The Distant Ocean

FAIR on McClellan and the media

Here.  This in particular was a good catch:

But many journalists seemed to express bewilderment, if not contempt, at McClellan's switch from water-carrier to whistleblower. Current CNN reporter Ed Henry (5/28/08) asked:

So, you do have to wonder...just who is the real Scott McClellan, the one who was constantly pushing back on the media back then, and doing a lot of the White House talking points, or the one who now thinks that those talking points were not true?

Boy, that's a puzzler: Was McClellan expressing his real views when he was paid to represent the Bush administration, or when he wrote a book under his own name? Posing the question at all seems to suggest an unfamiliarity with what press secretaries do, which is repeat their bosses' talking points, true or not. Reporters are supposed to treat such talking points with skepticism, as one would any official government source. The fact that some reporters seem confused by this is a significant concern--evidence that this White House, or any other, will have little trouble misleading the corporate press.

You've got to love that last sentence.  One of my favorite things about FAIR is reading the careful, measured formulations they have to use in order to maintain an air of unbiased professional detachment, because you can practically feel the author doing everything in their power to restrain themselves from writing something like, "HOLY FUCKING JEHOVAH! HAVE THESE TOE-SNIFFING TURDS EVER EVEN CONSIDERED DOING JOURNALISM FOR ONCE IN THEIR LIVES INSTEAD OF KISSING GOVERNMENT ASS 24 HOURS A DAY? GYYYAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!"  And that's why you should give lots of money to FAIR: so they can pay for the megadoses of Valium it takes to keep from going insane as they immerse themselves in this dreck day after day.

US/Israeli efforts to shred little children hit stumbling block

The law of unintended consequences strikes again:

Momentum for a comprehensive ban similar to that adopted for land mines in 1997 grew after the 2006 war in Lebanon, when Israel deployed large quantities of cluster munitions, which release a spray of more than 200 small, harmless-looking bomblets that often don't explode until long after a conflict is over.

International investigators said that at least 200 civilians were killed or injured in Lebanon as a result of cluster bombs after the war.

I'm sure the last thing the United States was thinking in 2006 as it expedited weapon deliveries and worked tirelessly to block a ceasefire in order to give Israel time to seed southern Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of cluster bombs was, hey, maybe this will lead directly to an overwhelmingly-supported international ban on cluster munitions!  Yet here we are, and it's hard to imagine a darker cloud with a brighter lining.  The US and Israel are of course rabidly opposed, but as Marc Garlasco of Human Rights watch points out, the very fact of the ban's existence "is really going to stigmatize the weapon and its use in the future"—even for the barbarian nations that refuse to accept it.

And I never expected I'd find myself having to admire Gordon Brown, but he deserves enormous credit for this:

Though the Bush administration has lobbied hard against the treaty and many U.S. and British officials consider cluster bombs valuable weapons, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown overruled elements of his own military and threw his support behind the prohibition. Brown's decision cleared the way for an agreement that supporters said would lead to the removal of cluster munitions from arsenals around the world.

There'll be bitter tears in the Bush and Clinton households (among others), no doubt, but for the rest of the world this is a great day.

Three-headed supermonster not actually defeated in Nepal

I was momentarily filled with awe to read that the Nepalese have finally rid themselves of King Ghidorah, surely one Godzilla's most formidable opponents:

Then I realized it was actually King Gyanendra.  Boy, was my face red.  But while it may not be quite as astounding an achievement, congratulations are still in order; it's always a great day when a group of human beings throws off the yoke of monarchist tyranny and moves closer to democratic self-governance.

Nonetheless, this does still leave the problem of King Ghidorah wide open.

Poetry corner: Alexander "punish the" Pope edition

Speaking of Scott McClellan, here's one of my favorite couplets, by Alexander Pope (titled "Epigram engraved on the Collar of a Dog which I gave to his Royal Highness"):

I am His Highness' dog at Kew;
Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?

Nader homicide watch, HRC edition

I knew that Harry Evans had said "I want to kill Nader" in 2000 at a party to celebrate the beginning of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign (it's the first thing you'll find if you go spelunking for Nader homicide quotes). But I hadn't seen HRC's reply:

Hillary, affirming her support for capital punishment, reportedly responded, "That's not a bad idea!" Nader said Evans had apologized to him but Clinton hadn't returned his call.

And of course now everyone knows about Hillary's fondness for assassination as a career booster*.  One has to wonder: if this is what she feels comfortable saying out loud, what dark, twisted imaginings is she keeping to herself?

* (Though I should really watch what I say, watch what I do, since even suggesting that that's what HRC meant is "borderline misogyny"—and if you read that article you'll learn that not only is it "demonization" to call her on this, but that the sole certified non-misogynistic topics of criticism are "her indefensible vote on Iraq and her weird statement about being under fire in Bosnia."  I only wish I were making this up.)

Scott McClellan's Osama love connection--revealed!

Did you know that Scott McClellan is trying to curry favor with the Democratic Party, is secretly a muslim, hates America, and actually considered traveling to Afghanistan to live closer to his spiritual mentor and unrequited love interest, Osama bin Laden?  If you didn't, you'll surely hear plenty about it after this hits the fan:

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war." ...

"Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

I'm glad to see this coming out, and from the horse's ass's mouth no less.  But as with Al Gore, I wonder why he couldn't have had this little bout of integrity while he was STANDING UP IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AND COULD HAVE DONE SOME GOOD WITH IT, instead of saving it for five years later, after he'd personally helped to facilitate the killing of hundreds of thousands of human beings.  But I suppose that wouldn't have been professional.

It really makes you appreciate the countless unheralded acts of cowardice that are required to make crimes like this possible.

Democratic peevishness turns homicidal

In 2004 Ralph Nader's death was a punch line for democracy-hating Democrats, but in 2008 they're not messing around anymore—they've graduated to actual death threats, as you can see in this thread:

by HowInsaneIsJohnMcCain at 04:17 PM on 04/15/08

If Ralph Nader somehow manages to get George Bush elected again I seriously will kill him this time.

Of course it'd be quite a feat for Nader to somehow manage to get George Bush elected again what with that whole 22nd Amendment thing, not to mention the fact that Bush isn't actually, you know, running for president, but HIIJMcC is just so so MAD! he can barely think straight.  His homicidal fist-pounding is at least conditional, though; his compatriot RebelliousRhino goes one better and actually offers a cash payment to anyone who'll murder Nader:

by RebelliousRhino at 04:40 PM on 04/15/08

$100 to the person who gets Ralph Nader to go away forever. I don't care how you do it, shoot him, launch him into space, bury him under the ocean,whatever it takes, just make him leave!

Again, a visceral hatred of democracy appears to cloud the brain, since "bury[ing] him under the ocean" would require an inordinately long shovel—but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he really just wants Nader drowned, and isn't so particular about the burial aspect of it.  Hey, RR, here's a rebellious idea for you: go to tips.fbi.gov and type your contact information and Nader-shooting solicitation into the web form there.  You're sure to get a dramatic response!

Days of broken glass

Ran HaCohen has a new article that's well worth reading (as always):

In the weeks following Pesach the country indulges in a nationalistic orgy, hardly imaginable in any other modern state, reminiscent of a primitive tribe. ...

The ideological messages are built in: the alternative to Auschwitz is to live and die (and kill) for Israel. "They" wanted to kill us in Auschwitz just as "they" want to kill us in Israel; "they," the goyim (gentiles), hate us everywhere, and we are always innocent victims. Arabs and Nazis are all the same. It's not the occupation, not Israel's refusal to make peace, not even a particular political setting that can be rationally analyzed: it's eternal, unchanging anti-Semitism. It's live or let live. Doubting Israel's righteousness is like doubting the Holocaust. Criticizing Israel is supporting the Nazis.

Read the rest here.

My own experience of the "nationalistic orgy": when I was in the West Bank during Israel's 2002 invasion, the taxi driver had to take the highway through Israel to get from Jerusalem to Jenin, since it would have taken hours if we'd tried to go directly.  As we left Jerusalem and drove down the highway, the thing that  made an indelible impression—especially given the context of just having passed the site of the Deir Yassin massacre—was the procession of Israeli flags posted from utility poles on either side of the road, every few dozen yards, for several miles.  When we finally managed to drive and hike our way into the Jenin refugee camp, we saw Stars of David that the Israeli soldiers had spray-painted on doors throughout the camp.  As I walked through the rubble-strewn streets, feeling the smashed glass crunching beneath my boots and trying to absorb what I'd seen and was seeing, it was impossible not to think of the Night of Broken Glass—with all that implies.  The irony couldn't have been more extreme.

In case you're wondering, this excerpt from the article above explains why I wrote "the site of the Deir Yassin massacre" rather than just "Deir Yassin":

Today, in the most tasteless, despicable irony, the Israeli museum commemorating the European Jewish Holocaust, Yad Vashem, sits on top of a hill overlooking the graveyard of Deir Yassin, while the limestone buildings of the former Palestinian village are used for an Israeli mental institution.

I can't imagine a clearer illustration that in Israel "we will never forget" applies only to us, and not to the people whose lives we're destroying every day.

The wonders of The Google

So I was scanning the headlines today and I came across an article titled "Married by God or Government?" on news.google.com, sourced to "On Faith".  I clicked through, thinking it was some faith-centered news source and curious to see what their take would be (reasoned support? ravings of fire and brimstone? something in between?).  I was happy to discover that the author was eminently reasonable in her views, but also not surprised, since I found that "On Faith" is really just a blog published by the Washington Post and/or Newsweek—and what else would you expect from the liberal media?

But more importantly, I discovered this: in addition to being an articulate writer, the blog's author, Claire Hoffman, is absolutely red scorching hot.  Filled with intellectual curiosity, I set out to learn more about her, and ended up at clairehoffman.com.  And from the biography there I learned not only that she has a master's degree in religious studies, but the factoid that led me to write this posting:

Before her latest gig, Claire spent two years covering Hollywood and the adult entertainment industry for the Los Angeles Times.

You mean the LA Times has a porn beat? See, I Did Not Know This, and I find it pretty darn amusing; rarely has it been more truthfully said that the jokes write themselves.  Thanks, The Google!

Don't just sit there--do something!

The Center for Constitutional Rights just sent out this alert:

At the end of 2005, a little-noticed provision was slipped into the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization bill that provided the federal government with the power to collect and permanently keep DNA samples from anyone arrested for any crime whether or not they are convicted, any non-U.S. citizen merely detained by federal authorities for any reason, and everyone in federal prison. Now the government is trying to put the DNA Fingerprint Act into practice.

Federal agencies would be required to take DNA samples from:

• Individuals arrested for the most minor of crimes, such as peaceful protestors who are demonstrating on federal property.
• Countless numbers of visitors from other countries who are pulled aside in airports by the Transportation Security Administration.
• Lawful immigrants seeking admission to this country, whether at the land border or in passport control at the airport.

Go here for more of the horror story.  According to CCR, the public only has until Monday, May 19th to leave comments opposing this latest attack on our rights.  So before you finish your next breath you should:

1. Go to this web page.
2. Click on the yellow "Add Comments" balloon.
3. Let them know you're MAD AS HELL, and you're NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.

A genuinely brave (ex-)soldier speaks out

If you haven't yet, you should make sure you see, hear, or read  yesterday's edition of Democracy Now!  Here's former military intelligence staffer Adrienne Kinne talking about the targeting of the Palestine Hotel:

ADRIENNE KINNE: ...we were listening to journalists who were staying in the Palestine Hotel. And I remember that, specifically because during the buildup to Shock and Awe, which people in my unit were really disturbingly excited about, we were given a list of potential targets in Baghdad, and the Palestine Hotel was listed as a potential target. And I remember this specifically, because, putting one and one together, that there were journalists staying at the Palestine Hotel and this hotel was listed as a potential target, I went to my officer in charge, and I told him that there are journalists staying at this hotel who think they’re safe, and yet we have this hotel listed as a potential target, and somehow the dots are not being connected here, and shouldn’t we make an effort to make sure that the right people know the situation?

And unfortunately, my officer in charge, similarly to any time I raised concerns about things that we were collecting or intelligence that we were reporting, basically told me that it was not my job to analyze. It was my job to collect and pass on information and that someone somewhere higher up the chain knew what they were doing.

Describing some of the scheming Iraqi superspies she was tasked with listening in on:

ADRIENNE KINNE: And as we began to identify different phone numbers which belong to these humanitarian organizations and journalists, we actually had the capability to block those phone numbers from being intercepted, but due to guidance given to our officer in charge, we did not do that.

AMY GOODMAN: You were listening to NGOs speaking to each other?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: That isn’t legal. You’re not supposed to be eavesdropping on them.

ADRIENNE KINNE: Right.

Explaining why these were (according to her superiors) valid targets for military eavesdropping:

ADRIENNE KINNE: ...we were given a verbal waiver that we could listen to Americans and other ally citizens of allied countries for whatever—from whatever organizations, humanitarian aid organizations, journalists, NGOs, because—and then we were given two reasons that we could listen to Americans and these ally citizens. One was that they were eyes on the ground, and they could stumble upon the location of weapons of mass destruction, and if they should pass the location on over the phone to co-workers or what have you, that we would have to be listening in order to find out where the weapons of mass destruction were located, and we could pass that location on to higher-ups. The other rationale that we were given in order to kind of justify spying on Americans was that the organization or the individual could lose their satellite phone, and a terrorist could pick it up and then start using it.

(I realize these were nothing more than ludicrous rationalizations, but I can't help but get a laugh out of the idea that someone in the military actually thought they were going to catch a reporter calling a cameraman and saying, "Dude, I just totally found all those WMDs Bush has been looking for!  But don't tell anyone!")

And finally, in an inspiring passage that shows why it's important to keep doing what we do even when it doesn't seem to matter, explaining what made her decide to come forward:

ADRIENNE KINNE: It was last year, the summer of last year, I was attending the US Social Forum, and it was just being part of that atmosphere where there are so many organizations and people committed to trying to make a difference and speaking out against torture, speaking out against spying, that I realized that I kind of knew something, and I had experienced something that not everybody else had, and that by sharing my experiences, if I could in any way encourage people that they are doing the right thing in speaking out against what our government is doing today, that I needed to do it.

This is one of the "troops" I'm willing to support: someone who deserves respect for the decisions she's made and the genuine risks she's willing to take—not some yahoo who enlisted so he could take revenge for 9/11 by killing some iRACKees.

The rest is well worth your time, and Democracy Now! is well worth the money if you have some to give.

I appreciate it when people say what I say, only better

Marie Cocco does her take on the "Hillary, martyr to misogyny" theme, too predictably to bother excerpting.  Much more worthwhile is RichM's response in comments, which nails the real problem with Hillary and the real problem with these kinds of criticisms (and echoes what I wrote a few days ago, but says it better):

This article is shallow & trivial, taking aim at a much-too-easy target. Sure, it’s bad to hurl sex-based hate at Hillary. But that’s because there are so many more insightful & accurate ways to despise this loathesome creature. Her gender has nothing to do with it. It’s her Bush-like sense of entitlement, her sociopathic narcissism, her utter lack of principles, & her grasping ruthlessness — all characteristics she shares with her sleazebag husband.

That's dead on.  I'll believe that the bulk of Hillary criticisms are motivated mainly by misogyny the day that someone of the temperament and caliber of Michelle Bachelet gets similar treatment in a similar context here (a test we're not likely to see in our lifetimes, of course, but I can dream).

Also in comments, Cocco defender Eric J-D asks this question:

What’s the male equivalent of being a “bitch”...?

Asks it rhetorically, that is, since the purpose is to make us gape in wonderment as the realization slowly dawns that women are particularly beset with pejorative monikers, the like of which would never be applied to a man.  The problem, though, is that that's a complete crock.  The word you're looking for would be "asshole", Eric—a term that's an exact gender-specific analogue to "bitch", and for which all the criteria except one are essentially identical (granted that it would be less jarring to hear the former applied to a woman than to hear the latter applied to a man, but 19 out of 20 experts consider it a usage error).  And of the two terms, there's no doubt which one has the less pleasant referent.

Eric might also want to take a look at the plethora of male-exclusive alternatives on the "asshole" synonym page, like bastard, cocksucker, dickhead, motherfucker, prick, and SOB.  And various and sundry combinations and derivations not mentioned therein—but you get the idea.  When it comes time for dullards to chastise someone, they've got plenty of gender-specific options, no matter whether or not the target has a Y chromosome.

ALSO: People concerned about the effect of all this harsh invective on the delicate constitution of HRC might want to read this.

Blog sabbatical

I'm sure you've noticed that I've been taking a blog sabbatical for the last week or so.  Part of this is that I haven't been feeling the motivation to whip myself to spend the hours it often takes to craft a post, and that's exacerbated by the fact that I finally succumbed last night to a dastardly virus that's been dogging me for weeks.  So posting may continue to be light to nonexistent for a while.

To Hillary Clinton, from your secret admirer

You've probably noticed that I've had some hard words for Barack Obama, but I'm curiously quiet about Hillary Clinton.  Maybe it's even made you a tad suspicious.  Am I, you wonder, surreptitiously wielding the mighty influence of my corner of the web to sway primary voters and wayward superdelegates away from Obama, knowing they'll thence accrue to the secret object of my allegiance?  Or is it even more personal than that?  Do I sit and gaze out the window during the day, indulging forbidden fantasies of jowly smoochfests?  When I hear "Rodham", do I think of the salacious possibilities its separate syllables seem to promise?  To put it bluntly: am I subscribing to her newsletter?

Well, no.  There are a few reasons why I don't talk about Hillary Clinton.  One is that I think she's one of the most vile human beings in mainstream politics today; she practically oozes ruthless ambition and blood lust.  I can take maybe 15 seconds of Hillary talking before I feel the gorge starting to rise (which puts her second only to George Bush).  And writing about her isn't much better.

But the bigger reason I don't have much to say about her is that she's a Republican in all but name, and I find it difficult to understand how anyone who pays attention could think otherwise or consciously choose to support her.  Every time I see or hear a Hillary fan expressing genuine enthusiasm for her, my brain goes blank, refusing to accept the reality of it, like I've just seen an alligator fly a mechanical doughnut out of a dog's anus.

For the true believers out there, though, there've been a few unmistakable signs of her true nature in the past few days.  Like this:

Unlikely Allies Campaign for a Gas Tax Holiday

Senators John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton found themselves taking a lonely stand on the campaign trail Thursday, defending the proposed gasoline-tax holiday while critics from both parties lined up against it.

(Which is fine except for the "Unlikely".)  And this:

"You're a polarizing personality," O'Reilly said [to Clinton]. "You're like I am and I hate to say that."

It pains me to agree with Bill O'Reilly (a solid contender for third on the aforementioned list), but he hit the nail on the head here: she is indeed like him, in the worst ways.

Should Hillary somehow manage to claw her way into the final round of her quest for the power of total obliteration, I'm sure I'll have more to say about her.  But for now I'm just hoping she'll accidentally get caught out in the rain at a campaign stop, melting, melting, and finally ending up as a greasy puddle, thus saving me (and all of us) the unpleasant task of thinking about her anymore.