, and God drive a Bentley when he ain't driving his Jag, you feel me?
Naw, naw. You know what gets 'em movin' is some Who Let the Dogs Out?, that kinda shit. Mama Said Knock You Out. Ain't no national anthem give you the eye of the damn tiger, 'cept maybe Canada's.
Banners? Don't use no stationary banners at your event, chump. Rent a couple cue-card girls in bikinis to walk through the crowd. That's the way we do it in Don King's America. Anything less would be mendacious scamboogery.
Rafik Hariri?!? That muthafucka owed me money! And now he's dead. Damn. These Syrianites, I catch 'em and I'm gonna get me-dee-vil on they asses, like that chump I fucked up back in the day. Come between Don King and his chedda, and yo' ass is fair game. Believe that shit.
Wait. Rafik Hariri? I don't know that fool. I was thinking of Amiri Baraka. Next time I see that n----, I'ma kick his ass. You readin' this, best take one of yo' bitches down to the check-cashin' place, 'cause Big Daddy's comin' over with his collectin' bat, and there's interest on that shit. I ain't bean-pie, fool; I gets my vig.
The only thing that speaks for itself is cash-ola, fool! They needs to make a flag-size dolla bill and run it up a pole, so Don King can salute that muthafucka!
Now, why my Arab brothers got to talk down the ol' US of A? Look at Don King. Only in America can a man stomp another man's face into a sidewalk, get out of prison in just a few years, and become a millionaire for teasin' his hair. Where else, fool? Not Iraqistan. Not no Lebanania. Ain't no millionaires in Syrania like me, dammit.
Don King wonder what happen then. You know, I read a damn newspaper once in a while. Don King knows shit so's he can proteck his chedda from Whitey. And Don King knows that Lebanania is a fractitious place, rife with sectarian muthafuckas. They all mixed together like Gramma's gumbo. Damn, that shit was spicy! If the Syrianites pull out overnight, do the Israelites then have to go in to keep the lid on that kettle of gumbo? Do Americans? Don King's running out of poor kids to exploit -- ah, train for boxing grandiosity.
Hello, friends and boxing fans, and welcome to my perspicacious invocation of magnitudinal trilarity. I have not blogified before this juncture, but in a way, you could say that Don King was the original blogitator. The Rumble In The Jungle? That was Don King. The Thrilla In Manila? All King, baby. Just as you typinating nerdophiles come up with phraseonology to demonstrate your cleverosity, so I started it all back in the day, to make a buck or two off Muhammad Ali's brain getting sloshed around in his cranial crevassity.
So lessee what the first tale of interstational complicity we have here. Whoo-ee! Looka like Hezbollah sponsored a King-tastic demonstration in Beirut to support the Syrianite occupation troops.
Now, Don King don't know no Lebananians from no Syrianites, but Don King do know about them Black Muslim bean-pie bow-tie motherfuckers. Goddamn they drive a hard bargain. They don't believe in no interest, and they worried about communitarian developmentation all the damn time! Don King like communties and shit too, but damn, a brother gots to take time out for a brother, see? I knew some of those bastards in prison too. They don't crack for shit, but at least you don't have to watch yo' ass around them. That booty-bandit shit get you kicked outta the Brotherhood with a quickness.
Let's lookee a quote or two here from the article-izer. Y'all din't think Don King know muthafuckin' HTML, do ya? Recognize, fool!
Some news reports estimated Tuesday's crowd at 200,000 protesters but CNN's Beirut Bureau Chief Brent Sadler said it was difficult to give a figure -- save that the attendance was "impressive."
It's impressive if they charged fifty bucks a head and ten bucks for a bottle of water. Depends on what the promoter's piece o' the action is. I usually get 15% off the top for my promotional considerosity, then another fifteen for managerial expertisiousness. International venues I get an extra 20% from the gross for splendiferous magnicality, and if you don't know what that shit is, that's why you ain't lightin' cigars with Franklins. I need another 25% for overhead, because more people will show up and buy $75 glasses of Cristall if I can put John Travolta and P. Diddy up ringside.
You know what you really need for your rally, man? A boxing match. I can help you out, but it'll cost ya. I'm a man of God, and God drive a Bentley when he ain't driving his Jag, you feel me?
Songs of resistance and nationalist speeches blared from loudspeakers. The crowd sporadically burst into singing the national anthem, hoisting Lebanon's red, white and green cedar-tree flag.
Naw, naw. You know what gets 'em movin' is some Who Let the Dogs Out?, that kinda shit. Mama Said Knock You Out. Ain't no national anthem give you the eye of the damn tiger, 'cept maybe Canada's.
Two huge vertical banners at the front of the square read, in English: "Thank you Syria" and "No to foreign interference," a reference to American, French and United Nations pressure to remove Syrian troops from the country.
Banners? Don't use no stationary banners at your event, chump. Rent a couple cue-card girls in bikinis to walk through the crowd. That's the way we do it in Don King's America. Anything less would be mendacious scamboogery.
Like the anti-Syrian demonstrators, the protesters carried with their Lebanese flags pictures of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Rafik Hariri?!? That muthafucka owed me money! And now he's dead. Damn. These Syrianites, I catch 'em and I'm gonna get me-dee-vil on they asses, like that chump I fucked up back in the day. Come between Don King and his chedda, and yo' ass is fair game. Believe that shit.
Wait. Rafik Hariri? I don't know that fool. I was thinking of Amiri Baraka. Next time I see that n----, I'ma kick his ass. You readin' this, best take one of yo' bitches down to the check-cashin' place, 'cause Big Daddy's comin' over with his collectin' bat, and there's interest on that shit. I ain't bean-pie, fool; I gets my vig.
CNN's Sadler said that rather than this being a protest against other Lebanese, the national flag was being displayed as a sign of unity -- this time by those who believed a Syrian withdrawal would lead to instability.
"The numbers here speak for themselves," Sadler said.
The only thing that speaks for itself is cash-ola, fool! They needs to make a flag-size dolla bill and run it up a pole, so Don King can salute that muthafucka!
Many of the posters displayed Tuesday denounced U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly over Resolution 1559, which also calls for the disbanding of militia including Hezbollah.
Sadler said the anti-U.S. message was repeatedly made by speakers addressing the very large crowd.
Now, why my Arab brothers got to talk down the ol' US of A? Look at Don King. Only in America can a man stomp another man's face into a sidewalk, get out of prison in just a few years, and become a millionaire for teasin' his hair. Where else, fool? Not Iraqistan. Not no Lebanania. Ain't no millionaires in Syrania like me, dammit.
After Monday's agreement was announced, Syrian Ambassador to the United States Imad Moustapha said the pullback to the Bekaa Valley will happen "in less than two or three weeks," and "all of our troops" will then be moved "into Syria itself."
Asked whether that will include Syrian intelligence personnel , he nodded his head and said, "Everybody. Everybody."
Don King wonder what happen then. You know, I read a damn newspaper once in a while. Don King knows shit so's he can proteck his chedda from Whitey. And Don King knows that Lebanania is a fractitious place, rife with sectarian muthafuckas. They all mixed together like Gramma's gumbo. Damn, that shit was spicy! If the Syrianites pull out overnight, do the Israelites then have to go in to keep the lid on that kettle of gumbo? Do Americans? Don King's running out of poor kids to exploit -- ah, train for boxing grandiosity.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Seconda Rima, Stessa Del Prima
Silvio Berlusconi is walking a fine line right now, in an Italian political climate that is always contentious and volatile, because of the American botching of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena's release from Iraqi insurgent captivity. Since our media, per usual, is preoccupied with sniffing Martha Stewart's capacious pooter and re-enacting Michael Jackson's circus/trial, we go to the trusty UK media for the ongoing story.
Alemanno hits it right on the head here. The so-called coalition has splintered right from the get-go primarily because all nations have their national pride, and Italy doesn't want American commanders bossing their soldiers around anymore than we'd accept any sort of reversal of such a role. And the Italians have hung in longer than most of the rest of them; Berlusconi at least deserves credit for thwarting the will of the majority of his people to be a loyal friend to Bush. The question is whether Bush ever returns loyalty in anything but pelf.
At least Rumsfeld put down the Autopen for this one. It's like watching your five-year-old ride his bike without the training wheels for the first time, isn't it?
I don't know who this dickhead Luttwak is, but this is remarkably insensitive. Were it an American accidentally killed by Italian troops, we'd publicly humiliate them and make them bow and scrape their way back into our good graces. This is the same bullshit attitude we pulled on Canada when a couple of our amphetamined bomber pilots took out four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan a couple years ago. It's yet another reason why Canada is getting sick of our shit, and signing oil leases with China.
This is where it gets into he said/she said territory, of course, which is why a competent media presence would be checking into both sides of the story. Where would one find such a media presence? Oh, they'll just tell you that it's too dangerous to do any real investigative journalism there, and they're probably right. But that brings up yet another set of problems, as that set of facts tends to undermine the putative corner Iraq turned a month or so ago. Once again, no one seems to have their story straight about this fucking place.
And it's not as if this sort of thing hasn't been ongoing:
Again, I submit that we would not be terribly understanding either if the pattino were on the other piede, classified rules of engagement or not.
Here the Independent does a nice breakdown of the conflicting positions on what happened:
Here's more UK coverage of this clusterfuck, courtesy of the Telegraph.
You know, this is really the worst aspect of this whole fiasco, the loss of credibility and respect with our allies -- who by definition are people who want to like us. It's beyond the scope of this post, but it will be one of my more over-arching points over the next couple months. We simply cannot and do not want to function as a sole hyperpower for too long of a period of time, for a variety of reasons. At any rate, here is yet another manifestation of this principle taking concrete effect.
The reflexive Murkin response will be "fuck 'em; who cares what the punk Euros think; etc. etc.". We all know it pretty much by heart at this point. Say what you want about Italy's commitment to America's success, but rest assured that Britain will be watching how we handle this very closely, and they are about the last ally that still wants to like us -- and our foolish leader -- at this pivotal turning point in geopolitics. Despite what that drooling moron Robin Givhan at Pravda would have people believe, nobody gives a shit about Condi Rice and her fuck-me-pumps diplomacy.
As a final point about reliable journalism in general (and Sgrena's journalism in particular), I'd like to say that while everybody's talking about this rambling screed Sgrena penned upon her return (giving her some benefit of the doubt that she's in a highly emotional state, obviously), if this is any example of Sgrena's reportage, I have no idea just what the US would be so terribly worried about, aside from her putative anti-Americanism. It's just not very good journalism. It stands in rather stark contrast to the Sgrena article we linked to in an earlier post. Hopefully it's an aberration.
Not one bit of corroboration here, on anything. Where exactly in Saqlawiya is this mass grave? Can't Sgrena round up a photographer and a doctor to help her independently corroborate this freshly-filled mass grave, and ascertain common causes of death? Lamely she offers that "nobody" could confirm the use of napalm bombs, and that "some thought of nuclear bombs". "Nobody"? "Some"? Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ, lady, vet your fucking sources. This is not a game; you're accusing the United States of serious war crimes and cover-ups here. Some fucking guy you met outside a village doesn't cut it.
I tend to agree with Sgrena's point that embedded journalists are co-opted journalists, but it is incumbent upon her to bolster that thesis with some facts. The most frustrating thing about this shoddy reportage and analysis is that there is a story to tell on the Fallujah raid, the cost in civilian lives, and the hazards of repatriation and reconstruction. We may have used napalm, but you'd never know it from the assertions in the article. There are ways in which a good journalist can responsibly analyze and report what's going on in Fallujah; Sgrena's article is definitely not one of them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this sort of uncorroborated assertion is usually the sort of thing Faux News specializes in. Serious people do not put any stock in this bag-lady brand of reportage; she's doing more harm to her own cause with this shit than she realizes.
Sgrena says she's not going back to Iraq. That's probably a good idea. One hopes that if she really has a story to tell, and not just hysterical mash notes that can't be backed up with even the most rudimentary bits of evidence, she'll gather her notes, vet and organize them in a sensible, coherent fashion, and quit screwing around. More than ever, we need responsible journalists organizing facts, not impressionistic ninnies wearing their hearts on their sleeves.
Here and here are slightly more cogent examples of competent journalism, of organizing numbers and names. Buona fortuna, Giuliana!
As Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, telephoned his Italian counterpart, Antonio Martino, to express regret for the killing, Italian government ministers and opposition politicians denounced the shooting. Gianni Alemanno, the Minister for Agriculture, said: "We need to see the guilty punished and an apology from the Americans. We are trustworthy allies but we must not give the impression of being subordinates."
Alemanno hits it right on the head here. The so-called coalition has splintered right from the get-go primarily because all nations have their national pride, and Italy doesn't want American commanders bossing their soldiers around anymore than we'd accept any sort of reversal of such a role. And the Italians have hung in longer than most of the rest of them; Berlusconi at least deserves credit for thwarting the will of the majority of his people to be a loyal friend to Bush. The question is whether Bush ever returns loyalty in anything but pelf.
At least Rumsfeld put down the Autopen for this one. It's like watching your five-year-old ride his bike without the training wheels for the first time, isn't it?
Edward Luttwak, an American military commentator interviewed yesterday in La Repubblica, said Mr Calipari's death was "the sort of thing that happens all the time in a war", and he advised Italy to "take an aspirin and go to bed, you'll feel better in the morning". But for many Italians the secret agent's death exposed a gulf of mistrust and loathing.
I don't know who this dickhead Luttwak is, but this is remarkably insensitive. Were it an American accidentally killed by Italian troops, we'd publicly humiliate them and make them bow and scrape their way back into our good graces. This is the same bullshit attitude we pulled on Canada when a couple of our amphetamined bomber pilots took out four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan a couple years ago. It's yet another reason why Canada is getting sick of our shit, and signing oil leases with China.
They passed two American checkpoints along the airport road without incident and were 700 metres or so from the airport building. The road narrowed to a single, one-way lane and took a 90-degree turn. The car was going slowly now, approaching the end of the journey.
"At last I felt safe," Ms Sgrena said. "We had nearly arrived in an area under American control, an area more or less friendly, even if it was still unsettled."
Then, turning the corner, they found their progress baulked by an American tank. They were blinded by a powerful light. "Without any warning, any signal, we were bombarded with a shower of bullets," Ms Sgrena said. "The tank was firing on us, our car was riddled with bullets. Nicola tried to protect me, then his body slumped on top of mine, I heard his death rattle, then I felt a pain but I couldn't tell where I had been hit. Those who had fired came up to the car, but before I was taken to the American hospital there was an interminable wait, it's hard to know how long I was lying there wounded but perhaps it was 20 minutes."
Was Ms Sgrena, correspondent of the communist daily Il Manifesto, who has repeatedly demanded an end to the occupation, the true target? She couldn't rule it out, she said. "Everybody knows that the Americans are opposed to hostage negotiations. So I don't see why we must exclude the possibility that I was their target. The Americans don't approve, and so they try to frustrate the negotiations every way they can."
This is where it gets into he said/she said territory, of course, which is why a competent media presence would be checking into both sides of the story. Where would one find such a media presence? Oh, they'll just tell you that it's too dangerous to do any real investigative journalism there, and they're probably right. But that brings up yet another set of problems, as that set of facts tends to undermine the putative corner Iraq turned a month or so ago. Once again, no one seems to have their story straight about this fucking place.
And it's not as if this sort of thing hasn't been ongoing:
The deadly shooting of an Italian intelligence officer by U.S. troops at a checkpoint near Baghdad on Friday was one of many incidents in which civilians have been killed by mistake at checkpoints in Iraq, including local police officers, women and children, according to military records, U.S. officials and human rights groups.
U.S. soldiers have fired on the occupants of many cars approaching their positions over the past year and a half, only to discover that the people they killed were not suicide bombers or attackers but Iraqi civilians. They did so while operating under rules of engagement that the military has classified and under a legal doctrine that grants U.S. troops immunity from civil liability for misjudgment.
Again, I submit that we would not be terribly understanding either if the pattino were on the other piede, classified rules of engagement or not.
Here the Independent does a nice breakdown of the conflicting positions on what happened:
CONFLICTING VERSIONS
There are some glaring discrepancies in the Italian and American versions of the killing of the agent Nicola Calipari and the wounding of released hostage Giuliana Sgrena and two other Italian secret service agents:
The Americans say: the car was travelling at high speed
The Italians say: it was travelling at 40-50kph
US: It approached a checkpoint near the airport at speed when soldiers fired on it to force it to stop as a "last resort"
Italy: It had passed three checkpoints without incident and was 700 metres from the airport when fired upon
US: The soldiers used hand signals and bright lights and fired warning shots before hitting the car with shots
Italy: There was no warning. Three to four hundred rounds were fired, afterwards the car seats were covered in spent cartridges. The Americans forced the Italians to remain in the car without medical attention for an hour
US: There was a lack of co-ordination between the Italians and the Americans
Italy: The Americans were kept fully informed
US: It was a regrettable accident which will be aggressively investigated
Italy: Ms Sgrena claims it was a deliberate ambush to kill her, as the Italians had paid a ransom, a practice America opposes, and as she had learnt inconvenient facts from her abductors.
Here's more UK coverage of this clusterfuck, courtesy of the Telegraph.
Oliviero Diliberto, the head of the Communist party, which is in the main Left-wing bloc led by Mr Prodi, said: "I don't believe a word of the American version. The Americans deliberately fired on Italians. This is huge. All of the centre-Left must vote in parliament for the withdrawal of our troops."
You know, this is really the worst aspect of this whole fiasco, the loss of credibility and respect with our allies -- who by definition are people who want to like us. It's beyond the scope of this post, but it will be one of my more over-arching points over the next couple months. We simply cannot and do not want to function as a sole hyperpower for too long of a period of time, for a variety of reasons. At any rate, here is yet another manifestation of this principle taking concrete effect.
Meanwhile the Left-wing Il Manifesto daily, for which Mrs Sgrena works and which is strongly opposed to the occupation of Iraq, quickly sold out of all its editions yesterday.
On its front page, an article dictated from her hospital bed in Rome claimed the Americans may have targeted her because of US opposition to Italy's policy of dealing with kidnappers.
The reflexive Murkin response will be "fuck 'em; who cares what the punk Euros think; etc. etc.". We all know it pretty much by heart at this point. Say what you want about Italy's commitment to America's success, but rest assured that Britain will be watching how we handle this very closely, and they are about the last ally that still wants to like us -- and our foolish leader -- at this pivotal turning point in geopolitics. Despite what that drooling moron Robin Givhan at Pravda would have people believe, nobody gives a shit about Condi Rice and her fuck-me-pumps diplomacy.
As a final point about reliable journalism in general (and Sgrena's journalism in particular), I'd like to say that while everybody's talking about this rambling screed Sgrena penned upon her return (giving her some benefit of the doubt that she's in a highly emotional state, obviously), if this is any example of Sgrena's reportage, I have no idea just what the US would be so terribly worried about, aside from her putative anti-Americanism. It's just not very good journalism. It stands in rather stark contrast to the Sgrena article we linked to in an earlier post. Hopefully it's an aberration.
«We buried them, but we could not identify them because they were charred from the napalm bombs used by the Americans». People from Saqlawiya village, near Falluja, told al Jazeera television, based in Qatar, that they helped bury 73 bodies of women and children completely charred, all in the same grave. The sad story of common graves, which started at Saddam’s times, is not yet finished. Nobody could confirm if napalm bombs have been used in Falluja, but other bodies found last year after the fierce battle at Baghdad airport were also completely charred and some thought of nuclear bombs. No independent source could verify the facts, since all the news arrived until now are those spread by journalists embedded with the American troops, who would only allow British and American media to enrol with them. But the villagers who fled in the last few days spoke of many bodies which had not been buried: it was too dangerous to collect the corpses during the battle.
Not one bit of corroboration here, on anything. Where exactly in Saqlawiya is this mass grave? Can't Sgrena round up a photographer and a doctor to help her independently corroborate this freshly-filled mass grave, and ascertain common causes of death? Lamely she offers that "nobody" could confirm the use of napalm bombs, and that "some thought of nuclear bombs". "Nobody"? "Some"? Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ, lady, vet your fucking sources. This is not a game; you're accusing the United States of serious war crimes and cover-ups here. Some fucking guy you met outside a village doesn't cut it.
I tend to agree with Sgrena's point that embedded journalists are co-opted journalists, but it is incumbent upon her to bolster that thesis with some facts. The most frustrating thing about this shoddy reportage and analysis is that there is a story to tell on the Fallujah raid, the cost in civilian lives, and the hazards of repatriation and reconstruction. We may have used napalm, but you'd never know it from the assertions in the article. There are ways in which a good journalist can responsibly analyze and report what's going on in Fallujah; Sgrena's article is definitely not one of them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this sort of uncorroborated assertion is usually the sort of thing Faux News specializes in. Serious people do not put any stock in this bag-lady brand of reportage; she's doing more harm to her own cause with this shit than she realizes.
Sgrena says she's not going back to Iraq. That's probably a good idea. One hopes that if she really has a story to tell, and not just hysterical mash notes that can't be backed up with even the most rudimentary bits of evidence, she'll gather her notes, vet and organize them in a sensible, coherent fashion, and quit screwing around. More than ever, we need responsible journalists organizing facts, not impressionistic ninnies wearing their hearts on their sleeves.
Here and here are slightly more cogent examples of competent journalism, of organizing numbers and names. Buona fortuna, Giuliana!
Monday, March 07, 2005
Regular Folks
I don't think any sentient being should be even marginally surprised by this shit anymore. Izvestiya -- or as they prefer to call themselves, Newsweek -- takes an inside probe (heh-heh, I said "probe") at one of Bush's ongoing Social Security sales pitches, starting with some of the jes' plain folks invited onstage at random to talk turkey with the Greatest Brush-Clearer-Upper In The Free World (Robert Mugabe holds the overall title, thus requiring the "free world" qualifier for Our Hero).
Yep, nobody here but us chickens. But wait, there's more! Call now, and while operators are standing by, for the next twenty minutes we'll throw in this fabulous one-of-a-kind capodimonte figurine! You can't get this kind of offer from any other shopping network!
Again, no surprises, but here is where the Bushies' invented reality parts ways with practicality. They know it's a contentious plan to begin with, and supposedly they just want an opportunity to make the sale. Why pack your audience with any ringers, much less a third of that audience? What are you afraid of here, guys? Do you think some "regular folks" might not be buying this grift?
"Helps them say things clearer". Please. It helps the ringers stay on message so Bush can keep his story straight. Again, anything more complicated than the usual bromides about Freedom/Democracy™ or false homilies about him "marrying up", and you can hear the hamsters between his ears furiously working that squeaky wheel.
I don't give a good jack shit what any of his defenders say, there has not been a single moment in Bush's entire political career that you can point to and say that he has a grasp of the minutiae of what he's selling. All bitter sarcasm aside, this is critical. No one questions the man's boldness is pursuing his political goals, but boldness without preparation is just bluster and recklessness.
Well, Scott's right about the first part -- none of this should be surprising at all, not one damned bit of it. But this "real-life examples" thing is pure unadulterated horseshit. I know I say this all the time, but I truly think that this simple fact cannot be overstated: if it's such a great idea (and this goes for any political idea coming from anybody), if it's such a wonderful synthesis of American policies and Bush's personal principles, then not only should you not have to keep lying and evading scrutiny on the specifics of your Great Plan, but you should be able to openly debate it with your opponents.
Are there really people out there who are stupid enough to buy into this Potemkin town-hall shit? Don't they wonder even for a split-second why Bush won't just talk about the facts and let the resonance of those facts' inimitable rightness take effect? Did they watch this mumbling, stammering sack of shit when he actually had to think and speak extemporaneously in a debate against an intelligent person? Do they really buy this "Parsdent Cooter" shit; would they really hire this goofball to run their ranch for them?
Answer that for me, fake regular guy Carlos Huertas.
Carlos Huertas was billed as a concerned grandfather and hard-working engineer when he sat onstage next to President Bush to talk about retirement accounts in downtown Tampa, Fla., last month.
....
Small wonder that Bush found Huertas so convincing. The Florida granddad is an activist for FreedomWorks, a conservative group founded by former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp and Dick Armey, the former House GOP leader. FreedomWorks campaigned heavily for Bush's re-election last year and now fights for his plan to overhaul Social Security.
Yep, nobody here but us chickens. But wait, there's more! Call now, and while operators are standing by, for the next twenty minutes we'll throw in this fabulous one-of-a-kind capodimonte figurine! You can't get this kind of offer from any other shopping network!
That means more than the normal run of TV ads and grass-roots campaigning. FreedomWorks officials tell NEWSWEEK they have worked closely with the administration to coordinate the town halls, often suggesting names of the people onstage. At least five of its activists have appeared with Bush, and the group has bused hundreds to eight of his events in recent weeks. By the group's own tally, at least one third of the audience in Tampa were FreedomWorks members.
Again, no surprises, but here is where the Bushies' invented reality parts ways with practicality. They know it's a contentious plan to begin with, and supposedly they just want an opportunity to make the sale. Why pack your audience with any ringers, much less a third of that audience? What are you afraid of here, guys? Do you think some "regular folks" might not be buying this grift?
The president took the show to Westfield, N.J., last week, where he talked with a small business owner, a stay-at-home mom and a recent college graduate. Bush received respectful coverage from the town's newspaper, the Westfield Leader, which said the meeting was simply meant to "gauge opinions of New Jerseyans." In fact, a day before the event, an advance team of White House officials held a dress rehearsal for the participants so they could fine-tune their testimonials. They do this before each show, usually with a stand-in playing Bush. It helps the people "say things clearer," says one FreedomWorks member.
"Helps them say things clearer". Please. It helps the ringers stay on message so Bush can keep his story straight. Again, anything more complicated than the usual bromides about Freedom/Democracy™ or false homilies about him "marrying up", and you can hear the hamsters between his ears furiously working that squeaky wheel.
I don't give a good jack shit what any of his defenders say, there has not been a single moment in Bush's entire political career that you can point to and say that he has a grasp of the minutiae of what he's selling. All bitter sarcasm aside, this is critical. No one questions the man's boldness is pursuing his political goals, but boldness without preparation is just bluster and recklessness.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan says it shouldn't be surprising that the administration would work with a group like FreedomWorks, since the goal is to sell the president's plan. "If they are involved in the issue and understand what's at stake, that's what we're looking for," he says. "We're looking for real-life examples."
Well, Scott's right about the first part -- none of this should be surprising at all, not one damned bit of it. But this "real-life examples" thing is pure unadulterated horseshit. I know I say this all the time, but I truly think that this simple fact cannot be overstated: if it's such a great idea (and this goes for any political idea coming from anybody), if it's such a wonderful synthesis of American policies and Bush's personal principles, then not only should you not have to keep lying and evading scrutiny on the specifics of your Great Plan, but you should be able to openly debate it with your opponents.
Are there really people out there who are stupid enough to buy into this Potemkin town-hall shit? Don't they wonder even for a split-second why Bush won't just talk about the facts and let the resonance of those facts' inimitable rightness take effect? Did they watch this mumbling, stammering sack of shit when he actually had to think and speak extemporaneously in a debate against an intelligent person? Do they really buy this "Parsdent Cooter" shit; would they really hire this goofball to run their ranch for them?
Answer that for me, fake regular guy Carlos Huertas.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
The Cult Of Kim
Via Atrios we are directed to a very charming Aussie travel blog. There's a great and humorous account, with plenty of excellent photos, of Ari Sharp's recent trip to North Korea. Given the US' foreign policy obsession with the Hermit Kingdom over the past half-century, there's a lot of interesting stuff here. Having read and seen quite a bit of documentary-type descriptions of the place, much of it confirms what we already know, or assumed we knew. But there's a very human and first-person element to this that's missing from most dry news retellings and such. Definitely worth checking out.
One thing that bears repeating, though, in regards to the nature of the Kim regime, which Sharp reinforces in his posts of life in Pyongyang -- this is a society in desperate need of deprogramming, very much in the cult sense. Through decades of fear, isolation, total control of all media and information, and overt nationalism and militarism, the so-called Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not any of those things (except, of course, Korean).
It is a place where the temptation is to get all Waco on the cult, but even without N. Korea's new nukes, that would be a tragic strategic blunder. The terrain is rugged, and the people have been kept so isolated for so long, they have no idea what the rest of the world is doing until they defect. So they'll certainly fight if attacked; a cakewalk is no more likely in Pyongyang than it really was in Baghdad.
They're out of the news for now, as we prepare to teach the Syrians and then the Iranians how to love apple pie and reality TV. But sooner or later, something is bound to happen within North Korea. They won't get the respect they want from China or South Korea; or Japan will start squeezing them militarily as it begins its own nationalist re-awakening after 60 dormant years, and the paranoid bluster of the NK regime gets more reckless.
Or, just as likely, word finally gets into the Hermit Kingdom, and the citizenry begins to understand how the rest of the entire world basically laughs at them; laughs at the foolish pretensions of their Dear Leader; snickers at his pot-belly and his comb-over and his five-foot-nothing in elevator shoes. And the façade will begin to crack internally at that point, as the people begin to realize just how enormously they've been kept in the dark all these years. This is a big unsung reason why Korean re-unification fell through -- the South wouldn't be able to afford a literal welfare case of a country; it'd be far worse for them than it was for West Germany to absorb their Eastern brethren. The people who don't make up the administrative/military/scientific elite that runs the country don't do much besides make-work and constant infusions of happy-talk from the state, so many (if not most) would be uncompetitive and unemployable in the South.
Don't worry; for once we are not working up to some satiric comparison here between Kim and Bush. As bad as Bush is, as contemptible as his toadies and cronies and pep-rally weirdos are, they could all learn a lot from the machinations of Kim, a guy whose family has truly led a proud and ancient country down the road to ruin, parked them there, and burned the map so they don't know any better.
This guy Kim (or at least his dad, who now drives the chariot that brings up the sun each glorious workers' morning) is a Sun Myung Moon-level pro at brainwashing the captives into an entire Stockholm Syndrome society. Here's hoping that we can figure out how to shine a light into the darkened room, and let the people know just what their Dear Leader's been keeping from them all these lonely years.
In the meantime, go check out Ari's blog. You won't be disappointed.
One thing that bears repeating, though, in regards to the nature of the Kim regime, which Sharp reinforces in his posts of life in Pyongyang -- this is a society in desperate need of deprogramming, very much in the cult sense. Through decades of fear, isolation, total control of all media and information, and overt nationalism and militarism, the so-called Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not any of those things (except, of course, Korean).
It is a place where the temptation is to get all Waco on the cult, but even without N. Korea's new nukes, that would be a tragic strategic blunder. The terrain is rugged, and the people have been kept so isolated for so long, they have no idea what the rest of the world is doing until they defect. So they'll certainly fight if attacked; a cakewalk is no more likely in Pyongyang than it really was in Baghdad.
They're out of the news for now, as we prepare to teach the Syrians and then the Iranians how to love apple pie and reality TV. But sooner or later, something is bound to happen within North Korea. They won't get the respect they want from China or South Korea; or Japan will start squeezing them militarily as it begins its own nationalist re-awakening after 60 dormant years, and the paranoid bluster of the NK regime gets more reckless.
Or, just as likely, word finally gets into the Hermit Kingdom, and the citizenry begins to understand how the rest of the entire world basically laughs at them; laughs at the foolish pretensions of their Dear Leader; snickers at his pot-belly and his comb-over and his five-foot-nothing in elevator shoes. And the façade will begin to crack internally at that point, as the people begin to realize just how enormously they've been kept in the dark all these years. This is a big unsung reason why Korean re-unification fell through -- the South wouldn't be able to afford a literal welfare case of a country; it'd be far worse for them than it was for West Germany to absorb their Eastern brethren. The people who don't make up the administrative/military/scientific elite that runs the country don't do much besides make-work and constant infusions of happy-talk from the state, so many (if not most) would be uncompetitive and unemployable in the South.
Don't worry; for once we are not working up to some satiric comparison here between Kim and Bush. As bad as Bush is, as contemptible as his toadies and cronies and pep-rally weirdos are, they could all learn a lot from the machinations of Kim, a guy whose family has truly led a proud and ancient country down the road to ruin, parked them there, and burned the map so they don't know any better.
This guy Kim (or at least his dad, who now drives the chariot that brings up the sun each glorious workers' morning) is a Sun Myung Moon-level pro at brainwashing the captives into an entire Stockholm Syndrome society. Here's hoping that we can figure out how to shine a light into the darkened room, and let the people know just what their Dear Leader's been keeping from them all these lonely years.
In the meantime, go check out Ari's blog. You won't be disappointed.
But Syriously, Folks
As we prepare to extend our March Of Freedom™ into Syria, some of the talking points being used to justify the initial sabre-rattling bear scrutiny.
Because as we all know, Israel has always adhered to whatever resolutions the UN has passed. Let's sidestep the usual brouhaha over Israelis and Palestinians, and the obvious ramifications of an intractable 5000-year squabble between cousins over a bunch of sacred rocks. The bottom line here is the UN itself -- without the legitimacy handed it by its member states, it is a toothless tiger.
And all countries are going to exercise their rational self-interest over what the UN delegate from Dahomey thinks is best. Israel looks after itself first, so does the US, so do Russia and China. Whether or not those rational self-interests converge with this or that UN resolution is incidental. The only thing that makes those resolutions work is force, generally spearheaded by the US. Syria is certainly a rogue nation, but it too is looking after its self-interest here.
For Israel to use the UN resolution as its basis for threatening forcible action seems, to say the least, a bit hypocritical -- especially considering its own long and nasty occupation of southern Lebanon. Unless General Sharon wants to discuss Sabra and Chatilla in this context; perhaps the Syrians have committed similar atrocities in Lebanese refugee camps, but the liberal media has yet to illuminate us about it.
Maybe, maybe not. Lebanon, which used to be the jewel of the Levant, is now a fractious, nasty place dominated by warring religious sects. Gotta love that religion; they're all doing God's (or Allah's) work. At any rate, just as Israel had to step in during the '80s to keep a lid on a boiling kettle, perhaps Syria is doing the same to a certain extent. Yes, they are doing it mostly to plunder the Lebanese economy, because like most Middle East governments, it's more of a mob family than an actual government. Still, have we learned nothing of post-bellum planning from our current debacle? It appears not.
Furthermore, that Egypt and Jordan are being held up as some sort of democratic beacons just attests to the ugly nature of the entire region. Egypt, along with Jordan and Syria itself, has been one of our primary subcontractors of torture, via the nasty practice of "extraordinary rendition", where we kidnap and drug a suspect, without charge, without lawyers, without even the kangaroo-court joke of due process your average Iranian gets, and ship the poor bastard off to one of these beacons of democracy where he can get beaten daily, sexually humiliated, maybe get his fingernails ripped out with pliers, or a power drill run into his shin. This apparently lets us maintain the fiction that our hands are clean.
Ask yourself a question -- if you were dropping off teenage boys at Jeffrey Dahmer's or John Wayne Gacy's house, you'd feel responsible even if you had been unaware of what happened to them, right? Now change the hypothetical so that you did know what was going on, but you did it anyway on the false premise that at least it kept them at home so they wouldn't attack the kids in your neighborhood. Does the word even exist for such craven, gutless moral obfuscation?
More ironic democracy lecture points here, this time from us, rather than the Israelis.
We have no illusions as to the nasty nature of the Syrian government, by all accounts a brutal thugocracy with an internal security apparatus that reputedly rivals (and frequently worked in cahoots with) that of Saddam Hussein. And Bashar Assad seems to have sorely misunderestimated his cred with most fellow Arab leaders, even as he has overestimated his own craftiness. Only Iran has consistently stood with Syria as of late, and they're a little preoccupied right now.
Still, you look at the pronunciamentos from the State Department, presumably given with straight faces, and wonder just what color the sky is in that world. Did we not just exult triumphantly over an election conducted under martial law by an occupying force, where people lined up to vote for anonymous candidates? Did that occupying force not just raze a very large city in a futile hunt for insurgents, and are they not now forcing that city's civilians to rebuild what was destroyed with forced labor? Is that city not still cordoned off with razor wire and biometric scanners? And is not the violence throughout Iraq still occurring apace, with nary a break?
Are we missing something here? Do we really just believe simplistically that only we Americans are God's children, and everyone else has automatically corrupt designs? Or is this just more of the "studied hypocrisy" historically used to do unto others while leaving ourselves exempt from our own stated principles?
Shalom, speaking at a joint news conference Saturday with Jordanian Foreign Minister Hani al-Mulqi, dismissed Assad's speech as failing to meet a U.N. resolution calling for a "a complete withdrawal of all Syrian troops from Lebanon."
Because as we all know, Israel has always adhered to whatever resolutions the UN has passed. Let's sidestep the usual brouhaha over Israelis and Palestinians, and the obvious ramifications of an intractable 5000-year squabble between cousins over a bunch of sacred rocks. The bottom line here is the UN itself -- without the legitimacy handed it by its member states, it is a toothless tiger.
And all countries are going to exercise their rational self-interest over what the UN delegate from Dahomey thinks is best. Israel looks after itself first, so does the US, so do Russia and China. Whether or not those rational self-interests converge with this or that UN resolution is incidental. The only thing that makes those resolutions work is force, generally spearheaded by the US. Syria is certainly a rogue nation, but it too is looking after its self-interest here.
For Israel to use the UN resolution as its basis for threatening forcible action seems, to say the least, a bit hypocritical -- especially considering its own long and nasty occupation of southern Lebanon. Unless General Sharon wants to discuss Sabra and Chatilla in this context; perhaps the Syrians have committed similar atrocities in Lebanese refugee camps, but the liberal media has yet to illuminate us about it.
Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon in 2000 after an 18-year occupation, and officials now believe that Syrian pressure is the only thing preventing Lebanon from joining Egypt and Jordan in making peace with Israel.
Maybe, maybe not. Lebanon, which used to be the jewel of the Levant, is now a fractious, nasty place dominated by warring religious sects. Gotta love that religion; they're all doing God's (or Allah's) work. At any rate, just as Israel had to step in during the '80s to keep a lid on a boiling kettle, perhaps Syria is doing the same to a certain extent. Yes, they are doing it mostly to plunder the Lebanese economy, because like most Middle East governments, it's more of a mob family than an actual government. Still, have we learned nothing of post-bellum planning from our current debacle? It appears not.
Furthermore, that Egypt and Jordan are being held up as some sort of democratic beacons just attests to the ugly nature of the entire region. Egypt, along with Jordan and Syria itself, has been one of our primary subcontractors of torture, via the nasty practice of "extraordinary rendition", where we kidnap and drug a suspect, without charge, without lawyers, without even the kangaroo-court joke of due process your average Iranian gets, and ship the poor bastard off to one of these beacons of democracy where he can get beaten daily, sexually humiliated, maybe get his fingernails ripped out with pliers, or a power drill run into his shin. This apparently lets us maintain the fiction that our hands are clean.
Ask yourself a question -- if you were dropping off teenage boys at Jeffrey Dahmer's or John Wayne Gacy's house, you'd feel responsible even if you had been unaware of what happened to them, right? Now change the hypothetical so that you did know what was going on, but you did it anyway on the false premise that at least it kept them at home so they wouldn't attack the kids in your neighborhood. Does the word even exist for such craven, gutless moral obfuscation?
More ironic democracy lecture points here, this time from us, rather than the Israelis.
"The world is watching the situation in Lebanon, particularly in Beirut, very closely," the department's statement said. "The Syrian and Lebanese governments need to respect the will of the Lebanese people and the Lebanese must be able to express themselves, free from intimidation and the threat of violence."
A U.N. resolution drafted by the United States and France in September called on Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon, stop influencing politics in the country and allow Lebanon to hold presidential elections as scheduled.
....
The State Department also said the elections in Lebanon in May "must be free, fair and credible" and allow for monitoring by international observers.
....
"The world will hold the governments of Lebanon and Syria directly accountable for any intimidation, confrontation or violence directed against the people of Lebanon, and we have made this clear to both of those governments," the State Department statement said.
We have no illusions as to the nasty nature of the Syrian government, by all accounts a brutal thugocracy with an internal security apparatus that reputedly rivals (and frequently worked in cahoots with) that of Saddam Hussein. And Bashar Assad seems to have sorely misunderestimated his cred with most fellow Arab leaders, even as he has overestimated his own craftiness. Only Iran has consistently stood with Syria as of late, and they're a little preoccupied right now.
Still, you look at the pronunciamentos from the State Department, presumably given with straight faces, and wonder just what color the sky is in that world. Did we not just exult triumphantly over an election conducted under martial law by an occupying force, where people lined up to vote for anonymous candidates? Did that occupying force not just raze a very large city in a futile hunt for insurgents, and are they not now forcing that city's civilians to rebuild what was destroyed with forced labor? Is that city not still cordoned off with razor wire and biometric scanners? And is not the violence throughout Iraq still occurring apace, with nary a break?
Are we missing something here? Do we really just believe simplistically that only we Americans are God's children, and everyone else has automatically corrupt designs? Or is this just more of the "studied hypocrisy" historically used to do unto others while leaving ourselves exempt from our own stated principles?
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Oops, Così Spiacenti, Il Nostro Errore
Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who had been held by Iraqi insurgents for a month, was freed only to be shot at by US troops at a checkpoint. Sgrena had already made herself known for reportage decidedly unhelpful to US considerations.
Coincidentally (or not), Sgrena and her boyfriend, Pier Scolari (who was just great on the old Newhart show, as well as Bosom Buddies), seems to think that the details of the shooting are just a tad different from what has been reported by the US military thus far [emphases mine]:
And now the Italians are molto arrabbiato, not that you can blame them.
Now, while the conspiracy theory is always tempting, one must first search for motive. Sgrena had already published her Abu Ghraib scoops long ago. That horse was long out of the barn. Revenge? Possible, but at the risk of taking out Italian intelligence agents (which is exactly what happened)? Seems like a big risk for something that could be done at any time. Possibly Sgrena had gleaned valuable info from her captors, but that would still necessitate her being debriefed first. We're just riffing a bit here, while more information rolls in, but for now let's just say we're cautiously skeptical all the way around.
Still, all aspects of this story definitely bear scrutiny. Think about how many death threats Joseph Darby got after exposing the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib to the American public. Think about how many death threats Kevin Sites got after releasing his video of the Marine putting a bullet into an unarmed Iraqi's head. Just because they haven't been gotten yet doesn't mean they won't be; Darby's family had to move to another state because right-thinking Americans don't want to know how the sausage gets made.
But what do you want to bet that if this aspect even makes it into the corrupt, cowardly US media, it instantly gets pooh-poohed by the officious mandarins of the Leslie Blitzer lodge, and dies a quick Guckert-like death?
Meanwhile, Eason Jordan is still unemployed for his rash suggestion about the caustic relations between troops and un-embedded media. "Embedded" automatically means "co-opted", and why that obvious fact doesn't get more play is just another in a long line of cognitive weirdness.
The daughter of a World War II veteran, Sgrena was one of the founders of the peace movement in the 1980s.
....
With this in mind, the reporter refused to become embedded with the US military during the war - choosing, instead, to remain in Iraq on her own during the major hostilities of the spring of 2003.
She then returned to the country periodically, focusing on the suffering of ordinary Iraqis brought about by a war she was vehemently opposed to.
In a telling story, she interviewed an Iraqi woman who said she was held at Abu Ghraib prison for 80 days by US forces.
Through Sgrena, Mithal al-Hassan said: "There were times when they didn't give me any water or food at all. Then, from the neighbouring cells I could hear the screams... There was no way you could sleep... I couldn't stand things any more. In the end I asked if I could write a note for my children, because I wanted to commit suicide."
Coincidentally (or not), Sgrena and her boyfriend, Pier Scolari (who was just great on the old Newhart show, as well as Bosom Buddies), seems to think that the details of the shooting are just a tad different from what has been reported by the US military thus far [emphases mine]:
"Our vehicle was running at normal speed, which could not be misunderstood," she said, rejecting US fears of a possible suicide attack.
"It wasn't a checkpoint, but a patrol which immediately opened fire after they trained their light on us."
A companion, who travelled with her from Baghdad, levelled serious accusations at the US troops involved in the incident, saying the shooting had been deliberate.
"The Americans and Italians knew about (her) car coming," said Pier Scolari on leaving Italy's Celio hospital, where Ms Sgrena was treated for her wounds.
"They were 700 metres from the airport, which means that they had passed all checkpoints."
And now the Italians are molto arrabbiato, not that you can blame them.
Meanwhile, about 100 protesters have gathered outside the US embassy in Rome, calling for a US withdrawal from Iraq and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's resignation.
They carried a banner reading "Bush has changed: now he even kills Italians".
Now, while the conspiracy theory is always tempting, one must first search for motive. Sgrena had already published her Abu Ghraib scoops long ago. That horse was long out of the barn. Revenge? Possible, but at the risk of taking out Italian intelligence agents (which is exactly what happened)? Seems like a big risk for something that could be done at any time. Possibly Sgrena had gleaned valuable info from her captors, but that would still necessitate her being debriefed first. We're just riffing a bit here, while more information rolls in, but for now let's just say we're cautiously skeptical all the way around.
Still, all aspects of this story definitely bear scrutiny. Think about how many death threats Joseph Darby got after exposing the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib to the American public. Think about how many death threats Kevin Sites got after releasing his video of the Marine putting a bullet into an unarmed Iraqi's head. Just because they haven't been gotten yet doesn't mean they won't be; Darby's family had to move to another state because right-thinking Americans don't want to know how the sausage gets made.
But what do you want to bet that if this aspect even makes it into the corrupt, cowardly US media, it instantly gets pooh-poohed by the officious mandarins of the Leslie Blitzer lodge, and dies a quick Guckert-like death?
Meanwhile, Eason Jordan is still unemployed for his rash suggestion about the caustic relations between troops and un-embedded media. "Embedded" automatically means "co-opted", and why that obvious fact doesn't get more play is just another in a long line of cognitive weirdness.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Little Earthquakes
While some of the righty blogs that we occasionally read are already waxing triumphant over Freedy McFreederton's inexorable and godly march toward Freedom, we are reminded instead of the facts before us.
It would be nice to assume that Lebanon and Egypt were about to hold true plebiscites, but the fact of the matter is that neither of them have been terribly predisposed to such a thing in the past, and sadly, Lebanon may just devolve into yet another civil war with the extraction of Syrian troops. This is not an argument for continued Syrian troop presence in Lebanon, mind you, just a reasonable assumption as to a fairly likely consequence of their withdrawal. But sure, we can do more martial-law elections of anonymous lists of candidates in those places too, or perhaps a pseudo-democratic endorsement of Mubarak's son.
One popular conservative assumption is that "liberals" must objectively be hoping for US failure in Iraq to remain ideologically consistent. Not only is this repugnant, it is also flat-out untrue. But this is standard procedure for the fallacious argumentative style employed by many neo-cons. Indeed, one gets the distinct impression that ontological consistency is far less important than finding -- or, more likely, inventing -- an opportunity to pound the straw-man "liberal" they so excel at conjuring. They'll step over the shenanigans of this administration every time, if they can trump up some perceived "liberal" treachery, real or imagined.
The facts of the matter about Lebanon and the Syrian troop presence, as well as the fractious nature of the region, are not too difficult to research. Even a token glance at the facts indicates that all this premature talk about "tipping points" and "Kuhnian paradigm shifts" is just that -- premature talk.
Amidst all this happy talk about the spreading of democracy, it seems that we still need to clean up our own house before we presume to lecture the rest of the world about democratic principles. But hey, it's always fun to try and hop that moral high horse, isn't it?
As Bush as already noted, he has had his "accountability moment", and Americans have decided that this sort of banana-republic torture-chamber shit is just okey-doke with them, so long as they don't have to look at it. Setting the obvious questions of morality aside for a second, what practical utility has been achieved by these methods? What useful information has been gleaned? I submit that had anything truly beneficial been gained, these guys would have shouted it from the highest rooftops, to bolster their flimsy case that it was all "worthwhile".
Instead, they continue to conceal and deny. Some of the interrogators sound like they actually get off on it. This is a problem with torture pretty much anywhere -- the people you have on hand to employ these despicable methods (and I'm not talking about making them wear an Israeli flag soaked in pork chops and menstrual blood; I'm talking about forcing them to stick their fingers up each other's anuses and suck each others' cocks; I'm talking about using the strappado and sending them to Egypt to have their fingernails ripped out with a pair of pliers) are by definition and by nature sadists.
Anyone who thinks it's been "worth it", even though no one's been convicted of anything (indeed, none of them have even been tried or charged), and the government has found no information of value to defend their actions, should do a little light reading on a true American original, Dan Mitrione.
We are better than this. It is time we started walking the talk. That is what real democracy is all about.
A suicide car bomber blasted a crowd of police and national guard recruits Monday as they gathered for physicals outside a medical clinic south of Baghdad, killing at least 115 people and wounding 132 — the single deadliest attack in the two-year insurgency.
Torn limbs and other body parts littered the street outside the clinic in Hillah, a predominantly Shiite area about 60 miles south of Baghdad.
Monday’s blast outside the clinic was so powerful it nearly vaporized the suicide bomber’s car, leaving only its engine partially intact. The injured were piled into pickup trucks and ambulances and taken to nearby hospitals.
It would be nice to assume that Lebanon and Egypt were about to hold true plebiscites, but the fact of the matter is that neither of them have been terribly predisposed to such a thing in the past, and sadly, Lebanon may just devolve into yet another civil war with the extraction of Syrian troops. This is not an argument for continued Syrian troop presence in Lebanon, mind you, just a reasonable assumption as to a fairly likely consequence of their withdrawal. But sure, we can do more martial-law elections of anonymous lists of candidates in those places too, or perhaps a pseudo-democratic endorsement of Mubarak's son.
One popular conservative assumption is that "liberals" must objectively be hoping for US failure in Iraq to remain ideologically consistent. Not only is this repugnant, it is also flat-out untrue. But this is standard procedure for the fallacious argumentative style employed by many neo-cons. Indeed, one gets the distinct impression that ontological consistency is far less important than finding -- or, more likely, inventing -- an opportunity to pound the straw-man "liberal" they so excel at conjuring. They'll step over the shenanigans of this administration every time, if they can trump up some perceived "liberal" treachery, real or imagined.
The facts of the matter about Lebanon and the Syrian troop presence, as well as the fractious nature of the region, are not too difficult to research. Even a token glance at the facts indicates that all this premature talk about "tipping points" and "Kuhnian paradigm shifts" is just that -- premature talk.
Amidst all this happy talk about the spreading of democracy, it seems that we still need to clean up our own house before we presume to lecture the rest of the world about democratic principles. But hey, it's always fun to try and hop that moral high horse, isn't it?
A British detainee at Guantanamo Bay has told his lawyer he was tortured using the 'strappado', a technique common in Latin American dictatorships in which a prisoner is left suspended from a bar with handcuffs until they cut deeply into his wrists.
The reason, the prisoner says, was that he was caught reciting the Koran at a time when talking was banned.
....
But it is clear the disturbing claim is only the tip of the iceberg. Under the rules the United States military has imposed for defence lawyers who visit Guantanamo, Stafford Smith has not been allowed to keep his notes of meetings with prisoners, and will not be able to read them again until they have been examined and de-classified by a government censor.
He cannot disclose in public anything the men have told him until it too has been been de-classified, on pain of likely imprisonment in the US.
Stafford Smith has drawn up a 30-page report on the tortures which Begg and Belmar say they have endured, and sent it as an annexe with a letter to the Prime Minister which Downing Street received shortly before Christmas. For the time being - possibly forever - the report cannot be published, because the Americans claim that the torture allegations amount to descriptions of classified interrogation methods.
However, Stafford Smith's letter to Tony Blair - which has been declassified - says that on his visit to the Guantanamo prisoners, he heard 'credible and consistent evidence that both men have been savagely tortured at the hands of the United States' with Begg having suffered not only physical but 'sexual abuse' which has had 'mental health consequences'.
Thousands of documents obtained last month under the US Freedom of Information Act by the American Civil Liberties Union support the claims of torture at Guantanamo, which has apparently continued long after the publication last April of photographs of detainees being abused at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. They include memos and emails to superiors by FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency officers, who say they were appalled by the methods being used by the young military interrogators at Guantanamo.
....
Stafford Smith says in his letter to Baroness Symons that Begg made a false written confession after being tortured in February 2003, when two agents who had abused him at Bagram - where Begg witnessed the deaths of two prisoners officially classed as homicide - came to Guantanamo. But neither he nor Stafford Smith have been allowed to see this statement, which apparently forms the main grounds for his continued incarceration. Stafford Smith asks the Foreign Office for help in obtaining a copy, and asks: 'What kind of civilised legal system does not allow the suspect to see his own statements? How can the prisoner's statement be said to be classified information when, if it were true, the prisoner would already know it?'
As Bush as already noted, he has had his "accountability moment", and Americans have decided that this sort of banana-republic torture-chamber shit is just okey-doke with them, so long as they don't have to look at it. Setting the obvious questions of morality aside for a second, what practical utility has been achieved by these methods? What useful information has been gleaned? I submit that had anything truly beneficial been gained, these guys would have shouted it from the highest rooftops, to bolster their flimsy case that it was all "worthwhile".
Instead, they continue to conceal and deny. Some of the interrogators sound like they actually get off on it. This is a problem with torture pretty much anywhere -- the people you have on hand to employ these despicable methods (and I'm not talking about making them wear an Israeli flag soaked in pork chops and menstrual blood; I'm talking about forcing them to stick their fingers up each other's anuses and suck each others' cocks; I'm talking about using the strappado and sending them to Egypt to have their fingernails ripped out with a pair of pliers) are by definition and by nature sadists.
Anyone who thinks it's been "worth it", even though no one's been convicted of anything (indeed, none of them have even been tried or charged), and the government has found no information of value to defend their actions, should do a little light reading on a true American original, Dan Mitrione.
We are better than this. It is time we started walking the talk. That is what real democracy is all about.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
That Darn Cat
At long last, congressional tool Tom DeLay has let the Social Security cat out of the bag [emphasis mine]:
You don't say. So why exactly has Bush been engaging in an extended cross-country leg-humping tour for the better part of the last two months? To butter up the Stepford crowds they cherry-pick for him? Hell, he could ask them to sacrifice their first-born on the driveway and they'd at least consider it.
At least now we know why this was never brought up, you know, during the campaign.
Better "the party of no" than "the party of no plan". Coming from someone who looks like he's never said "no" to an all-you-can-eat buffet, that's an interesting way to put it.
Another truth uttered sotto voce there, as all truths must be with these people: Medicare is facing a bigger and more immediate crisis than Social Security. The fix-it that was bum-rushed through last year is going to cost two to three times the original bullshit number that was floated. So roughly $1.2 trillion, rather than "only" $450 billion. And the Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility here? This is your money, folks, so you better start following it.
Yeah, people are funny that way. You call them out, insult them constantly, talk to them like they're stupid, and they have the goddamned nerve to actually want to take a look at what you're so furiously insisting they must sign on to. Really, the utter perfidiousness displayed by the Demoncrats is one for the books. Don't they understand the whole "faith-based" deal?
It is not an "overhaul", so much as an engine swap -- or an outright elimination. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has done yeoman's work on this subject, including exposing the leaked memo that featured one of the minions licking his chops at the prospect of actually carrying through the conservatives' wet dream -- eliminating that commie New Deal that bastard "Rosenfeld" put in place. It's all a big conspiracy, you know.
This deal just gets better and better, doesn't it? I'm sure it'll be a real peach whenever they actually get around to writing the plan and sharing it with us retards, who apparently are ignorant of financial jargon and how billions there are in a trillion (actual talking points from the GOP Social Security Memo PDF).
I am torn on this. On the one hand, I absolutely love watching Bush waste time and energy and political capital running around the country like a chicken with its head lopped off, desperately babbling his customary non-sequiturs and butchered syntax about this non-plan that won't fix a thing.
On the other hand, given what the American people have signed on to lately, clearly they'll buy any sack of magic beans Bush tries to sell them, so long as it's wrapped in the right catch-phrase. They've got 18 months to pull something out of their asses, and you can bet that every GOP ass-spelunker in the house is working 24-7 on this. Because if they can pull it off, it doesn't just mean the end of Social Security, but the end of the Democrat Party as a viable opposition.
Now, if you're seriously considering Bush's proposal, even in the sense of "something has to be done about it", I beg to differ. Something will have to be done, but not right this second, and not in this fashion. Think about it -- what single thing has this administration been right about, in principle and especially in procedure? Do you really trust these guys to give a shit whether they do something right, even on the off chance that it was even the right thing to do?
The AARP, which claims 35 million members age 50 and over, is "against a solution that hasn't been written yet," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay after a closed-door meeting with the GOP rank and file.
You don't say. So why exactly has Bush been engaging in an extended cross-country leg-humping tour for the better part of the last two months? To butter up the Stepford crowds they cherry-pick for him? Hell, he could ask them to sacrifice their first-born on the driveway and they'd at least consider it.
At least now we know why this was never brought up, you know, during the campaign.
DeLay and Speaker Dennis Hastert also criticized congressional Democrats, who are virtually united in opposition to Bush's plans. "The party of no," Hastert called them.
Better "the party of no" than "the party of no plan". Coming from someone who looks like he's never said "no" to an all-you-can-eat buffet, that's an interesting way to put it.
As he has before, Greenspan endorsed a key element of Bush's plans for Social Security, a proposal that would allow workers to set aside a portion of their payroll taxes to be invested on their own. But he stressed that much more needed to be done to put the giant retirement program and Medicare, which he said faced even more severe financial strains, on a more sound footing.
Another truth uttered sotto voce there, as all truths must be with these people: Medicare is facing a bigger and more immediate crisis than Social Security. The fix-it that was bum-rushed through last year is going to cost two to three times the original bullshit number that was floated. So roughly $1.2 trillion, rather than "only" $450 billion. And the Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility here? This is your money, folks, so you better start following it.
Bush and congressional Republicans have consistently sought to coax Democrats into negotiations on Social Security. Democrats have just as insistently resisted, arguing that since Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, they must first present a comprehensive Social Security proposal of their own.
Yeah, people are funny that way. You call them out, insult them constantly, talk to them like they're stupid, and they have the goddamned nerve to actually want to take a look at what you're so furiously insisting they must sign on to. Really, the utter perfidiousness displayed by the Demoncrats is one for the books. Don't they understand the whole "faith-based" deal?
Bush is to travel to six states over the next two weeks, and many more later as he tries to build public support for a Social Security overhaul.
It is not an "overhaul", so much as an engine swap -- or an outright elimination. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has done yeoman's work on this subject, including exposing the leaked memo that featured one of the minions licking his chops at the prospect of actually carrying through the conservatives' wet dream -- eliminating that commie New Deal that bastard "Rosenfeld" put in place. It's all a big conspiracy, you know.
Younger Americans would be allowed to invest a portion of their payroll taxes on their own. In exchange they would receive a lower government benefit than they are now guaranteed, on the assumption that the proceeds of their investments would make up the difference. In addition, though, even younger voters who choose not to establish personal accounts would receive a reduced government benefit under Bush's plan, according to GOP congresisonal officials who have been briefed on the plan.
This deal just gets better and better, doesn't it? I'm sure it'll be a real peach whenever they actually get around to writing the plan and sharing it with us retards, who apparently are ignorant of financial jargon and how billions there are in a trillion (actual talking points from the GOP Social Security Memo PDF).
I am torn on this. On the one hand, I absolutely love watching Bush waste time and energy and political capital running around the country like a chicken with its head lopped off, desperately babbling his customary non-sequiturs and butchered syntax about this non-plan that won't fix a thing.
On the other hand, given what the American people have signed on to lately, clearly they'll buy any sack of magic beans Bush tries to sell them, so long as it's wrapped in the right catch-phrase. They've got 18 months to pull something out of their asses, and you can bet that every GOP ass-spelunker in the house is working 24-7 on this. Because if they can pull it off, it doesn't just mean the end of Social Security, but the end of the Democrat Party as a viable opposition.
Now, if you're seriously considering Bush's proposal, even in the sense of "something has to be done about it", I beg to differ. Something will have to be done, but not right this second, and not in this fashion. Think about it -- what single thing has this administration been right about, in principle and especially in procedure? Do you really trust these guys to give a shit whether they do something right, even on the off chance that it was even the right thing to do?
Raw Deal
California action figure/bad actor/maker of cinematic crap/self-styled Goobernator Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken his failed effort to reform the world's fifth-largest economy to Applebee's.
Schwarzenegger announced he is endorsing three initiatives that incorporate changes he says are needed to fix problems in education, state pensions and politics. The initiatives are somewhat similar to legislation he first proposed in January that he characterized Tuesday as going nowhere in the Legislature.
"The legislators have not done their job,'' he complained at a morning news conference that preceded a trip to an Applebee's restaurant. "There is no counterproposal. There is no committees [sic]. There is no negotiation. Absolutely nothing.''
He's being too modest. He hasn't bothered to offer these proposals as something to negotiate. Schwarzenegger has taken a tip from the Bush playbook, where three yards and a cloud of dust means telling the Democrats to suck on it.
But this latest little escapade is standard Arnold, who has revolutionized the concept of governance-by-publicity-stunt. Non-Californians may simply not be aware of this, because most of the media (especially in Sacramento) spends more time tea-bagging him than asking him real questions, but Schwarzenegger has not changed one single thing of note in this state. Nothing that he promised would change has changed. Worker's Compensation is still a bloody expensive mess, prohibitive to small businesses. Taxes are the same, gas is still far more expensive than anywhere else in the US. Most of all, Schwarzenegger has sucked up every special-interest dollar available, despite the fact that he got in bitching about Gray Davis' special interests.
You know what Davis' biggest special interest group was? The prison guards' union. The only difference now is that the prison guards are second or third, supplanted by car dealers and corporate interests, who are somewhat more flush with political donor cash than the prison guards.
Another cornerstone of Schwarzenegger's campaign in the recall of Davis was that he was going to be the "Collectinator" (Jesus H. Christ, I am getting sick of this stupid shit), and hit up the federal government for our fair share of our tax largesse. You see, despite the fact that one in evey nine Americans lives here, and despite the fact California is, again, the fifth-largest economy on the planet, we only get about 79¢ out of every tax dollar. We prop up all those useless, unproductive red states, so that they can sit there and bitch and lecture us about how corrupt and decadent we are. (Support yourselves from now on, Mississippi -- or better yet, fucking secede already. This time, we'd be all too happy to let ya'll go. Take Florida and Alabama with you.)
At any rate, Arnold made his heavily publicized trip to DC, donor cup in hand, and was summarily told to pack sand. Another broken promise that he can't blame on Democrat intransigence.
No, what Schwarzenegger has excelled at "collectinating" is political donations, just like his corrupt, inept predecessor. Just to pimp his pet initiatives, Schwarzenegger plans to net $50 million, so he can then call yet another "special election", which, like the recall, will cost Californians another $60 million.
Are we starting to see a pattern here?
Schwarzenegger has also amassed a personal campaign war chest rumored to be over $30 million already. This in a state where he is supposedly wildly popular (though his numbers have dropped 10% in the last several months). One wonders if he might not really be gearing up to contest Dianne Feinstein for her Senate seat next year. Either way, Arnold has been pretty discreet in his fundraising, flying to exotic California locales such as New York, where friend (and NY Jets owner) Robert "Wood" Johnson has held fundraising dinners for him. Power to the people!
Schwarzenegger's fundraising efforts are finally starting to come under a small amount of scrutiny, but again, the media here is in thrall to him for some reason. One would almost think that he had made a decent movie since Total Recall, the way they softball this guy. Just another thing I don't get; perhaps I should watch Access Hollywood more often, and saturate myself in starfucking googly-eyes. Pathetic bastards.
A complaint filed with the state's Fair Political Practices Commission suggests Schwarzenegger is controlling a group called Citizens to Save California, which was formed last month to support changes that Schwarzenegger is expected to push for in a special election later this year. The committee is run by two Schwarzenegger allies, Chamber of Commerce President Allan Zaremberg and Joel Fox, who worked for the governor during the recall campaign.
New political funding rules cap the amount of money that individuals can contribute to a committee if it is controlled by an elected official. Citizens to Save California says it is not controlled by Schwarzenegger.
But the committee is co-hosting gatherings around the state featuring Schwarzenegger, and the group TheRestofUs.org argues that Schwarzenegger is so closely affiliated with Citizens to Save California that it constitutes a candidate-controlled committee.
When he's not picking on teachers, Herr Gröpenführer goes after the nurses, who are apparently the second-biggest threat to the well-being of Gullyvornia.
Arnold Schwarzenegger battled robots from the future, South American terrorists and even Satan in his movies. His nemesis these days is Kelly DiGiacomo.
"I'm a 46-year-old, 5-foot-2-inch nurse," said DiGiacomo, who works at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in suburban Sacramento. "I guess I'm a radical now."
Almost everywhere Schwarzenegger goes these days, angry nurses gather to protest. The California Nurses Association, the state's largest nurses union, has emerged as Schwarzenegger's most visible foil as the governor pushes a business-friendly platform designed in part to reduce the clout of groups he has declared special interests, such as unions.
Because the biggest problem with the American health care system isn't wildly over-priced pharmaceuticals and predatory hospital corporations, it's overpaid union nurses. Yes indeedy, step right up and smell it, folks. That's the smell of industrial-grade bullshit. Better put on the hip waders, because it's about to get a little thicker.
If you recall the HHS fake-news proaganda video releases we discussed recently, then this will be no surprise.
Schwarzenegger's Labor and Workforce Development Agency spent $1,200 creating what they call a video news release, which features a voice-over and interviews with managers of three different businesses praising the governor's proposal. The release was made available to television news stations throughout California and was used by at least three Bay Area stations earlier this month.
Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, characterized the video as propaganda intended to manipulate the media and television viewers.
"We all know Gov. Schwarzenegger is good at making movies,'' said Koretz, who is chairman of the Assembly Labor Committee. "It appears that talent has carried over to government work."
....
Schwarzenegger announced in December a plan to modify rules detailing when and how employers are to provide meal and rest breaks for workers. The rules typically apply in workplaces like restaurants, factories or farm work.
Current rules allow a worker an extra hour of pay if employers don't provide them a 30-minute lunch break after five hours of work. Schwarzenegger officials argue that the current rules are confusing and that their changes would provide employers and employees more flexibility in determining when lunch breaks occur.
Companies including Wal-Mart and Home Depot are currently facing class- action lawsuits that include allegations that they did not provide breaks to workers.
Labor officials argue the proposed rules could allow employers to provide written notice to workers that they are entitled to a lunch break but then never actually provide the break. The proposed rules also would place a tighter cap on the amount of money workers could claim in lawsuits if they are not given breaks.
Yes, Arnold's so concerned about the well-being of the peons, that he made a fake newsreel showing how great it would be if they got cheated out of their lunch breaks. For Pete's sake, does this guy have any conscience? Not all of us can be rent-boys until our bodybuilding careers take off; some of us have to produce things, and a goddamned lunch break is not so much to ask for.
But the real offense with Arnold is what it's been from day one, even during his campaign -- that to him, government is merely an endless series of photo-ops and publicity stunts, that he can browbeat his colleagues with played-out lines from his movies and on-camera temper tantrums and name-calling. It is yet another degradation, in an ongoing process of degradation, of how public servants communicate with citizens. It is shameful and pathetic, and solves nothing -- indeed, Arnold's antics have made an already hostile Democratic Legislature even more so. Arnold is reputed to have management skills, but judging by Planet Hollywood and his current role, his management skills end at his front door. He knows how to hang on to his money, but that's about it. It doesn't even occur to him that sometimes he has to play nice with people he doesn't like, because reforming California is an illusory goal, a means to an end.
Arnold's mission is, and always has been, to get to the top of whatever profession he has chosen. In bodybuilding, it was Mr. Universe and Mr. Olympia, and he won both many times over. In acting, he was at least realistic enough to know that he couldn't act, and thus would never win an Oscar. So he set his sights on the action hero's metric for success -- paycheck. And he got to the top of that pile too.
It is clear as to where Schwarzenegger's ultimate political sights are set, and that would be fine, if he knew what he was doing. But he doesn't; he has a cadre of advisors who determine what the money-men want, and filter it to him so that he can lay it out there in his inimitable Gonad-the-Bavarian schtick. This is not governance, folks; this is not the empowerment of the people. This is a goddamned circus.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Slannder
Rabid anorexic troglodyte Ann Coulter has gotten one of her recent columns, defending James Guckert, edited by her syndicate, according to Editor & Publisher.
In her usual overkill effort to share the love with her knuckle-dragging readers, she let loose on someone with actual longstanding journalistic cred, sliming Helen Thomas with an anti-Arab comment.
Of course it is. Annie's gaping piehole is about to get her ass fired yet again, and she defiantly struts her stuff as if it's some sort of anti-PC street cred, even as every word she writes is in the service of defending some of the most establishment figures this country has ever endured.
Give her credit where credit is due -- unlike that fuck-knuckle Guckert and his party overlords, at least Coulter has the balls (and the Adam's apple) to leave her shit out in the front yard for all to see, instead of running like a pussy to flush it all down the memory hole upon detection.
Still, at what point do reasonable people decide that enough is enough from this fucking harpy?
In her usual overkill effort to share the love with her knuckle-dragging readers, she let loose on someone with actual longstanding journalistic cred, sliming Helen Thomas with an anti-Arab comment.
Writing in her Feb. 23 column for Universal Press Syndicate, Coulter observed, among other things, that Guckert/Gannon was a better reporter than The New York Times' Maureen Dowd and his "only offense is that he may be gay." Nothing unexpected there, but Coulter also wrote: "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president."
But when the column got posted by Universal on its Web site, that line had been changed to: "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that dyspeptic, old Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president."
The original column is still available at anncoulter.com and labelled "Universal Press Syndicate."
Of course it is. Annie's gaping piehole is about to get her ass fired yet again, and she defiantly struts her stuff as if it's some sort of anti-PC street cred, even as every word she writes is in the service of defending some of the most establishment figures this country has ever endured.
Give her credit where credit is due -- unlike that fuck-knuckle Guckert and his party overlords, at least Coulter has the balls (and the Adam's apple) to leave her shit out in the front yard for all to see, instead of running like a pussy to flush it all down the memory hole upon detection.
Still, at what point do reasonable people decide that enough is enough from this fucking harpy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)