WaxWorks
|
Friday, February 25, 2005
Signifying Nothing
As a William Faulkner fan, I found this really enjoyable. It's a piece imagining if Faulkner were to write about the Bush White House. Here's a snippet:
"He needs his makeup," Dick said.
"I'll do it," Condi said. She put a little brush on my check and it
tickled and I laughed.
Rummy walked into the room. "Jesus, what's he laughing about," Rummy
said.
"Dont you pay attention to him, Georgie," Dick said. "They're going to be
asking you all about Social Security. You just remember what we talked
about."
"He cant remember anything," Rummy said.
I started to holler. Dick's face was red and he looked at Rummy. "I told
you to hush up already," Dick said. "Now look what you've gone and
done."
"Go and get him Saddam's gun," Condi said. "You know how he likes to hold
it."
Dick went to my desk drawer and took out Saddam's gun. He gave it to me,
and it was hot in my hands. Rummy pulled the gun away.
"Do you want him carrying a gun into the press conference?" Rummy said.
"Cant you think any better than he can?"
I was hollering and Dick was turning red and then white and the room was
tilted.
"You give him that gun back, right this minute," Condi said. Rummy gave me
Saddam's gun back and I held it my hands. It was hot like a horseshoe.
"You got the gun, now you stop that hollering," Rummy said.
Condi patted me on the back. "It sure is hot in here," she said. She fanned
herself and took off her jacket. She smelled like perfume.
Gotta Love Ann for Keeping Her Head in the Sand
I still find it amazing that anyone with half a brain could read Ann Coulter and take her seriously, given the fact that she is EXTREMELY fact-challenged, but she keeps publishing and right-wingers keep reading her, so I guess I shouldn't underestimate the intelligence of the other side or their willingness to read what they want to hear.
Anyway, good ol' Ann, (who, remember, has complained that the LEFT only knows how to engage in mean-spirited skull-duggery) takes on the left for the "Jeff Gannon" episode. (If you want to read a hilarious, dead-on and seriously rude take on Ann's column, here's the Rude Pundit's commentary.)
Ann expresses the same wonderment as the rest of the right wing world over the "Jeff Gannon" story, claiming that it shows that Democrats are attacking "Gannon" solely because he is gay, therefore exposing their hypocrisy. (Ann conveniently ignores the fact that the Administration ran on a gay-bashing agenda in '04, but we'll move past this).
Personally, my response to Ann and the others on the right is simply this: What if Clinton Had Done It? (WICHDI?) It's as simple as that. What if this had happened in the Clinton White House? I think we all know the answer to that. Ann might not, because she was too busy introducing Paula Jones' lawyers to Ken Starr back in 1997 and 1998.
Ann tries to equate "Jeff Gannon" using a false name to the fact that Gary Hart and Bill Clinton LEGALLY CHANGE their names (Clinton from Blythe to Clinton to take on his stepfather's name) and John Kerry's grandmother changing their name from Kohn based on fears of anti-semitism in Austria, not to hide a past as a gay prostitute.
But my favorite part is when Ann claims that Maureen Dowd was deliberately deceptive in claiming that she couldn't get a White House pass but "Jeff Gannon" could because, Ann explains, Dowd was talking about a permanent pass, while Gannon got a daily pass. (Ann conveniently fails to note that Gannon apparently got a daily pass EVERY DAY, which is the equivalent of a permanent pass, but facts and accuracy is not her strong suit.) Ann feels compelled to write this:
The entire linchpin of Dowd's column was a lie. (And I'm sure the Times' public
editor will get right on Dowd's deception.)
So where does Ann come out in her column? In response to the fact that "Gannon" has been exposed as a gay hooker and partisan hack posing as a reporter, Ann says this:
Gannon didn't write about gays. No "hypocrisy" is being exposed.
Uhh, Ann. Might want use Google instead of "Right-WingReality-BasedSearchEngine.com." Are you even using Lexis? Gannon wrote repeatedly about gays and even referred to Kerry as potentially the "first gay President." So "the entire linchpin of" Ann's column "was a lie." I'm sure Ann's editor will get right on Ann's deception. Oh. No. Wait. Ann doesn't have an editor, since she was fired from the National Review Online. Well, now we know why.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Guess the Other 90% Must Have Been Pretty Bad
Well, people were abuzz when news of the Bush tapes was released by the New York Times over the weekend. The tapes featured in the article were only 10% of the tapes that Doug Wead had made with Bush. In fact, when Wead was asked if he didn't believe he had betrayed Bush, Wead said that no, he would have betrayed Bush if he had released all of the tapes.
Well, considering these tapes appear to show that Bush admits to cocaine, pot and even LSD use, I can't imagine how much worse the other 90% could be. (Maybe Bush discusses the abortion he paid for in Texas in pre-Roe v. Wade days). But maybe there's one inkling by this apparent comment by Bush:
During the primary contest, Mr. Bush often sized up his dozen Republican
rivals, assessing their appeal to conservative Christian voters, their treatment
of him and their prospects of serving in a future Bush administration. He paid
particular attention to Senator John Ashcroft. "I like Ashcroft a lot," he told
Mr. Wead in November 1998. "He is a competent man. He would be a good
Supreme Court pick. He would be a good attorney general. He would be a
good vice president." When Mr. Wead predicted an uproar if Mr. Ashcroft
were appointed to the court because of his conservative religious views, Mr.
Bush replied, "Well, tough."
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
A Plan to Combat Iran and North Korea?
From the Onion:
Bush Determined To Find Warehouse Where Ark Of Covenant Is Stored
WASHINGTON, DC—In a surprise press conference Monday, President Bush said he will not rest until the warehouse where the Ark of the Covenant, the vessel
holding the original Ten Commandments, is located. "Nazis stole the Ark in 1936,
but it was recovered by a single patriot, who braved gunfire, rolling boulders,
and venomous snakes," Bush said, addressing the White House press corps. "Sadly,
due to bureaucratic rigmarole, this powerful, historic relic was misplaced in a
warehouse. Mark my words: We will find that warehouse." Bush added that, after
they are strengthened by the power of the Ark, U.S. forces will seek out and
destroy the sinister Temple of Doom.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Five Day Waiting Period Before Pressing Send?
Below I took Hindrocket of the Powerline blog to task for his intemperate and one-sided remarks about Jimmy Carter. I also alluded to him earlier when I noted that some conservative bloggers were ignoring the "Jeff Gannon" story, by claiming they didn't know what the story was or why it was significant enough to write about.
Well, one reader sent Hindrocket an e-mail, explaining why he thought the "Gannon" story was worth covering:
Your recent post on the JD Guckert/Jeff Gannon story has to be one of the
saddest examples of conservative head-in-sand syndrome I have ever seen. You
claim that there are three issues being brought up by liberals: 1) He isn't a
"real" journalist, 2) He was a Bush administration plant, and 3) He had
something (God knows what) to do with the Valerie Plame story. Of course, you
blatantly ignore the most important issue, the one that is easily found on
hundreds of blogs covering the story: how did a person using a fake name get
access to the White House? If I applied for a pass to the White House using the
name "Max Power", I would not get in unless I had some friends high up at the
top. A closely-related issue is exactly what the links are between GOPUSA and
Talon News. Now, you may think it perfectly acceptable for the President and
press secretary to consistently call on a reporter who is working for what is
essentially an arm of the Republican Party. If so, it would be nice if you would
admit it. That doesn't mean that others aren't allowed to have a problem with
that arrangement, however.
You also take Americablog to task for "finding nude photos of Gannon and
posting them online." He didn't "find" photos taken by some paparazzi at a
secret party; he found websites where Guckert (let's use his real name, not his
pretend name) posted his own photos. If you posted photos of your family on your
web page and I posted a link to these photos, would that make me a low-life
"outing" you? Come on. Guckert is not ashamed of these photos, otherwise he
would not have put them on the web in the first place. If somebody else finds
them and points them out to the world, they are doing nothing wrong.
Just one, just once, it would be nice to see a conservative with the
ability to find fault with other conservatives. I won't hold my breath,
though.
(The writer's final paragraph, BTW, is also my biggest criticism of Hindrocket.) And here's Hindrocket's intelligent, well-thought out response:
You dumb shit, he didn't get access using a fake name, he used his real
name. You lefties' concern for White House security is really touching, but you
know what, you stupid asshole, I think the Secret Service has it covered. Go
crawl back into your hole, you stupid left-wing shithead. And don't bother us
anymore. You have to have an IQ over 50 to correspond with us. You don't
qualify, you stupid shit.
Nice, real nice. Sorta what Ann Coulter had in mind when she claimed that "liberals prefer invective to engagement," right?
Oh, and in case you're wondering if this e-mail is authentic, Hindrocket admitted it on his blog. And here's his "explanation":
So that's the context in which I was reading emails a couple of days ago. I
read about ten in a row that were vulgar and abusive in varying degrees; most
were unprintable. At that point I snapped and lost my temper. I sent irate and
intemperate replies to the last couple of emails I read--unfortunately, not the
most abusive ones, but the ones I read after losing my temper.
The next day, one of these emailers responded that he thought my reply was
disproportionate to the offensiveness of his email; I agreed and apologized for
having reacted inappropriately. I would have done the same with the "Minnesota
Politics" guy if he had contacted me rather than posting my email--which
obviously wasn't intended for publication--on his site.
I love the last paragraph -- it's the e-mailer's fault for not e-mailing Hindrocket again after receiving the e-mail grenade in his in-box. If he had, you see, Hindrocket would have apologized. I'm kinda surprised he didn't claim that Dan Rather forged the e-mail...
