Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 12 Comments
This post is in: Foreign Affairs
I just read portions of the Hussein tape that was released over the week-end, and I had a question for people who might be regional experts. In the tape, Hussein refers to those who collaborate with the coalition as ‘stray dogs.’ This is not the first time I have heard speakers from that region use the word ‘dog’ as an insult.
Does anyone know if this is a common insult, and what the origin for the insult might be if it is in fact a regionalism?
by John Cole| 6 Comments
This post is in: Sports
Quite simply, the Steelers have to beat the 9ers tonight, or the season is over.
Go Steelers!
This post is in: General Stupidity
If the post below this does not signal how frustrated I can get, sometimes the tone and tenor of my posts does- and many times they get out of control. After cooling down and some correspondence, I would like to issue an apology to Kevin Drum and Mark Kleiman for the abusive tone of this post. Even if I thought they were not shooting straight on the issue at hand, there was simply no excuse for my behavior and actions. I am sorry, and I feel particularly bad about my treatment of Kevin, who has never been anything but decent to me. My apologies.
by John Cole| 6 Comments
This post is in: Politics
I only caught part of it, but during the roundtable discussion of the Fox News show with Brit Hume and crew, they showed a clip of Gen. Clark unloading on some reporter for ‘twisting his words.’
I don’t know if the reporter was twisting his words or not, but I have to tell you, my respect for Clark just went up a couple notches. I am absolutely sick to death of people taking politician’s words and deciding they know best what the guy/gal really meant. Whether it is the NY Times employing reporters who just make shit up, Maureen Dowd simply making her own quotes up, or other politicians (and more recently bloggers attacking other bloggers), nothing is solved in the political arena when real arguments are thrown aside in favor of the gotcha games. Sure, maybe short term political gains may be realized, talking points and attack ads can be formulated, but no good policy comes from dishonest debate.
We see entirely too much of this anymore- the way the entire left wing of the blogosphere immediately pounces on anything the Instapundit writes and determines what ‘he really meant’ is a simple example of this. Why don’t we try this on for size- when you read something a politician says, or hear something they have stated in public, why not try to interpret it in the manner they meant for you- and not instead twist it, distort it, or manufacture innuendos, all the while ignoring the speaker’s intent. Might be helpful.
I hope all the Democrat candidates start doing what Clark did tonight, and perhaps the press will behave like adults. The same goes for Bush, who has let jackholes like Tim Noah and others of his ilk have a free pass with everything he has said in the past four years.
Just my two cents. Way to go, Clark.
*** Update ***
One more thing- if another Democrat claims someone is questioning Clark’s or Kerry’s patriotism, I am going to have an aneurysm. That is what was so damned stupid about all the people sniping at the Instapundit, claiming he and Sullivan were questioning Clark’s patriotism. NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE is questioning his patriotism- the man gave 35 years of his life to the military and this country, and everyone should be damned proud of him. That is why I laugh at those who claim ‘right-wingers’ are questioning Clark’s patriotism- we know a bona fide American hero when we see one. Clark is one. Kerry is one. That doesn’t mean we want them to be President, but you are an idiot if you think we are questioning their patriotism.
*** Update #2 ***
Apparently I was but the first of many to have seen and commented on the exchange, Kevin Drum comments here and has a link to the trancript.
by John Cole| 4 Comments
This post is in: Media
I didn’t hear any of it, but it sounds like Limbaugh may have learned something in rehab:
Emerging from a self-imposed exile in which he was treated for an addiction to painkillers, Rush Limbaugh returned to the air today, and listeners who tuned in the first few minutes of his radio program would have been forgiven if they thought they had tuned into a self-help program that might have ordinarily been presided over by Orpah Winfrey.
“I have to admit I am powerless over this addiction I have,” Mr. Limbaugh told his listeners, just after noon on the East Coast. “I used to think I could beat it by force of will.”
…Even one of the first calls he took, from Mary Jo of Montgomery, Ala., was a question not about politics – Mr. Limbaugh’s stock in trade is to carry the message of the right – but about a friend in trouble.
“You have a friend who’s an addict?” Mr. Limbaugh asked.
Mary Jo responded that she did, and wanted to know “what strengthens someone.”
“Are you ready to listen?” Mr. Limbaugh asked. “I want you to know something now. You are not responsible for what your friend does.”
He is lucky he has his resources to fight this- a lot of people don’t.
by John Cole| 13 Comments
This post is in: Open Threads
I guess since I was sick most of last week, and then had a full weekend of sports and other things going on, I did not spend enough time reading the blogosphere, and in particular, I did not spend enough time reading the reactions to Mark Byron’s political murder scenario. I have to admit- the responses appear to me to range from the hopelessly overwrought to the seriously deranged. Some quick notes:
1.) This is for the trolls- I am not in favor of the assassination of any Democrats.
2.) Although the author himself calls this a ‘fantasy,’ I think that term has jaded many of the responses. This is, as the author notes, clearly not a fantasy of his, in that it is clearly not something he wants to happen (Me in bed with Hedi Klum, Halle Berry, and Liz Hurley- that is a fantasy). This is a hypothetical scenario, and not really a fantasy.
3.) I do not understand the outrage- he clearly did not advocate this- he simply stated a scenario, and then listed, from his perspective, how this would be a thoroughly objectionable occurrence.
4.) The most absurd response to this whole affair came from (not surprisingly), Tom Spencer, who first condemned the post and then posted an hour by hour update calling the Instapundit a hypocrite for not immediately condemning the post. Most amusing is that Spencer’s blog is titled “Thinking It Through.” Note to jerk-offs, if you want my reaction on something, let me know about it- don’t play the absurd game Tom did and state that just because someone on your blogroll writes something, you must immediately have a response. BTW- This is the same Tom Spencer who can’t even get basic facts straight.
For the record, Mark Byron is not on my blogroll, also for the record, aren’t the attempts by the lunatic fringe to attack the Instapundit about anything rather transparent and amusing. I mean, horror of horrors- Hesiod is delinking Glenn. I am sure he is traumatized.
5.) If there was one shred of evidence that Byron was actually advocating, planning, or in favor of this scenario coming to fruition, I would call him all sorts of names myself. However, there is no such thing, so I am not sure why everyone has their knickers in a twist.
6.) Several people have stated that the real problem is that he listed the names of the Senators from Republican governed states. This is an idiotic condemnation- in order for the scenario to work, of course the senators would have to be from states with Republican governors.
I have read the Byron piece ten times now, and other than the idea that something this horrifying could happen- really, I think everyone would agree that this sort of mass assassination would be horrible, I simply see no reason to condemn Byron for writing this- again, there is nothing in ANYTHING he has written about this to assume he would advocate such a horrible scenario.
People need to grow up.
by John Cole| 9 Comments
This post is in: Democratic Stupidity
This is rather irritating, and has not received enough coverage:
November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
“The groups singled out three–Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)–as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible.”
What would happen if Trent Lott were the author of this memo?