Molly Ivins: America’s greatest comedian

Molly Ivins complains that the right twists liberals’ positions around: Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it down has become a favorite form of “argument” for those on the right. Make some ridiculous claim about what “liberals” think, and then demonstrate how silly it is. Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and many … Continue reading “Molly Ivins: America’s greatest comedian”

Molly Ivins complains that the right twists liberals’ positions around:

Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it down has become a favorite form of “argument” for those on the right. Make some ridiculous claim about what “liberals” think, and then demonstrate how silly it is. Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and many other right-wing ravers never seem to get tired of this old game. If I had a nickel for every idiotic thing I’ve ever heard those on the right claim “liberals” believe, I’d be richer than Bill Gates.

So she clarifies things with this boner:

I think we have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.

I think we should take Molly’s wishes to heart and carefully and correctly state her positions and those of people who think as she does.

It’s much more damning to use direct quotes like this one. Jeff Bishop has more.

Happy Independence Day.

Supreme Court nomination

My choice for Sandy’s replacement is the estimable Tony LaRussa, law-degreed baseball manager: LaRussa had managed less than two full seasons in the minors when he replaced Don Kessinger as the White Sox manager on August 2, 1979 at the age of thirty-four. LaRussa, who had graduated with a law degree from Florida State the … Continue reading “Supreme Court nomination”

My choice for Sandy’s replacement is the estimable Tony LaRussa, law-degreed baseball manager:

LaRussa had managed less than two full seasons in the minors when he replaced Don Kessinger as the White Sox manager on August 2, 1979 at the age of thirty-four. LaRussa, who had graduated with a law degree from Florida State the previous year, became the fifth lawyer/manager in baseball history. The other four – Monte Ward, Hughie Jennings, Miller Huggins, and Branch Rickey — are all in the Hall of Fame. Extremely bright and articulate, LaRussa quickly established a reputation for being one of the best field tacticians in baseball.

Anyone of lesser stature would be an unacceptable compromise, but the Dems will filibuster whoever it is just because Chimpy McChimphitlerburton nominated him (or her) so he may as well throw some red meat to the base.

As a baseball man himself, Bushitler should appreciate LaRussa, who took his Cardinals to the World Series last year, and he has red state/blue state appeal, living in Danville, CA and working in St. Louis.

Why I am not a Democrat, Part 357

My god, Nancy Pelosi is a fucking moron. Check her sophisticated understanding of the Supreme Court and eminent domain law: Q Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, … Continue reading “Why I am not a Democrat, Part 357”

My god, Nancy Pelosi is a fucking moron. Check her sophisticated understanding of the Supreme Court and eminent domain law:

Q Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.

Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Ms. Pelosi. As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we’re going to withhold funds for the Court because we don’t like a decision.

Q Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn’t involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn’t be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.

Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church — powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I’m not saying that I’m opposed to this decision, I’m just saying in general.

Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It’s an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

This is the House Minority Leader, and may she ever remain so.

One of America’s enemies

Nixon called Indira Gandhi an “old witch” but she wasn’t as hostile to the US as Arundhati Roy, the narcissistic Indian novelist-turned-revolutionary who wants our enemies to hit us and hit us hard while she stands back and watches (login nobugs, pw bugmenot): Personally I’m not prepared to pick up arms now. But maybe I … Continue reading “One of America’s enemies”

Nixon called Indira Gandhi an “old witch” but she wasn’t as hostile to the US as Arundhati Roy, the narcissistic Indian novelist-turned-revolutionary who wants our enemies to hit us and hit us hard while she stands back and watches (login nobugs, pw bugmenot):

Personally I’m not prepared to pick up arms now. But maybe I can afford not to, at whatever place I am in now. I think violence really marginalizes and brutalizes women. It depoliticizes things. It’s undemocratic in so many ways. But at the same time, when you look at the massive amount of violence that America is perpetrating in Iraq, I don’t know that I’m in a position to tell Iraqis that you must fight a pristine, feminist, democratic, secular, non-violent war. I can’t say. I just feel that that resistance in Iraq is our battle too and we have to support it. And we can’t be looking for pristine struggles in which to invest our purity.

She’s basically aligned with Al Qaeda; it’s good to know that, in a “keep your enemies closer” sense.

H/t Michael Totten.

Military reacts to speech

Politech relates some military reaction to the speech, all of it positive. Which leads him to this: Memo to the left wingnuts who’ve been telling those who believe in the war (as an alternative to just leaving Saddam in power) that the chickenhawks need to join the military: it’s good to see that so many … Continue reading “Military reacts to speech”

Politech relates some military reaction to the speech, all of it positive. Which leads him to this:

Memo to the left wingnuts who’ve been telling those who believe in the war (as an alternative to just leaving Saddam in power) that the chickenhawks need to join the military: it’s good to see that so many servicemembers and their families see the war as the president does. Now won’t you wackjobs please shut up?

May I propose that all who opposed the liberation of Iraq and called its civilian supporters “chickenhawks” please remove themselves to someplace like North Korea where they can experience the kind of life the Iraqis had under Saddam? Otherwise I may have to call them “terrorchickens”.

UPDATE: Mr. Goldstein is annoyed with the infantile name-calling as well:

One of the silliest arguments confronting pro-war supporters is the infantile “chickenhawk” accusation frequently floated by those swimming in the shallow end of the anti-war pool—the idea being, in theory, that if you aren’t a member of the military, you aren’t entitled to express a public opinion on the Iraqi war. Of course, in practice, non-military personnel such as those who are quick to use the chickenhawk argument are themselves permitted to express an opinion on the war—provided it’s the correct opinion, namely, that the war is illegal and immoral, and that Bush and his cronies are evil lying scum…

The idea that one need volunteer for military service in order to speak publicly in favor of the war creates any number of crazy analogues (for instance, is it okay to speak out against slavery if you’ve never owned or been a slave?)—not to mention presumes a commitment on the part of those anti-war speakers who invoke the chickenhawk argument to join the insurgency, should they wish to argue against the need for war.

Sadly, the chickenhawk argument, though logically puerile, can prove quite rhetorically effective—in the same sense that charges of homophobia and racism have proven effective in debates over gay marriage and government funded affirmative action programs: such charges, cynically delivered, tend to stifle substantive discourse, forcing one side of the argument onto the defensive by changing the focus of the debate from the issues themselves to the character of certain professors of those issues—and in that regard, they help to sustain the status quo.

Indeed.

Instant Reaction to Bush’s Iraq Speech

Here’s your basic instant reaction from the Gallup Poll on the question of who’s winning in Iraq: U.S. and its allies Insurgents in Iraq Neither side No opinion 2005 Jun 28 (Post-speech) 54% 7 35 4 2005 Jun 24-27 (Pre-speech) 44% 9 44 3 That’s bigger bump in “we’re winning” than I would have expected, … Continue reading “Instant Reaction to Bush’s Iraq Speech”

Here’s your basic instant reaction from the Gallup Poll on the question of who’s winning in Iraq:

U.S. and
its allies

Insurgents
in Iraq

Neither
side

No
opinion

2005 Jun 28 (Post-speech)

54%

7

35

4

2005 Jun 24-27 (Pre-speech)

44%

9

44

3

That’s bigger bump in “we’re winning” than I would have expected, and bad news for those Democrats who insist we aren’t fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, let alone winning.

H/t Bill Quick.

Latest on Kennewick Man

Anthropologists can finally begin the study of Kennewick Man: A coalition of four tribes — the Umatilla, Yakama, Colville and Nez Perce — claimed the bones were covered by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and belonged to the tribes. U.S. District Judge John Jelderks and the appeals court, however, ruled the tribes … Continue reading “Latest on Kennewick Man”

Anthropologists can finally begin the study of Kennewick Man:

A coalition of four tribes — the Umatilla, Yakama, Colville and Nez Perce — claimed the bones were covered by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and belonged to the tribes.

U.S. District Judge John Jelderks and the appeals court, however, ruled the tribes could prove no direct link to the bones and the act did not apply.

The tribes have appealed the most recent 9th Circuit ruling, but attorneys involved in the case and Jelderks’ office said a decision still is pending. Calls to tribal officials were not immediately returned.

Legislation remains under consideration in Congress that would allow federally recognized tribes to claim ancient remains even if they cannot prove a link to a current tribe.

But trouble looms – the legislation, carried by the idiot McCain – will effectively put a stop to further examination of America’s past.

See Progressive Reaction for more on K-man.

This action alert is especially important.

H/t to reader Ruth and blogger Moira Breen.

The speech wasn’t so hot

It seems to me that the American people want to know if we’re winning or losing in Iraq. The message from the MSM is that we’re losing, which I doubt, but the President didn’t offer enough evidence to win over many of the fence-sitters. It was nice that he highlighted the fact that we’re fighting … Continue reading “The speech wasn’t so hot”

It seems to me that the American people want to know if we’re winning or losing in Iraq. The message from the MSM is that we’re losing, which I doubt, but the President didn’t offer enough evidence to win over many of the fence-sitters. It was nice that he highlighted the fact that we’re fighting Al Qaeda on the streets of Baghdad and all, but the bottom line is what matters. If we’re making progress, the people will be patient, but if we’re not, they’ll just change channels.

Basically, he blew it tonight, so he should wait a month and do it again, this time with the evidence of success.

Here’s your basic transcript in case you didn’t hear it.

UPDATE: OK, the details are starting to come out, so maybe it wasn’t so bad; the President hit the high points, and the minions will supply the detail.

What you think

The good folks at Moveon.org have an automated letter-writer to respond to Chimpie McBushitler’s speech. You enter your name, and it tells you what you think: It’s time to start responsibly coming home from Iraq. The president offered nothing new in his speech. No plan. No exit strategy. Nothing. Iraq is no closer to stability … Continue reading “What you think”

The good folks at Moveon.org have an automated letter-writer to respond to Chimpie McBushitler’s speech. You enter your name, and it tells you what you think:

It’s time to start responsibly coming home from Iraq.

The president offered nothing new in his speech. No plan. No exit strategy. Nothing.

Iraq is no closer to stability than it was a year ago. Things keep getting worse every week. More than 1,700 Americans have been killed and more than 12,000 wounded.

The U.S. occupation is fueling a growing insurgency. Our presence is exacerbating the problem. There are tens of thousands of insurgents backed by hundreds of thousands of supporters.

We got into this war based on lies – the wrong way. It’s time to get out the right way. The first step is to realize that the Bush policy is out of touch with reality.

We need a real exit plan with a real timeline providing real accountability for our leaders. We need to turn control of the training of Iraqi forces and the rebuilding of Iraq to the international community. And we must renounce permanent military bases in Iraq because that angers the Iraqi people.

Now don’t run over there and claim your name is Saddam and you want your palaces back.

H/T Captain Ed, who live-blogged the speech.