Whiskey Fire

Pressed, Printed, Stomped, Tripped

During the Bush years I often wondered what it exactly it would take for an insider, plugged in journalist to break the Code of Confidentiality, where you protected your source at all costs, even if you had to face jail time, and even if you knew perfectly well you were laundering lies.

Well, now we know what would make an insider journalist go off the record on a matter of Conscience and National Import.

During a CNBC interview on Monday, President Obama called Kanye West a "jackass" regarding his behavior at the MTV Video Music Awards....

Obama's colorful remark was actually made in an off-the-record portion of the interview that was tweeted -- and then deleted -- by ABC News reporter Terry Moran.

"Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a 'jackass' for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT'S presidential," Moran wrote.

I'm almost nostalgic for the heyday of Judith Fucking Miller...

Add up the Numbers

Rasmussen produces another poll on GOP talking points, and, surprisingly, finds them remarkably effective. It's amazing how this always happens with Rasmussen issues polling, which consistently reveals that an overwhelming majority of the nation usually agrees with the Republican party. This must be because the GOP is so darn popular lately.

Anyway, there is great joy in Wingnuttia, because, apparently:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) believe the Obama administration’s recent release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects endangers the national security of the United States.

But of course the memos are bad for American national security -- after all, they prove America used torture, and it is bad for America that the whole world knows America used torture. That's not even arguable. Hence the 58%.

But that hardly means the memos should not have been released. What that means is America should not have used torture. Using torture harms American national security. That's not part of Rasmussen's question, though. 

Also of interest is this Rasmussen finding:

Only 28% of U.S. voters think the Obama administration should do any further investigating of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) are opposed. Democrats are evenly divided over whether further investigation is necessary. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party are against more investigating.

Here it's worth looking at the question pretty carefully:

Should the Obama administration do more investigating to find out how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects?

Observe that this does not ask if the Bush torture regime should be investigated: it asks if the Obama administration should do the investigating. Which of course they shouldn't! The Justice Department should do that as independently of the Obama administration as possible. Or there should be an independent prosecutor or at least a 9/11 Commission style-body at least charged with producing a report (at the bare minimum). But Rasmussen doesn't allow for a "they should be investigated independently" option.

Note that if they did, they might have gotten something like this, from Gallup:

It's been said before, but never with the word "shit" included: Rasmussen is good with election polling, but their issue polling is disingenuous shit designed to support GOP talking points.

Jihad! Jihad upon Tom Hilton! Also, the Rise of PISSY

Over at No More Mr. Nice Blog, Tom writes:

Patience and Humility are not qualities highly prized in the blogosphere; nor are they in great abundance there. Nevertheless, they are occasionally useful.

Some progressives are preparing to pass judgment on the Obama Administration before it ever takes office, based on the appointments he makes in the interim. Disappointment is the natural state of progressives; happily, they habitually set their standards high enough to ensure they will always reside in their comfort zone. It is our habit as bloggers to respond to things as they happen, which means we overstate the importance of trivial events. Progressive bloggers, then...well, Obama will be lucky to hold onto more than a handful of us past the end of November.

Still, I will counsel patience. This could be a disaster, or a tremendous success, or a disaster for some and a success for others, but we won't know until well into the second year at the earliest. With Bush, it was different: anyone who was paying attention knew exactly what he would do, and how he would do it, and that's what he did. There was no reason to give him any benefit of any doubt. Obama, I think, has earned a fair amount of forbearance--as the first African-American president, as the first victorious Democrat since 1996, as someone who ran a generally honorable and inclusive campaign, as one who ran on an agenda of improving people's lives, as the most skillful politician since Clinton (whom, if things go well, he could well eclipse), as someone in whose success we have a vested interest. In other words, how about we wait and see?

This is of course absurd. How many of the promises Obama made during the campaign about his "transformational presidency" has he as yet actually kept? Honest observers will concede that the answer is none. Sure, there has been a lot of chatter about what he will do about "executive orders" but so far this is all talk.

What Hilton and his ideological fellow Obamandroids forget is 9/11. 9/11 changed everything. Obama won the election about a month ago, and what has he done about 9/11? Not a thing! I just checked, and 9/11 still happened.

I am a Lifelong Democrat, but I cannot abide these betrayals. I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me and is now I think screening its calls.

For these reasons I have started POLITICAL INTEGRATION SURE SEEMS YUCKY, or "PISSY."

Our first order of business is to have Obama impeached and John McCain installed as President. I am not so "certain" this is possible by Thanksgiving, but realistically I think we can get this done by Christmas. And don't tell me otherwise you "Eeeyores" and "Little Roos" and "Piglets"!

UPDATE: I really am becoming more "conservative." P. J. O'Rourke, the funniest guy on the right except for Dennis Miller, makes a great point here:

it should be especially easy to move voters to the right. Sensible adults are conservative in most aspects of their private lives. If this weren't so, imagine driving on I-95: The majority of drivers are drunk, stoned, making out, or watching TV, while the rest are trying to calculate the size of their carbon footprints on the backs of Whole Foods receipts while negotiating lane changes.

It's true! And I bet drivers on I-95 would be even more responsible if we got rid of all those intrusive nanny-state "traffic regulations" that stifle the innovative, individualistic, "real-American" "can-do" spirit of the Open Road.

Every time I wanna get anywhere, I keep having to stop at all these "stop lights" that Hinder My Progress, just because a bunch of big-government beaureaucratic stooges decided up there in their "ivory towers" that "everyone should have a turn"! I don't know what "socialism" is, but that sure sounds like it to me!

MORE. I have also decided to use the Boldface option more often, as well as "quotation marks." And I think until PISSY gets its way, I will post this free Clip-Art DANCING LEPRECHAUN! This is but the first step, I think, in building a More Mature and Responsible Progressive Blogosphere.

We Participate in the Shit

Readers of this blog will be pleased to learn that you have been reading the words of a vicious misogynist and a pro-lynching racist.

In the interests of full disclosure, I also am against adorable puppies and delicious ice cream.

(For the record, I'm more delighting in the blog-standard absurdity -- sort of like how Elizabeth Bennet reacts to Darcy's rudeness at the assembly early in the novel, though I doubt this will all end up as satisfactorily.)

UPDATE: In the above allusion, I'm comparing myself to "a girl." Some people, sadly, don't know how to read.

UPDATE: OK, pax. This primary season has made me grouchy, as it has many another. Sorry if my language, which was meant very widely and was not to do with the current candidates, distracted. My point in that post was to do with how we're compelled structurally to focus on personality and not on issues, and that we need to see this and get past it. That first paragraph wasn't the point.

 

And So What?

Christopher Hitchens has given up smoking.

Now we know that and that he had his testicles shaved! Great. Can we go back to Britney news?

Hitchens is like life: nasty, British, and drunk. Fuck him.

Evils Yet Unknown

It occurs to me that the much-remarked upon desire for "change" on the part of the American People in this election season reflects in no small part a contempt for the media. Nobody likes the media. Even the media hates the media.

So therefore, whichever candidate appears to be the one the media most seems to hate will enjoy... a natural advantage, in this topsy-turvy election year.

That's probably Hillary.

Indeed, I predict that Hillary will achieve the Presidency, and in the course of that victory, some wingnut will cite the fact that the press obviously hates her as rock-throbbing evidence that they wanted her to win all along. Indeed this may have already happened.

(The above seems even dumber than my hypothesis that Obama will win because he has the most of "a rock-star thing going on," and thus, it is more likely to be accurate. On this note, while Bean is not wrong to ask "what does the Hillary crying moment say about us," we must also note that asking what this incident says about the media would be a very good idea, as well.)

Anyway, the video below dramatizes the dynamic I have in mind.)