Friday, January 27, 2006

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum former Presidential candidate:

He's like the gift that keeps on giving to GOP humorists. Here's the latest...

Leading Democrat Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy said they would try to block Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito by preventing a vote on him with a filibuster.

Former presidential candidate Kerry announced from Switzerland that he wanted to block President George W. Bush's conservative nominee with the stalling tactic to prevent "an ideological coup" on the high court.

"Judge Alito will take America backward, especially when it comes to civil rights and discrimination laws," Kerry said is a statement.

Kennedy, Kerry's fellow Massachusetts senator, also called for a filibuster on Alito when the Senate is called to vote, probably early next week.

"We owe it to future generations of Americans to oppose this nomination. If Judge Alito is confirmed ... the progress of half a century on the basic rights of all Americans is likely to be rolled back."
First of all, I'm not sure there's anything funnier than the fact that this call came from Kerry while he's in the Swiss Alps. Maybe next time, he can try to argue against a tax cut while windsurfing in the South Pacific.

Second, Harry Reid has already cut the legs out from under Kerry by noting that there's no chance the filibuster would work. Of course, Reid still plans to support the filibuster -- presumably, this is consistent with most Democratic efforts to support failed policies.

Yes, we're well aware that Kerry is just following the advice of the left-wing dishrag. Unfortunately for Kerry and the dishrag, Americans seem increasingly out of step with the dishrag's views. If they really wanted to succeed, they could have adopted the mantra recommended tongue-in-cheek by Wonkette.

Then again, perhaps Kerry prefers losing -- it seems to be developing into a habit.

Did Someone Say WMD?

Holy crap, this would be big...

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "
Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
I have my doubts about this story. I also have my fears that it's true.

The Simpsons Quote of The Week

An old favorite.... and now weekly feature...

Lisa is outraged when a toy company releases a new talking version of her favorite doll, Malibu Stacy (think Barbie, but more blatantly sexist). The doll's vacuous statements ("I wish they taught shopping in school!") prompt Lisa to contact Stacy Revelle, the creator and inspiration for the Malibu Stacy doll...

Stacy: "Oh... I see exactly what you mean. This is a serious problem. But what do you expect me to do?"

Lisa: "Change what she says, of course. It's your company."

Stacy:
"Not since I was forced out back in 1974. They said my way of thinking just wasn't cost-effective."

Lisa: "Oh, that's just awful."

Stacy: "Well, that, and...um... I was funneling profits to the Viet Cong."

What Annoying Song is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

I caught "Remember the Titans" on TBS last week. This movie is one of those where the entire friggin' soundtrack gets caught in your head (another good example is "The Wedding Singer"). Luckily, I somehow managed to purge the Temptations and "Ain't No Mountain High Enough", but that was only because another song got stuck in my head.

I'm actually a big fan of this song, because I'm a big fan of James Taylor. Besides, he played it on an episode of the Simpsons (with a hysterical change to the lyrics in mid-song). But still, it's as annoyingly downbeat as the aforementioned Temptations song is annoyingly upbeat.

Here's Fire and Rain...

Just yesterday morning they let me know you were gone
Suzanne, the plans they made made put an end to you
I walked out this morning and I wrote down this song
I just can't remember who to send it to

I've seen fire and I've seen rain
I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end
I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend
But I always thought that I'd see you again

Won't you look down upon me Jesus
You got to help me make a stand
You just got to see me through another day
My body's achin' and my time is at hand
And I won't make it any other way

Oh I've seen fire and I've seen rain
I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end
I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend
But I always thought that I'd see you again

Been walkin' my mind to an easy time
My back turned towards the sun
Lord knows when the cold wind blows
It'll turn your head around
Well, there's hours of time on the telephone line
To talk about things to come
Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground

Oh, I've seen fire and I've seen rain
I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end
I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend
But I always thought that I'd see you, baby, one more time again
You're welcome.

Labels:

My Good Friend Robert Byrd

I think Hell's going to freeze over. I just agreed with something Robert Byrd said.

The senior Senator from West Virginia not only opted to say that he will vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, he decided to scold the Senate Judiciary Committee for the way the hearings were conducted...

The people of West Viriginia in no uncertain terms were, frankly, appalled by the Alito hearings. I don't want to say it, but I must. They were appalled. In the reams of correspondece that I received during the Alito hearings, West Virginians--the people I represent--West Virignians who wrote to criticize the way in which the hearings were conducted used the same two words. People with no connection to one another. People of different faiths. Different views. Different opinions. [They] independently and respectively used the same two words to describe the hearings. They called them called an outrage and a disgrace.

And these were not form letters ginned up by special interest groups on either the right or the left. These were hand-written, contemplative, old-fashioned letters written on lined paper and personal stationary. They were the sort of letters that people write while watching television in the comfort of their living rooms or sitting at the kitchen table. It is especially telling that many who objected to the way in which the Alito hearings were conducted do not support Judge Alito. In fact, it is sorely apparent that many who opposed Judge Alito's nomination also opposed the seemingly made-for-TV antics that accompanied the hearings...
Now, Byrd says that he's not aiming this criticism at any particular Senator or the committee as a whole. But this sure looks like the formal Senate way in which Senators say, "Screw you, Senator Kennedy."

Here's to you, Senator Byrd. God, I feel dirty just typing those words.

Once Again... Will Someone Explain Why John McCain Did This?

When my friends ask me why I'm lukewarm at best about John McCain, I want them to explain why he put his name on the abortion that was McCain-Feingold. Just once, someone explain to me why this bill was a good idea (and that includes the President, who signed it). Brian Andersen, who wrote the terrific book "South Park Conservatives", had a great editorial in the Journal Wednesday that lays out many of the problems...

Campaign-finance reform now has the blogosphere in its crosshairs. When the Federal Election Commission wrote specific rules in 2002 to implement McCain-Feingold, it voted 4-2 to exempt the Web. After all, observed the majority of three Republicans and one Democrat (the agency divides its seats evenly between the two parties), Congress didn't list the Internet among the "public communications"--everything from television to roadside billboards--that the FEC should regulate. Further, "the Internet is virtually a limitless resource, where the speech of one person does not interfere with the speech of anyone else," reasoned Republican commissioner Michael Toner. "Whereas campaign finance regulation is meant to ensure that money in politics does not corrupt candidates or officeholders, or create the appearance thereof, such rationales cannot plausibly be applied to the Internet, where on-line activists can communicate about politics with millions of people at little or no cost."

But when the chief House architects of campaign-finance reform, joined bySens. McCain and Russ Feingold, sued--claiming that the Internet was one big "loophole" that allowed big money to keep on corrupting--a federal judge agreed, ordering the FEC to clamp down on Web politics. Then-commissioner Bradley Smith and the two other Republicans on the FEC couldn't persuade their Democratic colleagues to vote to appeal.

The FEC thus has plunged into what Smith calls a "bizarre" rule-making process that could shackle the political blogosphere. This would be a particular disaster for the right, which has maintained its early advantage over the left in the blogosphere, despite the emergence of big liberal sites like Daily Kos. Some 157 of the top 250 political blogs express right-leaning views, a recent liberal survey found. Reaching a growing and influential audience--hundreds of thousands of readers weekly (including most journalists) for the top conservative sites--the blogosphere has enabled the right to counter the biases of the liberal media mainstream. Without the blogosphere, Howell Raines would still be the New York Times' editor, Dan Rather would only now be retiring, garlanded with praise--and John Kerry might be president of the U.S., assuming that CBS News had gotten away with its falsehood about President Bush's military service that the diligent bloggers at PowerLine, LittleGreenFootballs and other sites swiftly debunked.

Are the hundreds of political blogs that have sprouted over the last few years--21st-century versions of the Revolutionary era's political pamphlets--"press," and thus exempt from FEC regulations? Liberal reform groups like Democracy 21 say no. "We do not believe anyone described as a 'blogger' is by definition entitled to the benefit of the press exemption," they collectively sniffed in a brief to the FEC. "While some bloggers may provide a function very similar to more classical media activities, and thus could reasonably be said to fall within the exemption, others surely do not." The key test, the groups claimed, should be whether the blogger is performing a "legitimate press function." But who decides what is legitimate? And what in the Constitution gives him the authority to do so?

A first, abandoned, draft of proposed FEC Web rules, leaked to the RedState blog last March, regulated all but tiny, password-protected political sites, so bloggers should be worried. Without a general exemption, political blogs could easily find themselves in regulatory hell. Say it's a presidential race, Condi Rice vs. Hillary Clinton. You run a wildly opinionated and popular group blog--call it No to Hillary--that rails daily about the perils of a Clinton restoration and sometimes republishes Rice campaign material. Is your blog making "contributions" to Rice? Maybe. The FEC says that a "contribution" includes "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office" (my italics). If your anti-Hillary blog spends more than $1,000, you could also find it reclassified as a "political committee." Then you've got countless legal requirements and funding limits to worry about.

In such a regulated Web-world, bloggers and operators of political sites would have to get press exemptions on a case-by-case basis. The results, election-law expert Bob Bauer explains, would be "unpredictable, highly sensitive to subtle differences in facts, and to the political environment of the moment." Even when the outcome is happy, says Mr. Bauer, "a favorable result is still an act of noblesse oblige by a government well aware that if it turns down a request, the disappointed applicant is left with litigation as the only option."

Sites would live in fear of Kafkaesque FEC enforcement actions, often triggered by political rivals' complaints. "If the matter is based on a complaint," notes former FEC counsel Allison Hayward, "the 'respondent' will receive a letter from the FEC with the complaint and will be asked to show why the FEC shouldn't investigate." An investigation involves "the usual tools of civil litigation--document requests, depositions, briefs, and the like." The outcome can take months "or longer" to determine, says Hayward. "If a complaint is filed against you, there will be a flurry of activity while you respond, then perhaps silence--then another letter will arrive and you will be required to respond promptly, then maybe nothing again for months." Most political bloggers aren't paid "professional" reporters or commentators but just democratic citizens with day jobs who like to exercise their right to voice their opinions. If doing so without a lawyer puts them or their families at risk, many will simply stop blogging about politics--or never start.

Government regulation is always an enemy of freedom. The more we allow into the realm of political speech, the more we limit our rights to freedom of speech, and here's it to political speech. The same people who get horrifically offended when Howard Stern gets nailed for indecency probably need to pay attention to the real threat in our midst.

Ummm... Fruit Juice

Now the Arabic world can join us in calling the French "cheese-eating surrender monekeys." They have their own version of my favorite TV show...

I guess it had to happen. "The Simpsons" is now broadcast to the Middle East as "Al Shamshoon." Something must be lost in the translation. The cartoon has been repackaged with Homer Simpson now identified as "Omar Shamshoon," patriarch of the Shamshoon clan, including his wife "Mona," son "Badr," and genius daughter "Beesa."

Homer now drinks 'Duff" fruit juice, and he eats kahk, a traditional Arab cookie, rather than donuts. Hot dogs are out, and Egyptian sausages are in.

Interestingly, the Simpsons' Christian neighbor Ned Flanders has been secularized, with no references to his Christianity in the Arabic version. Mr. Burns, on the other hand, remains a hard-hearted boss, renamed "Mahrooney Bey." Badr still tells people who annoy him to eat his shorts.
If this comes out on DVD, I have to get it, if only to know how they explain Bumblebee Man and Sideshow Mel.

Ways to Get Fired in Politics

Bill Scranton's last campaign for Governor in Pennsylvania ended badly when I was a kid. This one hasn't started any better, thanks in large part to his campaign manager...

Bill Scranton's campaign manager, James Seif, said he knew he was in trouble as soon as the words came tumbling off his tongue.

In a live call-in show on the Pennsylvania Cable Network, Seif told viewers that Scranton's main opponent for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, Lynn Swann, who is African American, was the "rich white guy in the campaign."

By the end of the show, callers were demanding an apology from Seif, and within an hour Scranton had fired him. His dismissal came at a time when Scranton has been trying to slow Swann's increasing momentum toward capturing the party's endorsement on Feb. 11.

"There's no excuse. It was a stupid thing to say," said Seif, who added that the comment was not intended as a racial slur.

Seif, 60, said he was trying to say that Swann, who portrays himself as a political outsider, was really part of the establishment.

"I tried to underline the idea by turning around race, to show that it was the opposite of what it looked like," said Seif, who served in the Reagan administration and was head of the state Department of Environmental Protection under Gov. Tom Ridge. "There was no racial thought to it."
Thanks for fixing all those stereotypes about the GOP, Mr. Seif. I'm not up on the issue enough to understand whether Swann or Scranton would be my choice, although I've never really thought of Scranton as a conservative stalwart. But this is the sort of stupidity that drives me insane -- I know the point Seif was trying to make, but his choice of words was beyond stupid. At least he's not trying to defend it.

The only question I have is what would happen if someone on the Democratic side, particularly another African-American, said the same thing in the general election? Would they get a free pass? Before you draw conclusions, let's keep an eye on the campaigns by Ken Blackwell for Governor in Ohio and Michael Steele for Senator in Maryland. Steele's already caught some flak from the racial establishment of the left, as we recall here...

The head of the state Senate in 2001 called Steele, then head of the state GOP, an "Uncle Tom." During Steele's 2002 campaign for lieutenant governor, Oreos were distributed at a debate, and an editorial in The (Baltimore) Sun said he brought little to the ticket but his skin color.
In the end, this is only a hypothetical, and it's unlikely to happen in Pennsylvania, where Ed Rendell's too skillful a politician to allow his minions to do something so dumb. Besides, Rendell has enough integrity and savvy to jump on anyone in his party who would try such a thing, and defend Swann. But let's see what happens elsewhere.

Monday, January 23, 2006

From The People Who Brought You Bad Idea Jeans

There's really dumb ideas. Then, there's this...

Top officials are privately talking about ideas that would change the entire look and identity of the team for the 2007 season - from the name to the colors to the logos to the uniforms.

At the least, it seems likely the word "Devil" will be dropped, as it already is in some official team references. Then a decision has to be made whether to continue associating Rays with the sea creatures or to connect with the sun. Or there could be a new name, such as the Tampa Bay Tarpons.
(hat tip: The Baseball Crank and MB) And we thought the baseball people made bad decisions in Tampa. Does anyone else see the problems with this team name?

Sunday, January 22, 2006

And The Winner For Dumbest Statement of the Week

Excuse me? Patty Murray, the senior Senator from Washington, thinks it's a bad idea to give back money contributed by Jack Abramoff, because it might hurt the tribes...

Sen. Patty Murray said Friday that returning contributions from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff would "taint" the tribes.

The state's senior senator, a Seattle Democrat, said there was nothing wrong with accepting more than $40,000 in campaign donations from out-of-state tribes represented by the disgraced lobbyist.
Frankly, I don't care if she wants to keep the money; maybe she can use it to help Osama build day care facilities and schools in the Middle East. But this has to be one of the weakest excuses I've ever heard. I'm pretty sure those tribes are reasonably tainted by their association with Abramoff -- giving back the money probably won't hurt anything. But hey, I'm not a U.S. Senator, so what do I know?