The Scanner Works!

It's still trimming edges a bit, but I can put off reinstalling everything (again).

So, by way of celebration, you get this:

Feed Them Their Own Crap

YeeHah!

I don't believe this is actually happening:

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

* add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;

* require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;

* require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”

* establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and

* make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

This is a response to the Washington state Supreme Court's ludicrous ruling in Andersen, et al. v King County:

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

This is so my way of doing things!

Ted Haggard

Now that he's completely heterosexual (my, that was a fast bit of therapy, there, wasn't it? Only took three weeks), he's even made it to Talking Points Memo. Do I suspect Josh Marshall of a bit of skepticism here.

Yep.

(I should point out that Marshall is marginally less scathing than any of the gay blogs I've seen this story on. Marginally.)

From the NYT story, this comment caught my eye:

It was also the oversight board that strongly urged Haggard to go into secular work.

Up front: I don't know anything about the therapy that Haggard has undergone other than what has been printed in the papers ("printed" being used more or less metaphorically here). I am not a psychotherapist, nor do I play one on TV. I do have an undergrad degree in psych, and I'm not a dummy -- I did keep up with the field for a while after school. So I'm left wondering just how many "suggestions" the oversight board made. And please notice this dodge: Haggard has not been "cured" -- he was straight all the time. Now how do you think that NARTH is going to react to that? (Although it seems that both NARTH and Exodus have dropped the "cure" scam recently. Now people just learn not to indulge their basic natures. Maybe real science is starting to penetrate, just a wee bit.)

Frankly, I wonder exactly what he was acting out. Just on the face of it, for someone with Haggard's beliefs to "act out" by patronizing a male prostitute strikes me as self-destructive in the extreme. What was he acting out on?

However, on to the future. Pam Spaulding posted this e-mail from Haggard:

Jesus is starting to put me back together. I have spent so much time in repentance, brokenness, hurt and sorrow for the things I've done and the negative impact my actions have had on others. That sadness continues as my family and I, along with so many others, go through the painful consequences of my actions. Jesus and his followers, though, have saved my life. As part of New Life's efforts to help me, they sent Gayle and me to Phoenix for a three-week psychological intensive that gave us three years worth of analysis and treatment. We all wanted to know why I developed such incongruity in my life. Thankfully, with the tools we gained there, along with the powerful way God has been illuminating His Word and the Holy Spirit has been convicting and healing me, we now have growing understanding which is giving me some hope for a future.

At this point, I'm inclined to cut the snark on Haggard. The man is a little more genuine than most of his fellow travelers, I think, or at least he has a better handle on seeming sincere. I'm sympathetic if Haggard really wants to change. Some people simply can't handle being gay. Quite honestly, when I was fifteen or sixteen, if I had had a choice, I would have opted for straight -- it's a hell of a lot easier. But I'm uneasy that Haggard may have given into untoward pressure because of his religious beliefs, and I'm honestly concerned that he may be doing himself and his family more damage long-term. As for his becoming a psychotherapist, one reason I decided not to go on and get my Ph.D. was that I didn't think I was warped enough. Every therapist I know (and I dated one for a while, quite aside from those I studied under) is emotionally damaged in some way; they've just learned to live with it. So Haggard can't be worse than my ex.

Update:

Jack Balkin has a post on this that states clearly and succinctly one of the major issues in the Christianist attitude toward homosexuality, and the area that contains the major disjunction between them and people who are -- well, either more scientifically informed or less ideologically driven. It's short -- read it.

Airplane Funnies

This came to me via e-mail:

After every flight, Qantas pilots fill out a form called a "gripe sheet" which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft. The mechanics correct the problems, document their repairs on the form, then the pilots review the gripe sheets right before the next flight.


Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humour. Here are some of the actual maintenance complaints submitted by the Qantas pilots (as marked with a P) and the solutions recorded (as marked with an S) by the maintenance engineers.


P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.

P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.

P: Something loose in the cockpit.
S: Something tightened in the cockpit.

P: Dead bugs on windshield.
S: Live bugs on backorder.

P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent.
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.

P: Evidence of a leak on the right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.

P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume reset to a more believable level.

P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That's what friction locks are for.

P: IFF inoperative in OFF mode.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.

P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you're right.

P: The number 3 engine is missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after a brief search.

P: Aircraft handles funny. (I love this one!)
S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right and be serious.

P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.

P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.

And the best one saved for last......

P: Noise coming from under the instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.
S: Took hammer away from the midget.

Tha's all, folks!

Mary's Baby: Dealing With The Flak

Robbie at The Malcontent posted a thoughtful (and lengthy) comment taking me to task for some of my remarks on his and GayPatriot's posts on Mary Cheney. It demands, I think, an equally thoughtful response, which I promise to do as soon as I can get myself sorted out (busy day planned today). I may leave it in the comments or transform it, through the magic of technology, into a post of its own.

That's part of the fun of being the boss.

Update:

Chris Crain has a fairly level-headed post about Mary Cheney that reflects my own take quite accurately.

What Took Them So Long?

Cully Stimson does have his defenders, at last.

From Cliff May at The Circle Jerk in the Corner™:

Many of those who criticize Guantanamo allege that detainees at the facility do not have legal representation. They are either misinformed or lying: Not only does the International Committee of the Red Cross have regular access to detainees, there also are scores of American attorneys representing detainees on a pro bono basis.

Why do they do that? Maybe it is because they are genuinely concerned about protecting due process for detainees. Or maybe it is because they are, as Stimson said “receiving moneys from who-knows-where.” (Or – and this is my conjecture – perhaps they are currying favor with governments and groups that are or can become rewarding clients.)

Notice, by the way, that May doesn't allude to the immense amount of pressure, including reams on negative publicity and several court cases, that finally got that legal representation for those incarcerated. That's a good example of mendacity, of a clumsy and rudimentary sort.

From his fellow jerker, Mark Steyn:

It seems an almost parodic illustration of the uneven playing field on which we have chosen to play: our enemies are extended every benefit of the doubt while the mildest observation on the part of government officials will prompt howls of outrage and sustained campaigns to hound them from office. . . .

Since then, the level of legal representation they’ve attracted is certainly striking. It may be merely the cachet that attaches to springing goatherds from the clutches of the Bush police state but it’s not inconceivable that it’s yet another by-product of the vast amount of walking-around money various jihad-friendly front organizations have sluiced about the western world. I agree that idle speculation isn’t terribly useful, but, given that The New York Times has managed to shut down the wire-transfer surveillance program, it’s pretty much all that’s left.

For those who aren't familiar with Steyn, as I wasn't until recently, he's a well-known right-wing extremist. I'm not familiar with May's writings, but he seems to share Steyn's complete lack of moral fiber.

I sometimes hate being right, but when the whole Cully Stimson flap started, I alluded to the fact that he'd done his job and the smear was out there. (From a post at EA Forums: "Granted, he doesn't repudiate the implied threats, but then I'm still pretty much convinced that was his mission. It wouldn't make any difference if he repudiated them or not -- the message is out there." Cross-posted to this blog here.). The fact that he was sacrificed, or chose self-immolation, take your pick, simply reminds us of one of the defining characteristics of the Bush administration. (And remember, this is a president who is "loyal" to his friends and supporters.) And of course, we could have expected the Corner to pick up the mantra. I'm just suprised it took them so long.

Andrew Sullivan claims that "this kind of smear really is beneath him," "him" in this case being May. I guess that only supports my contention that Sullivan is essentially clueless. The correct analysis, I would suspect, is that this kind of smear is beneath anyone who has the best interests of democracy at heart, as May claims to do, or who has any self-respect or integrity at all, which in May's case I can't address. It's an open question at this point as to whether May actually belongs within any of those groups.

Related posts:

And You Wondered Why I Like To Read Fantasy
Stimson and Liberals: A Sort of Grand Synthesis
Stimson Update
More on Stimson
The Price Of Speaking The Party Line

(You might think from the number of posts devoted to this topic that I thought it was important. I did. I tend to bristle at any attempt to undercut, subvert, or otherwise injure the Constitution and/or our real traditions. I saw this episode, and still do, as an attempt to do just that. The comments by May and Steyn, neither of whom I believe has any reverence for our founding princples whatsoever, only confirm my opinion. The post "Stimson and Liberals" is the key one here.)

PS: TBogg has weighed in on this one, and as usual, it's choice. Seems Andy McCarthy also wants to chant the mantra.

More on the Boston Bomb Scare

Lindsay Beyerstein, writing at This Modern World, has more info on the bomb scare. There are several counterclaims on what actually happened, but the bottom line seems to be that Interference, Inc., the marketing company behind the campaign, seems to have abandoned the artists, Sean Stevens and Peter Berdovsky, to bear the brunt of the consequences. Berdovsky says that an exec from Interference asked him to keep quiet about it when he phoned to tell them that the campaign had gotten out of hand. Read Beyerstein's post, because it's pointless for me to repeat it all here.

So we have municipal overreaction seemingly coupled with corporate negligence, at the very least. Looks like everyone gets some of the blame., except the guys who are faced with actually paying the price.

Another post at TMR, this time by Greg Saunders:

With all the loaded language, you’d almost think this guy did something wrong. After all, this “device” was a “hoax” that “forced” the Keystone Cops to chase each other in circles while waving their tiny baseball bats at each other. Throw this guy in jail because we all know this kind of panic isn’t the fault of the people who overract to anything they consider weird.

A big part of the blame rests, obviously, on the media reports, which were at best irresponsible, although the government agencies involved should have been able to rein that in, according to Saunders:

. . . while the panic was partially media-driven, keeping the media from freaking out is an important part of the government response to an emergency situation.

A Swing At The Left

OK, I know you've all been waiting for this, but I'm about the take on the left blogosphere.

Crooks and Liars ran this story about the American Enterprise Institute and its funding, from a story in The Guardian:

From C&L:

Do American corporations take responsibility for their part in global warming? No, their answer to the greatest threat to mankind (and their ultimate bottom line, come to that) is to offer a bribe to scientists to buck the overwhelming avalanche of evidence and deny man's involvement in global warming.

From The Guardian:

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

Now, my own feeling is that The Guardian is one of those sources that has to be taken with a grain of salt. Its reporting is biased, and just because its biased toward the left doesn't excuse that.

It seems that Chris DeMuth has some additional information. Via Andrew Sullivan:

Second, attempting to disentangle science from politics on the question of climate change causation, and to fashion policies that take account of the uncertainties concerning causation, are longstanding AEI interests. The new research project that Ken and Steve Hayward have been organizing is a continuation of these interests. I am attaching the two letters that Steve and Ken have sent out to climate change scientists and policy experts (the first one emphasizing the scientific and climate-modeling issues addressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; the second, more recent one covering broader policy issues as well)—and invite you to read them and compare them with the characterization in the Guardian article. The first letter, sent last summer to Professor Steve Schroeder of Texas A&M (and also to his colleague Gerald North), is the one quoted by the Guardian. Ken and Steve canvassed scholars with a range of views on the scientific and policy issues, with an eye to the intrinsic quality and interest of their work rather than to whether partisans might characterize them as climate change 'skeptics' or 'advocates.' They certainly did not avoid those with a favorable view of the IPCC reports — such as Professor Schroeder himself.

Third, what the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI — and Brookings, Harvard, and the University of Manchester — to pay individuals at other research institutions for commissioned work, and to cover their travel expenses when they come to the sponsoring institution to present their papers. The levels of authors' honoraria vary from case to case, but a $10,000 fee for a research project involving the review of a large amount of dense scientific material, and the synthesis of that material into an original, footnoted and rigorous article is hardly exorbitant or unusual; many academics would call it modest.

Jonathan Adler at Volokh posted the text of what appears to be the first letter DeMuth refers to. Adler points out one thing that seems germane to me, as well as being accurate:

In these letters AEI was certainly seeking out prominent analysts willing to participate in a critical examination of the IPCC report, but I don't think the letter suggests AEI wanted Professor Schroeder or anyone else to tailor their views to AEI's agenda. Rather it looks to me like an effort to encourage those who have been critical of climate projections in the past to provide a detailed assessment of the new IPCC report. A second letter was sent out earlier this year to a handful of scientists and economists and others seeking papers on climate change science and policy more broadly.

Read the letter. Read Adler's post, which has more iformation from AEI.

A note about timing. C&L's story was posted today, February 4. Sullivan first had it on Friday, the 2nd, while Adler's post was posted yesterday, the 3rd. So there is other information out there, in places that I would think C&L would be perusing on a regular basis -- Sullivan, at least, since he's a favorite target of both the left and the right. I'll try to remember to keep an eye on C&L for a follow-up, but frankly, their handling of this one so far is not impressive. I'll feel a lot better about it (OK, I don't really care, but I'll be more gracious about it) if I see a follow-up post with a shit-eating grin attached -- at least an admission that perhaps they jumped the gun on this one. After all, you can't always trust The Guardian. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.)

Another note: One of Sullivan's readers accuses AEI of acting like the Discovery Institute:

You're being a little naive if you think that AEI's goal is truly to inspire a real debate about the veracity of claims about man-made climate change. This is right out of the theocon playbook on evolution. The goal is not to have a real debate, because a real debate is something you can (and in both cases, when talking about scientific evidence, will) lose. The goal is simply to muddy the waters, try and get the media to portray climate change as a 'he said, he said' kind of issue. The fact is, there are a lot of scientists. You will find contrarians to any position imaginable. For an ideologically-inspired organization to cherry-pick a few who are willing to say what they want to hear (especially for a fee!!) and publish those reports, instead of those scientists having to go through the peer-review process, reduces the scientific rigor of the debate.

The problem with this is that AEI is not doing what creationists habitually do, which is distort evidence, bring in extra-scientific criteria, pretend that their naive (or maybe I mean "disingenuous") interpretations of the evidence somehow point to a flawed theory, or better yet, that controversies over details of the mechanisms of evolution somehow disprove its foundations.. AEI seems to be asking scientists to comment on the reliability of the various models used. Period. No theology involved here, just an analyses of the work to date.

Of course, we have to wait and see what the analyses actually say before we can render a judgment, and by that time I will have forgotten all about it.

Time For A Picture

I have to start fighting with the scanner again today. Maybe this time.

And I really have to start working out again. Truly.

Mary's Baby: The Otherworldly View

Our old friends at Gay Patriot have done it again. This time, it's a word of praise for this post by Robbie at The Malcontent.

There is a sharp flaw within the gay movement in terms of example and rhetoric. Mary Cheney lives by example. She is out, open, in a relationship, and now having a child. She must weather the criticism of the religious right like few others as the most visible gay individual in the Republican party. Knowing that every move she makes will be scrutinized and excoriated by the right-wing base and left-wing gay radicals alike, she moves forward with her life with no apology.

Robbie's post is so filled with omissions and logical flaws that it's barely coherent. I found my self saying again and again "But what about . . . ?" I keep forgetting the right-wing historical selectivity gene.

It's also notable for the degree of -- I want to say "projection," but I can't really do that with any justification because I don't know these men personally. Not only the tone of Robbie's post, but comments by Dan Blatt (GayPatriot West) such as "Despite all this, she is vilified merely because she is a Republican — and the daughter of the Vice President" are simply too far out there. No, she's not vilified (if she's even being "vilified" -- criticized, sure, and with good reason, but vilified? Mmm. . . .) merely because she's a Republican, but because, being a lesbian, she willingly devoted her efforts to a political campaign that rested in major part on vilifying people like her -- and in this case, I use the word advisedly. Both posters ascribe "venom" and "hatred" to any criticism of Mary Cheney (or any other member of the Bush administration, its employees, etc., etc., etc. -- y'know, it strikes me that kind of fanatical devotion isn't really healthy) while never seeming to realize the degree of venom in their own posts about prominent left-wing figures. Do I smell a double standard here?

Mary Cheney, like her father, is an opportunist. Suddenly, after the last election in which Bush/Cheney were contenders, when they no longer have to worry about votes, she's pregnant and being publicly lesbian -- again. (In a very private and personal way, of course.) I remember, if neither Robbie nor Blatt do, that she was very much part of the woodwork during the last Republican convention, but now that her father no longer needs the Christianists, bingo! It's a "personal" matter. How convenient.

(In all fairness, insofar as it's possible, given her prominence and the activities in which she has engaged in her career, it is a personal matter, but there are rather severe limits on how private a public figure can be, especially when a large portion of her audience is composed of people who have a god-given right to tell others how to live.)

We all know that Dick Cheney doesn't have any respect for the Christianists. That's been plain. However, that hasn't stopped him, or Mary, from courting them when an election rolls around.

So maybe Mary Cheney isn't being criticized for being a Republican. Maybe it's just that she, like her father, is a hypocrite, and a pretty self-centered one at that, and gay people continue to suffer because of it.

A note about the Wolf Blitzer interview: No, Blitzer wasn't out of line. Let's get a little real about this: You're a lesbian whose father's a politician who has courted the extreme right, including catering to their anti-gay agenda, for votes. (Robbie notes "Not only did Dick Cheney make the well-known remark, 'Freedom means freedom for everyone,' he unambiguously stated his stark disagreement with the administration on the FMA in the middle of a re-election campaign." What he forgets to point out is that Cheney immediately punted by saying it's the president's call. That's simply evading any responsibility for the party platform. It's even worse, actually -- it's close to prostitution.) You have worked actively on his campaign. Then you make a public announcement that you are pregnant, and it's certainly not by your partner, another woman. But it should be a private matter, not open to discussion. An interviewer asks your father about it, and he's out of line? Sorry. You can't have it both ways, honey. It's called taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions. I'm told conservatives used to believe in that.

The Price of Speaking the Party Line

Cully Stimson has resigned.

New Hampshire's "Marriage Lite"

This story, from Pam's House Blend (which is, by the way, one of the more thoughtful posts I've seen there) highlights a couple of issues in the marriage debate.

If you've been following me on this for the past few years, as Hunter at Random has changed names and locations, you know pretty much my feelings on most of the "objections" to equal marriage for same-sex couples.

To take one of the foremost, look at the quote from Bob Clegg, the former state senate leader in New Hampshire, who is going to the lengths of introducing civil unions legislation as a constitutional amendment is being debated in committee:

"Marriage is a religious ceremony," Clegg told the AP. "The bill is not just for gays and lesbians; it's for anybody."

No, to put it quite simply (a point noted by commenter Lev Raphael at the House Blend post -- I wonder if it's that Lev Raphael). Marriage is not a religious ceremony. In fact, to pinpoint the issue, Christianity didn't create the "sacrament" of marriage until the early twelfth century, after it had been a civil institution, sometimes with religious imprimatur, sometime without, for millennia. I object most vehemently to allowing religious Neanderthals (with apologies to the real Neanderthals) to appropriate a basic civil right as their own. (It's no happenstance that Clegg is a Republican. They think everything is a religious ceremony.)

As it happens, in every state of the union, any justice of the peace, any town mayor, any country clerk can perform a marriage. It can take place in city hall or the VFW. What's this "religious ceremony" crap?

(Sidebar: Want to see a fundie squirm? Say, "OK, it's a religious institution. Therefore, under the Establishment Clause, the government can't grant any tax breaks or other benefits for married couples. Nor can the government impose any restrictions on marriage, because that would be interfering in freedom of conscience.")

It's also worth pointing out that Clegg's legislation makes civil unions available to gay and straight couples, as if the injury of being second-class citizens weren't enough -- go out of your way to make civil unions really inconsequential by including people who just don't feel like getting married.

OK -- Clegg's an idiot, or at the very least so ignorant he should be under house arrest for his own protection.

Spaulding makes a very good point:

. . . I've been saying that the Dem presidential candidates have an obligation to voters to define what they mean when they toss out "I support civil unions" as a salve to gays. Asking for clarity, commitment and well-thought-out answers on the matter is not flogging the issue. There is a morass of separate-but-unequal legislation being debated and amendments voted on "by the people" right now.

Not only the morass of separate-but-"equal" marriage lites being promulgated from coast to coast. It's too easy an out for politicians, and Spaulding is absolutely right: what do they mean "civil unions"? Let's pin this down a little bit so we all know what we're talking about -- which of course is the whole point: they don't want to be forced to address an issue directly.

The New Hampshire thing is a real mess -- just read Spaulding's post for a glance at the shenanigans going on there. And also read the intense comment by kevinbgoode. Excellent.

Holy Google, Batman!

I got a a link from Orcinus, one of my heroes. (Well, "heroines," I guess, if we're going to be traditionalists about it -- Sara Robinson did the post.)

Excuse me while my head swells a little bit.

Made my day.

Update:

And Rants from the Rookery links through a quote from Robinson.

(He swoons.)

Seriously, this is one of the great things about the Internet. Information gets out there no matter what. And of course, Congress wants to regulate it. I wonder why.

Update II:

(I'm starting to channel Glenn Greenwald.) I was so shook I forgot to mention that Robinson linked to this post.

There.

$245 Billion

For war. For two years.

Tell me that we can't afford to provide free medical care for everyone in this country, and I'll tell you why. Tell me we can't afford to be sure every child has enough to eat and clothes to wear, and I'll tell you why. Tell me we can't afford to insure everyone has a roof over his head, and I'll tell you why. Tell me we can't afford to to rebuild New Orleans, and I'll tell you why. Tell me we can't restore wetlands and other areas devastated by development, and I'll tell you why. Tell me we can't provide decent schools, and I'll tell you why.

On Molly Ivins

When I read her column, which was not regularly, I thought she was generally right on. We need more like her.

Some choice quotes from Paul Krugman's column (NYT Pay Per View), courtesy E&P.

And a tremendous tribute from the Rude Pundit:


She was goddamned smart, so smart she didn't have to flaunt it. So smart that she could use the down to earth side to say what she meant so all of us could understand it. She didn't suffer bullies. She loved Texas like a parent loves her child even after that child has gone on a three-state killing spree. She was unfailingly polite. And she could eviscerate anyone who was failing all of us with just an image or two. Those guttings will be desperately missed. That sense and celebration of the decency of the average American will be missed even more.

We've lost one of our defenders.

Thanks to Atrios.

Mary's Baby, Again

Dan Savage goes after Mary Cheney:

Your side started it. It only serves you right that you’re going to have to finish it.

And you might want to have it all wrapped up before your kid is old enough to understand what’s being said about his family by your dad’s political allies. Take it from me, Mary: Explaining to your child, after he heard something hateful on the radio, that his family is very much “real,” that it’s not an attack on anyone else’s family, and that his parents are, in fact, fit to be his parents is as distressing and emotionally exhausting as it is unnecessary. And I blame you.

This whole episode is, to me, symptomatic of what's wrong with gay Republicans. The only balls Log Cabin ever showed was refusing to endorse Bush in 2004 -- after he had spent his entire first term enabling the Dobson Gang. (Not that I look for balls in the national gay rights organizations -- look at HRC, for crying out loud.)

OK -- Mary Cheney wants to have her cake and eat it, too. This is a surprise exactly how? She is rich and privileged and, like her father, appears to be firmly convinced that consequences are for the little people. If she wants to really come out swinging (sorry, but characterizing Dobson as someone whose endorsement she's never "drastically sought" -- and I'm still trying ro figure out what that means -- is not swinging. She did better on noting his distortions of fact, but I would have been happier if she'd just called him a liar and been done with it.), then I might be willing to listen.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.

WTF?

Every damned thing is news.

Boston Bomb Scare Redux

Ann Althouse comes up with a post that says absolutely nothing.

Why am I even noticing this?

Glenn Greenwald on David Brooks

I should say, all over David Brooks. I don't understand why anyone reads David Brooks to begin with, much less pays attention to him. The man's an idiot.

Read Greenwald's post, especially if you have any familiarity with Brooks' writings. It's right on target.

Brooks doesn't speak for me, that's for damned sure, and last time I checked, I'm still an American.

The Great Boston "Bomb Scare"

August J. Pollak, at Some Guy WIth A Blog, has pretty much said all there is to be said about the "bomb scare" in Boston. Quoting from an editorial by Zach Nathanson at ToonZone:

I am not blaming the Boston police for the problems caused today, but rather the city government and media's spinning of the story to create a sense of paranoia. The comments of Shepard Smith and his co-workers at News Corp provide a prime example of the media's hand in this story. Many of the Fox News interviews were with citizens who were "distraught" over the Aqua Teen advertisements. Smith explained the plot of the show, portraying it as something appalling. Now I understand that the media has the right to their opinions on a show like Aqua Teen, but I think that Fox's comments in particular only aggravated the situation. What most newscasters should have at least commented on is that this investigation was a result of pure paranoia. If you ask any teenager or young adult I am sure that most would be able to identify Ignignokt as a cartoon character at the very least. Sadly no one thought to do so, and at least one of the poor little guys was blown to smithereens by overzealous police.

Pollak sums up:

There is no excuse for blaming Turner Networks, Adult Swim, and especially a single 27-year-old, for the overzealousness of Boston's government and the news media. And if the mayor of Boston continues to use an innocent man as his scapegoat, it's evidence of a level of incompetence that makes him unfit for office.

As he points out earlier in the post, these devices were planted in ten cities. Only in Boston did life come to a screeching halt.

Read it.

It's a post-9/11 world, alright. Jeebus! I am so glad I'm a Midwesterner.