McBride Strikes Again

Sheesh. I've not been posting because I've really been trying to enjoy what remains of the summer. That means spending time with the kids, my wife (the woman of my dreams), visiting friends and celebrating birthdays. But, today, I made the mistake of traveling to Jessica McBride's world. Hers is one I have been avoiding mostly because of the mendacity of her posts, but also because it's become somewhat boring to pick at her every written word. However, this entry took the cake. She wrote:

Bill Clinton was, at worst, slightly right of center.

Bill Clinton was incredibly popular.

So, if Bill Clinton was slightly right of center, and he was incredibly popular, the liberals are finally admitting that conservative ideals are incredibly popular with the public, right? They are the mainstream ideals, even if the media won't admit it.


Reading this was enough to cause some bile to rise uncomfortably into my throat. Little did I know she would later surpass herself in utter illogicality.

I should have left well enough alone, but I returned and discovered she had written this response to a comment about her post claiming that her reasoning was a bit off (realism: Correlation does not imply causality.). McBride replied that her piece had been an example of deductive reasoning and laid out this argument.

It's deductive logic.

Bill Clinton was slightly right of center.

Bill Clinton was incredibly popular.

Thus, being right of center must be incredibly popular.

She's right, to an extent. What we have here is a categorical syllogism, though better written if the conclusion had been: "Thus, being right of center was incredibly popular.

Aside from that, the thought occurred to me that her argument was less than one would expect from a 30-something woman, who astonishingly enough teaches at the university level. Her argument barely rose to the level of adolescent playground banter.

If that had been the end of her comment, one might have let it go, saddened that a mind is so misused. Alas, for her, she continued to put finger to keypad and produced a truly remarkable mudpie.

Or, perhaps, that the power of personality matters so much to liberals that they will reject their principles, if you buy that Clinton was slightly right of center and incredibly popular but still argue that the public is not.

To wit, one can only say, "Huh?"

UPDATE: Professor Putnam would probably say my writings on logic need improvement. Illusory Tenant and capper at Whallah need no corrections.

So Very Christian

This is the first of probably many posts about the deep felt Christian attitudes of our far right brethren.

Officials at the nondenominational High Point Church knew that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay when they offered to host his service, said his sister, Kathleen Wright. But after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors, she said, it was called off.

"It’s a slap in the face. It’s like, ’Oh, we’re sorry he died, but he’s gay so we can’t help you,"’ she said Friday.

The church’s pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men "engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing."

Wright called the church’s claim about the pictures "a bold-faced lie." She said she provided numerous family pictures of Sinclair, including some with his partner, but said none showed men kissing or hugging.

The 5,000-member High Point Church was founded in 2000 by Simons and his wife, April, whose brother is Joel Osteen, well-known pastor of the 38,000-member Lakewood Church in Houston. Now High Point meets in a 432,000-square-foot facility in Arlington, near Dallas.


So much for supporting the troops.

Lies and More Lies

To those wing-nuts in the area who don't realize a fact spoonfed to them should be swallowed with caution. Here's some news: Jeri Thompson is not a lawyer. The Trail has more.

It is a measure of how rapid Jeri Kehn Thompson's rise to prominence has been that there has been widespread confusion about a basic fact of her background: whether or not she is a lawyer.

Several major news organizations -- including USA Today, the Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, and The Post -- have in recent months referred to Jeri Thompson as both a political consultant and lawyer in articles about Fred Thompson's nascent presidential campaign, in which his wife has taken a leading role.

And supporters of the Thompsons have repeatedly invoked Jeri Thompson's status as an attorney to challenge insinuations that the 40-year-old mother of two is a mere "trophy wife" for the 64-year-old actor and former Tennessee senator. On Fox News last week, host Chris Wallace quoted a letter from a viewer attacking NPR's Juan Williams for having previously used the 'tw' phrase in reference to Thompson: "You chauvinist pig. Jeri Thompson is an intelligent, accomplished woman. She is a lawyer. And she has worked in the public policy arena." Added conservative blogger Ed Morrissey last month: "Anyone with access to Google knows that Mrs. Thompson worked as an attorney and media consultant in DC."

Well, presumptuous as it may be to challenge the holy writ that is Google, the hard fact is that Jeri Thompson is not a lawyer. There is no trace in public records of Thompson holding a license to practice law in D.C. or any of the states in which she has resided. And today, campaign spokeswoman Linda Rozett said conclusively, "Jeri Thompson does not have a law degree."

Never mind!

Because We Don't Want to Play Anymore

courtesy of This Modern World

Finally doing the right thing ... ignore Fox. Let them blather to their shrinking base of angry white men and women who barely understand English.

Still Clueless After All These Years

After 3,679 American deaths, 27,104 Americans wounded and 60,000+ Iraqi casualites, Patrick McIlheran almost got it, in an ironic sort of way.

Posting about the news that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article, has recanted his story, McIlheran attempts to use Beauchamp's alleged deceit to question the motives of the (as he calls it) "surrender-now side."

His final sentence of the post, however, was almost a striking condemnation of this entire misbegotten affair and the failure of the McIlherans on the right to honestly view the excursion into Iraq, rather than mouthing platitudes provided to them by this administration. If McIlheran had had the courage, this is what he would have written:

What good can come from the war against the war in Iraq if it's a campaign founded on lies?

That was nearly the first honest thing you've said about Iraq, Paddy! Keep trying.

Mark Belling v Margaret Farrow

Jessica McBride tantalizes us with this five word reportage of a Mark Belling and Margaret Farrow debate. She says, "Who do you think won?" Such in-depth reporting.

Somewhat surprisingly, dad29, a decidely right-wing kind of guy (btw: I thought McBride said anyone not using their own name was gutless and she wouldn't allow their posts), steps in and says this about Belling:

"It is not unusual for Belling to make asinine and uninformed statements to keep interest/ratings in his show. If it's a 'sliming contest,' Belling wins. Not the first time."

In retrospect, daddio's response doesn't really surprise me. I will say this, he is a straight shooter. McBride's response is not a surprise either, alas:

"I don't agree with your description of Belling at all. I think he calls it like he sees it and acts from principle not partisan allegiance."

I wonder what sort of principles Belling employs when hanging out at Victors and ogling the young girls, many who are of an age to be his daughter, if he had managed to have any. Thankfully, he has not reproduced.

However, saying Belling is not a partisan hack is precious. In the world of McBride, down really is up.

UPDATE: After the fact, McBride adds this. Apparently she reads other blogs.

(My take? Belling won hands-down. Arguing for the legal defense of racial preferences isn't an easy sell.)

A Bridge Too Far

Those who've been saying that it's the Bush administration's fault for the failure of the bridge in Minnesota are not being fair. While true that sufficient funding for maintenance has been inadequate, this was the case for the previous Clinton administration, too.

What the real shame is that the Clinton administration, in its zeal to be elected was willing to move so far to the center as to be emulating the me-first attitudes of the previous Republican administrations. They managed to fool Democrats, who desperately wanted to return a Democrat to the White House after 12 years of Republican mis-rule, and now Ms Clinton hopes to do the same again. Her flip-flopping on Iraq is just one measure of her desperation for the presidency.

We must first make sure that a Republican is not returned to office, because the neglect of our infrastructure will continue and more tragedies will occur ... all because the greed of the moneyed elite and their hapless minions, the so-called angry white men and women who would sell their souls for a return to the gloried 50s are incapable of thinking for themselves. Read some of the local blogs if you think that thought is necessary for conservatism to prevail.

I don't know who I favor yet, but I do know that I cannot support Ms Clinton. I cannot support anyone who will do anything to be elected. I cannot vote for anyone who will not show the fortitude and a backbone to make a stand rather than standing on poll results. Here are some thing I will look to when deciding:

What I want is a structured plan for an exit from the illegal conflict in Iraq.

I want recall of the Patriot Act and have it replaced with legislation that both protects our nation and its citizens and protects us from overzealous and power-hungry politicians.

I want universal health care ... period. Proper health care for anyone should not be a monetary concern.

I want religion put back in its place, where it belongs ... in the family and in the faith community ... it does not belong in the political sphere, nor should government be favoring one religion over others.

I want my son to shower regularly and use deodorant.

All of the points above can be reached, except perhaps the last one, which likely will not occur until he reaches the age where girls are attractive.

But for now, don't blame Bush for this one tragedy ... this one carried the weight of history.

O'Reilly Rant

This is the first I've seen the video of Bill O'Leilly v. Senator Chris Dodd ... only heard the audio previously. Watching, though, reminds me of what it's like when battling some of the local conservative numb-nuts in print. Just like O'Leilly, they cherry-pick facts and merely try to shout down rather than engage.

Now, that is not true of all conservative bloggers ... but their cause is not helped by the clowns among them. Here is the video, courtesy of atrios.

Irony Never Sleeps

Because I'm bored today ... let's turn to Tom Tomorrow for enlightenment.

In light of the question posed in this week’s cartoon, Jack Hitt passes along yet another example of what has become an entirely predictable trend:

JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. (AP) - The minister of a Baptist church has been charged with indecent exposure and driving under the influence, and police officers say he propositioned them.

Tommy Tester, 58, of Bristol, Va., was wearing a skirt when he was arrested last week after allegedly urinating in front of children at a car wash, police said. Police also said Tester offered to perform oral sex on officers who were sent to the scene. Authorities identified Tester as the minister of Gospel Baptist Church in Bristol and an employee of Christian radio station WZAP-AM in Bristol.

Using Conservatives' Logic ....

h/t Tom Tomorrow

Oh my.

The well-known hate site BillO’Reilly.com is being investigated by the Secret Service for threatening Hillary Clinton’s life. Well, actually it was just some commenter, but by Billo’s own standards, if the comment is on his site, that means he condones it. Why does Bill O’Reilly want Hillary Clinton to die?

Feed 'em a Peanut

Kudos to James Wigderson at Wigderson Library & Pub for taking on the ridiculousness at Carrick Bend Thoughts (an odd name for the site since very little thought emanates). Wiggy said this:

"Dave of Carrick Bend Thoughts posted a picture of Governor Doyle & Lt. Governor Lawton posing with caricature Native Americans from the old TV series F Troop. He captioned it, "The Governor and Lt Governor meet with concerned constituants (sic) to discuss the the impact of indian (sic) gaming on Wisconsin politics." No context, no link.

Dave was a little unhappy when Mike Mathias at Pundit Nation called it "offensive and juvenile."

"Does anyone wonder why Republicans find themselves battling charges of being insensitive to minority groups?

It’s because too many of you don’t speak up when individuals like Carrick sling their vile hash around.

Regardless of how one feels about Doyle or his gaming polices, our politics and political discourse are tarnished by Carrick’s brand of…well, what is it exactly? It looks like the kind of thing that would draw hoots of approval from readers of websites that advocate white supremacy."

Dave replied with two posts to Pundit Nation readers (in the second he refers to visitors as Nazis ... the last refuge of the weak-minded). In the first post he linked to a post, which contained a YouTube compilation of clips of Jesus and God jokes from Family Guy. Dave thought this an example of the lack of a moral compass of lefties.

I left this message for Dave: "God has a better sense of humor than you ... the ultimate joke."

Dave chose not to accept the comment (he has comment moderation turned on). Why might you ask? The comment was fairly innocuous.

The answer is that Dave is the on-line equivalent of those radio cowards Charlie Sykes, Jeff Wagner, etc. They say they accept comments from listeners, but you know the only ones who really get through are those who agree with them.

...or white supremacists.

Righteous Outrage?

I have a real big problem with all of the Barry Bond's haters. There have been many unkind observations that Bonds must have ingested steroids at some time. But the fact is there is no proof. The time may come when the truth is finally determined ... yet, Barry Bonds is vilified here, here and here by local conservosphereans who claim some sort of love for baseball, certainly not for the adage "innocent until proven guilty."

I don't hear the same chorus of outrage at Jason Giambi who has admitted to using steroids. I hear the crickets from the right, but no outrage over Mark McGwire and his non-answers regarding steroid use. Hell, I'm surprised they're not all over Jose Canseco ... he is Hispanic after all, the right's favorite whipping dog of late.

Lastly, I hear no words of approbation for Bud Selig who knew about the problem but did nothing about it. Of course, baseball was in a mini-renaissance. He probably didn't want to ruin his legacy ... but now, the best he can do is say what those on the right refuse to admit. However, Selig's admittance of innocence before guilt is pathetically lukewarm.

Read here for more on the subject by Buster Olney.

Poor right-wingers, so misunderstood.

Draft a College Republican

Saw this at both jef4wi and This Modern World. I liked it so I reproduce it here for the two or three that look at this blog infrequently. Listen to the Tom DeLay part especially. The man is an absolute putz.

The Sky is Falling

h/t via Illusory Tenant

Regarding the outcry from conservatives about the defeat of the John Doe amendment which would have provided immunity for anyone who alerted authorities about supposed terrorists, and the accusations were found to be false ... this comment by Steve:

Clearly, the way to fight terrorism is to encourage as many people as possible to cry wolf. Surely there’s no way that could be bad for us in the long run.

Hee hee!

The Homophobes Are Coming

h/t Working for Change

This is important. I've already sent in my two-cents to our senators. You can too.

President Bush just doesn't seem to get it. He continues to propose right-wing nominees for top posts in our government as if Congress was still controlled by rubber-stamp Republicans, eager to please their fundamentalist base.

The latest in Bush's series of inappropriate and ideologically-slanted nominees is Dr. James Holsinger of Kentucky, whom Bush has nominated to the post of United States Surgeon General. Holsinger has exhibited a pattern of hostility to gays and lesbians that is evident throughout his career. Consider:

Dr. Holsinger, along with his wife, co-founded the Hope Springs Community Church in Lexington, which operates a so-called "ex-gay" ministry -- with the type of "conversion therapy" that has been condemned by both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

Holsinger currently serves as president of the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church; in this capacity he opposed a decision to allow a lesbian to be an associate pastor, and supported a pastor who would not permit an openly gay man to join the church.

He also authored a white paper in 1991 -- "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality" -- trying to make a medical argument that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy. (A University of Minnesota professor on human sexuality has said this paper would have received a "failing grade" in his class.)

Holsinger is, of course, entitled to his private religious views, however narrow and exclusionary they may be. But the U.S. Surgeon General needs to be the chief medical officer for ALL Americans -- not just the heterosexual ones. Tell your Senators to reject this nomination and force President Bush to choose competence over ideology for his next nominee.

Are You Awake, Mr. President?

The vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, will be briefly in power for a second time according to this report from MSNBC. The reason for his assumption of power on Saturday is the president will be under the effects of anesthesia while a colonoscopy is performed.

Apparently, a previous operation was performed in 2002. At the time:

The 2002 procedure began at 7:09 a.m and ended at 7:29 a.m. Bush woke up two minutes later but did not resume his presidential office until 9:24 a.m., after [Doctor] Tubb conducted an overall examination. Tubb said he recommended the additional time to make sure the sedative had no aftereffects.

My question: How could the doctor tell the difference?

Stick Them Where?

"Stick Magnetic Ribbons on Your SUV"

by the Asylum Street Spankers



For my friend, Fred. Oh the idiocy!

More Irony

This is really bad. I wrote a post about some of the nastiness from the right wing (courtesy of This Modern World). The responses have been interesting.

Tom McMahon sent me a comment with a link to his site where he had posted about Hunter Thompson. I zipped over and found that some of the comments matched in ferocity and venom those I posted earlier.

As I said in the comments, echoing something capper said, I know it is true that there are those on the left who can wallow in the depths too. It's just sad to see.

To be fair, below are some of the comments left with Tom. Sorry you had to face that, Tom. I could share some stuff that equals that from one of our local cheddarsphereans ... but, I guess, what is the point. He's not worth the energy and nor are the people who commented at your site.

This guy started out ok, but then the weirdness kicked in.

Mr McMahon Its so obvious that you have read little of Hunter S. Thompsons' literary genius. The man was the most gifted and articulate Social and political commentator of the 20th century. He was a man who lived without fear and lived fully everyday of his life.

Your problem with HST is that he lived his life his way without apology. He lived outside your preconceived ideas of right and wrong and made it work. He proved that you can live a productive life and still ingest whatever you want without losing your intelligence or success. Not everyone is capable of living that lifestyle and no one should try to immitate his life. Yet he did live his life without hipocrisy.

So all I have left to say to you, you bloated greedhead nazi is Fuck you and your GOP horse that you rode in on.

This fellow (appropriately named Chris ... inside joke) was lost from the beginning.

Here we have a bunch of uptight greedy-eyed squares attempting to grind Hunter's image into the dirt. Screw on your heads, Dr. Thompson was one of the most creative and brilliant men in literature this century, do you read Thomas? Obviously not enough. Hunter stayed young and idealistic until he died, you, however, my fatbodied Tommy, are a rotting corpse with no life left in you, don't be envious, loosen your collar and let some blood flow to your oxygen deprived brain meats.

This person wouldn't even include a name. Coward.

When you die, there will be no one will be SOOOO sick of you because you are a talentless partisan hack.

Take a break from force feeding us with the leftovers of your moral self f***atio and learn that the drugs Hunter S. Thompson took are just as bad as the cheeseburgers you slug down like ambrosia.

How stereotypical of a truly revolting kind of conservativfe to judge a man's life not by his merit but by GASP drug consumption.

You are a revolting pig of a man whose simple mindedness would never be able to grasp the brilliance of a man who searched for truth.

You could not find truth if it were right below the pompous tint in your squinted eyes and the gluttony of your corpulent double chin.

Last one. There's more, but I think you all get the point.

hey you cheese burger engulfing Nazi, why dont get your thumb out of your ass and come to terms with the fact that he is a success of an author to some and a revolutionary who lived by his own terms to others.... you know what fuck you mussolini im gonna go get an h.s.t. tattoo now, eat cock!



Sorry, Tom.

Fox Reality

The wingnuts love Fox. Why not, it feeds into their twisted sense of what's real. Witness this from This Modern World.

As Tom Tomorrow points out, the vote was actually 52 in favor of pullout. It fell short of the 60 votes needed. But Fox would have you believe a majority voted to shoot down the plan.

I wonder how Fred at Real Debate would see this?

Irony Never Sleeps

h/t This Modern World

A sampling of the email Markos received from Bill O’Reilly’s viewers after Bill O’Reilly — who later in the same broadcast professed complete computer illiteracy — denounced Daily Kos as a "hate site."

U/R A DIRTY RECTUM LICKING COMMIE SLIME MAGGOT!

BORN FROM KARL MARX’S ROTTING FECES.

Your Evil, Fascist Organization.

Fascist scum like your organization need to be removed and sent to another universe from this one. Evil prevails in your organization, and I hope you will receive the reckoning you deserve when all of you meet your Makers. A gentle riddance to thou in the interim.

You…
…suck beyond belief. Hurry up and die.

I have never seen so much hate

I have never seen so much hate you would embarrassed Nazi’s

Why can’t people like you just make a living, instead of hating everyone else?

Are you all muslims?

I just say fuck you, asshole

Kos

I hope you all die a slow death. Much like you wish on good honest people like T. Snow, the Pope, etc. Liberal Fucks! I hope you choke on the smog & drown in the global warming waters caused by cows. You people are so stupid.

IE: San Fransisco is much better now a days since the liberal invasion 1/2 century ago. Hmmmm: It’s full of disease, poverty, queers(goes with disease…..), and polution. You people can’t keep your backyard clean, but cont. to impose your views on other parts of the country. I’m so sad your still around. I’m sure you’ll die off sooner than later. Much like you morals have. Go eat some grass

Anyone who’s been on or mentioned by one of these shows knows there will be a flood of this sewage in their inbox soon thereafter. O’Reilly certainly knows it as well.

Reads like some of the high-minded commenting found at Real Debate and Badger Blogger here in SE Wisconsin.

Just a Question

What do you think of this statement and do you think it is a fair one to make (bonus points if you can guess who said this)?

"My sons are 25 and 30. They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person ...."

Howling at the Moon

Rick Esenberg recently commented about a post by Mike McCabe (some Democratic party guy ... I don't really know all their names) that, Esenberg said, ranted a bit about the listening audience of Charlie Sykes' show, and, presumably, talk radio in general (I have no link because one was not provided and anyway, that's not really what this post is about).

I found this paragraph at the end of Esenberg's post interesting.

I am gobsmacked by the fact that a presumably sophisticated and intelligent public figure actually thinks that talk radio's audience is made up of bible thumping young earth creationists. If you really think that folks you don't agree with must be a bunch of mouth-breathing morons, I suppose you never will encounter any ideas but your own and will continue to commit howler after howler in your isolation. If you think that you and your friends are oh-so-much-smarter, why take anyone else seriously? Why take the time to make sure that you know what you're talking about?

Aside from Esenberg playing a little bit of the victim game (oh those darn libs think they are so smart), one cannot help but wonder whether he feels as gobsmacked by the fact that four of the Republican candidates for president have admitted to disbelieving evolution in favor of the notion of the 6,000 year-old Earth (Sen. John McCain, Sen. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Tom Tancredo).

Oh those creationist-believing Christian candidates, they think they are so much more inteliigent by design than the rest of us. Talk about howler after howler just to capture votes.

Why We Love Jess

"What's with the weird obsession most of the Lefty Blogger Guys in Milwaukee have with Jessica McBride? By comparison John Hinckley had a take-her-or-leave-her attitude about Jodie Foster. I really don't get it. "

This question was broached by Tom McMahon in a previous post and I thought it deserving of an answer because, unlike what J-J-J-Jeff Wagner said about those of us who follow McBride ("the kook fringe ...insanely jealous of her..."), we are all relatively sane individuals.

So why the attention?

For myself, McBride deserves the attention because she is an embarrassment claiming to be a professional journalist. She mocks the history and the role of the press every time she puts fingers to keyboard. She disregards Thomas Jefferson who said: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." She misses the point of Napoleon Bonaparte who said: "Three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."

Journalists are not here to cater to the party line, which McBride unfailingly does; they are the bulwark of our freedom. That's why she annoys me so much when she so freely besmirches this respectable institution and yet claims to be a card-carrying member. Her forays into commentary contain a disregard for fact and decency that begs for attention.

Bill Christofferson and Mike Plaisted also agreed to comment. Christofferson said:

"It's why Willie Sutton said he robbed banks; "that's where the money is." McBride is an easy and inviting target because she is so wrong so often. You might disagree with (Charlie) Sykes, for example, and challenge him on his view on issues, but you won't catch him making inane comments or stupid mistakes on a daily basis. That is what sets McBride apart.

"She is in a class by herself -- a self-centered ditz, with very little knowledge, who got built up and promoted way beyond her ability and capacity. Her commentary might be tolerable from a teen, but not from someone who presents herself as an insightful adult."

And from Plaisted:

I agree with Bill that one reason she gets so much negative attention from us is because she is such an easy target. Much more so when she had the radio show -- she was such an outrageously bad radio personality, listening to her was like watching a train wreck -- horrible, but somehow engrossingly bad.

I try to give her as little thought as possible. However, when I do, I envision her as Margaret Holihan, played by Sally Kellerman in the original M*A*S*H. Donald Sutherland as Hawkeye described her as a "typical Army clown". I think that's as apt a description for McBride -- inserting wing-nut for Army -- for the same reasons.

We do have to be a bit cognizant, it seems to me, that part of her target-worthy status is because she is a woman. Although the WISN radio geeks don't have vanity blogs, a minor nitwit like Jay Weber is just as insignificant, intellectually offensive and politically vapid as McBride.

But somehow, the same sort of nonsense coming from a smug, elitist woman has much more of a fingernail-on-the-chalkboard quality to it and is so much more fun to criticize. I don't think this is sexist -- she just stands out from the white-boys who usually run the GOP talking points. Her (literally)air-brushed self-image wrapped up with her nose-in-the-air sanctimony and the fact that she is so marvelously wrong all the time just makes her too wonderfully bad for words. It would be blogger malpractice not to take on her glamour-puss at every opportunity.

Now Tom, are you going to ask the same question of those who find every word written by Eugene Kane fodder for comment?

Shallow Jess

Jessica McBride's lack of intellectual depth is really sometimes stunning. Her most recent plunge into the shallow end of the pool regards an article in the New York Times, written by Adam Liptak, and titled, "For Libby, Bush Seemed to Alter His Texas Policy." She claims in her post titled, "The Libby False Analogy," that Mr. Liptak has provided a false analogy in the article by comparing Bush's pardon of Libby to a lack of pardons in capital crimes when Bush was governor of Texas. She huffs:

The critics say that Bush's action in the Libby case is wrong becaus he didn't commute the sentences of many death row inmates in Texas.

For starters, obviously, the death row inmates committed capital crimes. Actually, that's the end of the argument. They are murderers with special circumstances.

So: No story.

She concludes by saying the New York Times finally comes up with reasons that prove the analogy doesn't hold water, but these are buried ... bad New York Times.

I have read and reread the article and can only come to one conclusion ... McBride's treading water and barely staying afloat when all she needs is to put her feet down to touch bottom.

The article had nothing to do with what critics of the Libby action may be saying. The article is entirely a discussion about the history of Bush's policy toward clemency, which has been (essentially) if you're guilty of the crime, you pay the consequences. Liptak writes:

In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Bush expressed no doubts about his guilt. He said he respected the jury’s verdict, and he did not pardon Mr. Libby, leaving him a convicted felon. And Mr. Bush acted before the courts had completed their review of his appeal.

Liptak then ponders whether Bush has changed his standard for clemency because it has been documented that clemency, for Bush, was reserved for cases of "demonstrable actual innocence," a far different cry from his decision in the Libby case. The article concludes with this:

In June, before the Libby commutation, The Austin American-Statesman reviewed Mr. Bush’s record on clemency as president and governor in a front-page article. The headline said, "Bush history gives Libby little hope for a pardon."

The article simply explores this seeming discontinuity of Bush's action towards Libby ... at no time making a statement about the right or wrong of Bush's decision.

That is a far cry from the insinuations by McBride ... insinuations that have no basis in fact. But then, McBride has never been one to let facts get in the way of a partisan hack piece. Quick, someone throw her an inflatable doll, she's sinking fast.

She's So Silly

How stupid and annoying is this woman? Jessica McWitless notes this paragraph from the British Newspaper website Telegraph.co.uk, from an article titled "45 Muslim doctors planned US terror raids":

The three "cyber terrorists" - a British national and two who had been given the right to live in Britain - are facing lengthy jail sentences after admitting using the internet to spread al-Qa'eda propaganda inciting Muslims to a violent holy war and to murder non-believers.

They had close links with al-Qa'eda in Iraq and believed they had to fight jihad against a global conspiracy by kuffars, or non-believers, to wipe out Islam.

You mean Iraq is part of the global war on terror? Who knew.

Well, we know now. They weren't and wouldn't have been there but for the actions of this incredibly corrupt administration. Gee, who would have known they would go where it was easiest to strike at Americans.

McWitless and her fellow co-travellers in lunacy (i.e. most conservative bloggers) are like little kids confronted with an empty cookie jar. They ate all the cookies, but having discovered that someone else might have had a cookie, once upon a time ... well, you know who's to blame for eating the cookies.

Thick as a Brick

More evidence that many conservatives are very twisted and very odd people ... regarding the script being passed around that the Libby episode was purely political (you know who is leading the charge). This from Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy, via Anonymous Liberal (the highlighted text mine):

The Scooter Libby case has triggered some very weird commentary around the blogosphere; perhaps the weirdest claim is that the case against Libby was "purely political." I find this argument seriously bizarre. As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.

Things Going for Waukesha, Part Two

Todd Rosiak provides early coverage of the Marquette Golden Eagles b-ball team. Lazar Hayward, Rosiak said, looked especially impressive. Read more here.

For more information on the major NCAA basketball team in Waukesha ... oh, so sorry, there ain't one.

Things Going for Waukesha, Part One

If Yi Jianlian and his handlers ultimately decide that the Milwaukee Bucks are not a good fit for his talents, he can always play for the Waukesha pro basketball team.

Oh, forgot. Ain't one.

Jessica Mcpocrisy

Oh heck, I just commented over at Jessica McBride's (first time for everything), but really should have posted it here. Here is what poor Jessica has to say about Scooter Libby:

Remember that Libby was convicted of lying in a politically-motivated investigation into something that wasn't a crime. In other words, he covered up something that wasn't criminal.

Hmmm. Replace the name Libby with Clinton and you get a healthy dose of understanding into conservative hypocrisy.

You Can Call Me Scooter

In lieu of recent events, I have decided to undertake the legal means to rename my children. I'm certain that my wife and I do the best we can raising the three little urchins ... others have said as much, too. But a little precaution can go a long way.

So, from now on when referring to my 11 year-old son, my six year-old daughter, and my baby daughter, please call them Scooter. At least I can be assured that should any of the three become involved in some unforeseen illegal activty, their chances of avoiding jail when convicted (like Scott "Scooter" Jensen), or receiving amnesty though having lied during trial (like "Scooter" Libby) are increased.

You can never be too careful. I could take the extra step and have them join the Republican party, but that's going just a bit too far.

Proud to be Liberal

This piece by Theodore C.Sorensen is long, but I will print it in its entirety because it is that important. This is why I am proud to be a liberal, this is what America should be about. I, too, would like to hear my Democratic nominee for President read this acceptance speech.

On the 15th of July, 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy accepted his party’s presidential nomination at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. In his remarks, made at a moment of high tension in the cold war, Kennedy asserted that the United States was at "a turning point in history" and called on his listeners to be "pioneers" in a "New Frontier" of "uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus."

Collaborating with Kennedy on the speech was a thirty-two-year-old aide named Theodore C. Sorensen, to whom Kennedy was known to refer as his "intellectual blood bank." With Sorensen’s help, Kennedy would earn a reputation as one of American history’s great orators and provide a bold new vision for the nation.

Today, we are at another moment of high tension, the result of a disastrous war abroad and division and drift at home. Like Kennedy, the next Democratic nominee, whoever he or she might be, will have a similar opportunity to form a new vision for America and to reestablish its moral leadership in the world. To encourage such boldness of thinking, we, too, tapped Kennedy’s intellectual blood bank. We called Theodore C. Sorensen and asked him to write the speech he would most want the next Democratic nominee to give at the party convention in Denver in August 2008. We requested that he proceed with no candidate in mind and that he give no consideration to expediency or tactics—in other words, that he write the speech of his dreams. Here is the speech he sent us.

There will be more debates this fall. I hereby notify my Republican opponent that I have purchased ninety minutes of national network television time for each of the six Sunday evenings preceding the presidential election, and here and now invite and challenge him to share that time with me to debate the most serious issues facing the country, under rules to be agreed upon by our respective designees meeting this week with a neutral jointly selected statesman.

Let me assure all those who may disagree with my positions that I shall hear and respect their views, not denounce them as unpatriotic as has so often happened in recent years. I will wage a campaign that relies not on the usual fear, smear, and greed but on the hopes and pride of all our citizens in a nationwide effort to restore comity, common sense, and competence to the White House.

In this campaign, I will make no promises I cannot fulfill, pledge no spending we cannot afford, offer no posts to cronies you cannot trust, and propose no foreign commitment we should not keep. I will not shrink from opposing any party faction, any special interest group, or any major donor whose demands are contrary to the national interest. Nor will I shrink from calling myself a liberal, in the same sense that Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt, John and Robert Kennedy, and Harry Truman were liberals—liberals who proved that government is not a necessary evil, but rather the best means of creating a healthier, more educated, and more prosperous America.

They are the giants on whose shoulders I now stand, giants who made this a better, fairer, safer, stronger, more united America.

By making me your nominee, you have placed your trust in the American people to put aside irrelevant considerations and judge me solely on my qualifications to lead the nation. You have opened the stairway to what Teddy Roosevelt called the "bully pulpit." With the help of dedicated Americans from our party, every party, and no party at all, I intend to mount that stairway to preach peace for our nation and world.

My campaign will be based on my search for the perfect political consensus, not the perfect political consultant. My chief political consultant will be my conscience.

Thank you for your applause, but I need more than your applause and approval. I need your prayers, your votes, your help, your heart, and your hand. The challenge is enormous, the obstacles are many. Our nation is emerging from eight years of misrule, a dark and difficult period in which our national honor and pride have been bruised and battered. But we are neither beaten nor broken. We are not helpless or afraid; because in this country the people rule, and the people want change.

True, some of us have been sleeping for these eight long years, while our nation’s values have been traduced, our liberties reduced, and our moral authority around the world trampled and shattered by a nightmare of ideological incompetence. But now we are awakening and taking our country back. Now people all across America are starting to believe in America again. We are coming back, back to the heights of greatness, back to America’s proud role as a temple of justice and a champion of peace.

The American people are tired of politics as usual, and I intend to offer them, in this campaign, something unusual in recent American politics: the truth. Neither bureaucracies nor nations function well when their actions are hidden from public view and accountability. From now on, whatever mistakes I make, whatever dangers we face, the people shall know the truth—and the truth shall make them free. After eight years of secrecy and mendacity, here are some truths the people deserve to hear:

We remain essentially a nation under siege. The threat of another terrorist attack upon our homeland has not been reduced by all the new layers of porous bureaucracy that proved their ineptitude in New Orleans; nor by all the needless, mindless curbs on our personal liberties and privacy; nor by expensive new weaponry that is utterly useless in stopping a fanatic willing to blow himself up for his cause. Indeed, our vulnerability to another attack has only been worsened in the years since the attacks of September 11th—worsened by our government convincing more than 1 billion Muslims that we are prejudiced against their faith, dismissive of international law, and indifferent to the deaths of their innocent children; worsened by our failure to understand their culture or to provide a safe haven for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees displaced by a war we started; worsened by our failure to continue our indispensable role in the Middle East peace process.

We have adopted some of the most indefensible tactics of our enemies, including torture and indefinite detention.

We have degraded our military.

We have treated our most serious adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea, in the most juvenile manner—by giving them the silent treatment. In so doing, we have weakened, not strengthened, our bargaining position and our leadership.

At home, as health care costs have grown and coverage disappeared, we have done nothing but coddle the insurance, pharmaceutical, and health care industries that feed the problem.
As global warming worsens, we have done nothing but deny the obvious and give regulatory favors to polluters.

As growing economic inequality tarnishes our democracy, we have done nothing but carve out more tax breaks for the rich.

During these last several years, our nation has been bitterly divided and deceived by illicit actions in high places, by violations of federal, constitutional, and international law. I do not favor further widening the nation’s wounds, now or next year, through continuous investigations, indictments, and impeachments. I am confident that history will hold these malefactors accountable for their deeds, and the country will move on.

Instead, I shall seek a renewal of unity among all Americans, an unprecedented unity we will need for years to come in order to face unprecedented danger.

We will be safer from terrorist attack only when we have earned the respect of all other nations instead of their fear, respect for our values and not merely our weapons.

If I am elected president, my vow for this country can be summarized in one short, simple word: change. This November 2008 election—the first since 1952 in which neither the incumbent president’s nor the incumbent vice president’s name will appear on the national ballot, indeed the first since 1976 in which the name of neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush will appear on the national ballot—is destined to bring about the most profound change in the direction of this country since the election of 1932.

To meet the threats we face and restore our place of leadership in the free world, I pledge to do the following:

First, working with a representative Iraqi parliament, I shall set a timetable for an orderly, systematic redeployment and withdrawal of all our troops in Iraq, including the recall of all members of the National Guard to their primary responsibility of guarding our nation and its individual states.

Second, this redeployment shall be only the first step in a comprehensive regional economic and diplomatic stabilization plan for the entire Middle East, building a just and enduring peace between Israel and Palestine, halting the killing and maiming of innocent civilians on both sides, and establishing two independent sovereign states, each behind peacefully negotiated and mutually recognized borders.

Third, I shall as soon as possible transfer all inmates out of the Guantanamo Bay prison and close down that hideous symbol of injustice.

Fourth, I shall fly to New York City to pledge in person to the United Nations, in the September 2009 General Assembly, that the United States is returning to its role as a leader in international law, as a supporter of international tribunals, and as a full-fledged member of the United Nations which will pay its dues in full, on time, and without conditions, renouncing any American empire; that we shall work more intensively with other countries to eliminate global scourges, including AIDS, malaria, and other contagious diseases, massive refugee flows, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and that we will support the early dispatch of United Nations peacekeepers to halt the atrocities in Darfur. I shall make it clear that we do not covet the land of other countries for our military bases or the control of their natural resources for our factories. I shall make it clear that our country is not bound by any policies or pronouncements of my predecessor that violate international law or threaten international peace.

Fifth, I shall personally sign the Kyoto Protocol, and seek its ratification by the United States Senate, in order to stop global warming before it endangers all species on earth, including our own; and I shall call upon the Congress to take action dramatically reducing our nation’s reliance on the carbon fuels that are steadily contributing to the degradation of our environment.

Sixth, I shall demonstrate sufficient confidence in the strength of our values and the wisdom and skill of our diplomats to favor communications, negotiations, and full relations with every country on earth, including Cuba, North Korea, Palestine, and Iran.

Finally, I shall restore the constitutional right of habeas corpus, abolish the unconstitutional tapping of private phones, and once again show the world the traditional American values that distinguish us from those who attacked us on 9/11.

We need not renounce the use of conventional force. We will be ready to repel any clear and present danger that poses a genuine threat to our national security and survival. But it will be as a last resort, never a first; in cooperation with our allies, never alone; out of necessity, never by choice; proportionate, never heedless of civilian lives or international law; as the best alternative considered, never the only. We will always apply the same principles of collective security, prudent caution, and superior weaponry that enabled us to peacefully prevail in the long cold war against the Soviet Union. Above all, we shall wage no more unilateral, ill-planned, ill-considered, and ill-prepared invasions of foreign countries that pose no actual threat to our security. No more wars in which the American Congress is not told in advance and throughout their duration the true cost, consequences, and terms of commitment. No more wars waged by leaders blinded by ideology who have no legal basis to start them and no plan to end them. We shall oppose no peaceful religion or culture, insult or demonize no peace-minded foreign leader, and spare no effort in meeting those obligations of leadership and assistance that our comparative economic strength has thrust upon us. We shall listen, not lecture; learn, not threaten. We will enhance our safety by earning the respect of others and showing respect for them. In short, our foreign policy will rest on the traditional American values of restraint and empathy, not on military might.

In the final analysis, our nation cannot be secure around the world unless our citizens are secure at home—secure not only from external attack, but secure as well from the rising tide of national debt, secure from the financial and physical ravages of uninsured disease, secure from discrimination in our schools and neighborhoods, secure from the bitter unrest generated by a widening gap between our richest and poorest citizens. They are not secure in a country lacking reasonable limitations on the sale of handguns to criminals, the mentally disturbed, and prospective terrorists. And our citizens are not secure when some of their fellow citizens, loyal Islamic Americans, are made to feel they are the targets of hysteria or bigotry.

I believe in an America in which the fruits of productivity and prosperity are shared by all, by workers as well as owners, by those at the bottom as well as those at the top; an America in which the sacrifices required by national security are shared by all, by profiteers in the back offices as well as volunteers on the front lines.

In my administration, I shall restore balance and fairness to the national tax system. I shall level the playing field for organized labor. I shall end the unseemly favors to corporations that allow them to profit without competing, for it is through competition that we innovate, and it is through innovation that we raise the wages of our workers. It shames our nation that profits for corporations have soared even as wages for average Americans have fallen. It shames us still more that so many African American men must struggle to find jobs.

We will make sure that no American citizen, from the youngest child to the oldest retiree, and especially no returning serviceman or military veteran, will be denied fully funded medical care of the highest quality.

To pay for these domestic programs, my administration will make sure that subsidies and tax breaks go only to those who need them most, not those who need them least, and that we fund only those weapons systems we need to meet the threats of today and tomorrow, not those of yesterday.

The purpose of public office is to do good, not harm; to change lives, help lives, and save lives, not destroy them. I look upon the presidency not as an opportunity to rule, but as an opportunity to serve. I intend to serve all the people, regardless of party, race, region, or religion.

Let us all, here assembled in this hall, or watching at home, constitute ourselves, rededicate ourselves, as soldiers in a new army. Not an army of death and destruction, but a new army of voters and volunteers, in a new wave of workers for peace and justice at home and abroad, new missionaries for the moral rebirth of our country. I ask for every citizen’s help, not merely those who live in the red states or those who live in the blue states, but every citizen in every state. Although we may be called fools and dreamers, although we will find the going uphill, in the words of the poet: "Say not the struggle naught availeth." We will change our country’s direction, and hand to the generation that follows a nation that is safer, cleaner, less divided, and less fearful than the nation we will inherit next January.

I’m told that John F. Kennedy was fond of quoting Archimedes, who explained the principle of the lever by declaring: "Give me a place to stand, and I can move the world." My fellow Americans—here I stand. Come join me, and together we will move the world to a new era of a just and lasting peace.

Puff the Magic Commenter

This post is in response to comments made by that master debater, Fred Dooley, author of the hilariously named Real Debate blog. Fred responded first to my post titled "Wrong Again", in which I chastised local former radio host, Jessica McBride, for comparing herself to that tub of malprofundity, Rush Limbaugh, and to man puppet, Ann Coulter. Fred took issue first with my comments that Limbaugh's inelegant spoof of David Ehrenstein's "Obama the Magic Negro" op ed was inherently racist. He asked why I did not condemn Ehrenstein's piece in the same manner as I condemned Limbaugh, reminding me that Ehrenstein is black.

Hmmm. Let me type this slowly for Fred and his friends so they can understand (mind you I type slowly anyway). Ehrenstein's piece was indeed provacative. He spoke of white liberal guilt and its need to replace the "highly sexualized black man" with a benign figure, someone like Scatman Crothers or Will Smith.

But for goodness sake, it was an opinion piece ... and fyi, well written. Make up your own mind, but don't dance around and tell me that Ehrenstein and Limbaugh are somehow related in matters racial.

Limbaugh and his parody ... it had nothing to do with opinion. It had everything to do with satisfying that little itch that can't be scratched publicly, so distract the viewers with a little song and dance. Digby said it best back in April 2007.

He [Limbaugh] knows his audience and what they are thinking. And that little ditty "Barack the Magic Negro" will stick --- not in the minds of the liberals whom Ehrenstein claims see him as the great assuager of liberal guilt, but by racist creeps who just love to snigger and snort over the word "negro." Dittoheads know exactly what Rush is about here no matter what kind of patently absurd nonsense he spews about liberals putting African Americans up on auction blocks. Everybody's in on the joke.

And that's exactly what it was ... a sordid, awful and petty little joke by a petty (in stature, not girth) little man. It did not contribute anything to society. Racists never do.

I'll let another, the Illusory Tenant (who is fast becoming a fan favorite), tackle the McBride issue (which I thought I did well, but you know the old saying about short people, Fred). He lays bare McBride's silliness and abject inability to make a coherent point because she fails to do the leg work.

Regardng my other post, titled "Oh, the Injustice" ... Fred accused me of being silly for searching for a gotcha moment. The moment, in his mind, the juxtaposition of Oshkosh gun shots and Juneteenth violence. They're not the same he roars.

Again, his argument, while welcomed because blogs are for the most part compiled of opinion pieces with invitations to comment, missed the point. Hmmm. Follow the keystrokes again. I was not comparing the degree of violence, I was comparing the coverage. The post had nothing to do with the amount of violence that occurs in the respective counties, it had everything to do with white conservative bloggers spending an incredibly inordinate amount of time on black issues. I understand why ... it plays to the dittoheads among you.

Wow, Limbaugh really was a trailblazer. Even as far back as the 1970s when he once told a black caller: 'Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

Fred, if the shoe fits ....

Helen Thomas: American Hero

Here is a link to an interview of veteran White House correspondent, Helen Thomas, by Glenn Greenwald, author of the blog Unclaimed Territory. Thomas is one of the few, if not the only reporter, who stands up to this administration. She refuses to ask the easy questions and does not let the administration off the hook when it tries to provide the pat answers. At the end of the interview, she had this to say about her relationship with the administration

I always say to them -- who are you? We pay you. You are working for the American people. It doesn't mean we're antagonistic. It means we care about this country, and care about truth. And I honestly believe we will be better off when we face the reality of what we've done.

To those on the right who say those who question policy are traitors, that those who refuse to accept the lies spread by this administration are in league with the enemy ... shame on you. You are the ones who care only about yourselves and not one wit for your country. But then, isn't that the conservative agenda anyway (paraphrasing JFK) ... "Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what is best for me."

Don't Spare the Bombs

Jessica McBride and Ann Coulter have much in common. Both are women. Both conservative. And both wish the war in Iraq to continue, damn the consequences to the people of Iraq. More here from Coulter (from Tuesday "Hardball" edition), whom McBride has been defending of late.

"We need to be less concerned about civilian casualties...we bombed more people in Hamburg in two days ... I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilians... we should kill their people."

Cluck Cluck

Elizabeth Edwards called into MSNBC's "Hardball" on Tuesday to speak with Ann Coulter and ask her to discontinue her personal attacks on her husband, John Edwards ... and discontinue her personal attacks in general. Coulter's response was to belittle Edwards for calling and accused her of stopping her from speaking.

Typical of Coulter and conservatives in general. Asking for civility from them is akin, in their minds, to shutting them up. Following is an interesting part of the exchange between the two, with Chris Matthews moderating:

Edwards: I'm making this call as a mother. I'm the mother of that boy who died. My children participate -- these young people behind you are the age of my children. You're asking them to participate in a dialogue that's based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues and I don't think that's serving them or this country very well.

[Applause from the crowd]

Matthews: Thank you very much Elizabeth Edwards. (Turning to Coulter) Do you want to -- you have all the time in the world to respond.

Coulter: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No.

That's the best Coulter could do. When confronted by someone, rather than enjoying the security of long distance attacks, Coulter is like our local former radio host, Jessica McBride ... a clucking chicken.

Boy Genius

Again, apologies to Tom Tomorrow. Click on image to enlarge.

Wrong Again

Still smarting from her ouster at WTMJ for being a really bad on-air personality, Jessica McBride cannot resist comparing herself to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter in an effort to lend some sort of weird legitimacy to her blogging efforts. She says this about recent comments by Coulter:

She was clearly making a satirical commentary on the double standard that exists when it comes to the media's reaction over perceived liberal and conservative "offensiveness." She was clearly pointing out that since Bill Maher received far less criticism than she did for his comments on Cheney, joking about assassinations by terrorists has apparently been declared fair game by the MSM (her implicit point, which the AP just proved, is that she could never get away with saying what Bill Maher and liberals get away with saying).

But the MSM either don't get it or choose not to get it, just like they chose not to get Rush Limbaugh's "Barack the Magic Negro" parody or why I asked Eugene Kane if it was a crisis and mocked him for not being willing to come on my show to answer tough questions (if I'd only played crickets instead of a chicken...). Mark Belling had it right when he said that the liberals and media go after conservative humor first because it's harder to defend and easier to misconstrue. They misconstrue it by reporting the humor without the humor or the underlying political/social point.

Leaving aside the fact she has a real problem if she cannot see the inherent racism in Limbaugh's inelegant spoof, and she really, really has a problem if she continues to think her final episode on radio had anything to do with serious journalism, McBride inadvertently (and humorously) makes the point for liberals about conservative humor. She's right: Conservative humor is harder to defend.

Answer: Perhaps it's because conservative humor that relies on making threats, relies on racism, relies on the death of a little 4-year old to score political points is just not funny.

As much as this pains me to write: McBride, you are no Limbaugh or Coulter. While both share the same egomania with you, they actually have talent, even if it is used for vile purposes.

Oh, the Injustice

I swear they get together and have posting parties. How droll.

Patrick McIlheran and Jessica McBride unite to provide more evidence they just don't get it. They take turns pounding the keyboard to provide statistical evidence that Mike Plaisted was wrong and there really is more violent crime in Milwaukee than in Oshkosh. Problem is, the piece that Mike Plaisted wrote about the "Guns of Oshkosh" had nothing to do with the amount of violence that occurs, but rather with the perception that conservatives are really interested only in all things "black people." Look at McBride's site and over 50% of the last 20 posts have to do with either African-Americans or Hispanics. I suspect some of her outrage is because so few live in the Town of Merton, her home residence. Heck, they get escorted out by gunpoint and with the help of a snarling dog just for fishing.

As for Paddy Mac, let me say this even more slowly so he can understand: Plaisted was making a point about the lack of coverage by conservative bloggers, he was not playing a numbers game.

Fair is Fair

Just got back from camping (well, yesterday afternoon). Didn't have to defeat the hungry bears, as dad29 suggested in the previous post. They have all successfully pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, completed their internships and now have productive jobs ... won't have to ply them with money to keep them happy, ala liberal policy-making, right daddio?

Still, the four days of camping were a blast. This is an event that has been going on for nie 30 years ... a group of friends from before high school. We don't so much camp, we bring our electrical equipment to the woods. I brought a blender for margueritas ... you get the picture. However, my kids and I did sleep in a tent that I put up all by myself. We even survived a rain storm successfully. Ooooh.

Anyway, back in town and I see the Fairness Doctrine argument has been going all ga-ga in my absence (see this from Jay Bullock not only for his excellent comments but as an easy means to see all the other arguments flowing from the blogsphere ... so I don't have to). As I rocked my baby daughter to sleep this morning, I started scooting around the Internet and found this piece by the Anonymous Liberal. It exactly says what has been rocking about in my thick skull for the past week ... the irony that the free market skreed by conservatives somehow doesn't apply to the supposedly "liberal" media. Somehow, free market forces are the entire reason for conservative talk radio dominance, yet the free market argument doesn't apply to the other media. Rather, because of their "obvious liberal bias" (lol) they are viciously handing it to conservatives. Read the article below ... it's good.


This week the Center for American Progress issued a report documenting the severe imbalance between conservative and liberal political talk radio (over 90% of programming is conservative) and postulating that structural factors such as consolidation of ownership and syndication practices are at least partly responsible for this imbalance.

The reaction from the right was swift and dismissive. Among right-wing bloggers and pundits, the suggestion that anything other than normal market forces explains the dominance of conservative talk radio is greeted with instant mockery and scorn. As Ed Morrissey put it:

Rather than run crying to the federal government, progressives may want to find out why their shows don’t attract listeners. It’s a market, just like any other in broadcasting. If liberal talk shows attracted listeners, then advertisers would line up to sponsor them.

Now putting aside the question of whether Morrissey is right about the radio market, can anyone spot the astounding bit of cognitive dissonance embedded in this claim? If the phrase "liberal bias" popped into your head, then congratulations, you're smarter than the average conservative blogger.

Yes, the people who insist that conservative dominance of talk radio is purely a product of the market and mock any suggestion of structural imbalance are the very same people who complain endlessly that every other form of news media is plagued by "liberal bias." According to conservative gospel, the "mainstream media" is dominated by liberals who continually foist their liberal views upon the public.

But, you ask, why doesn't the magic of the market work in the television and print industries? By Captain Ed's logic, shouldn't conservatives stop "crying" about liberal bias and just come up with better ideas? After, it is a market. If conservatives would just come up with material that people liked, the advertisers would flock to them, right?

It really is amazing. A central tenet of the modern conservative worldview is that all sorts of structural imbalances in the news media unfairly disadvantage conservatives. This is supposedly why they had to go and create Fox News, because everything else was dominated by liberals. But when it comes to talk radio, they insist that only market forces can possibly explain the situation, that any suggestion of structural imbalance is crazy talk. Is a little bit of intellectual consistency too much to ask?

Diversity 101

The Republicans' idea of diversity means giving the people a choice between a rich old white guy, a richer old white guy and a richer, older, whiter guy.

-- Will Durst

A Bad Day

One of our local conservative bloggers was having a bad day a little while ago. Nothing compared to this bad day, me thinks.

Frankovis for Dogcatcher

Another comment from rejected wannabe police chief, Glenn D. Frankovis. Yes, he would have been a fine police chief for the wingnut/bigoted citizens of Milwaukee (sarcasm intended).

Owen, it’s all about “Diversity uber alles” and the liberal racist feeling good about him/herself for helping the poor “oppressed” minority (or other protected class member) because it’s very apparent (to the lib) that without the lib’s help, this person couldn’t do it by him/herself. Equal Opportunity just isn’t enough for these people.

What a pathetic statement. His proof is some obsure comment by Hubert Humphrey back in 1964. Fact is Humphrey was a hack. He was willing to say anything to ensure a chance at the Presidency (kind of like Liberman today). To use him as an example of liberal policies is, to say the least, bizarre.

Frankovis, you are a twisted putz and the city of Milwaukee is light years better off that you are not being considered for police chief.

Glad He Won't Be Chief

I read recently that former city of Milwaukee police officer, Glenn D. Frankovis, the originator of the "thug" memo a few years ago, was recently told he was no longer being considered for the position of Police Chief of the city of Milwaukee. I read his resume cover letter (posted at Real Debate) ... it would make an excellent example of how not to write a resume cover letter.

Copied below are a couple comments by Mr. Frankovis at Real Debate. I for one am thankful this fruitloop was not considered. I have a tough time thinking he would be able to show any form of objectivity.

What we need are more Bookmobiles and church meetings to discuss Anger Management. Anybody up for a chorus of "We are the world?"Glenn D. Frankovis 06.11.07 - 4:44 pm #

These clowns derive their power from the real thugs in this country - the mainstream media and its ultra left wing puppeteers. The fact that Republicans don't seem to have the balls to stand up to them doesn't help either.Glenn D. Frankovis 06.09.07 - 10:36 am #


UPDATE: Saint Fred at Real Debate caught that I inaccurately referred to Frankovis' resume, when it should have been his cover letter. Unlike wingnuts, I admit and correct my errors.

We Agreed to Disagree and Had Fun Doing It

It was a perfect day for sitting outside on the patio, munching on yummy appetizers, eating lemon and barbecue chicken, failing to resist dessert and hoisting a few with friends.

James Wigderson and Doreen Wigderson of Wigderson Library and Pub infamy (kidding); his father Bill and mom, Molly; Aaron Kreel of Subject to Change and the wonderful Kelly; Michael Mathias and Anne Quimby-Mathias of Pundit Nation fame, and family and friends got together Sunday for ... fun. It was a blast ... conversations were lively, kids ran wild and we hope to do it again real soon. Below is a picture of the lesser half of the Rock family with daughter Quin, and Aaron and Kelly's son Cole.

She's a Serious Pundit

Apologies to Tom Tomorrow.

I Hate Politicians

From Tom Tomorrow and I couldn't agree more.


Brownback, during the audience Q&A portion of the debate, to a woman whose younger brother died in Iraq eight days before he was due to rotate home:

"Thank you for your family’s service, and what your brother did, that’s incredible, an incredible gift that he and your family have given us."

Well, no, see, actually this man’s death was not an "incredible gift" to us, it was a tragic loss to his family, and the appropriate response is "I’m very sorry for your loss." But to say that would be to acknowledge that there’s something to be sorry for when someone dies in Iraq, and no one on that stage can acknowledge that. So the deaths of our troops are now "incredible gifts." And it’s Christmastime, every fucking day.

Friday Thoughts

My five-month old daughter, Quin, has been taking up most of my time at late ... and gardening.

I have two older children, but I was not as involved, nor interested really, in their early baby years. I fed them their bubbas (baby bottles), changed their often stinky diapers and tossed them around a bit (the kids, not the diapers). Taking care of a baby full-time is quite a bit more. Consequently, less time for other activities ... a sacrifice I am glad to make (and I am sure many in the blogging world are glad of too).

Quin is an awful lot of fun. She rolls over onto her tummy now. The other day I set her down on the rug by her toys and turned away to do something for no more than a minute and she had rolled half-way across the rug ... she looked up at me with a huge toothless grin as though to say, "Look what I did, Daddy."

We read together. We watch Law and Order and Star Trek together. We even sing together. She makes a humming sound occassionally. When I join in we can actually harmonize. I have a song made for her (similar to one I made up for my other kids).

I know this little girl

Her name is Quin

Her favorite thing is to ride on her Schwin

Yes it is ... yeah yeah yeah

Yes it is.

I love my little baby

I love her so

I love very much

To nibble on the toes

of baby Quin.

And on and on ... she also likes it when I make clucking sounds. None of which the general public will ever hear ... Probably for the best (regarding their ear drums).

No where in any of the time we spend together do I talk politics. But I do have to say this ... I hope she never has to live in a world in which the distasteful affirmative action policy recommendations of Glenn Grothman are enacted. In Grothman's world, song and dance is something minorities should be good at (It's in their genes, right?). And, regarding his recommendation that affirmative action applicants be able to speak the language of the heritage they claim ... raise your hands if any of you can remember how to speak the language of your African ancestors, 300 years removed?

Rick Esenberg was right that no one is planning to do a Kristallnacht anytime soon ... regarding the smashing of windows and shops and such. I suppose I can agree that some sort of verification might be required. However, not in the abominable ways that Grothman proposed. You see, I do believe it's a spiritual Kristallnacht that Grothmanand his kind are planning. One in which the American traditions of fair play and decency are thrown out to accomodate the wishes of a few angry white men.

By the way, the garden is coming along nicely, considering the reduced amount of time I have to work on it. As I write I'm thinking of the thistles that must be removed, and some new plants that must be planted in the front before Sunday (we're having a big barbecue ... more on that later).

UPDATE: More today from Michael Mathias on the onerous tactics of Grothman.

Won't Be Cowed Under Again

h/t Whallah!

Jessica McBride continues her quest to re-write the dictionary, or at least the rules of grammar. This post commented about a quip by Tommy Thompson ....

Leave it to Tommy Thompson. He's certainly come up with a memorable line during each GOP presidential debate. Too bad they all seem off key. The latest:

Asked at Tuesday's Republican presidential debate how he would use President Bush after Bush leaves office, Tommy Thompson said, "I certainly would not send him to the United Nations."

Actually, at least on terrorism, Bush is exactly the kind of person we need at the UN, not someone who will be cowed under by scandal-ridden bureaucrats and European nations with vested interests that undermine our national security. Give me a John Bolton type over a John Kerry type any day. Some media types say Tommy performed better overall in this debate. I wasn't able to watch this one, so I can't vouch for that or debunk it.

Cowed under? Feels something like this, I suspect.

Will Colson Come To Her Rescue?

I wonder if she will see the light, or will it be former Richard Nixon chief counsel, Chuck Colson, who will come to minister to the poor lamb, Paris Hilton?

Hilton is about to embark on her 45 day adventure in the penal system. She may have the sentence reduced to 23 days for good behavior, but that seems rather extreme considering her behavior to date.

This could be just the challenge for Colson. It would be interesting to see if the former hatchet man could make an impression on Paris. However, tt has been said that Colson is a believer in intelligent design (ok, ok ... it was a Wiki source). Considering his past, and Paris' life to date, this reader sees nothing intelligent about either of them.

Bill Clement (aka Billiam)

Preferring smaller, more intimate get togethers, today was another effort by The Other Side to bring some sort of peace to the blogosphere. Not that any effort really was needed between Bill Clement (author of View from the Cheap Seats) and myself. Bill has always been respectful and his comments always fun to read.

Anyway, today Bill, my wife, our youngest daughter and I got together for breakfast at the Machine Shed this morning at ten. What a pleasure it was to meet and chat with Bill! While we come from mostly different aspects of the national debate on everything, Bill and I agree that what is most important is we are human and we can get together and be friendly.

I would say more than just friendly, because after just one meeting (though countless blog meetings), I am happy to consider Bill a friend. Now if only dad29 can make it. Daddio, I was going to ask Bill if he had met you (while retaining your anonymity). But since Bill mentioned you by name right off the bat, you became a topic of conversation. Bill confirmed that we would probably enjoy a get together.

Bill says he will be available again sometime in July (or so). I'm already beginning preliminary plans for another barbecue. See you, and Bill then (I hope).

Wild Turkey

I love our yard. I've written previously of the deer that have passed through our backyard. I've seen cardinals, finches, a coyote, etc. ... and today, three wild turkeys (from a distance I believe two were male) were seen, first by my wife. They are really magnificent creatures and were apparently simpy foraging.

Ben Franklin wrote to his daughter that he would have preferred the wild turkey have been named the national bird. Here is the text of his letter.

For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him.

With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping & Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the District. He is therefore by no means a proper Emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America who have driven all the King birds from our Country...

I am on this account not displeased that the Figure is not known as a Bald Eagle, but looks more like a Turkey. For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America... He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.

Liar, Liar

For someone who protests quite a lot that the left uses the word racist to shut down the speech of conservatives, Jessica McBride surely seems obsessed with people whose skin is a darker hue. Six of her last seven posts either had to do with immigration issues (you know, brown people coming to America), or Michael McGee (you know, that black guy in Milwaukee). Considering that the brouhaha that got her fired, at its core, had to do with an unfunny and sophomoric practical joke she attempted to pull on Eugene Kane (you know, the black columnist for the Journal Sentinel), and one cannot help but wonder why she is so obsessed.

Plus, she lives in the town of Merton, where black people have not been welcomed, of late, by some of its residents.

Is she a racist? I really don't know. I do know that her continued obsession with non-whites (let's not forget the Muslims in our midst) is suspicious.

Oh, btw, in my opinion she's lying when she says she moved her WTMJ comments to one spot for easy reading. The only reason she did so was because she wasn't aware that Google caching enabled people to find those posts and re-publish them for all to see her lunacy. Kind of an "oops" on her part, don'tcha think?