The geniuses on the Supreme Court, giddy with conservative majority fever, have been busy recently.
5 Votes 4 Humorlessness
The Separation of Church and State – Ta Da!
Diary of a Hoosier out of her element
The geniuses on the Supreme Court, giddy with conservative majority fever, have been busy recently.
5 Votes 4 Humorlessness
The Separation of Church and State – Ta Da!
The CIA's new honesty is also far from complete. There is nothing in the family jewels about agency officials long suspected by congressional investigators and researchers of ties to the Kennedy assassination, including deceased agents such as William Harvey, David Phillips, David Morales and George Joannides. The agency continues to keep these records under wraps, in brazen defiance of the law.In fact, the agency could not help taking another whack at the Kennedys with the release of its family jewels. Press reports about the declassified CIA secrets laid the blame for the assassination efforts against Fidel Castro directly on then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy. What's the original source for this anti-Kennedy smear? None other than Richard Helms, the No. 2 man at the CIA during the Kennedy presidency and a bitter enemy of the two brothers.
Helms, desperately trying to head off congressional investigations into CIA abuses in the post-Watergate period, warned that he would drag RFK -- by then conveniently dead -- into the Castro controversy. By doing this, the wily Helms was clearly trying to intimidate the Democratic-controlled Congress. At a lunch meeting in January 1975, Helms told his friend Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that "Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro" -- confident that Kissinger would spread this around Washington, as he quickly did. Helms knew his accusation against RFK was a lie, and when later pressed by the Church Committee to provide proof, he could not, admitting that the CIA had misled Bobby about its plots. In truth, RFK was appalled when he learned that the agency was collaborating with the Mafia to kill Castro -- and Kennedy believed that he shut down this sinister operation. But he did not succeed -- the CIA continued to conspire against Castro for years after the Kennedys were removed from power.
So the next time you hear someone say that the Kennedy brothers authorized the CIA to have Castro killed, you'll know better.
What is it about Al Gore, and his uncanny ability to be 100% FUCKING RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING that drives the media crazy? Is it because they’re always so wrongity-wrong-wrong about everything?
Witness this piece of excruciatingly disingenuous fluff from Emily Yoffe at WaPo:
It was a mild January evening, and people had filled the restaurant's outdoor patio. As our group walked past the tables, one of my friends said, "This terrifies me." I don't know if she was reassured later by the chilly April, but we are all supposed to be terrified of the weather now.
Oh, we are, huh? How about your ignorant friend, Yoffe, and her third-grade level of understanding of scientific theory? Am I supposed to be terrified of her, too? Because when you quote her in an article like she has something meaningful to say in what is perhaps the second-most-read newspaper in the country
In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore tells us that unless drastic global changes are made, our cities will be inundated and those of us who haven't drowned will face a world wracked by cataclysmic weather and swarming with pestilence…
Hm. I saw that movie, and I don’t remember the “swarming with pestilence” part, but I suppose a writer for the Washington Post is to be allowed a certain amount of literary license.
…I, however, refuse to see the apocalypse in every balmy day.
Well, that’s a step in the right direction, Yoffe, because 1) no one is asking you to, and 2) it’s not an accurate perception.
And I think it's wrong to let our children believe they'll be swept away before they get a chance to fret about college admissions. An article in The Post this spring described children anxious, sleepless and tearful about the end; one 9-year-old said she worried about global warming "because I don't want to die."…
Holy red herring, Batman! If you follow the link in the above paragraph, you will see that the article Yoffe references, while somewhat smarmy and superior in tone, is not about kids becoming paralyzed with fear for their future (unlike, perhaps, those of us who grew up learning to duck and cover), but about kids who are mobilizing to DO SOMETHING about global warming.
…And a recent New York Times profile of Gore tells that we are to be flooded with "An Inconvenient Truth." It is going to be shown in schools; book versions for children and young adults and a children's television show are planned. The global Live Earth concerts scheduled for July 7 are expected to raise millions, going to a three-year public relations effort, headed by Gore, to deluge us with bad news.
Yes, that’s exactly the point of all this effort, Yoffe, is to deluge us with bad news. I can’t believe you’ve seen through all the scientific jargon and the climate models and charts and the graphs, and exposed Gore and those scientists for the buzz kills that they really are. Good job! It's going to take more than a few thousand intelligent people and their facts to ruin your day, clearly.
All this is not to say that it's not getting warmer and that curbing our profligate environmental ways is not a commendable and necessary goal.
Aw, come on, Yoffe, don’t back down now! Proceed apace to thy moronic and stupifyingly self-centered point!
But perhaps this movement is sowing the seeds of its own destruction -- even as it believes the human species has sown its own.
Get it? Humans are sowing the seeds of our own destruction by slowly making our environment uninhabitable for our own species, while the environmental movement is sowing the seeds of its own destruction by…talking about the movement? Wait, that can’t be right. They are destroying themselves by…saying facts and stuff? No, shit. Anyway, there’s a parallel in there somewhere, you’ll just have to trust Yoffe on that.
There must be a limit to how many calamitous films, books and television shows we, and our children, can absorb.
Well, there’s certainly a limit to how many Yoffe can absorb: 0
It doesn't seem sustainable to expect people to remain terrified by such a disinterested, often benign -- it was so nice eating out on the patio! -- and even unpredictable enemy. (I understand we're the enemy, but the executioner is the weather.) Recall that the experts told us last year would be a record-setting hurricane season, but the series of Katrinas never materialized.
The above paragraph is such a mess I’m not sure where to begin. Maybe I should start by pointing out that the object of the movement is not to “remain terrified.” Also, I believe it is a rather dangerous simplification of the concerns of global climate change to simply label “weather” as our “executioner.” Thirdly, yes, climatologists might look at ocean temperatures, and weather patterns, and cold and warm fronts, etc., and predict weather events, like hurricanes, that actually do not always come to pass. Do you think Yoffe has just recently figured this out? And lastly, what I think our Miss Yoffe is really upset about is that like many people who dislike and level unfair criticism at Al Gore, she doesn’t care for feeling guilty about things that she likes. Some people don’t like Al Gore because they want to keep driving their Hummers; apparently Miss Yoffe is upset that Al Gore might be standing over her table on the outside patio at her favorite restaurant in January, silently judging her for enjoying the fact that its not freezing.
Hey, everybody’s got some kind of boogeyman. And if Yoffe wants Al Gore to be hers, that’s fine, I just object to her personal neurosis being presented to me as some kind of spunky objective skepticism.
Since I hate the heat, even I was alarmed by the recent headline: "NASA Warns of 110-Degrees for
August 2007? Here ya go, Yoffe, courtesy of the heat-mongering Farmer’s Almanac.
There is so much hubris in the certainty about the models of the future that I'm oddly reassured. We've seen how hubristic predictions about complicated, unpredictable events have a way of bringing the predictors low.
Yoffe’s Word-a-Day Calendar word of the day: hubris.
Doesn't an explanation of the concept of hubris involves some malarkey about people who are so confident in their own worldview and their own personal abilities that they either cannot see, or in fact even assist in, their own downfall?
Maybe Yoffe’s word for tomorrow will be “irony.”
It's also hard to believe assertions that the science on the future of our climate is settled when climate scientists can't agree about the present -- or the past (there is contention about the dates, causes and even the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed).
Scientists argue about the facts of some past climate events, therefore, no one can say with any confidence that CO2 levels in our atmosphere will eventually bring about climate changes that will radically affect our ability to survive on Earth. Get it? It’s just logic, is all. You can’t deny her awesome logic.
Now, Gore and others say that Katrina was a product of global warming and that we can expect more and bigger storms. But there is actually brisk scientific debate over the role global warming plays -- if any -- in the creation of hurricanes.
Okay, well here I got to call “liar liar pants on fire” on poor Miss Yoffe. Gore most certainly has not, and would not, say that Katrina, or any other hurricane, was a product of global warming. Miss Yoffe, it’s like you slept right through An Inconvenient Truth. Or you had your fingers in your ears. Or like you never saw it. But that couldn’t be. Making fun of films they haven’t seen is something pathetic whacked-out bloggers like me do. It’s not something a columnist at the Washington Post would do. Right?
A study from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last month, looking at 5,000 years of Atlantic hurricanes, found "large and dramatic fluctuations in hurricane activity, with long stretches of frequent strikes punctuated by lulls that lasted many centuries" -- with the stormier periods occurring during cooler ocean temperatures. But talking about Earth's constant, and still inexplicable, climate changes and cycles is not useful if you're trying to shock.
Actually, whether you’re trying to shock, or whether you’re trying to spur people into life-saving action, talking about climate cycles is apparently quite useful to Al Gore:
“Here's what I think we here understand about Hurricane Katrina and global warming. Yes, it is true that no single hurricane can be blamed on global warming. Hurricanes have come for a long time, and will continue to come in the future. Yes, it is true that the science does not definitively tell us that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes - because yes, it is true there is a multi-decadal cycle, twenty to forty years that profoundly affects the number of hurricanes that come in any single hurricane season. But it is also true that the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm - thus magnifying its destructive power - makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.”
In his new book, "The Assault on Reason," Gore denounces what he sees as today's politics of fear. Yet his own campaign of mass persuasion -- any such campaign -- is not amenable to contradiction and uncertainty. It's about fright and absolutes. But just because something can be plotted on an X and Y axis does not make it the whole truth.
Miss Yoffe, before you go, I’d like to excerpt just one more thing from Al Gore’s speech that I quoted from above:
“A hundred years ago, Upton Sinclair wrote, ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding.’”
What he said.
Yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin got snippy when speaking to an invited audience about whether his country should apologize for atrosities committed under the reign of Soviet Dictator Stalin.
Kennedy assassination
Exxon Valdez oil spill
Rape of
Explosion of Space Shuttle Challenger
The Crimean War
Death of Apollo Creed
Russian dressing
Boris & Natasha’s persecution of moosk and squirrel
peach, cherry, and apple vodka
red dye #2
Che Guevara t-shirts
continuity errors in From Russia With Love
red tide (the phenomenon, not the film)
Red Tide (the film)
Sean Connery’s accent in Red Tide (the film)
Fur vests
the borscht belt
Yakov Smirnoff signature catch phrase “What a country!”
Oksana Baiul DUI
Billy Joel cover of Back in the USSR
frostbite
insipid 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics mascot
Brian De Palma’s “homage” to the Odessa Steps sequence of Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin in The Untouchables
mispronunciation of “Stolichnaya”
1960s Dr. Zhivago-inspired white lipstick craze
Wolverines!
calling nosy people “buttinskis”
Zeppo Marx
Dear Vikkitikkitavi,
Karl Rove understands that elections can't be won in 2007, but they can be lost.
In fact, Karl Rove & Co. is already out training a new crop of Republican lemmings to run for office, teaching pages out of their GOP playbook on how to lie, cheat, steal and plot a Republican takeover. There is nothing Republicans want more than to avenge last November's loss. In just 7 days, we have a chance to stop them before they even pull out their next dirty trick.
June 30th marks the critical FEC fundraising deadline where Republicans will use our fundraising numbers to gauge our strength. Together we can send a message that if you're a Republican in the House still playing "follow the leader" to President Bush, we're coming after you. If you're a long-in-the-tooth Republican incumbent, we're going to introduce you to the joys of retirement. If we can't convince Republicans not to run, we can sure as hell make sure they run scared...
...You and I don't have to wait until next November to make big trouble for Republicans who have tolerated all the Bush Administration corruption, overlooked all the Bush lies and incompetence, and let President Bush bring us to the brink of disaster time and time again...
Dear James,
I read that letter you signed asking the judge in the Scooter Libby trial to be merciful, because Scooter was nice to your kids.
Don't email me anymore.
Vikkitikkitavi
From today’s War Room:
Dred Scott decision
1906
Disappearance of the Mayan civilization
Curse of the Billy Goat
Apartheid (mostly)
Kirsten Dunst’s teeth
Toyota Scion xB
Dane Cook
Pirates of the
fluorescent lighting
Crocs
Uggs
The Yankees
New Coke
Freaks and Geeks cancellation
Hoobastank
Great
airplane food
death of Bill Hicks (as far as we know)
manpris
cankles
Michelob Ultra
Larry the Cable Guy (although they sure didn’t help)
airplane crash and subsequent cannibalization of Bolivian Soccer team in the
Circus Peanuts
Hospitaliano
Her new research, not yet published, expands on an analysis she did of roll-call votes during the 105th Congress in 1997-98 when she examined family composition and compared the data with voting records compiled by other groups. She used rankings by the National Organization for Women, based on votes on 20 women's issues such as equal rights, women's safety, economic security, education, health and reproductive rights. She also reviewed voting data from the National Right to Life Committee.
And here’s the conclusion that genius blogger Debbie "all the meanness of Coulter - but without the Adam's apple" Schlussel comes to:
The conclusion they want you to get from this is that pro-life Congressmen are insensitive to women and don't have contact with any.
But I'd draw a different conclusion: Congressmen who are liberal are more likely to have slutty daughters. And therefore, they are more likely to support abortion for selfish, personal reasons.
Oh, Debbie. Debbie, Debbie, Debbie.
Yow. I haven’t seen a picture this misleading since the CIA stuck Oswald’s head on that standard issue “assassin with a gun” photo. I mean, lord knows I would never deny a girl the right to a little airbrushing, but holy moley! It’s like they molded her out of leftover pieces they’ve carved off Joan Rivers over the years.
Migrant farm worker
Dishwasher
Freeway ramp orange/flower vendor
Busboy
Gardener
Maid
California GOP Deputy Political Director
California GOP Chief Operations Officer
In Rome, on June 9, a reporter asked Bush about setting a deadline for Kosovo independence. "What? Say that again?"
"Deadline for the Kosovo independence?"
"A decline?"
"Deadline, deadline."
"Deadline. Beg your pardon. My English isn't very good."
Bush then declared, "In terms of the deadline, there needs to be one. This needs to come -- this needs to happen." The next day, asked when he would set a deadline, he replied, "I don't think I called for a deadline." Reminded of his previous statement, Bush said: "I did? What exactly did I say? I said, 'Deadline'? OK, yes, then I meant what I said."
For those of you who have wisely blocked the 2000 election from your memory, let me remind you of its most heinous feature.
And no, I’m not talking about the illegal suppression of Democratic votes, the subversion of the vote-counting process in FL by Republican operatives (led by the now-beloved James Baker of the Iraq Study Group, the commission whose recommendations W ignored and ridiculed. Pssst, how you like him now, Baker?), or that dark, shameful day when the Supreme Court twisted the law to fit their own political desires.
I’m talking about the open hatred of the press for Al Gore.
Yeah, hatred. He was hated during the 2000 election, especially. The press hated Mr.-Know-It-All so much, they booed him in the press room during one of the primary debates.
The press booed Al Gore.
And then they went on to write completely unbiased and fair news stories about him! Really. Come on, they’re members of the press! How dare you suggest that they let their personal hatred of the candidate color their coverage of him!
Sure, their stories had Gore saying things he didn’t really say, and ascribed motives to him that no reasonable person would really believe he possessed, but you know, they have a sacred duty to report on each and every fax they receive from the Republican National Committee, and they took that duty VERY SERIOUSLY.
No one more seriously than the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, who, in spite of an near-crippling dislike for the former vice president, forced himself, for the sake of objective journalism, to attend a lecture Gore was giving to promote his new book:
A capacity crowd of 1,500 people jammed into Lisner Auditorium at
He reminded his listeners of this repeatedly last night.
You know, Dana, I never thought of it that way. Back when I was in college, and I would hear authors, or professors, or other scholars speak on a topic, I thought that they were doing it because, well, they knew something about it that they thought I might want to hear. I had no idea that they were just calling me stupid the whole time. Boy, am I steamed! I am going to go back to Penn State, and find that smart-ass Eastern European Literature Smartypants Lady, and tell her that just because she can speak for 50 minutes on the class structure of pre-revolution Russia, and its effects upon the character dynamics of the plays of Chekhov, does not mean that she is better than me!
"Were it possible to summarize this book in only 15 minutes, it wouldn't be the book it is, but I'll do my best," he announced en route to a 34-minute talk.
There you go again, Al Gore the Liar! Saying you’ll talk for 15 minutes, and then you talk for 34! Dana, honestly, I do not know how you can bear to be in the presence of such dissembling. You must be some kind of saint.
He waxed esoteric about the ancients: "Both the Agora and the Forum were foremost in the minds of our Founders. . . . Not a few of them read both Latin and Greek, as you know."
He waxed erudite about the Enlightenment: "Gibbon's 'The Decline and Fall of the
And he waxed informed about the Information Age: "One of the challenges in discussing the premise of this book is to establish as a concrete reality the importance of this virtual space, forgive the phrase, within which the conversation of democracy takes place."
Gore practically oozes gray matter…
That Gore! How fucking dare he! Know things! What a fucking tool!
Imagine the Iowa hog farmer cracking open "Assault on Reason," and meeting Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Lippmann, Johannes Gutenberg, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson and Marshall McLuhan -- all before finishing the introduction.
Ho ho ho! A hog farmer? Dana, you are too funny! Everyone knows that hog farmers can’t read!
"The new technology called 'Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging,' or FMRI, has revolutionized the ability of neuroscientists to look inside the operations of a living human brain and observe which regions of the brain are being used at which times and in response to which stimuli," Gore writes.
Still with him?
Um, well, yeah, I am. I didn’t have any trouble following that at all, in fact.
There goes my political career!
Try this: "The architectural breakthrough associated with massive parallelism was to break up the power of the CPU and distribute it throughout the memory field to lots of smaller separate 'microprocessors' -- each one co-located with the portion of the memory field it was responsible for processing.
Not that you'd doubt Gore on these points, but, just in case, there are 273 endnotes.
Man, I am doomed. Not only did I completely understand Gore talking about what my company’s IT guy might refer to as, oh, “Computers 101,” but I thought it was a good thing to document your sources! Just goes to show you that I will never have a career in journalism, either.
Gore's main points are powerful, if not obvious: The Bush administration has manipulated the facts on the
He makes his points with facts. “Obvious” facts. I’m not sure what the “trouble” is with that, but hey, Dana, you’re a journalist, and if you say that facts cause him trouble, then who am I to say that that statement is completely unsupported?
Of course, the passionate Gore fans who flocked to last night's speech wouldn't have been annoyed if he had opted to read from an organic chemistry textbook. The 1,500 tickets, at $16 a pop, were sold out days ago, and Politics and Prose sold books by the case…
People who like Gore really like him, I guess, is Milbank’s point. They must be some kind of crazy masochists, not to mind being called stupid for 34 minutes.
…Professor Gore used a roving microphone and paced back and forth, pausing thoughtfully and looking upward at times, putting one hand in his coat pocket and gesturing with the other.
Professor Gore. That’s funny. Because he thinks he’s smart, get it? Plus, all that looking and thinking and gesturing he does? So obviously phony and meant to belittle us.
He began by expressing his concern about the American public's knowledge. "How could it be that 70 percent of the American people genuinely believed that the person responsible for attacking on 9/11 was Saddam Hussein?" he asked. As for the Bush administration's false claims about
It’s not shocking to me. But maybe that’s because I am such a big fan of journalists like you, Dana Milbank.
Especially when you say things like this:
Gore is sanctimonious, and that's sort of the worst thing you can be in the eyes of the press. And he has been disliked all along, and it was because he gives a sense that he's better than us--he's better than everybody, for that matter, but the sense that he's better than us as reporters. Whereas President Bush probably is sure that he's better than us--he's probably right, but he does not convey that sense. He does not seem to be dripping with contempt when he looks at us, and I think that has something to do with the coverage.
One involves his effort to persuade a newspaper not to publish information that would have endangered the life of a covert CIA agent working overseas. Late into the evening, long after most others had left the matter to be dealt with the next day, Mr. Libby worked to collect the information that was needed to persuade the editor not to run the story.Wow.
Okay, y’all know that I’m not so big on the memes. Especially memes that every fucking blogger on the face of the earth has done.
Vikki needs to admit that Yahoo email is superior to Google's pretentious little "gmail" nonsense.
Vikki needs to sell her Google stock.
Vikki needs to drop a dime on Google to the SEC.
Vikki needs to kill Google and dump its body where she dumped her ex-husband’s.
What’s new, you ask?
Obama: I don’t think so
Edwards: Probably not
Dodd: No
Biden: Hell no
Gravel: Oh, Christ
Kucinich: Wow, how do you think he snagged the hot wife? Do you think he’s got, um, large hands for a short dude?