If you can read this, you’ve somehow landed at the new, new place. Not the old place that sucked. Not the new place that made the old place look like it wasn’t teh suck. The newer place. With very powerful gay hamsters.
We’re still getting things organized so don’t panic if there are some (party) quirks.
–The Management
Gavin adds: I believe this explains everything:
It’s been far too long since I’ve been able to post anything on this fracking site (and it still took me 20 minutes just to log in), but I figured I’d start everyone’s weekend off with a jolt of Pastor Joseph Grant Swank, Jr.
In today’s edition, the good pastor examines one of the biggest social problems of our day: apparently, the gays are driving black folks away from Jesus. Take a look:
HOMOSEXUALITY TEARING APART BLACK CHURCHES
By J. Grant Swank, Jr.
The disease spreads further.
Once large black churches have lost members due to the pastor changing from the biblical data regarding the active homosexual lifestyle to accepting the active homosexual lifestyle.
Nope, I got no idea what the fuck I just read.
Black parishioners who once were loyal have disappeared, some having been members since childhood, others driving from the suburbs into the inner city but no more.
The gays are forcing black preachers to stay out of the inner cities now? Wow! What other wicked powers lurk within their groins?
Let’s put aside for a moment McCain/Feingold and the right’s other grievances against John McCain. When it comes to the war on terror, is he the Lincoln of our time?
Let’s see. So far this week, McCain has said:
This is doubly problematic given McCain’s claim last June that Zarqawi’s death was a “bit of a rebuke against those who are advocating that we cut and run out of Iraq.” Will his return from the grave somewhat strengthen the case for withdrawal? Many questions here.
This should also raise a red flag of sorts, because not only is it more ignorant than a sack of wooden turnips, but due to recent attacks on the US complex in Baghdad, personnel inside the Green Zone are no longer able to walk to the cafeteria without body armor.
The GOP just isn’t making Lincolns like they used to!
Hinderaker, dense as a neutron star, gives his endorsement to the tough-talking anti-withdrawal petition that McCain is now circulating. The title is ‘Surrender Is Not An Option,’ which. . .because, you know, Republicans have had to backpedal a bit from ‘failure’ not being one:
To repeat just one line: “Success or failure in Iraq is the transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security.”
I’ve signed the petition.
We’re also circulating a petition of interest to Mr. Hinderaker. It demands the repudiation of false so-called biologists who promulgate the anti-Marxist doctrine of so-called genetic inheritance. There’s also another one that demands the construction of wicker and rattan airports, so that the planes will once again land with their cargo.
Paul Mirengoff, more gaseous than dense, counsels moderation:
PAUL adds: I respect and admire John McCain, especially on the issue of Iraq. But I’d have to put aside his advocacy on behalf of detainee rights before I could consider him the Lincoln of our time on the war on terror.
Right, he might also be anti-slavery, Paul. That’s a dangerous slippery-slope right there.
Some folks are talking-up the ERA again. Good for them. Unfortunately, their chatter has inspired reactionary gasbag David Frum, after an obligatory homage to Phyllis Schlafly, to offer a new frame-job on the ol’ conservatarian ‘Liberals have no new ideas’ argument:
We’ve been hearing since November about the resurgence of the progressive left - the new enthusiasm, the new energy, the new organizations, the new commitment. Amidst all these exciting novelty, there is only one thing lacking: new ideas. The resurgent “progressive” movement is the most backward-looking political force since William Jennings Bryan tried to repeal the industrial revolution. Their big issues - a government healthcare monopoly! do away with secret union ballots! and now … ERA! - date respectively to the 1940s, the 1930s, and the 1970s.
It’s just bizarre to tune into blogosphere debates to watch freshfaced 20-somethings passionately champion, as if just invented, policy proposals that were old when their grandparents were young. If this is progressiveness, what would reaction look like?
Above: Looking Backward Frum 2007 to 1215
This is rich, coming as it does from a spokesman of a movement whose raison d’etre has been (for forty years now) a repeal of the New Deal — or, failing that, repealing the New Deal mentality of the populace.
But the fucktardious asshelmet asked what reaction would look like. I shall be more helpful, then:
Yes, we know. We’ve been chasing pieces of the site all over the Internet, while being locked out of our own server about 85% of the time.
We’re worried that everyone will abandon us. How funny is a blog that you can’t even look at properly? Not very funny at all! What good are we? Not much lately!
But like the Charlie Brown Christmas Tree, some magical somethingness is going on to make us all big and shiny and make all the other kids stop laughing and poking fun.
No, serious this time. Coming up right-soon. We’ll have more details when we claw our way onto the server later.
-teh custodial staff
Above: We ought to have been suspicious when the hosting contract was all misspelled and covered in paw prints.
Professor Althouse has a rational explanation for her, uh, incident of a couple of days ago. Since Babelfish does not yet offer translation services for Althousque, we offer this annotated version by way of public service.
Translation: “Things I am right now talking about.”
As you may have noticed, that Bloggingheads episode I did with Garance Franke-Ruta — did you know I came up with the title “This Time It’s Personal”? — attracted a fair amount of attention yesterday.
Translation: As everybody has noticed, that bizarre, belligerent tantrum of mine during the Bloggingheads episode I did with Garance Franke-Ruta — oh look, I have cute toes! — had tens of thousands of people laughing at me yesterday.
Many characters in the leftosphere used the two-minute segment where I get mad to rake over the old flame war that I spent those two minutes saying I wouldn’t be dragged into talking about again.
Translation: During my five-minute harangue at Ms. Franke-Ruta, which lasted two minutes, many were reminded of the pivotal case of Smelt It v Dealt It, which established that cutting a big, cheesy gasser is not prejudicial if another party hostilely mentions the false charges of flatulence brutally hurled at you by desperate and vicious critics out of jealousy — and you explain with pointed finger that you are not going to tolerate their farting anymore!
I may be sorry I got as mad as I did
Because laughter has begun to haunt my nightmares.
— but I think showing some anger in an argument is not a huge deal. There’s so much repression and passive aggression out there. It’s so easy to process your emotions with those grim tools. It’s what we usually do. The notion that it’s crazy to display emotion is…. crazy.
It’s not me who’s crazy, it’s the rest of you — society, the world.
But I’m not sorry I didn’t go back into the old flamewar, either in the video, where I was tweaked about it
…through a hostile, passive-aggressive attempt to “answer a direct question” with a “factual statement” on the “same topic”…
— and reacted extravagantly — or when all those blogs goaded me about it yesterday.
Only further proving that their attackingly obsessive attempts to slander and victimize me with my own words are no match for my fierce courage and — may I say — heroism in the face of unspeakably mendacious and hostile negativity, which I will not tolerate anymore.
So, have fun grinding over the old times amongst yourselves.
My extravagant self-expression in attacking Ms. Franke-Ruta for no reason demonstrates that I have long moved on from this controversy of a hundred billion trillion years ago, i.e. September of 2006. Similarly, gratuitous talk about my current behavior only shows who is really the crazy one — for it is you and you and you.
posted by Ann Althouse at 7:54
Update:
[Hanx! Chris Clarke, J-]
Worse is the new better.
Remember when we announced with a great deal of excitement that we would be moving to a new hosting provider and that all would be well and gay once we had? Oh, such promises were made… And now? Now, we’re starting to miss the old folks and chances are you are as well.
We’re currently looking for bigger hamsters and hope to have the situation resolved soon.
The obviously overwhelmed and undertalented management
Hey, guess what, we’re winning in Iraq.
That’s what Blog of the Week–rapidly turning into Blog of the Spring–Jules Crittenden says, anyway:
By The Way, It’s Official …
… we can win in Iraq, we are winning in Iraq, and George Bush’s surge strategy is responsible for it. Not even the AP can ignore it* anymore:
Al Qaeda’s Waterloo?
—AcePetraeus’ recent request of 3000 additional troops is apparently impelled precisely by his desire — or rather his believed need — to deal with this terrorist stronghold decisively.
Worst Nightmare
Filed under: Politics, War — Gaius at 10:13 am on Tuesday, March 27, 2007After Nancy Pelosi and John “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” Murtha led a slim majority of the House Democrats (plus two Republicans) one pork chop too far with their supplementary spending bill, about the worst thing that could happen is for the surge to begin working in Iraq. Which it appears to be doing. Reports are coming in that the Iraqis are turning on al Qaeda. The progress is such that the media can’t even ignore it.
Check in next week to watch them reappear in the previous reality — in which civilization hangs by a thread as we lose in Iraq, thanks to the terror-emboldening leftist liberals and their lapdogs in the biased, liberal-leftist MSM.
Above left: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
I got distracted and missed a lot of the more ridiculous statements Alberto Gonzales made last night as I watched his laughably disingenuous interview on NBC Nightly News because, like any other time I see him speak on television, I can’t shake the nagging suspicion that the real attorney general, Judge Reinhold, is somewhere out there, totally hamming it up in his son’s fifth-grade classroom.
Ann Althouse goes rooty-tooty on camera, and Crooks & Liars takes you there!
Above: The peroxide seeps ever inward.
[Commentary at Lawyers, Guns, and Money, and context chez Bérubé.]
Ok, Lefties: Why Are You so Silent, Now?
By Mark Noonan at 12:38 PMAs Captain Ed points out, Iran says they are going to charge the captured British sailors with espionage…even if they did go deliberately and with malice aforethought into Iranian territorial waters, they went in clearly uniformed as regular military personnel and thus cannot, under the Geneva Convention, be charged with espionage.
So, how about it, lefties - will you gin up some demonstrations? Make demands that Iran adhere to every iota of the Convention? Or are you just going to blame this on us?
Dear Iran,
We demand that you honor the Geneva Conventions, because contempt for these most honorable and civilized of international treaties puts you on a level with Mark Noonan and Ed Morrissey.
We are sending a ginned-up demonstration. Please accommodate the 30,000 2-3,000 or maybe 5,000 patriot-warriors angry Bush supporters who will be arriving to protect the captured sailors curse at people and wave anti-Pelosi placards.
Signed,
Teh Left
The great thing about Mark Levin’s NRO blog, And Another Thing…, is that there’s always some other thing on it. Usually it’s toxic spew. Sometimes, though, it’s transparently dishonest, morally crooked toxic spew with a coating of rancid oil. Let’s have a look!
Above: The poor man’s Michael Savage
Paul Krugman, Enron’s former consultant, is really a loathsome hack. I think he’s an economist. And for the last six years he’s been predicting the next Great Depression. His woeful incompetence in his own field of “expertise” doesn’t stop him from frolicking in other areas of public life — with equal ignorance.
Never mind the ‘Enron’ thing, which is an old one. This is the Paul Krugman who’s been on the short list for the Nobel. Mark Levin, on the other hand, was recently notorious for a Nobel scam in which he pretended to have the authority to nominate Rush Limbaugh for a Peace Prize.
Levin’s current expertise is in performing angry talk-radio harangues about ‘liberals’ in a strangled chihuahua voice. I think he’s a lawyer.
This Monday Krugman wrote a hit piece on Ronald Reagan entitled “Don’t Cry For Reagan.” In his screed he included a smear about “the state of the Justice Dartment under Ed Meese, a man who gives Alberto Gonzales and John Mitchell serious competition for the title of worst attorney general ever. The politicization of Justice got so bad that in 1988 six senior officials, all Republicans, including the deputy attorney general and the chief of the criminal division, resigned in protest.”
Yes, that was pretty much in all the papers at the time.
Now, I understand that he’s a spittel-spewing Reagan-hater, but that doesn’t give him leave to trample on the factual record. As Ed Meese’s chief of staff at the time, I can attest to the fact that there was no effort at any time by the Reagan White House to influence or politicize any criminal investigation.
Duh, ok! Indeed, Mr. Levin’s subsequent career stands as its own monument to the political impartiality of Ed Meese’s Justice Department.
You know what’s coming next, right? The traditional Clinton blame-shift:
That sort of behavior didn’t occur until Bill Clinton and Janet Reno came to town. They fired all 93 United States attorneys as cover for removing two U.S. attorneys who were investigating business transactions involving the Clintons and corrupt Democrat Congressman Dan Rostenkowsi’s bribes. It was Reno who used her public trust to assert frivolous privileges on behalf of her boss and whose lieutenants were undermining Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s investigations. And it was Reno who refused to act against Al Gore’s illegal fundraising at a Buddhist temple and calls-for-cash from the White House. The list goes on, but who’s keeping track … obviously not Enron’s former consultant.
And it’s amazing that there’s never been any kind of exhaustive, multimillion-dollar investigation of these charges, as well as any other possible charge that some Republican like Levin might’ve thought up one morning on the can. That’s another reason why Gonzales shouldn’t have to testify under oath or transcript — because it would distract from America’s generational mission of finding stuff to pin on the Clintons.
But wait, what about those resignations under Meese?
As for those resignations, the deputy attorney general (Arnold Burns) and the assistant attorney general for the criminal division (Bill Weld) attempted to drive Ed Meese from office to advance their own careers.
They must be increasing Bill Buckley’s intravenous drip of scotch and soda over at the National Review. It’s been a suspicious while since we heard his bayings of mortified dignity carrying across the midnight heath.
I have no idea who’s at fault in the latest mess. Either or both sides could be stating their claims in good faith — the boundaries in the Gulf and the Shat al-Arab are disputed — and either or both could be offering tissues of lies. I’m happy to assume the Iranians are lying. I’m also conditioned by history to assume the ‘Coalition’ is lying. Doesn’t matter — both sides’ governments are composed of and supported by troglodyte, reactionary trash just begging for a fight they personally will not have to physically wage. Fuck em all. Anyway, the following quotes are offered without further comment:
Hmm:
[F]oreign policy experts of an anti-Bush hue compete to offer elaborate scenarios of how the U.S. could spark a conflagration. American policymakers “intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [the U.S.] would be forced to retaliate for,” former National Security Council official Hillary Mann told Newsweek. Another former NSC aide, Flynt Leverett, told the New Yorker, “The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond, and then the administration will have an open door to strike them.” In Senate testimony, former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski conjured up a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran,” which would be provoked by a “terrorist act” that would be “blamed on Iran,” “culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire.”
Huhh:
in a NR feature article, Mario Loyola suggests that Iran may very well be telling the truth about what happened here, and that this incident was the by-product of efforts by the U.S. and Britian to provoke Iran into war — justifiably, in Loyola’s view (needless to say):
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Iranians were actually responding, in this case, to a carefully planned provocation of our own. As Churchill said, sometimes the truth is so precious that she must be attended by a bodyguard of lies. . . .
The gloves are coming off. And the risk-calculation here is: If someone gets nervous and starts shooting, the timing would be more auspicious now for us than for the Iranians. Therefore, it only makes sense that American and British naval units operating in the Gulf would be in a more forward-leaning and aggressive posture than the Iranians.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the British sailors were detained because the British did something to make the Iranians really angry. Khamanei dramatically upped the ante this week. We probably raised. And they probably raised back. The stakes in this nuclear-poker game just got a little higher.
So the U.S. and Britain are deliberately provoking Iran in a “nuclear-poker game” and then lying about what they are up to, and Loyola thinks that’s all great. A whole new war — it’s all so exciting and pulsating.
Ahh:
That [a likely Gulf of Tonkin-style ‘incident’] involves the British, not the Americans, is a double victory for the on-to-Tehran crowd: the war-weary Brits, who recently announced the withdrawal of their troops from southern Iraq, will presumably be dragged along in the wake of the coming U.S. military assault as their sailors are paraded before the cameras in Tehran. Once again, “coalition” forces are about to take down a Middle Eastern government, and they are already on the move.
By the gods, I love Blogs for Bush. I love it more than I’ve ever loved anything, more than my family, my friends and all the girls I’ve loved before combined. I love it more than baseball, Stanley Kubrick films and Rogue Chocolate Stout. It is a love that is undying, a love that will go down in history of Great Loves, up there with Romeo and Juliet, Anthony and Cleopatra, and The Editors and Barack Obama.
If you’re having trouble understanding my passion for this amazing website, look no further than this incredible post, penned by one “princella”:
Sean Hannity is amazing. That is the best word I can think of to describe him right now. I attended the Stars and Stripes Dinner where he was the guest speaker, and I must say that I wish every conservative could have heard his address. He encouraged us to remember that despite the criticism that seems to strike us from the left, we must still keep the faith.
Kiss me, beautiful! Make love to Bradrocket! He lies here waiting for you wearing nothing but a baseball cap and a leather thong!
Incidentally, here is what Sean Hannity said that got princella so excited:
The truth of the matter is that even when you’re right, it is sometimes hard not to loose focus. I am saddened and disappointed by the politics that the left is playing with war, social security, health care, border security, education, and fiscal issues.
My God! Those liberals are playing politics with political issues?? Forsooth, what devilry will they not stoop to?!!
About this, I think Yglesias is more right than Scott.*
Yglesias writes:
Garance put up a post yesterday evening that I thought was a bit of a low blow, suggesting that Sam Rosenfeld, Ezra Klein, and I all just don’t like Hillary Clinton because we’re men. I don’t want to get into that[…]
Well, I will get into that, even though I probably shouldn’t:
