pedestal_raw
Originally uploaded by poopruiz.
or this way
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
The world is amazing and strange
Via boingboing comes these bizarre and wonderful images, portraits of Katie Holmes, Natalie Portman, Laeticia Casta, and Kate Winslet in chadoors beside images, I presume, of tourist attractions in Iran.
The images are very lovely, and terribly puzzling. They look like something I might conjure up in a dream.
The images are very lovely, and terribly puzzling. They look like something I might conjure up in a dream.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Staggering Incompetence
I had a feeling way back when that the president's adventures in Iraq were going to end up badly, but I couldn't have anticipated the range of foulups involved.
If you were trying to do everything wrong, how different from this would it look?
-From Kevin Drum, we know Saddam didn't have any nukes, but he did have nuclear scientists, and our carelessness regarding these scientists has allowed them to disappear. Some, apparently, into the hands of Syria. Great.
-From Billmon, we have paved the way for Iraq to becom an Islamic theocracy. That means, most likely, a step backwards for the rights of women. It almost certainly means an Iraq no American could call "free" with a straight face. And freedom, other than hollowly invoking Sepember 11th is the only justification Bush has left for the war in Iraq.(It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom, ya know)
-Also from Billmon, not only have we prepared Iraq for a future of violence, with rival militias wearing Iraqi military uniforms gunning eachother down in the street, and most likely a civil war, but we're going to be arming these militias extremely well. Billmon describes it as "Crips and Bloods armed with tanks." I may be mistaken, but what came to my mind was post Soviet invasion Afghanistan. Kalashnikovs and Stinger missiles.
If you were trying to do everything wrong, how different from this would it look?
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Doublethink
It seems to me that one of the biggest problems facing the adoption of useful policies, policies thast will actually serve America's interest, in Iraq is the widely spread (in certain elite circles, at least) case of doublethink.
Over at Political Animal, Kevin Drum identifies this doublethink to some degree, but his conclusions are what you'd expect.
A growing majority of Americans believe we should withdraw from Iraq. Democratic politicians, many of whom supported the war from the beginning, refuse to call for a withdrawal. They think we should stick it out, knowing full well that the supposed aims of the war over there are, at this point in time, impossible to achieve.
Perhaps they stick to it because they really believe in this folly. But I'm convinced they are merely terrified that expressing support for withdrawal will make them look weak.
The situation is so backwards it hurts my head. But Democrats really don't have the wide range of options they had three years ago, when they could have prevented the war from happening in the first place.
Let me start off by saying I never believed in this war. Not only was it completely obvious to anyone possessing judgment that invading Iraq was a bad idea, a waste of resources, and a guaranteed distraction from our struggle against Islamic terrorism, but Bush was absolutely the wrong commander in chief for this or any other war.
Bush is a completely political president. His concern for policy exists insofar as a selective adoption of backward conservative dogma is a concern for policy. He is stubborn not as those with strong beliefs is stubborn (I am unconvinced his beliefs extend beyond his belief in his infallibility and his desire to protect the investor class from the evils of taxes and regulation), but as children are stubborn. He is glib. He is not thoughtful. He lacks the kind of empathy and sense of responsibility that troubled fellow lousy Texas president Johnson's sleep over VietNam War casualties. This was clear from the outset. No such man deserves to be commander in chief.
Insofar as American soldiers are central to the occupation, that American prestige is tied into the war, and that grave consequences of the war will strike America hard, it is our war. But it is Bush's war just as significantly. It is hard to imagine this war without Bush or someone equally foolish.
If anyone should pay for this war it should be Bush. Why the warhawks of my party seem so concerned about providing Bush this cover, I don't understand.
Over at Political Animal, Kevin Drum identifies this doublethink to some degree, but his conclusions are what you'd expect.
A growing majority of Americans believe we should withdraw from Iraq. Democratic politicians, many of whom supported the war from the beginning, refuse to call for a withdrawal. They think we should stick it out, knowing full well that the supposed aims of the war over there are, at this point in time, impossible to achieve.
Perhaps they stick to it because they really believe in this folly. But I'm convinced they are merely terrified that expressing support for withdrawal will make them look weak.
The situation is so backwards it hurts my head. But Democrats really don't have the wide range of options they had three years ago, when they could have prevented the war from happening in the first place.
Let me start off by saying I never believed in this war. Not only was it completely obvious to anyone possessing judgment that invading Iraq was a bad idea, a waste of resources, and a guaranteed distraction from our struggle against Islamic terrorism, but Bush was absolutely the wrong commander in chief for this or any other war.
Bush is a completely political president. His concern for policy exists insofar as a selective adoption of backward conservative dogma is a concern for policy. He is stubborn not as those with strong beliefs is stubborn (I am unconvinced his beliefs extend beyond his belief in his infallibility and his desire to protect the investor class from the evils of taxes and regulation), but as children are stubborn. He is glib. He is not thoughtful. He lacks the kind of empathy and sense of responsibility that troubled fellow lousy Texas president Johnson's sleep over VietNam War casualties. This was clear from the outset. No such man deserves to be commander in chief.
Insofar as American soldiers are central to the occupation, that American prestige is tied into the war, and that grave consequences of the war will strike America hard, it is our war. But it is Bush's war just as significantly. It is hard to imagine this war without Bush or someone equally foolish.
If anyone should pay for this war it should be Bush. Why the warhawks of my party seem so concerned about providing Bush this cover, I don't understand.
Monday, August 15, 2005
jots
- You start to regret, ever so slightly, becoming an artist when, on a trip ferrying your paints and other materials to a new studio, you spill almost half a gallon of turquoise paint in the trunk of your car. This wouldn't happen if you were just about anything else.
- Sometimes I think there's nothing to recommend Florida except the weather. Of course, today, it was 90-some degrees until an electrical storm (which, in this part of Florida, seems to happen every day after lunch) dropped an inch or two of rain and cut out power all over town. Which was really exciting because the stoplights were out. This is bad enough, but Florida drivers don't exactly have a reputation for sanity and competence.
At an intersection in front of me two white trucks were stopped in the left lane. I eased myself into the right lane and tiptoed up to the line looking to see if anyone was crossing the opposite direction. The truck on my left, hauling a no-doubt soaked mattress, was so far up I couldn't see. he gestured to me- it looked like a "go" signal. But then he proceeded to attempt a right turn from the left lane. It was madness, but only to be expected.
- I think I have seen geckos crawling around my apartment complex. They are small and cute, as I expected, but also very quick, and move with an anxious gait. Their bodies cling flat to the wall. Cartoonish but also quite odd and unexpected.
-If I never find myself attempting to remove the stain of turquoise paint from carpet again, it will be too soon. I managed to ruin two towels and reduce my hands to hamburger, and the trunk still looks like a Martian crime scene.
- Sometimes I think there's nothing to recommend Florida except the weather. Of course, today, it was 90-some degrees until an electrical storm (which, in this part of Florida, seems to happen every day after lunch) dropped an inch or two of rain and cut out power all over town. Which was really exciting because the stoplights were out. This is bad enough, but Florida drivers don't exactly have a reputation for sanity and competence.
At an intersection in front of me two white trucks were stopped in the left lane. I eased myself into the right lane and tiptoed up to the line looking to see if anyone was crossing the opposite direction. The truck on my left, hauling a no-doubt soaked mattress, was so far up I couldn't see. he gestured to me- it looked like a "go" signal. But then he proceeded to attempt a right turn from the left lane. It was madness, but only to be expected.
- I think I have seen geckos crawling around my apartment complex. They are small and cute, as I expected, but also very quick, and move with an anxious gait. Their bodies cling flat to the wall. Cartoonish but also quite odd and unexpected.
-If I never find myself attempting to remove the stain of turquoise paint from carpet again, it will be too soon. I managed to ruin two towels and reduce my hands to hamburger, and the trunk still looks like a Martian crime scene.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Bobo and Constructive Arguments
I was watching a bit of the Chris Matthews show (ugh) and the panel was, of course, discussing Iraq. The consensus was that the war wasn't winnable and that the troops would be drawing down in the coming months. Then they started talking about the Democrats.
And David Brooks entered into one of the best examples of contradictory doublespeak I have ever seen. He praised Biden and Clinton (ya know, Hitlery) because of their "constructive arguments" regarding Iraq. What he meant was that Biden and Clinton are hawks, advocating an increase of troops in Iraq just as that is becoming increasingly unpopular and unlikely. Matthews sort of confronted him on it- how can Biden and Clinton be "constructive" when they are so far outside of reality? How exactly.
It was classic Washington insider nonsense. Everybody is turning on this war, but if, as a politician, you speak a word against it, the enforcers in Washington armchairs will brand you negative and faithless and weak.
This war was a direct result of phony tough talk, feeding more phony tough talk, until having reservations about the war meant you loved Saddam. Idiotic fake-toughness, especially among the Washington media mandarins, has consequences.
Also- who the hell is Julia Reed?
And David Brooks entered into one of the best examples of contradictory doublespeak I have ever seen. He praised Biden and Clinton (ya know, Hitlery) because of their "constructive arguments" regarding Iraq. What he meant was that Biden and Clinton are hawks, advocating an increase of troops in Iraq just as that is becoming increasingly unpopular and unlikely. Matthews sort of confronted him on it- how can Biden and Clinton be "constructive" when they are so far outside of reality? How exactly.
It was classic Washington insider nonsense. Everybody is turning on this war, but if, as a politician, you speak a word against it, the enforcers in Washington armchairs will brand you negative and faithless and weak.
This war was a direct result of phony tough talk, feeding more phony tough talk, until having reservations about the war meant you loved Saddam. Idiotic fake-toughness, especially among the Washington media mandarins, has consequences.
Also- who the hell is Julia Reed?
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Wimp Effect
Via Atrios, I discovered a Nation article that details the risk aversion and reflexive hawkishness of the Washington Democratic foreign policy establishment. It is both baffling and saddening.
One can't help but imagine that, at root, the reason behind this hawkishness is that both the left and right are trapped in worldviews informed by fundamental misconceptions of what constitutes strength, and how one comes to be regarded as strong. But while the Nation article is as close to a clear-eyed exploration of why Democrats like Biden and Hillary feel a need to back up Bush on the Iraq war, it seems to have internalized some of the habits of mind that are responsible for the Democrats' weakness.
Notice how the author, Ari Berman, describes Holbrooke's bizarre declaration that "anything less than an invasion of Iraq would undermine international law" as a tack to the right of Bush. It doesn't seem like much, but this little use of right represents assumptions about right and left that are a major part of why Democrats don't get elected president unless the economy is in the pooper and times are relatively peaceful. That little use of "right" represents the assumption, held instinctively by millions of Americans, that Democrats are a bunch of limpwristed sissies who run away from a punch.
There is nothing so dangerous for a presidential candidate to be seen as a wimp. It is a guarantee of failure.
Elected Democrats are becoming an endangered species because they take these received assumptions, that being strong means adopting a strong, or right-wing, or Republican position on foreign policy. It's clear that the American people don't want a pacifist as their Commander in Chief or head of State, but it's equally clear that holding positions that are both against one's conscience and mindlessly warlike is no kind of prescription for gaining the public's trust. Democrats need to stop assuming a Republican's views of strength.
Strength is not invading a country that isn't a threat to the US, getting embroiled in a guerilla war, spending billions of dollars, and inviting a civil war and/or the strengthening of a far more dangerous and powerful country next door. Moreover, strength is not agreeing with the parties that started this war at all costs because one is afraid of being called a chicken.
The position that the "Strategic Class", as Berman calls them, has staked out has not ensured that a single Democrat will be regarded with respect. It has ensured that the war begin just as planned, and that any attempt of establishment Democrats to reflect the will of the people, who are now largely in favor of a pull-out from Iraq and will continue to be so until it is done, will be seen as flip-flopping and pandering, those two being signs of weakness as well.
If I were king for a day, I'd call for a pullout of 80% or so of our soldiers over the next year. And I'd have a conversation with the American people about the Iraq War. The American people need to know that the Iraq War was a mistake, that it was good for the terrorists and bad for us, and that the Bush administration is to blame. They need to know that the way to defeat terrorists is rarely to invade states and never to invade states who had nothing to do with those terrorists. The American people need to know, and we need to persuade them, that the assumptions the Bush administration has made about the War on Terrorism and the actions that have flowed from those assumptions, have hurt America.
I'm not sure who I read this from, but one of the blogosphere's more astute writers (or perhaps Rick Perlstein) had a comment about the DLC. The DLC (in addition to advising that major democratic weakness of fighting not to lose rather than fighting to win) look at the political future and assume every Republican strength and weakness and every Democratic strength and weakness are going to be the same into the future.
Part of the reason the Democratic establishment seems (and is) so reactive is because it has given up trying to persuade people. One of the strengths that the Republican party and its various organs, including talk radio, the think tanks, and cable news, has is that it has institutionalized persuasion. Persuasion is a tricky business, and it should probably not be left up to people like myself.
But here's something: way too many Americans believe in creationism. Way too many Americans think America was founded a Christian nation in the sense that George Washington was Pat Robertson to Jefferson's Jerry Falwell. Way too many Americans think that gays are ruining marriage. People aren't ignorant by accident- something happened to make them like that. Instead of shrugging and saying, sure, lotsa people believe in intelligent design and wouldn't it be arrogant not to pretend this ignorance was embarrassing, as the otherwise sharp Matthew Yglesias has been known to do, how about somebody try to inform the public.
Before anyone begins to assume my recommendation to a politican running for office is to run as a full-throated secularist, I think the task of disabusing Americans of backward notions is the duty of people in think tanks, on blogs, on the radio, and on television. Politicians need to be courageous, but you rarely hear a conservative politician say something that hasn't been anticipated by conservative talk show hosts or writers. This is why a figure like Jon Stewart is so important. Like Bill O'Reilly, he gets to stand up there and speak for himself rather than a party or a movement as such. He gets to attack the idiocy of opposing gay marriage. He's funny, goofy, smart and decent. He has his own show.
People like hearing common sense. What people have been hearing for years, on radio and television etc., is that common sense is Republican common sense. I.e. The poor are poor because they're lazy failures; social programs = communism/welfare queens; the best way to respond to jihadist terrorism is to attack any available Muslim or Arab; treating people who aren't like us with respect is political correctness; feminists are out to cut off your dick.
What we need is Democratic common sense, like: We need universal health insurance- not only will it be fairer, but cheaper; If two dudes marrying eachother hundreds of miles away is enough to ruin your marriage, your marriage is already screwed; War ought to be a last resort- it wasn't with Iraq, and what happened- the guy didn't have any WMDs; The Republican party is the party of the rich and selfish; Equal rights are never special rights (corollary: hate crime laws will prosecute black guys who beat up white guys, gays who beat up heteros, and atheists who beat up Christians); Torture is immoral, indefensible, anathema to every major religion, and it doesn't work; "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
These aren't superjumbos as such, but Democrats remain, in the popular imagination, whackos and/or weak. Staking out distinctively non-Republican positions removes the perception of weakness, and expressing one's beliefs in a common-sense, non-ideological, non-wonky way makes one appear sane. The more Democrats can get their views out there like this, the more Democrats there will be. People change. Thank goodness.
One can't help but imagine that, at root, the reason behind this hawkishness is that both the left and right are trapped in worldviews informed by fundamental misconceptions of what constitutes strength, and how one comes to be regarded as strong. But while the Nation article is as close to a clear-eyed exploration of why Democrats like Biden and Hillary feel a need to back up Bush on the Iraq war, it seems to have internalized some of the habits of mind that are responsible for the Democrats' weakness.
Notice how the author, Ari Berman, describes Holbrooke's bizarre declaration that "anything less than an invasion of Iraq would undermine international law" as a tack to the right of Bush. It doesn't seem like much, but this little use of right represents assumptions about right and left that are a major part of why Democrats don't get elected president unless the economy is in the pooper and times are relatively peaceful. That little use of "right" represents the assumption, held instinctively by millions of Americans, that Democrats are a bunch of limpwristed sissies who run away from a punch.
There is nothing so dangerous for a presidential candidate to be seen as a wimp. It is a guarantee of failure.
Elected Democrats are becoming an endangered species because they take these received assumptions, that being strong means adopting a strong, or right-wing, or Republican position on foreign policy. It's clear that the American people don't want a pacifist as their Commander in Chief or head of State, but it's equally clear that holding positions that are both against one's conscience and mindlessly warlike is no kind of prescription for gaining the public's trust. Democrats need to stop assuming a Republican's views of strength.
Strength is not invading a country that isn't a threat to the US, getting embroiled in a guerilla war, spending billions of dollars, and inviting a civil war and/or the strengthening of a far more dangerous and powerful country next door. Moreover, strength is not agreeing with the parties that started this war at all costs because one is afraid of being called a chicken.
The position that the "Strategic Class", as Berman calls them, has staked out has not ensured that a single Democrat will be regarded with respect. It has ensured that the war begin just as planned, and that any attempt of establishment Democrats to reflect the will of the people, who are now largely in favor of a pull-out from Iraq and will continue to be so until it is done, will be seen as flip-flopping and pandering, those two being signs of weakness as well.
If I were king for a day, I'd call for a pullout of 80% or so of our soldiers over the next year. And I'd have a conversation with the American people about the Iraq War. The American people need to know that the Iraq War was a mistake, that it was good for the terrorists and bad for us, and that the Bush administration is to blame. They need to know that the way to defeat terrorists is rarely to invade states and never to invade states who had nothing to do with those terrorists. The American people need to know, and we need to persuade them, that the assumptions the Bush administration has made about the War on Terrorism and the actions that have flowed from those assumptions, have hurt America.
I'm not sure who I read this from, but one of the blogosphere's more astute writers (or perhaps Rick Perlstein) had a comment about the DLC. The DLC (in addition to advising that major democratic weakness of fighting not to lose rather than fighting to win) look at the political future and assume every Republican strength and weakness and every Democratic strength and weakness are going to be the same into the future.
Part of the reason the Democratic establishment seems (and is) so reactive is because it has given up trying to persuade people. One of the strengths that the Republican party and its various organs, including talk radio, the think tanks, and cable news, has is that it has institutionalized persuasion. Persuasion is a tricky business, and it should probably not be left up to people like myself.
But here's something: way too many Americans believe in creationism. Way too many Americans think America was founded a Christian nation in the sense that George Washington was Pat Robertson to Jefferson's Jerry Falwell. Way too many Americans think that gays are ruining marriage. People aren't ignorant by accident- something happened to make them like that. Instead of shrugging and saying, sure, lotsa people believe in intelligent design and wouldn't it be arrogant not to pretend this ignorance was embarrassing, as the otherwise sharp Matthew Yglesias has been known to do, how about somebody try to inform the public.
Before anyone begins to assume my recommendation to a politican running for office is to run as a full-throated secularist, I think the task of disabusing Americans of backward notions is the duty of people in think tanks, on blogs, on the radio, and on television. Politicians need to be courageous, but you rarely hear a conservative politician say something that hasn't been anticipated by conservative talk show hosts or writers. This is why a figure like Jon Stewart is so important. Like Bill O'Reilly, he gets to stand up there and speak for himself rather than a party or a movement as such. He gets to attack the idiocy of opposing gay marriage. He's funny, goofy, smart and decent. He has his own show.
People like hearing common sense. What people have been hearing for years, on radio and television etc., is that common sense is Republican common sense. I.e. The poor are poor because they're lazy failures; social programs = communism/welfare queens; the best way to respond to jihadist terrorism is to attack any available Muslim or Arab; treating people who aren't like us with respect is political correctness; feminists are out to cut off your dick.
What we need is Democratic common sense, like: We need universal health insurance- not only will it be fairer, but cheaper; If two dudes marrying eachother hundreds of miles away is enough to ruin your marriage, your marriage is already screwed; War ought to be a last resort- it wasn't with Iraq, and what happened- the guy didn't have any WMDs; The Republican party is the party of the rich and selfish; Equal rights are never special rights (corollary: hate crime laws will prosecute black guys who beat up white guys, gays who beat up heteros, and atheists who beat up Christians); Torture is immoral, indefensible, anathema to every major religion, and it doesn't work; "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
These aren't superjumbos as such, but Democrats remain, in the popular imagination, whackos and/or weak. Staking out distinctively non-Republican positions removes the perception of weakness, and expressing one's beliefs in a common-sense, non-ideological, non-wonky way makes one appear sane. The more Democrats can get their views out there like this, the more Democrats there will be. People change. Thank goodness.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Serving my country
I guess I admire Paul Hackett, the Iraq War veteran from Ohio who almost unseated his rival in one of the redder districts of Ohio, for both his moxie in fighting in a war he didn't believe in and his moxie in contesting a basically unwinnable district.
I guess my problem is I overwhelmingly fear the prospect of failure and death. But this is the sort of fear that paralyzes but does nothing to prevent those consequences. In the end the paralysis makes you a failure, and times passage kills you.
But I wasn't about to sign up myself, despite a reasonably able body and a capable if not entirely sound mind. I don't trust people all that well, but in particular I didn't trust George W. Bush.
Reagan has been described as enigmatic, perhaps unknowable, despite his significant charisma and charm, and I think George is similar. George's father was not like this. As a child, I could sense his discomfort on television. I think being telegenic is meaningful on some level. Modern TV politics is basically Coke vs. Pepsi- not in the sense that the parties are similar. They aren't. The Republican Party is significantly more evil.
Things that happen on the other side of the television aren't real. I got that when I was a toddler. Even when they tell the truth, they aren't real. GHW Bush, it seems to me, didn't have the horse sense to be unreal for the cameras, to slip into the same oblivion as we find on a soap opera.
I think this is why Howard Dean made so much sense to me, and why Bill Clinton, on some fundamental level, didn't. When I was first introduced to Dean I was really shocked. I had never seen a politician talk like that. It was kind of coarse and real and amateur. Not like hearing a well-then common-sense fave outside-the-beltway politican type do that irritating simulacrum of realness, the rhetorical equivalent of a geriatric Wal-Mart greeter (Is there some reason why these folks are always 85 or in wheelchairs and seemingly deserving of a peaceful retirement?). Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was that very kind of genuine. Only the insincere can truly persuade you of their sincerity, and though I thought he was a damn good president after an unbroken string over the previous decades of incompetents, radicals, dickweeds or some combination of above, he was undeniably slick.
The presidency in the US remains pretty imperial despite the corrective which should have come, in a big way, as a result of Watergate. And, you know, I have some faith in the American people, but not so much I expect them to see George W Bush and see the petty, slimy, self-impressed wimp I see instead of some great protector. (Has there been a historical figure outside of a totalitarian state who was lionized so far outside of what is credible? Those sages over at Powerline, without a hint of irony, just ascribed
I guess my problem is I overwhelmingly fear the prospect of failure and death. But this is the sort of fear that paralyzes but does nothing to prevent those consequences. In the end the paralysis makes you a failure, and times passage kills you.
But I wasn't about to sign up myself, despite a reasonably able body and a capable if not entirely sound mind. I don't trust people all that well, but in particular I didn't trust George W. Bush.
Reagan has been described as enigmatic, perhaps unknowable, despite his significant charisma and charm, and I think George is similar. George's father was not like this. As a child, I could sense his discomfort on television. I think being telegenic is meaningful on some level. Modern TV politics is basically Coke vs. Pepsi- not in the sense that the parties are similar. They aren't. The Republican Party is significantly more evil.
Things that happen on the other side of the television aren't real. I got that when I was a toddler. Even when they tell the truth, they aren't real. GHW Bush, it seems to me, didn't have the horse sense to be unreal for the cameras, to slip into the same oblivion as we find on a soap opera.
I think this is why Howard Dean made so much sense to me, and why Bill Clinton, on some fundamental level, didn't. When I was first introduced to Dean I was really shocked. I had never seen a politician talk like that. It was kind of coarse and real and amateur. Not like hearing a well-then common-sense fave outside-the-beltway politican type do that irritating simulacrum of realness, the rhetorical equivalent of a geriatric Wal-Mart greeter (Is there some reason why these folks are always 85 or in wheelchairs and seemingly deserving of a peaceful retirement?). Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was that very kind of genuine. Only the insincere can truly persuade you of their sincerity, and though I thought he was a damn good president after an unbroken string over the previous decades of incompetents, radicals, dickweeds or some combination of above, he was undeniably slick.
The presidency in the US remains pretty imperial despite the corrective which should have come, in a big way, as a result of Watergate. And, you know, I have some faith in the American people, but not so much I expect them to see George W Bush and see the petty, slimy, self-impressed wimp I see instead of some great protector. (Has there been a historical figure outside of a totalitarian state who was lionized so far outside of what is credible? Those sages over at Powerline, without a hint of irony, just ascribed
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Novaksplosion
I have to say its nice that Bob Novak, one of my favorite cable news vampires, decided to freak/chicken out, say a bad word, march offscreen, and get himself suspended, all on live TV.
I won't miss him one bit. Anyway I don't have cable so whatever.
But I have to say the slowness with which the Plame saga is marching on is bothersome. The wheels of justice turn slowly.
I won't miss him one bit. Anyway I don't have cable so whatever.
But I have to say the slowness with which the Plame saga is marching on is bothersome. The wheels of justice turn slowly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
