Aug
22
22
Rick Santorum’s Gay Dog
Rick Santorum’s Gay Dog
“Puccini”
Aug
15
15
Looking for 9th circle of Dante’s Inferno?
Look no more, for we have found it. Let Gilbert Gottfried be your guide.
Warning: Contains clippy.
I, Clippit, known to all as “Clippy,” am a movie star! (Did you know that most award winners got their starts in Flash animations?) The episodes on this site show the effects of Office XP on a humble paper clip like me. It isn’t pretty.
Ann Coulter in an evening dress isn’t pretty. These videos are revolting.
Aug
12
12
When I say more usual, I mean less common
From TBOGG we are once again drawn to the National Review’s The Corner, where John Derbyshire takes a shot at Newsday’s coverage:
Newsday has a hard-left editorial line, and is strongly sympathetic to illegal immigrants. It actually prints the phrase “illegal immigrant” in quotes, on the very rare occasions it prints it at all. (By far the more usual formula is “day laborer” or, when they feel they really cannot avoid referring to a person’s immigration status, “undocumented alien.”)
Really? Sadly, No! In fact, not even close.
Should one actually go to the Newsday search engine and do a search for illegal immigrant, 67 articles would be returned. Of the 17 that can be accessed for free, not one has the words illegal immigrant in quotes.
Wondering how many times day laborer was used? 33. Undocumented alien? Twice.
Looks like someone is going to be spending a lot of time in “the corner.”
Update: Mr. Derbyshire responds to our email with a link to this October 2000 article which shows that Newsday used the words “illegal immigrant” in quotes in one story. Which leads us to conclude that his claim above was a gigantic pile of “uninformed bullshit.”
Update 2: Tom from Just One Minute suggests we provide direct links to some Newsday articles so that readers can see for themselves whether Newsday writes “illegal immigrant” rather than illegal immigrant. Ready? Set. Go! Here is a piece from August 12, and another one from August 8. Perhaps you would prefer this Aigust 7th dispatch or a story from August 2? If not, try this one? All of which would lead one to conclude that John is actually a “writer” ? “critic,” and “commentator.”
Aug
8
8
Fox Hack All Stars!
Dig dig dig dig…
Atrios points to this entry from The Daily Howler:
On last night’s Special Report, Brit Hume started the panel in orderly fashion; he read off six “false impressions” about Iraq which Al Gore had blamed on the Bush Admin. “Well, some of it was true,” Juan Williams said, agreeing with the things Gore said. And that?s when Barnes began his faking. No, we really aren’t making this up. Yes, the corrupted man said it:
WILLIAMS: Well, some of it was true.
BARNES: I didn’t notice any.
WILLIAMS: Well, I think it’s true when [Gore] says that President Bush led us to believe that somehow Saddam Hussein might have had connections to Al Qaeda?At this point, Fred cut Williams off. Try to believe that this fake, phony man has reached the point where he’ll actually say this on television:
BARNES (continuing directly): I think Bush said exactly the opposite, consistently! Exactly the opposite!
So was it Barnes’ own intelligence sources that led him to write stories featuring passages such as:
March 30, 2003: Terrorists might be able to slip out of the country ahead of American or British troops. On the other hand, credible evidence of the sanctuary given them in Iraq by Saddam could be supplied by captured Iraqi officials. And if al Qaeda members are apprehended, say, in Basra, the case is closed.
March 26, 2003: He’s [Hussein] not in bed with al Qaeda. But he’s in contact with them.
February 27, 2003: That outcome is not likely to make Saddam willing to disarm or stop tormenting his own people or threatening his neighbors. Nor is it likely to make him skittish about getting up close and personal with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. One significant result: The security of the United States will be further imperiled.
February 17, 2003: It was reinforced by Secretary of State Colin Powell’s irrefutable indictment of Iraq at the U.N. Security Council last week for stockpiling forbidden weapons of mass destruction and forging links with al Qaeda terrorists. “Enough, enough,” Powell concluded. Bush backed that up the next day by declaring, “The game is over.”
February 10, 2003: Iraq became the next logical step in the war on terrorism. Bush believes September 11 revealed Saddam now has a delivery vehicle to reach the United States with his WMDs–not intercontinental missiles but al Qaeda terrorists who’ve proven their ability to slip into the United States.
February 5, 2003: And just as important was the solid evidence Powell outlined of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Did you see that last one? Barnes wrote:
And just as important was the solid evidence Powell outlined of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Bush was saying “exactly the opposite.” Which is why Barnes was writing exactly the opposite of the opposite.
Update: More! We want more! Here we go… (No links for these, sadly. All entries from The Weekly Standard.)
August 12, 2002: Mohamed Atta, the leader of the September 11 hijackers, visited Prague twice in the fifteen months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, in June 2000 and April 2001, and met with an Iraqi agent at least once during the second visit. […] The meeting has political and international importance. A connection between Iraq and Atta, an al Qaeda operative under Osama bin Laden, bolsters the case for military action by the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.
Sep. 11, 2002: It’s Saddam’s potential for secretly slipping weapons of mass destruction to terrorists like al Qaeda.
November 25, 2002: But the war–against al Qaeda and Iraq–is most crucial of all.
January 22, 2003: But since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, it’s clear there’s another delivery vehicle available to him [Hussein:] al Qaeda terrorists operating in the United States.
Update 2: From the comments section, Harry points to this list of Barnes nonsense.
Aug
6
6
Oh, how we love that liberal media
Brent Bozell writes:
Should we feel sorry for the press as they try, frantically, to apply a barrel of pancake makeup to Howard Dean and present this raging leftist to America as a soggy “centrist”? This is a really tough job. … It’s hard not to snicker at the thought of newspapers like The Washington Post declaring in a Sunday front-page headline: “As Governor, Dean Was Fiscal Conservative.”
Jacqueline Shalit, writing in the Washington Times:
Mr. Dean is a fiscal conservative with his Vermont record to prove it.
Aug
5
5
Shorter Steven Den Beste
Shorter concept inspired by busy, busy, busy from an idea by D-Squared.
Aug
1
1
With a song in my heart
Is anyone else here a fan of the boyband neoconzone?
No matter what they tell us
No matter what they do
No matter what they teach us
What we believe is true
No matter what they call us
However they attack
No matter where they take us
We’ll find our own way back
I can’t deny what I believe
I can’t be what I’m not
I know I’ll spin forever
I know, no matter what
If only trailers were weapons
If only papers were bombs
If only prayers were answered
Then we would hear Chalabi say
No matter what they tell you
No matter what they do
No matter what they teach you
What you believe is true
And I will keep you safe and strong
And sheltered from the storm
No matter where it’s barren
A dream is being born
No matter who they follow
No matter where they lead
No matter how they judge us
I’ll be everyone you need
No matter if the sun don’t shine
Or if the skies are blue
No matter what the end is
My life began with you
I can’t deny what I believe
I can’t be what I’m not
I know, I know
I know this love’s forever
That’s all that matters now
No matter what
So Bush can be Stephen (the sweetest,) Blair Ronan (Mr. Nice Guy!) Rumsfeld Mikey (the oldest one,) Wolfowitz Keith (the sexy one!), and Judith Miller Shane (the crazy one!)
