Stupid Headlines

Ticker: 'Law & Order' star bashes NYC, Giuliani

This was the headline on a CNN story link about Fred Thompson commenting on how stupid it was that our friend Rudy was talking up what a great mayor he had been.

Now, I don't know about you but I think that is just stupid. Granted old Fred isn't exactly setting the world on fire as a candidate but don't they think that just maybe they should identify him as "Thompson" or "Fred" or even "other candidates" in the link text? I honest to god thought it was going to be something about Sam Waterston.

To be fair, the actual article had a sensible headline but that isn't what got me to click through now is it?

I am not sure why this pissed me off when I saw it given all the really egregious crap that goes on in the world but it did.

The Party of the Rich

Dems may indeed have made the most marginal of gains among generally wealthier districts, due to Dem successes in the suburbs and other stuff. But so what? They gained just about everywhere else, too -- this just means that wealthier Americans, along with everyone else, have figured out that the GOP made a hash of everything and that the Dems are the better choice. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the small question of, you know, which party's policies best serve the economic interests of the rich. Pathetically weak stuff.

You know that wingnuttery is smelling defeat when they start trying to portray the Democratic party as the "party of the rich". Well, of course unless you look at such rich folks as Warren Buffett, who actually seems to get that the current system is fucked up. But then again, Warren Buffett would make a better Baseball Commissioner than George Bush too.

Greg Sargent does a nice job on this stupidity over at TPM Horse's Mouth

Because the Muppets Rock

Heard the song .. had to post

A Friday Funny

Dedicated to my buddy Tim.

Dexter's Presidential Platform

I've got mine.. now get lost.

Yes... Dexter is a Republican.. I am so ashamed

Did I mention that I am addicted to Scrabulous on Facebook

Anyone that gets the urge .. feel free to play me .. I am not good, not bad .. I just play regular old games for fun and i don't use word builders.

Rolodex

As many as 60 percent of the foreign fighters who entered Iraq in the past year have come from Saudi Arabia and Libya, according to documents discovered in a raid in September near the Syrian border, a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad confirmed to CNN Thursday.

Forget the bullshit about calling it an al Qaeda rolodex. Beyond that, I am waiting to hear when the US will be calling for economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia since obviously that many Saudi nationals couldnt be fighting in Iraq without the tacit approval of the government. And I betcha that one or more might have had training in the Saudi military.

Hmmm .. wouldnt that make Saudi Arabia a sponsor of terrorism.. at least by the grossly weakened version of that term used by the Bush Whitehouse?

Just thinking out loud, dont mind me

'Al Qaeda rolodex' found in Iraq - CNN.com

How to guarantee nobody ever licenses one of your songs again

The band's attorneys tell the Detroit Free Press for Thursday's edition that Activision properly secured permission to use "What I Like About You," allowing it to record a cover version.

But they say by creating an imitation so much like the Romantics' original, the California-based company infringed on the group's rights to its own likeness.

The game is called Guitar Hero. What the fuck did they expect. Of course it was going to be a cover version as close as possible to the original.

This doesn't even pass the laugh test. Stupid stupid stupid.

Play this REALLY LOUD

Lest anyone forget what a talent Freddy Mercury was

Elastica - Connection

Sometimes you just need music

The Candidates on Jailing Rape Victims

CNN has the headline "Candidates slam Saudi rape verdict". The Story then tells about how Biden, Clinton and Edwards have made statements, of the appropriate sort, about this.

By my count there are 17 people running for president under the banner of one of the two major parties. Let's just see as of this publishing what each of them have said about this issue that, let's face it, didn't just happen this afternoon. I went to the web sites of each of the candidates to look for a press release or a blurb or some such and this is what I have found so far. My methodology was simple. I first googled "{candidate's last name} Rape Saudi" and if I got no hits then I looked at their campaign web site. Simple minded I know but then this should be a simple thing for them to have a public opinion on.

I am going to write up something about how I feel about this but the overall results made me too pissed off to write at the moment.

Democratic Party Hopefuls

• Joe Biden

"I'm outraged by the decision of a Saudi Arabian court to punish the victim of a brutal gang-rape," Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee said in a statement.

"I call on King Abdullah to exercise his powers and overturn this sentence if the Saudi courts do not reverse their decision immediately.

"I also would urge him to undertake reforms to prevent similar miscarriages of justice in the future."

• Hillary Clinton

  Calling the decision "an outrage," Sen. Hillary Clinton urged President Bush to protest the decision to the Saudi authorities.
  
  "The Bush administration has refused to condemn the sentence and said it will not protest an internal Saudi decision," the Democrat presidential front-runner said in a statement.

  "I urge President Bush to call on King Abdullah [of Saudi Arabia] to cancel the ruling and drop all charges against this woman."

• Christopher Dodd
• Crickets (Yes, this really pissed me off)
  
• John Edwards
  

“Today’s news that a Saudi Arabian court has chosen to punish the victim of a gang rape is an appalling breach of the most fundamental human rights. I am outraged that President Bush has refused to condemn the sentence. We need a president who will reengage with the world and restore our moral authority - only then will we be able to lead other nations in protecting the basic rights and human dignity of every person on this planet.”

• Mike Gravel
• Crickets
  
• Dennis Kucinich
• Crickets
  
• Barack Obama

  According to news accounts, last week a Saudi court sentenced a 19-year old woman, who was the victim of a gang rape, to six months in jail and to 200 lashes. Reportedly, this is more than a doubling of her initial sentence. The court took this step of doubling the sentence because the defendant’s lawyers raised the case in the press in an effort to call attention to it. That the victim was sentenced at all is unjust, but that the court doubled the sentence because of efforts to call attention to the ruling is beyond unjust.
  
  I strongly urge the Department of State to condemn this ruling. Moreover, since your Department is finalizing this year’s country reports on human rights pursuant to Sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I ask that this unjust case and any efforts to correct this demeaning ruling be given a prominent place in that report.

• Bill Richardson
• Crickets
  

Republican Party Hopefuls

• Rudy Giuliani
• Crickets
  
• Mike Huckabee
• Crickets - although to be fair his web site wouldnt load at all so ......
  
• Duncan Hunter
• Crickets
  
• Alan Keyes
• Crickets
  
• John McCain
• Crickets
  
• Ron Paul
• Crickets
  
• Mitt Romney
• Crickets
  
• Tom Tancredo
• Crickets
  
• Fred Thompson
• Crickets
  

And this is the state department reaction

"This is a part of a judicial procedure overseas in the court of a sovereign country," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack when asked to comment on the case.

"That said, most would find this relatively astonishing that something like this happens," added McCormack.

Support the troops

Just in time for the holidays, there's a special place in Hell just waiting to be filled by some as-yet-unknown Pentagon bureaucrat. Apparently, thousands of wounded soldiers who served in Iraq are being asked to return part of their enlistment bonuses -- because their injuries prevented them from completing their tours.

I am dumbfounded if this is accurate

TPM Muckraker

Why does this sound familiar

Pakistan's newly government-selected Supreme Court judges dismissed all major legal challenges to President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's continued rule Monday.

The judges struck down five challenges to Musharraf's right to have run for re-election while still army chief. A sixth petition will be heard later this week.

Musharraf has vowed to step down as army chief and be sworn in as a civilian president once the court cleared his Oct. 6 re-election.

Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar said three petitions were "withdrawn" because opposition lawyers were not present in court. A request from one of the petitioners to postpone hearings had been turned down.

Recall that many lawyers, especially of the type that would be presenting this kind of case are in jail.

Does anyone actually think this is legitimate? A Supreme Court, largely appointed by allies of (or in this case by) a Presidential candidate, deciding in favour of that candidate .... oh .. never mind.

Heckuva job Pervez, you are learning quickly.

From CBC

Max and Dexter are bonding well

I just wish that it wasn't inside my damned dryer

Why Republicans dont need to plant questions

Reporters covering the event apparently laughed in response to the incessant softballs, but a senior McCain aide swore that "no one from the campaign asked any voter to ask any question or make any statement."

Zuckman seemed skeptical, which is perfectly understandable given the circumstances. But I can't help but wonder: maybe a lot of Republican audiences are just naturally sycophantic?

There really is no mystery here. Republicans seem to be by nature more willing to defer to an authority figure. That also explains Rudy Giuliani as a plausible candidate because if you look at the positions that he has actually taken in his career and the decisions that he has made, as opposed to the bullshit talking points and re-writing of history that is currently extant on his website, they are antithetical to the vast majority of Republican voters. But he is a "tough guy" so it is ok .

I am praying to FSM this infatuation comes to an end before the fall of '08


From TPM

The USA does not torture, right?

The United States does not torture. This has been definitively stated at all levels of government, including by the President of the United States. The United States may perform techniques of enhanced interrogation; it may engage in coercion; it may inflict suffering akin to that experienced at the moment of death; it does not, however, torture. The United States clearly follows the Geneva Conventions in all circumstances in which it has deemed the Geneva Conventions to apply. The United States unambiguously follows its own laws regarding the rights of prisoners in all instances in which the United States has deemed those prisoners to have rights. It does not treat prisoners in a cruel or inhumane fashion. The Vice President of the United States has explicitly endorsed the legality and reasonable nature of this technique.

The United States may have enhanced interrogation techniques, borrowing methods of methodical drowning used by the Khmer Rouge, the Spanish Inquisitors, and various others that populate the cruelest edges of history.

But we are the United States, and that is the difference: the United States does not torture.

Hunter, over at Daily kos, has a truly horrible posting about waterboarding. Please go read it, this is important stuff.

No sharp objects for these idiots please

AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw our forces from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. We need to think — now — about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that.

That is the lede of a truly horrifying op-ed in the NY Times.

It is hard for me to articulate the level of insanity that is contained in the piece but perhaps this will give you an idea.

The most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum; a total loss of federal control over outlying provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal lines; or a struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda try to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.

So in other words, we must support a military dictator or all kinds of horrible things will happen and we will have to send in our military to support the government. however ....

We would also have to be wary of internecine warfare within the Pakistani security forces. Pro-American moderates could well win a fight against extremist sympathizers on their own. But they might need help if splinter forces or radical Islamists took control of parts of the country containing crucial nuclear materials. The task of retaking any such regions and reclaiming custody of any nuclear weapons would be a priority for our troops.

So basically it might all go to shit anyway and we have to make sure that the nuclear weapons are safe.....

For the United States, the safest bet would be shipping the material to someplace like New Mexico; but even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate. More likely, we would have to settle for establishing a remote redoubt within Pakistan, with the nuclear technology guarded by elite Pakistani forces backed up (and watched over) by crack international troops. It is realistic to think that such a mission might be undertaken within days of a decision to act. The price for rapid action and secrecy, however, would probably be a very small international coalition.

The "Coalition of the Gullible"?

I think I need a drink