Entries from August 2008 ↓

Over here, Marshall Art offers up an article from American Thinker (I do not link to racist, factually-challenged publications, so sorry) and challenges his liberal readers to find fault with it.

It was easy. The author claimed that Sadaam kicked UN weapons inspectors out in 1998, when in fact it was the US did so, ahead of a short but intense bombing campaign given the very-poorly named Operation Desert Fox. They refused to return not because Sadaam was mean to them, but because the United States was attempting to use them as intelligence sources. I linked to the Wikipedia article on Operation Desert Fox, and included a quote from Richard Butler in which he specifically sites US pressure as the reason UN inspectors left ahead of the bombs falling and missiles flying. Marshall’s response was, in essence, “So what?”

He asked for evidence there was something wrong with the facts in the article in question, I showed him one instance, indeed one of the first ones used by the author over at AT, and he dismisses it.

There’s no pleasing some people.

In order for fairness to reign, I am offering this post by Glenn Greenwald for Marshall to read (yeah, his posts are long, but I figure I read something at American Thinker and that felt long). My challenge to him (and to anyone on the right) is to find a glaring factual error - even a niggling one! - with a link to the source which, in turn, must be fact-based. In other words, I don’t want a link to National Review On-Line and an opinion piece by Jonah Goldberg that says “Glenn Greenwald is a silly liberal”. The source can be conservative, but the question is not ideological bias, but factual erroneousness.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

In my childhood and youth, a politician could lie with impunity, because the reaction time was so slow. It might be a day or two before a letter to the editor, or an op-ed, or the occasional “fact check” kind of thing appeared on a news broadcast to point out that Mr. or Ms. Politician was a wee bit stretching in this comment or that statement. Mark Green, one-time McGovern operative, Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City in 2001, and old-style liberal, published a book in 1984 called Ronald Reagan’s Reign of Error, a compilation of all sorts of erroneous statements Teh Gipper made during his long and illustrious political career. Sadly, the book was a paperback, and the binding glue failed years ago, but it was a fun little read, reminding me of the kind of person Ronald Reagan was. He enjoyed a good anecdote, a good story that sounded real. As atrios is want to say, facts are stupid things; they get in the way of a good punchline.

Today, it is much more difficult for a politician to lie. Not that they don’t. With Google and other search engines, with literally millions of bloggers of any and all political stripe out there waiting to pounce, every tiny detail is given the closest scrutiny to ensure there aren’t any statements at variance with the facts. Before sitting down with a reporter for an interview, or putting the earpiece in and getting pancaked before a camera, or sitting with a sycophant like Mike Wallace, it might be important to make sure the facts one has in one’s mind are just that and not a steaming pile of poo.

It is for this reason that I am just astounded by John McCain’s various performances during this past spring and summer. A day has not passed in which something he has said somewhere has not turned out to be flatly, irrevocably, unmistakably wrong. One would think that, being praised by the press as the best in the business, his Republican handlers would have noted this a while back and cautioned their candidate against making any statement that could be fact-checked. Maybe they would insist on it.

I think that is why I find this kind of thing so astounding. He just sits there and lies. He makes up excuses for not doing something he claims to support. He even manages to dismiss a point of fact as irrelevant.

Does he not realize how bad this makes him look? Does he not care?

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

Internet feuds are fun. Since I don’t take it seriously anymore (unlike a year or so ago when I lost my cool) I consider it all good fun to get in to various disputes with people. Whether it’s trying to connect, in some factual manner, with Marshall Art, or teasing Jason Bowden for not even being original in his political commentary - what of it? My blog exists for me to let off steam, and if part of that process involves some light teasing, well, so what? We’re all human beings, with all the good and bad, stupid and wise, beautiful and ugly, that goes with it. I start with the premise that regardless of an individual’s political philosophy, religious beliefs, or taste in music, we’re all that wonderful mixture of goodness and badness that is humanity.

There are, sadly, those who don’t understand that. For whatever reasons, there are those who insist on getting their feelings hurt. They take it all personally. They act as if disagreement was a personal affront, an assault on their integrity. Such is the case with Mark. Apparently, I ticked him off so much, he dedicated an entire post to refuting what he seems to think is my inherent pose of intellectual superiority and unknowing hypocrisy. He did so without even the common courtesy of a link!

That hurts my feelings.

Now, for those who only lightly peruse this blog, and do not follow various links and discussions I have elsewhere, I have been having various discussions and arguments with Mark for a while now. Sometime in the past twelve months, in a context I do not recall immediately, Mark got very defensive concerning something I had written, especially concerning my own education versus his. To say that I couldn’t care less is about as clear as I can make it, since the issue has never been “What degree do yo have?” or “What books have you read?”, but rather, “Do you access to and use the facts?” and “Are you able to reason capably?”

Recently I lightly chided Mark - in all seriousness it was meant as a light poke in good fun - for his self-professed lack of some degree or other, and he came back with the retort that he has “a genius IQ”. Now, again, I couldn’t care less, because IQ is a meaningless measure of anything other than an ability to score well on a standardized test. Even if IQ had some inherent meaning, I wouldn’t care. To be perfectly frank, I can’t for the life of me understand what prompted such a silly riposte.

Well, he’s at it again.

Why do you kick against the pricks, Art? the Libs you graciously allow to post comments here will always refuse to believe facts, even those well documented, in favor of believing the pablum spoon fed to them by the Leftist, Communist, Marxist, treasonous, Liberal Bush haters in this country.

I have stopped responding to them myself, because it is an exercise in futility. How does one talk sense to the senseless? You cannot reason with fools.

I know Dan and Geoff et al, will bluster on about how hateful I am but I say, “Who cares?” I don’t give a tinkers damn about what traitors think about me.

And . . .

Sorry, Art. I was talking to you. I am no longer responding to Liberals who refuse to admit they are wrong. ABOUT ANYTHING. I’m just saying you are beating a dead horse. They will never see things from your perspective.

If you want to continue to argue with people who will never accept it when they are bested, argue on, brother.

I won’t waste my time. I personally don’t have enough time to blog as it is.

I was once called “the rudest person on the internet”. I still find that funny, all things considered. I mean, I may be rude, and sometimes tasteless, and juvenile. I would compare this particular piece of writing from Mark to my response to Mark in the same comment thread.

First, while I know Mark claims to be smart, and I believe him, this is among the stupidest things I have ever read.

I mean, seriously. I honestly don’t believe Mark thinks this about us. How can he? I don’t believe he’s a fascist, racist, gay-killing thug willing to torture Muslim children in front of their parents (that’s the kind of thing Pres. Bush had the CIA and military do; I’m assuming Mark is not now and was not during the height of the Iraq war in the military although I might be wrong). I don’t believe Mark has a blood lust for those not of the Christian religion. I do not believe Mark wishes our country to be less safe, less prosperous, less sure of itself, and less dedicated to our Constitutional Principles - I don’t believe Mark supports these policies personally, or would advocate them, even though the politicians he supports, and the policies he vocally endorses include these little tidbits.

Are there die-hard Marxists in America anymore? Are there traitors out there? The answers to both questions are a resounding “Yes”. Are either Dan or I representative of such people? Since it’s impossible to prove a negative, all I can say is that I think America is so awesome a place, we don’t deserve a Pres. as bad as Bush has been and as much worse as McCain would be if he were elected.

Oh, and Mark? I know you’ve got your little blogger hands over your little blogger ears (or perhaps eyes?) and are chanting, “La-la-la-la-la-la-I’m not listening to you!”, but I would remind you that, unlike (say) abortion or gay marriage, Jesus actually said something quite harsh about a person calling another person “fool”. It’s in that big black book you’re always quoting, what’s the name of it again?

Help me here, because you have a genius IQ.

Rude? I happen to think it skates up to the edge without passing over in to the abyss. Over-the-top, disrespectful, bordering on delusional? Hardly. Which is how I would characterize his own first comment.

I will leave others to judge on the merits whether Mark is deserving of prayers, derision, scorn, pity, or some other response.

Me, I just want to get a good feud going.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

One last post on the whole Palin pick, then I will move on to other things. I swear.

Many question have been asked about the rationale behind picking a very dark horse choice for the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. Many of the answers to those questions seem to point to a certain desire on the part of Sen. McCain to steal a bit of Barack Obama’s thunder from his speech Thursday night. In that regard - as well as pointing out McCain’s ability to surprise (be all mavericky!) - it seems to have worked. Yet, there are lingering questions, especially as regards an on-going investigation in to Gov. Palin’s firing of the head of the Alaskan State Police over a personal matter (I won’t pretend any expertise on the matter, since I only heard of it yesterday). In this matter, it seems, she is very similar to many Republicans, especially in our Forty-Ninth state. Ian Welsh, in a post at Fire Dog Lake, mentions that the McCain campaign is only now, after the introduction of Gov. Palin as McCain’s running mate, dispatching people to Alaska to get more details on what is being called “TrooperGate” (unlike the alleged problems then-Gov. Clinton had, these appear to be serious and substantial charges). He then asks a question that should make everyone’s eyebrows rise:

[The current inspection of Gov. Palin's bona fides] rather suggests that the campaign didn’t vet her properly. Troopergage has been ongoing for some time, even a cursory Google search would have told them they had a problem.

He then concludes:

So much for either “judgement” or, given McCain’s inability to use the web, his staff choices. Who does he have advising him, and is it they who are incompetent, or did they warn him and he ignored them? Either way it’s not so much Palin whose fitness is in question, it’s the man who made the decision to make her his running mate: John McCain

Maverick! indeed.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

John McCain has hurt the one’s who loved him most. They wanted to believe. They wanted to see him through. They had laughed at his jokes eight years ago. They had pushed the line about him being “different”. After eight years of schmoozing, of almost constant appearances on television, interviews with print journalists, all those good, juicy quotes, though, he had started to change, and those who loved him most didn’t understand.

Once, he called Jerry Falwell an agent of intolerance. Then, he hugged him as he gave a commencement address at Liberty U. Once, he had spoken out against massive tax cuts during “a time of war”; now, he wants to make them permanent. Once, he had wavered on the whole issue of abortion. Now, he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. On issue after issue, he had shed his former persona and revealed himself to be nothing more than just another Republican politician, pandering to the far right to get his party’s nomination for President.

They never gave up hope in the original dream, though. Something, anything to prove the charm that had attracted them in the first place was still there under the layers of pancake that never left because of all the television appearances, under the smell of barbecue from his ranch, there had to be some trace of the wild fighter pilot they knew and loved.

Dan Balz wrote the headline because, like so many, he found what he was looking for:

With Pick, McCain Reclaims His Maverick Image

That’s all it took to reclaim their love. Pick an inexperienced, unknown politician for his running mate. Give away the one possible major rhetorical advantage he had over Obama in a daft move to woo those who needed wooing most - the press.

This move was not aimed at the public. This move was not aimed at the Republican Party. The announcement of Gov. Sarah Palin as John McCain’s VP running mate was designed for one thing, and one thing only - to get the press to stop paying attention to Barack Obama and return to the one they loved first, and far better.

Sad to say, it worked.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

It seems John McCain has chosen his running mate. No relation to any member of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Unfortunately.

Sorry, folks, but this is a head scratcher for me.

UPDATE: I realize this is extremely juvenile. I realize this is in extremely poor taste. I realize this will offend some.

I laughed my ass off, because it’s the kind of thing someone needs to do.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

It seems John McCain has chosen his running mate. No relation to any member of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Unfortunately.

Sorry, folks, but this is a head scratcher for me.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

Others have said it already . . .

That was a helluva speech, wasn’t it? Damn. . . .

–snip–

[H]e’s calling out McCain in plain language not just for running a nasty, Rovian campaign, but for running a fundamentally unserious campaign. By tackling this head on, Obama has put a serious dent in McCain’s ability to continue campaigning with dumb soundbites and too-cute-by-half innuendo. This isn’t a teenager’s campaign for junior high school student council, he was saying, it’s a campaign for president of the United States and you’re old enough to know that you should damn well treat it that way.

Still others have said it better. . .

The McCain campaign set Obama up as a celebrity airhead, a Paris Hilton of wealth and elitism. And he let them portray him that way, and let them over-reach, and let them punch him again and again … and then he turned around and destroyed them. If the Rove Republicans thought they were playing with a patsy, they just got a reality check.

He took every assault on him and turned them around. He showed not just that he understood the experience of many middle class Americans, but that he understood how the Republicans have succeeded in smearing him. And he didn’t shrink from the personal charges; he rebutted them.

–snip–

This is a remarkable man at a vital moment. America would be crazy to throw this opportunity away. America must not throw this opportunity away.

I’ve said it before, I’m quite sure I’ll say it again before the election, but let me say it right now. After last night, it is quite clear to me that . . .

McCain. Is. Toast.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

It deserves its own place.

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)

Obama comes on at 9:15 local time, so I will miss his speech.

Damn it.

I just watched Gov. Bill Richardson give a good speech that probably caused Michelle Malkin’s head to explode. He spoke in Spanish, and the Democratic delegates gathered at Invesco Field cheered. Of course, if you have been traveling the internet long enough, you have seen Michelle Malkin cheer, and I can only say that the group in Denver did a far better job.

Actually, just mentioning Michelle Malkin in her cheerleading outfit and jumping around makes me want to pop my eyeballs out of my head.

UPDATE: Stevie Wonder! Stevie Wonder! Stevie Wonder! Even if the Republicans get Ted Nugent to perform, it will not be as great as this.

Stevie!

Ok, they just used “Let the Sunshine In” as Al Gore walked in. Is it me or is there something counterintuitive about that?

Original post by progxian@northboone.com (Geoffrey Kruse-Safford)