"It cannot be denied and it cannot be ignored, there is at this very point in time a vicious and systematic attack on Christianity and all it pertains to.
"I’m quite sure that the A.C.L.U. would deny the fact that that is their intent and that they are involved in this effort up to their toupees but the Bible says to judge someone by their fruits and look at the fruits of the A.C.L.U. which are so well documented that I won’t even go into them." -- Charlie Daniels, from "Soapbox" column entitled "Christian Soldiers," Oct. 27, 2003
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska today announced that it would defend a Presbyterian church from a forced eviction by the city.
"'There's no reason for the city to force the Church of the Awesome God from its home, and the city is violating both the First Amendment and federal law in doing so," said Tim Butz, Executive Director of the ACLU of Nebraska." -- ACLU press release, Aug. 11, 2004
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Shrill Bill
William Saletan has got his panties all in a wad about how the Republicans are painting George W. Bush as a big he-man terrorist-killer, even though the President has had less acquaintance with physical danger in his life than the Bubble Boy:
"I don't mean to be unfair to Bush. Vietnam was a lousy war. He wanted a way out, and he found it. But isn't it odd to see Republicans belittle the physical risks Kerry took in battle while exalting Bush's armchair wars and post-9/11 photo ops?"
It's worth a read -- if you're an America-hater, I mean.
"I don't mean to be unfair to Bush. Vietnam was a lousy war. He wanted a way out, and he found it. But isn't it odd to see Republicans belittle the physical risks Kerry took in battle while exalting Bush's armchair wars and post-9/11 photo ops?"
It's worth a read -- if you're an America-hater, I mean.
Today's economic numbers
I haven't kept up with this as much as I should have, but we've seen three sets of numbers in the past two days that raise serious doubts about the validity of Alan Greenspan's "soft patch" theory/wish.
On Monday, we learned that, while consumer spending rebounded in July, consumer income growth was extremely weak, up just 0.1 percent, far short of Wall Street expectations and the weakest growth in two years.
The good news in that report was that inflation was tame and June's spending swoon was revised to something a little less disastrous.
The bad news is obvious: consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the economy, and if people aren't making money, they aren't going to spend money, unless they take on more debt, and they've already taken on quite a bit of that.
This morning, we got the Chicago PMI, the read of business activity in the Chicago region. I'm not exactly sure why this gauge is so much more closely watched than the indexes from other regions, but it is, and it showed a sharp slowdown in August.
The Chicago gauge's employment component actually rose a bit -- good news -- but inventories rose, too -- bad news, if shops are getting stuck with a bunch of stuff nobody wants to buy. Production prices rose, too.
Also today, we got the Conference Board's reading on consumer confidence in August. It slumped badly. It's still at a relatively high level, but job prospects have apparently not improved over July or June, when non-farm payrolls posted paltry gains.
I talked to Conference Board economist Delos Smith, who said his boss had gotten about "50 calls" from the White House about the numbers.
And little wonder: the Conference Board's number is the most highly respected in the universe of consumer confidence numbers.
It's also heavily dependent on how consumers feel about job growth and raises the possibility that, when Elaine Chao and Co. roll out their labor market numbers on Friday, they'll show that August was a crappy month to try to find a non-farm job, just as June and July were.
As the always entertaining Bob Brusca said today, ranting in response to those who claim that the comatose weekly jobless claims numbers are a sign of a new job boom:
Friday's report comes the day after the Boy King accepts his party's nomination for a second term. If it's bad, it could crap all over his post-convention "bounce."
Stay tuned.
On Monday, we learned that, while consumer spending rebounded in July, consumer income growth was extremely weak, up just 0.1 percent, far short of Wall Street expectations and the weakest growth in two years.
The good news in that report was that inflation was tame and June's spending swoon was revised to something a little less disastrous.
The bad news is obvious: consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the economy, and if people aren't making money, they aren't going to spend money, unless they take on more debt, and they've already taken on quite a bit of that.
This morning, we got the Chicago PMI, the read of business activity in the Chicago region. I'm not exactly sure why this gauge is so much more closely watched than the indexes from other regions, but it is, and it showed a sharp slowdown in August.
The Chicago gauge's employment component actually rose a bit -- good news -- but inventories rose, too -- bad news, if shops are getting stuck with a bunch of stuff nobody wants to buy. Production prices rose, too.
Also today, we got the Conference Board's reading on consumer confidence in August. It slumped badly. It's still at a relatively high level, but job prospects have apparently not improved over July or June, when non-farm payrolls posted paltry gains.
I talked to Conference Board economist Delos Smith, who said his boss had gotten about "50 calls" from the White House about the numbers.
And little wonder: the Conference Board's number is the most highly respected in the universe of consumer confidence numbers.
It's also heavily dependent on how consumers feel about job growth and raises the possibility that, when Elaine Chao and Co. roll out their labor market numbers on Friday, they'll show that August was a crappy month to try to find a non-farm job, just as June and July were.
As the always entertaining Bob Brusca said today, ranting in response to those who claim that the comatose weekly jobless claims numbers are a sign of a new job boom:
The trend in job growth is clear: from 353K down to 324K down to 208K down to 78K down to 32K. Any questions?
Is there any REASON for people to think job growth will reverse this pattern? That is, is there a reason other than that such a shift is what is needed to confirm extant economic forecasts? Are there countervailing strong economic reports that say claims data are correct and job trends are wrong?
Friday's report comes the day after the Boy King accepts his party's nomination for a second term. If it's bad, it could crap all over his post-convention "bounce."
Stay tuned.
Monday, August 30, 2004
George W. Bush, master campaigner
My God, Democrats must be quaking in their boots at the awesome majesty of George W. Bush's political skills.
Cower in fear, laughable mortals, as you witness King George unleash the full power of his strategelogical might!
TREMBLE at his unassailable position on the Iraq war:
David Sanger: So if you had to recalculate — what might you have done differently in this case?
THE PRESIDENT: David, what I am now doing is leading us forward. There will be ample time for people to dissect decision making, what went right or what went wrong.
And that "ample time" is right now, apparently!
THE PRESIDENT: What's important is, is that our strategy was flexible enough to adjust to conditions on the ground as we eventually found them. Remember, we thought there would be flows of refugees, we thought there would be starvation, we thought the oil fields would be destroyed. And none of that happened. And so, therefore, our commanders were given the flexibility to adjust, and that's what you're seeing.
Spin that, Democrats. What we're seeing now is not mass death, destruction, chaos and the gradual diminution of American power. No, what we're seeing is our commanders adjusting to the repercussions of their amazing success!
Second Term, here we come!
But silly David Sanger doesn't quite get the picture:
Sanger: So this — the mistake is specifically what?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's a — it's a miscalculation of the — what the conditions would be like after a swift victory, because we never dreamt it would be that swift. And so the fundamental question is, what are you doing about it? And what we're doing about it is dealing with it. We've got a flexible plan. In other words, a plan —
Sanger: Was it flexible fast enough? I mean ...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, David, that's what historians and that's what people like yourself could judge. The point is, it was flexible.
There you go, David: it was flexible. 'Nuff said!
WEEP with joyful reassurance at his calm leadership on North Korea:
"Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons."
SWOON in awe at his stirring optimism about the war on terror:
"As he prepared to accept his party's nomination for a second term in office this week, President Bush said the war against terrorism must be fought but that it's not likely to ever end.
"'I don't think you can win it,' the president said, when asked if the war on terrorism can be won. 'But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.'"
Yes, George W. Bush: Creating conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.
I'm printing up the bumper stickers now!
Cower in fear, laughable mortals, as you witness King George unleash the full power of his strategelogical might!
TREMBLE at his unassailable position on the Iraq war:
David Sanger: So if you had to recalculate — what might you have done differently in this case?
THE PRESIDENT: David, what I am now doing is leading us forward. There will be ample time for people to dissect decision making, what went right or what went wrong.
And that "ample time" is right now, apparently!
THE PRESIDENT: What's important is, is that our strategy was flexible enough to adjust to conditions on the ground as we eventually found them. Remember, we thought there would be flows of refugees, we thought there would be starvation, we thought the oil fields would be destroyed. And none of that happened. And so, therefore, our commanders were given the flexibility to adjust, and that's what you're seeing.
Spin that, Democrats. What we're seeing now is not mass death, destruction, chaos and the gradual diminution of American power. No, what we're seeing is our commanders adjusting to the repercussions of their amazing success!
Second Term, here we come!
But silly David Sanger doesn't quite get the picture:
Sanger: So this — the mistake is specifically what?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's a — it's a miscalculation of the — what the conditions would be like after a swift victory, because we never dreamt it would be that swift. And so the fundamental question is, what are you doing about it? And what we're doing about it is dealing with it. We've got a flexible plan. In other words, a plan —
Sanger: Was it flexible fast enough? I mean ...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, David, that's what historians and that's what people like yourself could judge. The point is, it was flexible.
There you go, David: it was flexible. 'Nuff said!
WEEP with joyful reassurance at his calm leadership on North Korea:
"Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons."
SWOON in awe at his stirring optimism about the war on terror:
"As he prepared to accept his party's nomination for a second term in office this week, President Bush said the war against terrorism must be fought but that it's not likely to ever end.
"'I don't think you can win it,' the president said, when asked if the war on terrorism can be won. 'But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.'"
Yes, George W. Bush: Creating conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.
I'm printing up the bumper stickers now!
Life during wartime
My Republican National Convention experience will be extremely limited, if I have anything to do with it.
But I am working in the city this week and will be marginally exposed to the insanity, and I will write my marginal thoughts about it here. You're welcome, all two of you.
Friday night, my father and stepmom were in town, and we went to Union Square to gawk at the protesters. Union Square was also ground zero for activism in the months after Sept. 11, and I must say that the atmosphere was more charged in those days than it was Friday night. Maybe people were just getting geared up. Maybe it's just me -- Dad and Stepmom, uber-hippies of a sort, were mightily impressed with the "energy."
We happened to witness the opening moments of the bicycle protest and were amazed at the sheer number of protesters -- 5,000, according to news accounts. I was also surprised to find out later that 250 of them were arrested, apparently for blocking traffic.
They were certainly an an enormous, traffic-blocking mass when they first got moving, heading south on the east side of Union Square Park. But they seemed to have been spread thin when we saw them about a half-hour later, heading north up Sixth Ave.
In any event, it looks like the cops are really playing hardball, arresting even a guy who simply writes easily-washable chalk messages on the sidewalk. (Links via Gothamist, which is covering this all really well.)
I'm not sure what benefit, if any, the city is getting out of such an approach. While it might intimidate protesters and keep them on their best behavior, it might also frustrate them and raise the potential for greater disturbance later in the week.
Gothamist wonders if the hardball approach will be a PR debacle, but I doubt it -- most people in the country don't give a rat's ass about protesters anyway and will think they're getting what they deserve.
In any event, we stayed away from the weekend's big protests, including the very big one on Sunday. We both rode to work on the subway Monday morning and found conditions not much different than on any other work day, although there were cops looking into the cars at most Manhattan stops.
But I am working in the city this week and will be marginally exposed to the insanity, and I will write my marginal thoughts about it here. You're welcome, all two of you.
Friday night, my father and stepmom were in town, and we went to Union Square to gawk at the protesters. Union Square was also ground zero for activism in the months after Sept. 11, and I must say that the atmosphere was more charged in those days than it was Friday night. Maybe people were just getting geared up. Maybe it's just me -- Dad and Stepmom, uber-hippies of a sort, were mightily impressed with the "energy."
We happened to witness the opening moments of the bicycle protest and were amazed at the sheer number of protesters -- 5,000, according to news accounts. I was also surprised to find out later that 250 of them were arrested, apparently for blocking traffic.
They were certainly an an enormous, traffic-blocking mass when they first got moving, heading south on the east side of Union Square Park. But they seemed to have been spread thin when we saw them about a half-hour later, heading north up Sixth Ave.
In any event, it looks like the cops are really playing hardball, arresting even a guy who simply writes easily-washable chalk messages on the sidewalk. (Links via Gothamist, which is covering this all really well.)
I'm not sure what benefit, if any, the city is getting out of such an approach. While it might intimidate protesters and keep them on their best behavior, it might also frustrate them and raise the potential for greater disturbance later in the week.
Gothamist wonders if the hardball approach will be a PR debacle, but I doubt it -- most people in the country don't give a rat's ass about protesters anyway and will think they're getting what they deserve.
In any event, we stayed away from the weekend's big protests, including the very big one on Sunday. We both rode to work on the subway Monday morning and found conditions not much different than on any other work day, although there were cops looking into the cars at most Manhattan stops.
Friday, August 27, 2004
Air Force One
Why aren't the Democrats beating Bush up with this?
BUSH TOOK OUT AD LYING ABOUT HIS MILITARY SERVICE: "A pullout ad from The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal of May 4, 1978, shows a huge picture of Bush with a 'Bush for Congress' logo on the front. On the back, a synopsis of his career says he served ''in the U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard where he piloted the F-102 aircraft.''" [Source: AP, 7/14/99]
BUSH INSISTED THAT HIS LIE WAS TRUE: When confronted with questions about why he lied about serving in the Air Force, Bush claimed "The facts are I served 600 days in the Air Force.'' That is not true. Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard, not the Air Force. [Source: AP, 7/13/99]
AIRFORCE CONFIRMS THAT BUSH LIED: Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. The Air Force says that "Air National Guard members are considered 'guardsmen on active duty' while receiving pilot training. They are not, however, counted as members of the overall active-duty Air Force." [Source: AP, 7/14/99]
Lifted directly from Oliver Willis, because it's too good not to.
The Republicans distorted Al Gore's words and then hammered him with them, in an effort to paint him as an unhinged liar. Can you imagine how much hay the Republicans would be making if Kerry had done something similar?
BUSH TOOK OUT AD LYING ABOUT HIS MILITARY SERVICE: "A pullout ad from The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal of May 4, 1978, shows a huge picture of Bush with a 'Bush for Congress' logo on the front. On the back, a synopsis of his career says he served ''in the U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard where he piloted the F-102 aircraft.''" [Source: AP, 7/14/99]
BUSH INSISTED THAT HIS LIE WAS TRUE: When confronted with questions about why he lied about serving in the Air Force, Bush claimed "The facts are I served 600 days in the Air Force.'' That is not true. Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard, not the Air Force. [Source: AP, 7/13/99]
AIRFORCE CONFIRMS THAT BUSH LIED: Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. The Air Force says that "Air National Guard members are considered 'guardsmen on active duty' while receiving pilot training. They are not, however, counted as members of the overall active-duty Air Force." [Source: AP, 7/14/99]
Lifted directly from Oliver Willis, because it's too good not to.
The Republicans distorted Al Gore's words and then hammered him with them, in an effort to paint him as an unhinged liar. Can you imagine how much hay the Republicans would be making if Kerry had done something similar?
Bush flip-flops
In what may be a fairly significant development -- but so far largely unremarked upon in the left-wing blogosphere -- is Bush's admission today that "he made a 'miscalculation of what the conditions would be' in postwar Iraq."
First, compare this to his comments in his Meet the Press interview:
Obviously, he didn't answer the yes-or-no question, "did we miscalculate?" So that insulates him, in just the tiniest way imaginable, from accusations of suddenly flip-flopping.
And then there's that press conference in April:
My goodness, what a long answer! Again, did you notice any "yes" or "no" in that answer? No, because he completely dodged the yes-or-no question.
From the same press conference:
(Fast-forward through long, drawn-out non-answer and many hems and haws.)
On the other hand, this hurts him, in as much as it provides fodder for hacks like me to beat him over the head with this press conference, his Tim Russert interview and similar moments when he has refused to acknowledge error.
Also, doesn't this place even more pressure on Donald Rumsfeld? The guy has been fingered in the Abu Ghraib scandal and now has been saddled with "miscalculations" in post-war Iraq. Why does he still have his job? The longer he's in office, the more Dems can beat Bush up about it.
Of course, I don't see anybody doing much beating about this issue. Maybe it will take some time.
And maybe the New York Times needs to tear its eyeballs away from the bright, shiny object of the Not-So-Swift Boat Liars for Bush (NSSBLFB) and notice that this "admission" by Bush is the real headline here.
Unfortunately, they bury it four grafs down. It's Bill Keller's crappy world. We just live in it.
Update: Oliver Willis is on it, but he doesn't spend a bunch of time on it. He's underwhelmed, apparently.
Update 2: TalkLeft is also on it, though he says little about it.
First, compare this to his comments in his Meet the Press interview:
Russert: It's now nearly a year, and we are in a very difficult situation. Did we miscalculate how we would be treated and received in Iraq?
President Bush: Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq. I'm not exactly sure, because the tone of your question is, we're not. We are welcomed in Iraq.
Obviously, he didn't answer the yes-or-no question, "did we miscalculate?" So that insulates him, in just the tiniest way imaginable, from accusations of suddenly flip-flopping.
And then there's that press conference in April:
Q: Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's -- the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war. And that's just a reality, Dave. I mean, that's -- that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a -- nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.
The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.
My goodness, what a long answer! Again, did you notice any "yes" or "no" in that answer? No, because he completely dodged the yes-or-no question.
From the same press conference:
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.
(Fast-forward through long, drawn-out non-answer and many hems and haws.)
I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.My two cents: This helps him, in as much as it reassures some undecided voters that he at least has the capacity to admit mistakes and change. I'm sure it was polled to the gills.
On the other hand, this hurts him, in as much as it provides fodder for hacks like me to beat him over the head with this press conference, his Tim Russert interview and similar moments when he has refused to acknowledge error.
Also, doesn't this place even more pressure on Donald Rumsfeld? The guy has been fingered in the Abu Ghraib scandal and now has been saddled with "miscalculations" in post-war Iraq. Why does he still have his job? The longer he's in office, the more Dems can beat Bush up about it.
Of course, I don't see anybody doing much beating about this issue. Maybe it will take some time.
And maybe the New York Times needs to tear its eyeballs away from the bright, shiny object of the Not-So-Swift Boat Liars for Bush (NSSBLFB) and notice that this "admission" by Bush is the real headline here.
Unfortunately, they bury it four grafs down. It's Bill Keller's crappy world. We just live in it.
Update: Oliver Willis is on it, but he doesn't spend a bunch of time on it. He's underwhelmed, apparently.
Update 2: TalkLeft is also on it, though he says little about it.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
War's cost grows by the minute
970 U.S. deaths, 6,200 U.S. wounded, between 4,900 and 6,300 Iraqis dead.
Dollar costs running up by about $122,000 per minute.
A grieving father sets himself and a Marine van on fire when he finds out his son is killed in Iraq.
Almost an appropriate response. Why aren't we all on fire about this?
Dollar costs running up by about $122,000 per minute.
A grieving father sets himself and a Marine van on fire when he finds out his son is killed in Iraq.
Almost an appropriate response. Why aren't we all on fire about this?
The Wit and Wisdom of Charlie Daniels, Part II
"If we’d take the media and the politics out of Iraq and let the military do their job I believe that the war would be over in six months. It’s time to take the gloves off." -- from Charlie Daniels "Soapbox" column entitled "Disgusting," June 18, 2004.
"U.S. officers say the continuing attacks suggest that it will take time, possibly years, to crush the insurgency." -- USA Today, "Insurgents show no sign of letting up," Aug. 22, 2004
"U.S. officers say the continuing attacks suggest that it will take time, possibly years, to crush the insurgency." -- USA Today, "Insurgents show no sign of letting up," Aug. 22, 2004
The Love Train
Apparently, the F train is "the hot new scene," "definitely a fun train to ride," and has cars "where the sparks fly."
Igor is correct. Speaking to someone on the train is never going to happen.
By the way, the F train I ride every day is not exactly the most romantic place in the world, unless scattered garbage, sweltering heat and humidity, constant physical contact with unattractive, unwashed strangers and the ever-present stench of human waste are what you consider "romantic."
For singles, the hot new scene has no guest list, drink minimum or membership fee -- and the price of admission is just $2.
It's the F train.
...
In the past week, dozens of F train riders have posted their "missed connections" on Craig's List, hoping to make contact with those cute commuters they've silently eyeballed.
...
"Speaking to someone on the train - it's never gonna happen," says Igor, 21, who posted his own missed F train connection this week.
Igor is correct. Speaking to someone on the train is never going to happen.
By the way, the F train I ride every day is not exactly the most romantic place in the world, unless scattered garbage, sweltering heat and humidity, constant physical contact with unattractive, unwashed strangers and the ever-present stench of human waste are what you consider "romantic."
The Wit and Wisdom of Charlie Daniels, Part I
Since Charlie Daniels is going to be entertaining Republicans at an exclusive party at the Republican National Convention here in the honky-tonkin', Bible-totin', pistol-shootin' capital of the world, New York, I thought it would be fun to take a look at some of the common-sense things Mr. Daniels has to say.
"Pat [Robertson] stays on top of current events and issues and his well thought out comments are refreshing for a Christian living in such a secular world." -- Charlie Daniels "Soapbox" column, entitled "Pat Robertson," July 30, 2004.
Jerry Falwell: What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
Pat Robertson: Jerry, that's my feeling.
...
Falwell: The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'
Robertson: I totally concur...
-- Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson discuss current events on Thursday, Sept. 13, 2001.
(Apologies to Atrios for lifting the headline)
"Pat [Robertson] stays on top of current events and issues and his well thought out comments are refreshing for a Christian living in such a secular world." -- Charlie Daniels "Soapbox" column, entitled "Pat Robertson," July 30, 2004.
Jerry Falwell: What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
Pat Robertson: Jerry, that's my feeling.
...
Falwell: The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'
Robertson: I totally concur...
-- Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson discuss current events on Thursday, Sept. 13, 2001.
(Apologies to Atrios for lifting the headline)
Putting Nixon to shame
Noel Koch, a Vietnam vet who served in both the Nixon and Reagan White Houses and saw Bob Dole turned into a Republican hatchet man, expresses his disgust with Dole's attacks on Kerry in a biting op-ed in the Washington Post:
"Time in-country, how often a man was wounded, how much blood he shed when he was wounded -- it is hurtful that those who served in Vietnam are being split in so vile a fashion, and that the wounds of that war are reopened at the instigation of people who avoided serving at all. It is hurtful that a man of Bob Dole's stature should lend himself to the effort to dishonor a fellow American veteran in the service of politics at its cheapest."
"Politics at its cheapest" -- the Bush tactics are making even veterans of the Nixon White House blanch.
Link via Josh Marshall.
"Time in-country, how often a man was wounded, how much blood he shed when he was wounded -- it is hurtful that those who served in Vietnam are being split in so vile a fashion, and that the wounds of that war are reopened at the instigation of people who avoided serving at all. It is hurtful that a man of Bob Dole's stature should lend himself to the effort to dishonor a fellow American veteran in the service of politics at its cheapest."
"Politics at its cheapest" -- the Bush tactics are making even veterans of the Nixon White House blanch.
Link via Josh Marshall.
1.3 million new Lucky Duckies!
1.3 million more Americans fell below the poverty line last year, according to the Census Bureau.
Lucky Duckies!
Lucky Duckies!
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Jerkin' back and forth
Everything you always wanted to know about masturbation and the Bible, but were too afraid to ask.
Where would we be without the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? It would be a much less hilarious world, that's for sure.
Link via Unfogged.
Where would we be without the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? It would be a much less hilarious world, that's for sure.
Link via Unfogged.
Swift-moving developments
I'm just about sick of this whole Not-So-Swift Boat Liars business, but it's almost an impossible thing not to watch, like that slow-motion train wreck bearing down on Richard Kimble.
So I won't beat this to death, but here are the events as they unfolded today:
First, we learned that John O'Neill, the Nixon hatchet man who's been smearing John Kerry for the past 33 years, told Tricky Dick that he himself had actually been in Cambodia, further weakening his claim that Kerry did not go there.
Next, we learned that the Bush campaign's outside attorney, Ben Ginsberg -- part of the team of shitheads that fought for Bush in the 2000 recount battle -- had resigned, due to his connection to the Swift Boaters (henceforth, NSSBLFB, as in Not-So-Swift Boat Liars for Bush).
Then we learned that even more Navy records back up what the Associated Press mistakenly calls "John Kerry's version of events." Note to the AP: It's actually the Navy's version of events! Anyone could make the mistake, I'm sure.
Then Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann went to Crawford to deliver a letter to Dubya asking him to condemn the NSSBLFB, a well-played PR move, in my humble opinion.
Instead of taking the letter, Bush cowered behind the sofa, sending out Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, himself a Vietnam Vet, to accept the letter.
But Cleland refused to give the letter to Patterson and rolled away from him, prompting Patterson to comment on the wheelchair-bound Cleland's "mobility." [Link via Josh Marshall]
Then Patterson and several other Republican Vietnam vets wrote their own letter to Kerry, trotting out the NSSBLFB claim that Kerry had accused vets of atrocities.
We've already linked to the transcript that shows this claim is misleading at best, but what's notable about this re-hashing of the claim is that it was posted on the Bush web site -- in other words, rather than running from the NSSBLFB claims, the Bush campaign is actually embracing them to some extent.
Finally, as Josh Marshall and others have pointed out, Patterson got some $150,000 in contributions from good old Bob Perry, who also funded the NSSBLFB.
It makes your fucking head hurt, doesn't it?
So I won't beat this to death, but here are the events as they unfolded today:
First, we learned that John O'Neill, the Nixon hatchet man who's been smearing John Kerry for the past 33 years, told Tricky Dick that he himself had actually been in Cambodia, further weakening his claim that Kerry did not go there.
Next, we learned that the Bush campaign's outside attorney, Ben Ginsberg -- part of the team of shitheads that fought for Bush in the 2000 recount battle -- had resigned, due to his connection to the Swift Boaters (henceforth, NSSBLFB, as in Not-So-Swift Boat Liars for Bush).
Then we learned that even more Navy records back up what the Associated Press mistakenly calls "John Kerry's version of events." Note to the AP: It's actually the Navy's version of events! Anyone could make the mistake, I'm sure.
Then Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann went to Crawford to deliver a letter to Dubya asking him to condemn the NSSBLFB, a well-played PR move, in my humble opinion.
Instead of taking the letter, Bush cowered behind the sofa, sending out Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, himself a Vietnam Vet, to accept the letter.
But Cleland refused to give the letter to Patterson and rolled away from him, prompting Patterson to comment on the wheelchair-bound Cleland's "mobility." [Link via Josh Marshall]
Then Patterson and several other Republican Vietnam vets wrote their own letter to Kerry, trotting out the NSSBLFB claim that Kerry had accused vets of atrocities.
We've already linked to the transcript that shows this claim is misleading at best, but what's notable about this re-hashing of the claim is that it was posted on the Bush web site -- in other words, rather than running from the NSSBLFB claims, the Bush campaign is actually embracing them to some extent.
Finally, as Josh Marshall and others have pointed out, Patterson got some $150,000 in contributions from good old Bob Perry, who also funded the NSSBLFB.
It makes your fucking head hurt, doesn't it?
Household vs. Payroll survey: the last refuge of economic scoundrels
This tedious debate is raised every month by administration officials and their apologists, but they keep switching sides -- flip-flopping, if you will -- depending on which set of numbers suits their purposes.
For months, the BLS' establishment survey, which produces the monthly payroll numbers, was showing a dismal labor market, mired in its worst slump since the Great Depression.
But the BLS' household survey, which produces the monthly unemployment numbers, was showing great galloping job gains. Administration officials and their apologists encouraged everyone to pay more attention to this survey, saying it was capturing job growth in new businesses, which were overlooked (so they said) by the payroll survey.
This was widely accepted by many Wall Street economists (many of whom had agendas of their own, to be sure), and even by some in the financial news media.
But then, lo and behold, in the spring of this year, the payroll survey started showing walloping gains, while the household survey showed something of a labor-market slump.
Suddenly, administration officials and their apologists were pointing to the payroll survey as proof of the health of the job market. The once-favored household survey was kicked to the curb, where it joined Iraq's WMD, Bush's plan to go to Mars and other discarded GOP talking points.
But faster than you can say "wishful thinking," the tables turned again, and suddenly the payroll numbers were weak, while the household numbers were strong.
Once again, that old chestnut about the household survey being better than the establishment survey was trotted out, with GOPers pretending it was a pretty new pony. The problem was, that pony had died long, long ago, and the stench of it was getting pretty bad.
The media, to their credit, didn't really buy it, choosing to focus on the weak payroll numbers. More importantly, though, a couple of recent studies have pointed out just how stinky that old horse really is.
First, there was a Fed-related study, the precise origin of which has escaped by addled brain. I'm still trying to find it, and I'll update this post when I do.
Then, today, in the Stock Traders Almanac's latest monthly newsletter (available to subscribers only), Barry Ritholtz, chief market strategist for Maxim Group, helps to further debunk this myth.
He cites the testimony of Alan Greenspan, who said the payroll survey was more accurate. Just because Alan Greenspan says something doesn't make it so, of course.
But he also cites the BLS itself, which recently pointed out [warning: PDF file] that the two surveys are as different as apples and oranges and thus can be consistent, even as they tell of different job-creation totals.
First, the payroll survey is much, much larger, getting results from some 400,000 employers. The household survey only talks to about 60,000 households.
Second, the household survey throws all sorts of jobs into the mix, including farm workers, self-employed and household workers and people on temporary layoffs. The payroll survey doesn't include any of these people.
What's more, both surveys are subject to a host of data goblins, including benchmark revisions to the payroll survey, population controls in the household survey, job-switching by workers, sampling errors, and a lagged accounting for job births in the payroll survey (though there are guesses made about that).
The BLS adjusted the household data by removing those extra folks, and the results are striking -- you get a line that looks almost exactly like the line created by the payroll data.
It's a graphic I'll be saving and trotting out if I ever get in this argument with anybody.
"The argument that the Household Survey more accurately reflects Job creation has been, in our opinion, thoroughly discredited," Ritholtz wrote. "The Household Survey 'excuse' has become the last refuge of economic scoundrels. Employ it at your own risk."
For months, the BLS' establishment survey, which produces the monthly payroll numbers, was showing a dismal labor market, mired in its worst slump since the Great Depression.
But the BLS' household survey, which produces the monthly unemployment numbers, was showing great galloping job gains. Administration officials and their apologists encouraged everyone to pay more attention to this survey, saying it was capturing job growth in new businesses, which were overlooked (so they said) by the payroll survey.
This was widely accepted by many Wall Street economists (many of whom had agendas of their own, to be sure), and even by some in the financial news media.
But then, lo and behold, in the spring of this year, the payroll survey started showing walloping gains, while the household survey showed something of a labor-market slump.
Suddenly, administration officials and their apologists were pointing to the payroll survey as proof of the health of the job market. The once-favored household survey was kicked to the curb, where it joined Iraq's WMD, Bush's plan to go to Mars and other discarded GOP talking points.
But faster than you can say "wishful thinking," the tables turned again, and suddenly the payroll numbers were weak, while the household numbers were strong.
Once again, that old chestnut about the household survey being better than the establishment survey was trotted out, with GOPers pretending it was a pretty new pony. The problem was, that pony had died long, long ago, and the stench of it was getting pretty bad.
The media, to their credit, didn't really buy it, choosing to focus on the weak payroll numbers. More importantly, though, a couple of recent studies have pointed out just how stinky that old horse really is.
First, there was a Fed-related study, the precise origin of which has escaped by addled brain. I'm still trying to find it, and I'll update this post when I do.
Then, today, in the Stock Traders Almanac's latest monthly newsletter (available to subscribers only), Barry Ritholtz, chief market strategist for Maxim Group, helps to further debunk this myth.
He cites the testimony of Alan Greenspan, who said the payroll survey was more accurate. Just because Alan Greenspan says something doesn't make it so, of course.
But he also cites the BLS itself, which recently pointed out [warning: PDF file] that the two surveys are as different as apples and oranges and thus can be consistent, even as they tell of different job-creation totals.
First, the payroll survey is much, much larger, getting results from some 400,000 employers. The household survey only talks to about 60,000 households.
Second, the household survey throws all sorts of jobs into the mix, including farm workers, self-employed and household workers and people on temporary layoffs. The payroll survey doesn't include any of these people.
What's more, both surveys are subject to a host of data goblins, including benchmark revisions to the payroll survey, population controls in the household survey, job-switching by workers, sampling errors, and a lagged accounting for job births in the payroll survey (though there are guesses made about that).
The BLS adjusted the household data by removing those extra folks, and the results are striking -- you get a line that looks almost exactly like the line created by the payroll data.
It's a graphic I'll be saving and trotting out if I ever get in this argument with anybody.
"The argument that the Household Survey more accurately reflects Job creation has been, in our opinion, thoroughly discredited," Ritholtz wrote. "The Household Survey 'excuse' has become the last refuge of economic scoundrels. Employ it at your own risk."
Speaking of maps ...
As an expression of my relentless urge to serve the public, I offered you yesterday a few maps of free bathrooms in New York. You're welcome.
Today, because I am very slow and don't keep up with the news, I'm linking to some "news" about some more maps, coming by way of Gothamist, including a proposed new subway map and a cool three-way map for the tourist types.
The new subway map, which looks like this and this, will probably never be adopted; the MTA doesn't like it.
But the three-way map is already available, and you can buy it here. I'm not saying you should; the Gothamist says it's cool, but I have no idea. I'm just saying you can, if you want.
Frankly, I don't think the current subway map is really all that bad, all things considered. I know some out-of-towners have problems with it, but it never really bothered me much when I first started using it five years ago, and I'm no genius.
I do kind of like the idea of having a new map, just to mix things up. But I'd prefer they spend the money they would have spent on a new subway map on, oh, say, running another F train or two.
Today, because I am very slow and don't keep up with the news, I'm linking to some "news" about some more maps, coming by way of Gothamist, including a proposed new subway map and a cool three-way map for the tourist types.
The new subway map, which looks like this and this, will probably never be adopted; the MTA doesn't like it.
But the three-way map is already available, and you can buy it here. I'm not saying you should; the Gothamist says it's cool, but I have no idea. I'm just saying you can, if you want.
Frankly, I don't think the current subway map is really all that bad, all things considered. I know some out-of-towners have problems with it, but it never really bothered me much when I first started using it five years ago, and I'm no genius.
I do kind of like the idea of having a new map, just to mix things up. But I'd prefer they spend the money they would have spent on a new subway map on, oh, say, running another F train or two.
Howie Kurtz speaks truth; experts baffled
WASHINGTON (PBR Street Gang) -- Psychologists, media analysts and other such charlatans were scrambling Wednesday morning to find an explanation for a sudden, surprising torrent of actual good sense from Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Washington Post.
Kurtz, working as a correspondent for the CNN program News Night with Aaron Brown, delivered a report on the media's approach to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth controversy that deserves reprinting in its entirety:
Kurtz, working as a correspondent for the CNN program News Night with Aaron Brown, delivered a report on the media's approach to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth controversy that deserves reprinting in its entirety:
HOWARD KURTZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Question, how many people would ordinarily have seen this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad based on a half million dollar buy in just three states? Answer, not many but that was before the media, and especially cable television, began serving as a megaphone for charges about John Kerry's military record without having the slightest idea whether those charges were true. And when the cable circuit began debating whether Kerry deserved his silver star and his bronze star and his three purple hearts in Vietnam, viewers were also left wondering what was true.
JAMES CARVILLE, CNN HOST: Did you meet him in Vietnam?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
CARVILLE: You mean you never met him in Vietnam?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
CARVILLE: Come on. You're writing a book on a -- oh, come on, man.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was -- he was only there three months, James.
ROBERT NOVAK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You shout and you yell because you cannot answer the allegations in this book.
KURTZ: Suddenly, it seemed the only issue in the presidential campaign was the war, Vietnam not Iraq.
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST, "HANNITY AND COLMES": I've read the book. It's frankly devastating to Senator Kerry what his fellow Vietnam guys are saying, what they experienced with him. They contradict just about every story he has told about his experience here.
JOHN O'NEILL, CO-AUTHOR, "UNFIT FOR COMMAND": It's a pattern of total lying and exaggeration, much of it very demeaning to the other people that served with him.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST, "HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS": Who was the person that told you this that he didn't deserve the purple heart?
LARRY THURLOW: The people -- keep in mind...
MATTHEWS: Can you give me a name, sir?
THURLOW: The name I would give you after the fact is (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
KURTZ: Soon the broadcast networks were putting on swift boat veterans like John O'Neill as well.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so what specific evidence do you have that John Kerry didn't deserve that purple heart?
O'NEILL: All right, first of all Dr. Letson was the treating physician.
KURTZ: Amid the sound and fury, "The Boston Globe, "Chicago Tribune," "Washington Post" and "New York Times" began poking holes in the Swift Boat Veterans' allegations. Three of the veterans, George Elliott, Adrian Lonsdale and Roy Hoffman had previously praised Kerry for bravery. Thurlow says there was no enemy fire when Kerry turned his boat around to pull crewmate Jim Rassmann out of a river.
JIM RASSMANN: I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air.
KURTZ: But Thurlow's own bronze star citation says there was enemy fire. The problem these are lengthy pieces dealing with complicated charges, hard to translate into good television, though some correspondents have certainly tried, besides the media have already moved on to the political question of whether President Bush would denounce the ad, not whether the ad was accurate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Message wars, that anti-Kerry television commercial, the president praises Kerry's Vietnam service but refuses to condemn the ad.
KURTZ: For journalists of a certain generation, Vietnam remains the irresistible issue to the point that not much else is being covered in the campaign right now. That Kerry volunteered for Vietnam and George Bush did not has been drowned out by the shouting about whether Kerry was sufficiently wounded to justify those medals. For television this back and forth, he's a hero, no, he's a liar, is so much easier than cutting through the fog of a 35-year-old war.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Poker with Dick
I usually hate these things, but this one is actually half funny:
Poker With Dick Cheney
Transcript of The Editors' regular Saturday-night poker game with Dick Cheney, 6/19/04. Start tape at 12:32 AM
The Editors: We'll take three cards.
Dick Cheney: Give me one.
Sounds of cards being placed down, dealt, retrieved, and rearranged in hand. Non-commital noises, puffing of cigars.
TE: Fifty bucks
DC: I'm in. Show 'em.
TE: Two pair, sevens and fives.
DC: Not good enough.
TE: What do you have?
DC: Better than that, that's for sure. Pay up.
TE: Can you show us your cards?
DC: Sure. One of them's a six.
TE: You need to show all your cards. That's the way the game is played.
Colin Powell: Ladies and gentlemen. We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that Mr. Cheney's poker hand is far, far better than two pair. Note this satellite photo, taken three minutes ago when The Editors went to get more chips. In it we clearly see the back sides of five playing cards, arranged in a poker hand. Defector reports have assured us that Mr. Cheney's hand was already well advanced at this stage. Later, Mr. Cheney drew only one card. Why only one card? Would a man without a strong hand choose only one card? We are absolutely convinced that Mr. Cheney has at least a full house.
Tim Russert: Wow. Colin Powell really hit a homerun for the Administration right there. A very powerful performance. My dad played a lot of poker in World War 2, and he taught me many things about life. Read my book.
TE: He's extremely good at Power Point. But we would like to see the cards, or else we can't really be sure he has anything to beat two pair. We don't think he would lie to us, but ... well, it is a very rich pot.
Jonah Goldberg: Liberal critics of Mr. Cheney's poker hand contend that "he doesn't have anything". Oh, really, liberal critics? Cheney has already showed them the six of clubs, and yet these liberals persist in saying he has "nothing". Why do liberals consider the six of clubs to be "nothing"? Is it because the six of clubs is black?
Matt Drudge: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
The Drudge Report has learned that Dick Cheney has a royal flush, hearts.
Developing ...
TE: Perhaps if you could just show us a subset of your cards which beat 2 pair? Or tell us exactly what your hand is?
DC: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed.
TE: We aren't sure ...
DC: Very good. And here are my cards. A straight flush.
Judith Miller: Dick Cheney has revealed a straight flush, confirming his pre-collection claims about beating two pair.
TE: Those cards are of different suits. It's not a flush.
Mark Steyn: When will it end? Now liberal critics complain that Dick Cheney's cards are not all the same suit. Naturally, these are the same liberals who are always whining about a lack of diversity in higher education. It seems like segregation is OK with these liberals, as long as it damages Republicans.
MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
A witness has come forward claiming that The Editors engage in racial profiling in blog-linking.
Developing ...
TE: Wait! It's not even a straight! You've got a eight and ten of hearts, a six of clubs, and the seven and five of diamonds. You have a ten high. That's nothing.
Sean Hannity: Well, well, well. In another sign of liberal desperation, liberals now complain that a ten high is "nothing". Does ten equal zero in liberal mathematics? That would explain a lot.
Robert Novak: It's a perfectly valid poker hand. Apparently, liberals have never heard of a "skip straight". It's a kind of straight, just with one card missing. But if you skip around the missing nine, it's a straight.
Alan Colmes: Mother says I mustn't play poker.
TE: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".
Brit Hume: It seems like some people are still playing poker like it's September 10th. Back then, you needed to have all your cards in order to claim a straight. But, as we learned on that day, sometimes you won't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes you have to learn to connect the dots, and see the patterns which are not visible to superficial analysis of the type favored by the CIA and the State Department. Dick Cheney's skip straight is a winning poker hand for the post-9/11 world.
Rush Limbaugh: Do The Editors have two pairs, or a pair of twos? First they say one thing, then another. What are they hiding?
Andrew Sullivan: Dick Cheney never said he had a straight. He was very careful about this. His cards can form many different hands. None of these hands alone can beat a pair of twos; but, taken together, the combination of all possible hands presents a more compelling case for taking the pot than simply screaming "Pair of twos! Pair of twos!" as unprincipled liberal critics of the Vice President so often do.
MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
Did The Editors claim to have "a pair of Jews"? Are they anti-Semites as well as racists?
Developing ...
Zell Miller: As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I believe Dick Cheney, and I hate liberals and Democrats.
William Safire: Why are liberals so obsessed by Dick Cheney's poker hand? The pot has been taken, the deal is done. If liberals are upset that we are no longer playing by the Marquis of Queensbury patty-cake poker rules, they clearly lack the stomach to play poker in the post-September 11th environment. And why do they never complain about Saddam Hussein's poker playing, which was a thousand times worse?
Christopher Hitchens: The Left won't be happy until the pot is divided up equally between Yassar Arafat, Osama bin Laden, and Hitler. Orwell would have seen this.
Ann Coulter: Why do liberals object so strenuously to the idea of conservatives having a "straight"? Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with the radical homosexual/Islamist agenda they hold so dear?
Report of the Bipartisan Commission on Poker Hands: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".
DC: I have access to poker rules that the Commission doesn't, and so I know for a fact that the cards in my hand are all intimately connected.
George W. Bush: Dick Cheney is telling the truth. I'm a nice man who would drink a beer with you.
Vladimir Putin: I dealt Dick Cheney three aces and two kings.
DC: My deal.
Poker With Dick Cheney
Transcript of The Editors' regular Saturday-night poker game with Dick Cheney, 6/19/04. Start tape at 12:32 AM
The Editors: We'll take three cards.
Dick Cheney: Give me one.
Sounds of cards being placed down, dealt, retrieved, and rearranged in hand. Non-commital noises, puffing of cigars.
TE: Fifty bucks
DC: I'm in. Show 'em.
TE: Two pair, sevens and fives.
DC: Not good enough.
TE: What do you have?
DC: Better than that, that's for sure. Pay up.
TE: Can you show us your cards?
DC: Sure. One of them's a six.
TE: You need to show all your cards. That's the way the game is played.
Colin Powell: Ladies and gentlemen. We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that Mr. Cheney's poker hand is far, far better than two pair. Note this satellite photo, taken three minutes ago when The Editors went to get more chips. In it we clearly see the back sides of five playing cards, arranged in a poker hand. Defector reports have assured us that Mr. Cheney's hand was already well advanced at this stage. Later, Mr. Cheney drew only one card. Why only one card? Would a man without a strong hand choose only one card? We are absolutely convinced that Mr. Cheney has at least a full house.
Tim Russert: Wow. Colin Powell really hit a homerun for the Administration right there. A very powerful performance. My dad played a lot of poker in World War 2, and he taught me many things about life. Read my book.
TE: He's extremely good at Power Point. But we would like to see the cards, or else we can't really be sure he has anything to beat two pair. We don't think he would lie to us, but ... well, it is a very rich pot.
Jonah Goldberg: Liberal critics of Mr. Cheney's poker hand contend that "he doesn't have anything". Oh, really, liberal critics? Cheney has already showed them the six of clubs, and yet these liberals persist in saying he has "nothing". Why do liberals consider the six of clubs to be "nothing"? Is it because the six of clubs is black?
Matt Drudge: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
The Drudge Report has learned that Dick Cheney has a royal flush, hearts.
Developing ...
TE: Perhaps if you could just show us a subset of your cards which beat 2 pair? Or tell us exactly what your hand is?
DC: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed.
TE: We aren't sure ...
DC: Very good. And here are my cards. A straight flush.
Judith Miller: Dick Cheney has revealed a straight flush, confirming his pre-collection claims about beating two pair.
TE: Those cards are of different suits. It's not a flush.
Mark Steyn: When will it end? Now liberal critics complain that Dick Cheney's cards are not all the same suit. Naturally, these are the same liberals who are always whining about a lack of diversity in higher education. It seems like segregation is OK with these liberals, as long as it damages Republicans.
MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
A witness has come forward claiming that The Editors engage in racial profiling in blog-linking.
Developing ...
TE: Wait! It's not even a straight! You've got a eight and ten of hearts, a six of clubs, and the seven and five of diamonds. You have a ten high. That's nothing.
Sean Hannity: Well, well, well. In another sign of liberal desperation, liberals now complain that a ten high is "nothing". Does ten equal zero in liberal mathematics? That would explain a lot.
Robert Novak: It's a perfectly valid poker hand. Apparently, liberals have never heard of a "skip straight". It's a kind of straight, just with one card missing. But if you skip around the missing nine, it's a straight.
Alan Colmes: Mother says I mustn't play poker.
TE: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".
Brit Hume: It seems like some people are still playing poker like it's September 10th. Back then, you needed to have all your cards in order to claim a straight. But, as we learned on that day, sometimes you won't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes you have to learn to connect the dots, and see the patterns which are not visible to superficial analysis of the type favored by the CIA and the State Department. Dick Cheney's skip straight is a winning poker hand for the post-9/11 world.
Rush Limbaugh: Do The Editors have two pairs, or a pair of twos? First they say one thing, then another. What are they hiding?
Andrew Sullivan: Dick Cheney never said he had a straight. He was very careful about this. His cards can form many different hands. None of these hands alone can beat a pair of twos; but, taken together, the combination of all possible hands presents a more compelling case for taking the pot than simply screaming "Pair of twos! Pair of twos!" as unprincipled liberal critics of the Vice President so often do.
MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
Did The Editors claim to have "a pair of Jews"? Are they anti-Semites as well as racists?
Developing ...
Zell Miller: As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I believe Dick Cheney, and I hate liberals and Democrats.
William Safire: Why are liberals so obsessed by Dick Cheney's poker hand? The pot has been taken, the deal is done. If liberals are upset that we are no longer playing by the Marquis of Queensbury patty-cake poker rules, they clearly lack the stomach to play poker in the post-September 11th environment. And why do they never complain about Saddam Hussein's poker playing, which was a thousand times worse?
Christopher Hitchens: The Left won't be happy until the pot is divided up equally between Yassar Arafat, Osama bin Laden, and Hitler. Orwell would have seen this.
Ann Coulter: Why do liberals object so strenuously to the idea of conservatives having a "straight"? Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with the radical homosexual/Islamist agenda they hold so dear?
Report of the Bipartisan Commission on Poker Hands: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".
DC: I have access to poker rules that the Commission doesn't, and so I know for a fact that the cards in my hand are all intimately connected.
George W. Bush: Dick Cheney is telling the truth. I'm a nice man who would drink a beer with you.
Vladimir Putin: I dealt Dick Cheney three aces and two kings.
DC: My deal.
The most important NYC map you will ever see
OK, maybe I exaggerated. Then again, maybe not.
You tell me: is a map of all the free bathrooms in Manhattan important to you?
Usage Note: The map says "Click on a neighborhood to find or add restaurants." What you'll find when you click is actually not restaurants at all, but sweet, sweet free bathrooms, along with helpful usage notes.
Update: A fellow blogger points out there's another list, but it:
a. is not as extensive
b. is an about.com site, meaning get ready for annoying pop-ups
c. claims to be a list of "clean" bathrooms, and if you've ever been in some of the Barnes & Noble bathrooms around the city, you know that's stretching it.
Game Over: This list wins. Thanks for playing.
You tell me: is a map of all the free bathrooms in Manhattan important to you?
Usage Note: The map says "Click on a neighborhood to find or add restaurants." What you'll find when you click is actually not restaurants at all, but sweet, sweet free bathrooms, along with helpful usage notes.
Update: A fellow blogger points out there's another list, but it:
a. is not as extensive
b. is an about.com site, meaning get ready for annoying pop-ups
c. claims to be a list of "clean" bathrooms, and if you've ever been in some of the Barnes & Noble bathrooms around the city, you know that's stretching it.
Game Over: This list wins. Thanks for playing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)