Yes, he got me again. It was his very next post after this one, and I haven’t even gotten to the rest yet. Here’s our prominent booster of right-wing ‘citizen journalism’ showing us the standards to which he believes all media should attain:
The worlds greatest environmental hypocrite wastes so much energy that his consumption would power 232 normal homes.
Sigh. The link goes to a blog post at the user-content site, Digital Journal. The post sums up an ‘investigative report’ by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, the folks who brought us last year’s thoroughlyhinky Al-Gore-uses-electricity contretemps.
But wait. Check the ‘investigative report’ and you’ll find that it’s actually nothing more than a press release. It includes no actual citations, checkable figures or verifiable information of any kind. It reads like this:
In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
Yes, they’re actually quoting themselves. Plus, of course, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research is one of those apparently infinite phony-nonpartisan groups that produce conservative nonsense and flapdoodle as their raison d’etre. Its head, DrewJohnson, is a 28-year-old American Enterprise Institute beneficiary and frequent right-wing TV and radio guest. Its Director of Legal Policy is a right-wing activist fresh out of law school, who hasn’t even taken his bar exam yet.
At that point we stopped digging, because this investigative report is obviously solid gold!
Sadly not content with even that level of wastefulness, the Goracle has now taken to directly belching balls of energy into the atmosphere.
Okay, that’s actually pretty funny.
But the adverb, ‘sadly,’ yields insight. “What’s a word that goes naturally with funny?” asks Confederate Yankee’s subconscious. We’ll be onto him for certain if he starts picking up characteristic locutions like ‘bonk-headed’ or ‘poo-cano.’
Update: Steve Strum notes (correctly) that Gore’s annual usage would power 232 normal homes for a month. Not quite as bad as originally thought, but still horrific.
Well, that’s one correction so far. Another is that the so-called Tennessee Center for Policy Research is wrong in claiming that Gore “scurried to make his home more energy efficient” in response to their first cornball investigative report (i.e. press release). That part of the story is summarized here. Also, the ‘normal homes’ assertion actually says ‘average households.’ Which means that Mr. Yankee has swallowed the bait and is comparing a 10,000 square-foot mansion to, you know, a figure that includes a vast preponderance of smaller dwellings, including apartments. That’s an old one, the sneaky use of ‘average’ to conceal disparities in the things that you’re comparing.
Anyway, to sum up, a questionable conservative activist group has asserted in an unsourced press release that Gore’s 20-room, 10,000-square-foot house uses 19.3 times the amount of power of an average housing unit of unknown but much smaller size.
And repeating these assertions blindly equals journalism.
Are we embarrassing him yet?
No, I didn’t think so either.
Correction: As Evan reminds us, it would be more accurate to say that Gore’s 20-room, 10,000-square-foot house in which he and his family run small businesses employing a staff of 20-odd people, and have a round-the-clock security detail — plus a guest-house and some outbuildings -– uses 19.3 times the amount of power as an average housing unit.
To which we would also add that Gore participates in Nashville Electric’s Green Power Switch program, in which he pays a premium for power that comes from renewable sources. And also that the house is carbon-neutral due to offsets. And so on down the line, and so forth.
Is Confederate Yankee embarrassed yet?
Further Correction: If you look at last year’s attention-seeking press release from the Tennessee Center For Policy Research, they claim that Gore’s electricity usage in 2006 was 18,400 kilowatt-hours per month. Now they’re claiming a 10% increase to 17,768 kilowatt-hours.
Employing mathematics, we find that the number 17,768 is not larger than the number 18,400.
Embarrassed yet, etc.? And not to pick on Confederate Yankee unduly, so how about our old pal Glenn Reynolds?
AL GORE: Still guzzling energy in Nashville. “Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the ‘green’ overhaul.”
Lots of talk, but more bloated than ever. It’s almost like a metaphor.
As I’ve said before, the amazing thing about Gregg Easterbrook isn’t just that he gets paid to be wrong, but that he gets paid to be wrong on such a broad range of topics, from politics to sports to science to film. Reading a Gregg Easterbrook article is like listening to a rousing speech delivered by one John Blutarsky describing America’s resolve in the days after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. Except, instead of getting basic facts wrong about one particular historical event, he gets them wrong about everything. The guy is a bloody polymath of wrongness, on par with Clifford C. Clavin, Jr.
And yet prestigious magazines continue to publish him.
Over at America’s Shittiest Website™, K-Lo posted a video of a disheveled Jonah Goldberg (sporting a shiny new mullet) and Laura Ingraham, in a Faux News segment titled “To Drill or Not Drill in Arctic Nat’l Wildlife Refuge.” Guess who was on the side of not drilling? No one, of course! (That was a trick question.)
So that busy Sadlynots don’t have to watch the whole thing, we have thoughtfully condensed the video to five seconds:
Bonus LoadPants-ism: Jonah swoons over the 10 billion barrels to be found in ANWR, and then says that the U.S. imports 10 billion barrels of oil a day. Woohoo! One day’s supply of oil in ANWR. Totally worth it, dude.*
*Actually, the U.S. imports about 10 million barrels per day.
Yes, the right-wing media is like an all-you-can-eat buffet line: If you’re foolhardy and let yourself be tempted by the mashed potatoes, the mac and cheese, the regular and German potato salad, and so forth, your plate will be full by the time you reach the roast beef and salmon.
A tempting steam-pan of starchy comestibles is Confederate Yankee. Any given item at the top of his page, anytime you look, will be zanily wrong in some flagrant, clownshoe-flapping respect, such that it takes a better man than me to resist loading up on him on the way to, for instance, today’s far more crafty and important argument against habeas corpus by John “Whatsamatta” Yoo. That argument is full of small carefully-spaced holes, like a colander, whereas Confederate Yankee’s arguments typically have a big gaping hole, like when someone moons you from a speeding car.
I suppose what I mean to say is that he got me again. I went to see what he was up to, and voila:
See, I’ve been out of town for a few weeks, and there’s a certain ever-thus uncanniness in coming back and encountering such a title and opening sentence, all right there in plain English right in front of one’s face. It was like the time a few weeks before when I’d wandered into the 7-11 and noticed a copy of New York magazine for the first time in a couple of years. On the cover was Sarah Jessica Parker. It was like. . .how should I explain this? It was like the astonishment you don’t feel when the sun doesn’t explode.
The ‘Obama gaffes’ thing is a right-wing chant of the eternal shifting Now. Its meaning is that ‘gaffes’ are a bad thing as applied to John “Gaffer O’Blabby McGaffalot” McCain, but if you take out ‘John McCain’ and substitute ‘Barack Obama,’ then. . .opposite! The idea, as with all of these chants of theirs, is to repeat it a lot, winkingly for awhile, until they forget that it’s just something they made up to be saucy and pugnacious. Then it becomes true, and thus are worlds created through gradual accretion. It will become a fact through which other facts can be proved.
Anyway, it’s not the smartest thing they’ve ever come up with (that would probably be the Overton Window), but it’s to the wingnuts’ credit that ‘Obama is old’ never made it out of R&D. Not so much to their credit is Mr. Yankee, to whom we now return as he quotes Barack Obama saying something obvious and commonsensically true:
And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.
And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.”
Sensible people are now standing in front of bookcases wearing tweed jackets, soberly whipping off their glasses and putting on their stethoscopes. “Indeed!” they say. “Studies show!” “70% surveyed agree!” Sensible people are not Mr. Yankee, who paces the floor with broken crockery orbiting his head:
For the moment let’s ignore that terrorist recruitment in general (and for al Qaeda in particular) is on the decline and Barack is making up his inconvenient untruths as he goes along, to focus instead on his insistence that Bill Clinton’s flawed policy of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue is somehow a winning strategy. We’ll use Obama’s own 1993 WTC bombing example to debunk his claim.
It’s quite simple: where is the 1993 World Trade Center bomb-builder? Is he in a U.S prison, as Obama claims? Not even close.
First things first: Linking to a blog post by Walid Phares is a teeny-weeny-winey eeny teensy-weensy, iddle-widdle microscopic jot and tittle of a small amount of not-quite-the-same-thing as actually establishing something as objectively true. This is shown by the principle of mutuality. Example: Ha ha! Contrarily, terrorist recruitment in general (and for al Qaeda in particular) is on the increase!
…Look, quoting Barack Obama didn’t actually prove anything, did it? It just sort of impertinently turned the tables, yes? But now I find myself falling into a bad habit by addressing Mr. Yankee directly. It’s like arguing with a doycano. You try to explain yourself, and it just erupts and showers you with molten Doy.
Though grossly neglected in the media, Abdul Rahman Yasin…
Oh right, there was that. And we hadn’t even gotten past the blaming-Clinton-for-9/11 yet. (Inter alia, the preceding citation is signally different from the Walid Phares one in that it includes objective, checkable figures and factual claims.) So anyway, Obama’s gaffe was in saying that we put those responsible for the first World Trade Center attack on trial.
Which we did. Except for the guy Mr. Yankee is mentioning, who fled the country.
Though grossly neglected in the media, Abdul Rahman Yasin conducted the first attempted chemical weapons attack on U.S. soil by terrorists with the 1993 World Trade Center bomb. The bomb that detonated in the WTC garage in 1993 was built by Yasin to create smoke filled with sodium cyanide, which he hoped would rise through elevator shafts, ventilation ducts, and stairwells to suffocate 50,000 people.
Except for the cyanide, of which there wasn’t any. Oddly enough, the belief that there was cyanide in the bomb seems to come from a statement made by the judge during a sentencing hearing in the WTC bombing case. …A sentencing hearing for defendants that, you know, went to trial. Mr. Yankee’s sources for the cyanide claim? Ho ho, we found them here! The primary source is a since-amended Wikipedia entry reproduced at Answers.com. He says its claims are ‘confirmed’ by Wikipedia, if you can believe such a thing. Then as backup, he cites zany-eyed crackpot Laurie Milroie, who has lately become a font of ridicule even among her fellow neocons.
Fortunately for those in the World Trade Center that day, the bomb burned hotter than Yasin expected, and incinerated the cyanide as it detonated instead of spreading it in toxic smoke.
I’m not going to look because it’s late and there simply isn’t time, but this is the kind of thing you tend to find when you check into these recursive Wikipedia citations and Escher ladders of conservatives-citing-conservatives and so forth: Laurie Mylroie might even have been the person who added the ‘cyanide’ line to the original Wikipedia entry. That’s the kind of thing you find.
Yasin fled the United States after the bombing to Iraq, and lived as Saddam Hussein’s guest in Baghdad until the invasion.
Once again, Barack Obama is dead wrong on the facts.
Come to think of it, the phrase ‘once again, XX INSERT LIBERAL XX is dead wrong on the facts’ is like when you look at the cover of a new Rolling Stone, and Dave Matthews is on it. It’s like the relief you don’t feel when you haven’t stopped banging your head in a car door.
* Update: I’d forgotten to reproduce Mr. Yankee’s link for the phrase, ‘Saddam Hussein’s guest,’ which points to a USA Today story from September 17, 2003. Here’s the executive summary:
WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.
The Bush administration is using the evidence to strengthen its disputed prewar assertion that Iraq had ties to terrorists, including the al-Qaeda group responsible for the Sept. 11 attack. [...]
Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam’s political stronghold. A U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said translators and analysts are busy “separating the gems from the junk.” The official said some of the analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam’s government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin.
Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative.
Yet, with just a few words, Mr. Clinton’s “Sister Souljah moment” showed that he was willing to take on the party’s sacred cows and speak candidly to even the most entrenched party constituencies. The effect was palpable; in the words of one Philadelphia working-class voter, “the day he told off” Jesse Jackson “is the day he got my vote.”
(Indeed, just yesterday, Barack Obama had his own mini- “Souljah moment” as he decried the epidemic of fatherlessness and illegitimacy among black Americans. While it is a message that Mr. Obama has voiced before to other black audiences, speaking unpleasant truths about issues afflicting the black community may provide political benefit for a candidate whom some working-class white voters are suspicious of — just as it did for Clinton 16 years ago.)
It’s amazing but true: if you’re a politician in this country, attacking obscure rappers and deadbeat fathers is seen as a symbol of political courage.
This isn’t an endorsement of deadbeat fathers, by the way; I’ll leave those sorts of shenanigans to Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser. I just find it funny that attacking groups of people who basically wield zero political or economic clout is as politically profitable as it is.
Above: Intercontinental ballistic corndog enters one silo; tomorrow it will exit the other as a post on Powerline.
Holder is a legitimate target because of the Rich affair, I guess, but frankly I have little or no interest in who helps Obama choose a V-P. What bothers me most about these battles is the implicit assumption by some that just about any involvement in the business world is somehow suspect. . .
Yeah, because no matter how much Buttmissile would like to see Obama’s campaign torpedoed, if it means giving up corporate influence in politics in even the smallest way, then forget it.
I know, I know: to deal with Adam Yoshida is to scrape the bottom of the wingnut barrel. Still, it’s fun; also, it’s useful because Adam’s writing is like a distant early warning system. If you want to know what major wingnuts really think — if you want to know how most wingnuts really feel, and what their ideas and policies are really about when taken to the logical (if often unstated) extreme — then Yoshi’s one of the guys you read. Because Adam “Human-sized microwaves” Yoshida never minces words.
Above: Yoshi and his hand: this committed couple has no children yet but not for want of trying.
Because treasonous appeasers leaked the NIE which downgraded Iran as a threat, the mullahs have become so emboldened that the only recourse is for President Bush to prepare to annihilate their country — and then, if the filthy Muslims don’t capitulate, actually annihilate their country.
Question: Is a phrase inherently right-wing because it is used or abused by right-wingers?
I say no, but apparently many people disagree. For a while there, for example, one couldn’t criticize the most rabid Obama (or Clinton, for that matter — I’m ecumenical in my dislike for fanatics) supporters, and certainly not use the word “cult” in the criticism, without rousing suspicions that one was objectively pro-Freeper or something. But maybe that’s a bad example. I’ll try another. Remember how, during the run-up to the war, the Liberal Hawk types characterized anti-war rhetoric as being “right-wing” and “reactionary” because several slogans used by anti-war Leftists were similar to several slogans by the Buchananite Right? You know what I mean, how anti-war sentiment supposedly was invariably and inevitably a product of “isolationism” and “realpolitik” — rightwing viewpoints. Is the desire for the United States to be “a republic not an empire” somehow inherently right-wing to enunciate because it is the title of a Pat Buchanan book? According to Robert Farley’s rules, it has to be. Because, you see, if a phrase can possibly convey noxious sentiment, if it can possibly transmit bigoted code, then it just naturally follows that every speaker/writer of that phrase can be assumed a noxious bigot, and dealt with accordingly. No exceptions. Good faith? Otherwise impressive credentials? Sorry; fuck you. Meanwhile, definitions of bigotry expand faster than the universe, with the real bigots gladdened to see all the decent people consigned to their common moral plane.
When I hear the phrase “latte-sipping elitist,” I think of several things. Culturally, I think of scenesters or scenester wannabes, arbiters of taste, awful people very much on the make, navel-gazing yuppie scum… Fuck it; I could go on and on, but here’s a good shorthand: I think of people who write for Gawker. Politically, I think of people in the professions, some of them moving in and out of government, or otherwise involved in policy-making, who are very attuned to and conscientiously follow conventional liberal positions on cultural issues but are clueless — and often more than a little callous — when it comes to class issues. The shorthand here is “Brad DeLong.” I myself never use “latte-sipping elitist” but I have and do use “technocrat elitist,” in the exact same spirit I recognize in the former phrase, when describing such people who regard their poor countrymen with only a bit more humanity than Trevelyan and Lord John Russell had for the Irish.
Anyway, the point is that I defy anyone to argue that the images/characterizations conjured are “right-wing” much less “anti-Semitic.” On the contrary, they are left-wing — at times, so much so that they verge on Jacobinism. Poor people hating on elites in good faith aren’t wrong or ipso facto “anti-intellectual” (much less wingnutty or anti-Semitic) for believing the New Class/Creative Class (or whatever you want to call them — hence the admittedly silly shorthand “latte-sipping elitist”) has sold them out. Or do you really want to argue, inequality steadily on the rise and casualties piling up in Iraq, that the neoliberal-wingnut consensus on economics and foreign policy has done well by the poor?
Is every manifestation of contempt for cultural and political elites anti-Semitic and rightwing in origin? Apparently it is: Farley’s definition could not be broader. Since I, like many (most?) poor people, despise a large portion of the “Best and the Brightest,” I’m an anti-Semite. Similarly, I read not too long ago that any contempt shown for those ultimate economic elites (the banking industry) is also transparent anti-Semitism, because you know how people used to go on about the Rothschilds. Since I — like anyone who’s gone through bankruptcy and indeed like all farmers in the last, say, 150 years — loathe the banking industry, I’m an anti-Semite. Sooner or later, anyone who’s ever said anything bad about Wall Street will be an anti-Semite, too. And ultimately, we’ll get to the point that all populists who loathe the Establishment are anti-Semites. What did you say? Something about irresponsibly categorical smears? Something about how a generalization or stereotyping is one thing, but a willfully categorical smear-job is something else? Something about how one should take into account who is saying what and why they are saying it before one calls them something that no serious or decent person can be? GTFO! What are you, some “dumb motherfucker”? Go “sieg heil” with the rest of the anti-Semites, you horrible person you!
ABOVE: Iain Murray demonstrates the best way to heat Pop-Tarts.
Iain Murray, one of the Britwankers over at America’s Shittiest Website™, apparently had his bs-meter removed at the same time they carved out a large chunk of his cerebral cortex. The result, of course, is that if he sees a shiny little bauble of wingnuttery lying around somewhere on the web, he picks it up with glee and parades it around as if he had found the Hope diamond. To wit:
Latest from the U.N. Human Rights Commission [sic] [Iain Murray]
What’s the biggest human rights issue in the world? The establishment of a military junta in Zimbabwe? The callous indifference of the Burmese government to the suffering of their people after the cyclone? The tyranny in Uzbekistan? Of course not. In a move that will gladden Lyndon LaRouche’s heart, they have decided that the British monarchy and unwritten constitution need to be challenged.
Oh, you mutter, there must be some mistake here (other than Murray’s fucking up the name of the Human Rights Council). And there is (in addition to Iain’s parents’ decision to bring him to full term).
And it’s a mistake that is readily apparent to anyone who can ask the Great Gazoogle to take him or her to the original source material, which is, in this case, the Report of the Working Group on Universal Periodic Review of the United Kingdom. Now go to page 17 of the Report and you will find this recommendation:
To consider holding a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution, preferably republican, which includes a bill of rights (Sri Lanka)
You may wonder why “Sri Lanka” is in parenthesis at the end of that recommendation. That’s because Sri Lanka — and Sri Lanka alone — made the suggestion. Wander down a little further in the report and you’ll see this — in big, bold letters so that even wingnuts can’t miss them:
All conclusions and/or recommendations contained in this report reflect the position of the submitting State(s) and/or the State under review thereon. They should not be construed as endorsed by the Working Group as a whole.
Ah, so it’s not a recommendation of the Human Rights Council or even the Working Group but only a suggestion from the U.K.’s great friend and ally Sri Lanka. Actually, the former colony might have a little grudge to bear against the U.K. You see, after widespread criticism of the human rights record of Sri Lanka’s authoritarian regime, Sri Lanka recently lost its seat on the U.N Human Rights Council. And the U.K just won a seat on that council.
Does Iain remind anybody else of the kid you told in elementary school that bacon grease was really good for your hair, only to see him the next day at school, followed by all the neighborhood dogs, his hair all shiny and reeking of smoky pig fat?
You have probably been blissfully unaware that the latest tactic being employed by teh Moooslims in their battle to establish a caliphate in the United States and to replace your neighborhood Hooters with a Falafel Hut is going on in Dearborn, Michigan, and involves ice cream trucks. To learn more, we must enter the strange world of Debbie Schlussel where a Mooslim wielding a scimitar lurks behind every potted plant.
Some of my fondest memories as a kid, hanging out with my Dad, are when we’d meet up with the neighborhood ice cream truck, during the hot summer, and he’d buy me one of my favorites: The Bomb Pop–red, white, and blue, it was patriotic, yummy, and cool on a hot day. And as you know, the only way to know the truck is coming is to hear its music.
And these Muslims–who don’t like American culture and want to shut it, and all American-style fun, down–have now succeeded in getting Dearborn Heights police to enforce old, never enforced noise rules to keep ice cream trucks out.
Why teh Mooslims have issued a fatwa against ice cream trucks is never explained by Debbie. I assume it must have something to do with the red, white and blue “patriotic” Bomb Pops which steel young boys and girls against the wiles of the jihad. Without those Bomb Pops, American boys and girls will be kneeling on prayer mats and facing Mecca faster than you can say Allahu Akbar.
Nor is the connection of the Muslims to the truck ban explained. Let’s roll the Debbie tape:
On Tuesday, the City Council is expected to adopt an ordinance that will allow ice cream vendors to ring bells only while they are selling their goods. . . .
Oh noes, has Mooslims gotten in ur city council in Dearborn Heights? Sadly, no! — see all teh Mooslims for yourself:
Tomorrow Debbie will explain how teh Mooslims are responsible for the glut of reality programming on the TeeVee this summer, the disappearance of the chocolate-covered PayDay candy bar, and the end of Laura Ingraham’s radio program.
Fraulein Schlüsselwurst, the perpetual embarrassment of her alma mater, the University of Wisconsin Law School, has predictably kicked into full hyperbole mode over today’s Supreme Court decision granting habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees. To say that she’s gone batshit crazy would be unjustly defamatory to guano-drenched bat cave floors throughout the world, so we’ll just say that the opinion, which she hasn’t apparently read, has made her crazier than a junkyard dog in a fully-stocked meat locker:
At least five of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices announced to the global Islamic terrorist community that open season on America has officially begun.
Scene: A run-down apartment in Lahore, strewn with empty Red Bull cans and Big Mac wrappers.
Dramatis personæ: Larry Lahore and Izzie Islamabad, two wannabe terrorists.
Larry: Allahu Akbar, Izzie. It’s time to attack America! Izzie: Are you nuts, Larry? You drink too much Red Bull and eat too many Big Macs. Larry: No, Izzie, I just read in a newspaper that now we have habeas corpus rights in the Great Satan’s own land. Woohoo! I’m getting a one-way ticket to New York. No habeas corpus — that’s all that was keeping me from doing this earlier. Get packed. Izzie: Larry, you’re so dumb that not even the 72 virgins in paradise will have sex with you. Do you even know what habeas corpus rights are? Larry: Sure, Izzie, it’s the right to habeas your corpus. Everyone knows that. It’s the first thing you learn at madrassa. Isaac: No, Mr. Hummus-Brain. It means if you sit in Guantanamo with a soldier’s rifle barrel up your butt for a few years, some federal judge hundreds of miles away will finally decide that they have probable cause to keep you at Guantanamo and you’ll sit around for another few years with that same barrel up your butt and with ladies’ panties on your face until you go to trial. Larry: Oh. … (pause) … You wanna watch that Baywatch video again? I didn’t want to blow myself up anyway.
And even though Fraulein Schlüsselwurst allegedly went to law school she seems to know less about habeas corpus than either Larry Lahore or Izzie Islamabad. Get a load of this little gem of fractured jurisprudence:
But now, the Supreme Court has announced to world that every terrorist, no matter how bent on destroying America–and regardless of whether or not the terrorist had any contact with American soil–now has a right to their own three ring court circus, MC’d by some ringmaster clone of Judge Ito and attended by his/her posse of O.J. jury replications.
Just like there’s no crying in baseball, there are no juries in habeas corpus hearings. Oh, and another thing: If Fraulein Schlüsselwurst had read the opinion she would understand that the ruling applies only to detainees held at Guantanamo because of the unique degree of control that the United States exercises over Guantanamo. The decision doesn’t apply to enemy combatants held in foreign countries. So her little rant about “regardless of whether or not the terrorist had any contact with American soil” is, well, flat-out wrong.
But Fraulein Schlüsselwurst already has an excuse as to why she hasn’t read the opinion. It’s waaaay waaay waaay toooo long and booooooooooorrrrrring!
Oh, and by the way, the Kennedy decision was 70 pages. If you have to write seventy pages to justify a simple, absurd decision, you know you’re wrong. You’re just fertilizing.
Why bother to read the thing when you can just count the pages and know it’s wrong? I bet the Constitutional Law class at Wisconsin Law is pretty short. And the exam has one question: “Which opinion is longer, Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education?” I mean, Fraulein Schlüsselwurst is such an embarrassment to Wisconsin that I’d imagine she even makes the non-partisan Professor Althouse cringe.
And no post from Schlüsselwurst would be complete without a closing illustration to make a point that might be too subtle for the lip-movers that read her blog if it were written out in words:
Which means — I think — that because a jury let OJ go free because he had dark skin, then all juries will let all terrorists go free because they all have dark skin, although not as dark as OJ, but dark still, and we all know that dark people go free and juries just send white people to jail or something. Or wait, was OJ a terrorist? Did he kill Nicole because she was drinking which is forbidden by sharia law or something? Is that why the jury let him go free? Oh, it’s all so confusing, even in simplified picture form, but it still gets us back to one thing:
There are no juries in habeas corpus.
[Hanx to John Cole for sending me an email pointing out this gem from Debbie]
K Lo: I’m with you on “Imagine” — love the piano, hate the lyrics. A band called A Perfect Circle has a great cover version. The music is bleak and the vocals are subdued. It’s a much-needed deconstruction of the song. It’s like the anti-”Imagine.” I’m not sure the musicians intended it that way, but that’s the result, by my lights. Definitely worth a 99-cent download.
Tee Hee. This isn’t exactly new territory for Miller, but whatever. As soon as Miller reads anything about Maynard Keenan, he’ll hate him as much as he hates Maynard Keynes — or John Lennon. But, anyway, what brought this on? Oh:
The Sajudis anniversary came to mind after a meeting in New York last week with Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident turned Israeli politician turned political theorist. Mr. Sharansky has a new book, titled “Defending Identity.” It would be equally accurate to call it “The Case Against John Lennon.”
Or, more specifically, the case against “Imagine,” Lennon’s anthem to a world with “no countries . . . nothing to kill or die for/And no religion too.” For Mr. Sharansky, a nine-year resident of the Perm 35 prison camp, that’s a vision that smacks too much of the professed beliefs of the ex-Beatle’s near namesake, Vladimir Ilyich.
Stephens has constructed such a vortex of wingnut batshittery that Ann Althouse might die of envy and Stephen Hawking will be compelled to tweak his theories to account for it. Stephens, a Zhdanovian hack, attacks an artist of whose work the Wingnut Politburo has long disapproved (but many dissidents in the Soviet Union admired). All for the sake of — what? Not anti-communism, exactly (though that’s where he starts out) but tribalism/Identity Politics. Weird.