“Hints of kerosene and acetone in the bouquet with notes of ashtray, hard-boiled eggs and old cat litter.”
Ann Althouse, the Gallo Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin School of Law, staggered over to Drudge and latched onto news reports of Obama’s annual physical like a homeless alley drunk onto a full canister of Sterno and — get this — accuses Obama of being a drunk.
How many beers a day would Obama need to be drinking before his doctor would recommend “moderation of [in?] alcohol intake”? Drudge picks out this bit from Obama’s health report:
The link goes to this report — which stresses the advice to “continue smoking cessation efforts” (which means he’s still smoking, apparently) — and ends:
The doctors also recommended “moderation of alcohol intake.”
Considering that there is a great deal of research showing that it is a positive health benefit for a man to drink 1 or 2 beers a day, I would think that a 6 foot 1 1/2 inch man like Obama could easily drink 3 or 4 beers a day without there being an actual negative effect of concern to a doctor.
How much is Obama drinking?
Ann Althouse calling someone else drunk? What’s next? Amy Alkon claiming that someone else dresses like a low-rent drag queen? (Amy Alkon thinks that the linked photo of herself is “pretty fantastic.” Seriously.)
Speculating on Obama’s drinking habits, according to Professor Althouse, is okay because:
If you think we shouldn’t be talking about the President this way, let’s remember how people called Bush a “dry drunk.” That is, he was criticized for being a drunk when he didn’t drink at all!
Um, Ann, I don’t think “dry drunk” means quite what you think it does. Put down the glass of Smoking Loon Merlot for a moment and focus, just focus, on the word “dry.” Or at least — and here’s a radical suggestion — just read the fucking article before you link to it.
Of course, as with many Althouse posts, an oopsie moment is not far behind. A commenter on Ann’s website was able to accomplish the nearly impossible feat of finding the press release on Obama’s annual physical and, well, here is what is says:
Continue smoking cessation efforts, a daily exercise program, healthy diet, moderation in alcohol intake, periodic dental care, and remain up to date with recommended immunizations.
“Continue,” Ann, it says “continue” moderation. I think it finally may be time for an intervention, although arguably that time came several years ago when Ann started hiding $1.49 splits of Sutter Home red wine in hollowed-out books in her office.
Larison makes a key point about the neocon mindset as it relates to “national greatness”:
Of course, Lowry and Ponnuru cannot actually point to very much on national security policy that they dislike*, which is why they are reduced to whining about the non-response to Ortega, and spend most of their time complaining about the attempted transformation of America with still more intrusive domestic government. Even so, they are convinced that they are seeing the “waning of America’s civilizational self-confidence,” which worries them because it means we might be less willing to kill foreigners for no good reason mount the “forward defense of freedom.”
It really does come down to the fact that Obama makes their penises feel small.
As for myself, I can’t imagine tying my entire sense of self-worth to whether or not my tax dollars are being used to enact angry vengeance against swarthy foreigners. I have cooking, guitar playing, writing and running to keep myself happy; fantasizing about sending other people to die isn’t exactly the kind of pick-me-up that appeals to me.
Larison concludes:
The security and warfare state is no less and actually far more alien to these shores than any entitlement program. It is far more dangerous to the constitutional government that truly was one of the most admirable achievements of our ancestors, and it goes against the grain of most of our national history. A huge standing army, military outposts scattered around the globe, perpetual war and the arbitrary use of force by executive order–are these really compatible with the national character Lowry, Ponnuru and Rubio claim to cherish? Of course they are not, which reminds us that their dedication here is no more meaningful than that of most of the would-be “constitutionalist conservatives” who gathered near Mount Vernon.
This is sorta what I’ve been saying about a lot of these guys for a while. There are genuine libertarians out there, such as Ron Paul, who believe in small government and low taxes. But guys like Kristol and Lowry only oppose the Democrats’ domestic agenda because it means spending more money helping poor people and less money on the precious, precious wars. The aren’t opposed to big government so much as they’re opposed to decent government.
UPDATE: Ah, to relive the joys of the Summer of War. This Doughbob Loadpants love letter to the Iraq War is still a thing to behold (emphasis mine):
So how does all this, or the humble attempt at a history lesson of my last column, justify tearing down the Baghdad regime? Well, I’ve long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the “Ledeen Doctrine.” I’m not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” That’s at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago. […]
But Saddam has very little to do with al Qaeda (as far as we know). The Islamic fundamentalists hate Saddam because he is a terrible Muslim (note: being a terrible Muslim, according to these fanatics, has little to do with murder and torture and everything to do with drinking wine and letting women wear skirts). So why make like Benny Hill on the little bald guy on Saddam?
FINISH THE JOB
There would have been a certain logic to calling for a cease-fire once Allied forces liberated Czechoslovakia, Poland, and — oh yeah — France from the Germans. Why lose more American lives, one might reasonably argue, now that we’ve accomplished our mission to liberate Europe?
Few people made this argument in 1945. The United States understood, in the words of Douglas MacArthur, that there is no substitute for victory. In the Persian Gulf War, the United States changed its mind. As chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell reportedly urged for the cessation of hostilities before the U.S. entered Baghdad. The rationale offered not only by Powell, but by our allies in Riyadh and elsewhere, was that we would fracture the almighty coalition President Bush had assembled. Keeping the coalition, some reasoned, was more important than getting the job done. This is like telling your prom date, We’d better stop fooling around because it might result in the wasting of a condom.
Can you even make this shit up?
Per Doughbob, if we don’t violently overthrow a government that has not attacked us, we are prematurely pulling out and not “finishing the job.” It’s like Loadpants listened to George Carlin’s brilliant routine on the first Gulf War and decided to use it as a serious foreign policy blueprint.
More:
But there will be plenty of time later to dissect and debate every argument, good and bad, for toppling Saddam. For now let’s fall back on the Ledeen Doctrine. The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.
Yep. We need to go to war. Why? Pfffft. We’ll debate that later! But it must be with someone! Someone in the Middle East! The Arabs are laughing at our penises and we must make them pay!
And the most mind-blowing passage:
There is nothing we want to see happen in the Middle East that can be accomplished through talking around long tables festooned with bottled water and fresh fruit at Swiss hotels, that cannot be accomplished faster and more permanently through war. But there is plenty that cannot be achieved by such gabfests that can only be achieved through war.
More than 100,000 dead Iraqis are still thanking us.
Supporting a universal health care system has been a key plank of Democratic politics for nearly a century. It’s something that all Democratic presidential candidates have campaigned on in one form or another. It’s something that the party always touts as a centerpiece of its platform at every single national convention.
But when it comes time to actually, you know, create a universal health care system, many Democrats simply can’t wait to jump ship. Look at this crap:
“I just don’t know where they get the votes in the House,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire, a Democrat who voted against the initial House bill. “It’s a huge challenge because…the people who voted ‘yes’ would love a second bite at the apple to vote ‘no’ this time because they went home and had an unpleasant experience as a result of their ‘yes’ vote. I don’t know if there is anybody who voted ‘no’ that regrets it.”
You can’t make this shit up. If Altmire is to be believed, there are scores of Democrats who are chomping at the bit to tell their constituents that they voted for health care reform before they voted against it. For the life of me, I don’t know how these people have ever worked up the self confidence to have sex with anyone, let alone run for political office. How do they get through foreplay without bursting into spontaneous bouts of weeping?
Look, dudes. You have a choice. You can take an unpopular vote in favor of health care reform and tell your constituents that you voted your conscience because you believe having a universal health care system is essential to the future of this country. Or you can say, “I voted for it before I voted against it!” This approach, you might remember, worked wonders for John Kerry back in 2004.
In other words: Stop being losers. Por favor. Get health care done and move on.
Now I know from back in the old days when I was forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh at work that the Dirigible of Darvocet himself has said he pays cash at the dentist’s just like he does at the doctor’s and that’s the way the system should be for everyone. This latest is just more typical rightwing mean-spiritedness toward the poor who, in their view, deserve to be uncomfortable and humiliated because they can’t afford the dental care wingnuts can afford — that is, if wingnuts want it; some, apparently, do not. Here’s two more Cheeto-teethed, Mountain Dew-mouthed, um, mouthbreathers yukking it up over Slaughter’s testimony:
LS: I even had one constituent, you will not believe this, and I know you won’t, but it’s true. Her sister died, this poor woman had no dentures. She wore her dead sister’s teeth.
[Hugh Hewitt]: Mark Steyn…(laughing)
[Mark Steyn]: (laughing) That’s good. That’s good for the environment, isn’t it?
HH: (laughing)
MS: I’m in favor of that. If we can’t at least, if we can’t reduce our carbon footprint, at least we should be able to reduce our mastication mouth print by recycling dentures. I mean, this gets to the heart of why this is…is second-hand dentures, which I believe was the fourth chorus of that Barbra Streisand song, for those with long memories, but is second-hand dentures a huge problem in the United States? What are the number of people going around? There’s 300 million people here. Are 20 million going around with second-hand dentures? Are 5 million going around with second-hand dentures? The idea that you need comprehensive national health care for, to solve this particular lady’s second-hand denture crisis, I think is…
HH: But Mark, we’ve only got 15 seconds. It happened again and again. When the Democrats talked, you just looked the screen and said, “oh my God, they’re running the country.”
MS: (laughing)
HH: Oh my God, they’re running…Mark Steyn, always a pleasure, www.steynonline.com. Second-hand dentures, the chopper stopper, America.
Yeah, bwahahaha. Here’s a pic of Hugh Hewtit, undoctored:
Buy some fuckin toothpaste, Hugh. You can afford it.
Make no mistake: If President Barack Obama actually wanted to be the post-partisan agent of Washington change, his health care summit would have involved him capitulating completely to the partisans on my side of the aisle.
Spoke with my Hawaii kin — they will be evacuating their North Shore home for higher ground before 11am local time, when the tsunami from the Chili earthquake is expected to arrive. Others live further inland already.
I’m not the praying sort, but this sort of thing, on the heels of the Haitian quake, Katrina, the Indian Ocean tsunami, etc. etc.? Makes you want to beg somebody somewhere to keep your loved ones safe. Or at least shake your fist at the random cruelty of it all.
Woodstock-like gospel event planned in Missouri
Posted: Feb 12, 2010 4:08 PM CST Updated: Feb 13, 2010 9:19 AM CST
POPLAR BLUFF, MO. (AP) – A southeast Missouri man will host a five-day event in June that is set up like Woodstock, but with what he calls an opposite message.
Jerry Murphy owns a 400-acre farm in Butler County just northeast of Poplar Bluff. The Poplar Bluff Daily American Republic says he has linked with a group of ministers from around the country to host the gathering called “Wilderness Outcry” June 14-18.
The gathering will feature gospel music and religious speakers.
Murphy says Woodstock in 1969 marked a retreat from Judeo-Christian values in American culture. He hopes Wilderness Outcry helps turn that around.
Admission will be free, though Murphy may charge for camping to help recover the cost of hosting the event.
Officers with the Poplar Bluff Police Department say they’re worried about not having the resources to staff an event that’s rumored to possibly bring in up to 100,000 people.
Heehee. Oh, I’m sorry: HeeHAW.
X-files thought of the day: there might be such a thing as political telluric currents, positive ones drawing certain ideological types, negative ones repelling them. Nixon considered San Diego his “lucky city;” we moonbats are fond of places like Berkeley and Taxachusetts. Democrats have excellent reason to dodge Dallas since you know what; Republicans hate NYC and try to avoid New Orleans, especially after a hurricane. And the southern Missouri foothills seem to draw Republicans. Poplar Bluff is where Bush lamented that OB-GYNs were kept from practicing their love, plus it’s not too far from Vegas for people like Ned Flanders.
But then there’s Schwagstock, full of awesome, stinky hippies who want to free Mumia and save Darfur and eat crazy tofu, psilocybin, and human fetus-based fusion food, so there goes my theory. Anyway, I know where I belong, but I also know where I must go.
Pst. Hey. The Tip Jar over on the right-hand side of the page is working again. Please consider sending us some money if you feel like it. Reading crazy assholes is hard work!
Also, if you guys send money, I’ll be sure to post the story I’ve been writing about Charles Krauthammer, Dick Cheney and Glenn Reynolds forming their own moon colony. So there’s incentive!
