perfidy

By way of Interested Participant, it comes to our ears that we have another Kennedy Family/dead woman/car in the water thingy going. Hope Sheridan, is the former mother-in-law of Michael Skakel, a cousin of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Skakel, you will recall, is doing a long stretch for the murder of Martha Moxley.

Divers found Sheridan's car Monday afternoon after a sheriff's helicopter noted two faint parallel marks at the end of a retention pond.

The car was submerged in about 15 feet of water 75 feet from shore. Sheridan's body was found on the passenger side, Detective Keith Harmon said. He said there were no skid marks on the grassy area going into the water.

As the Interested Participant noted:

I personally have found my driving expertise is seriously impacted when I sit in the passenger seat. There's probably $ome way to convince the authoritie$ that Hope $heridan accidentally drove 75 feet into the ocean while $eated in the pa$$enger seat.

Police do not suspect foul play, and are considering this an accidental death.

It's just dangerous to be related to, to date, or now even be related to someone who marries a Kennedy. American Royalty, my lily white ass. From bootleggers to Nazi sympathizers to mob bought elections to fat drunken senators to date raping scions to pilot error; this family is a vomit stain on our national necktie.

Calpundit points us to a parallel-universe press conference transcript with House Speaker Dennis Hastert (have you ever noticed that "Hastert" sounds a lot like "Hastur," as if an Ancient Evil were now empowered to speak on behalf of the duly elected representatives of the citizens of the USA? I wonder if you go insane if you look into his eyes long enough... that sure would explain a lot...)*

The trouble is, this parallel-universe conference was only parallel if you reduce our n-dimensional space to n=1: that is to say, it actually happened. In this universe.

Hastur^&^&^&...Hastert, sorry, was a little steamed over trouble with the President's people and a transportation bill. Read on!

Q You met with the administration yesterday. Did they say they would support the target number?

Speaker Hastert. We need to go forward, we need to go to conference with the Senate, and then if they want to be involved in that conference, they certainly will be able to be involved in it.

Q But did they say they would sign?

Speaker Hastert. They didn't make a commitment.

Q Did they say they would veto it?

Speaker Hastert. They didn't say they would veto it.

Q Is that with the President or with the people?

Speaker Hastert. That is with the President. I don't deal with his people anymore.

[snip]

Q Sir, what did you mean by that last comment: That was with the President; I don't deal with his people anymore?

Speaker Hastert. Well, we weren't getting straight numbers from his people, and they changed their mind in the middle of the process. So we are going to do what we feel we need to do.

Q Just on this issue or on

Speaker Hastert. On this issue.

Q Or in general?

Speaker Hastert. On this issue.

Q Sir --

Q What kind of numbers were you getting from them?

Speaker Hastert. Different numbers.

Q Different from?

Speaker Hastert. Where they added up.

Well, all-righty-ho, then. I'll just leave this up with no comment.

[wik]* Vote Yog-Soth-Oth in 2004! Why settle for lesser evil?

While that word was invented by the Germans to describe the pleasure they experienced in observing the misfortunes of teh French, I think that many Americans have shared that pleasure in hearing that Martha Stewart has been found guilty of obstructing justice and lying to the government about why she unloaded her ImClone stock just before the price plummeted. Me, I will miss her warm presence on the airwaves, and her helpful tips which might (if I applied myself diligently) make me almost as good as her.

I wonder what tips she could come up with for celebrating a fine and gracious prison Christmas when constrained by a nine by nine cell.

Erstwhile Cincinnatti Reds owner, Nazi apologist, and walking argument for enforced eugenics Marge Schott died Tuesday, March 2, 2004. I don't know what withered Valhalla waits for people like her, but I bet it looks like a Waffle House.

Now the Transportation Safety Administration is fining airline passengers for getting lippy.

What kind of bureaucratic hellhole are we building ourselves? I already don't fly anywhere because of the cost and aggravation involved. And now we have to be unfailing polite to government workers who just broke our suitcase zipper as well?

Reason has a big story up this month about the TSA's repeated embarassments and failures. It's a terrible situation. Did you know that the name "Osama bin Laden" doesn't appear on the much-vaunted and secretive Passenger Watch List? Did you know that the names of some Catholic nuns do? Did you know that Air Marshals tend to be guys who couldn't cut it at the police academy? Did you know that the motto above the entrance to the TSA's air marshal training facility reads "Dominate. Intimidate. Control"?

Yeesh. Come home, Amtrak. All is forgiven.

So this soldier packed up and moved his family to Canada because he was going to be sent in harm's way. Again. He had already completed a tour in Afghanistan, and was about to be sent to Iraq. His conscience would not allow him be a tool of American oppression (or something), so he ran to Canada. His story is that he enlisted for the college money and to "make a difference", and not so much for the fighting and the icky bits.

Here's the problem: he was in the 82nd. He went to jump school. The article doesn't specify whether or not he was an infantryman, but regardless you don't put yourself through the rigorous training and land a posting in a prestigious airborne unit unless you want to be there. If you are unfamiliar with the 82nd's history of close combat, relentless aggression, and cultivation of the warrior spirit, you're stupid. If you just need a hug, you're in the wrong place.

Furthermore, he decided he was a conscientious objector. That claim would carry alot more weight if he had claimed he was a CO when the recruiter first asked him, early on in the process. Or later, when he signed a document that again asked him whether he was a CO (among other stuff, like if you've ever tried to overthrow the governemnt, that sort of thing). So he wasn't then I guess.

The article quoted him at length discussing how he was unwilling to risk his life for a mission he did not believe in (in Iraq, that is). Again, this kid is a little dense, and missing the fundamentals: it's not up to soldiers to decide which missions they will accept or which they will not. It's the soldier's job to execute them. Yes, there is an ethical dimension, in that all soldiers are sworn to obey the lawful orders of the officers posted over them. If your commander orders you to execute a prisoner, you would not have to obey and indeed would be criminally liable if you did. Getting an order to deploy to Iraq is a lawful order, and Congressional authorization for the conflict is what counts, not the goddamn UN, not Mother Theresa, not Greenpeace, and damn sure not you. There's no conscientiously objecting your way around that.

Finally, if the kid really "wanted to make a difference", as he claims, why not the Peace Corps or Teach for America or Commies for Christ or some such? No, nothing says "I'm here to help" like parachutes and body armor.

Oh, and double-finally: Canada should extradite him, since desertion is a crime there as well as here. He's not so much cowardly, as just dumb.

No, really.

Triumph the Insult Dog was seen in Quebec replaing street signs with ones that read, "Quebecqueer Street" and "Rue des Pussies."

Alexa McDonough, a legislator for the left-leaning New Democrats, described the program as "racist filth" and "utterly vile" and demanded the government seek the return of the C$1 million subsidy.

"There may be those who would say, 'Isn't this interfering with freedom of expression?' It's not interfering to say we will not publicly fund this kind of vile, vicious hatemongering," McDonough told reporters.

GuitarPicker (Loyal Reader #0011) has tipped us off to the existence of a new website which encourages sponsoring vegetarians. They even have a logo: 

What does it mean to sponsor a vegetarian? It means that you have to find someone in your life who's a really big pain in everyone's ass every time you want to go out to eat, and then you commit yourself to eating THREE times the amount of meat you'd normally consume to make up for all the meat that your vegetarian buddy isn't eating. It's that simple! That way, you can reverse the guilt trip that they've been laying on us for years by not only neutralizing their cause, but making it actually worse by eating more animals than would have ever been eaten had they not chosen to become vegetarians!

What if vegetarians say they don't care because we'll become fat by sponsoring them? I've thought about that already. All you have to do is exercise. I know it goes against the being lazy rule that I advocate so much, but this is so spiteful that it more than makes up for the exercise you'll have to do--which means that if you choose the 3 to 1 plan and sponsor a vegetarian, you're being so spiteful that you can't lose! If you have a choice, eat three separate types of animal to maximize your efficiency! Only offered beef? No problem: visit the zoo and eat a monkey!

I always thought that vegetarianism was extremely selective. Why is it okay to kill animals, and not plants? And why do animal rights activists only want to save the cute animals? And why do they all wear leather shoes? Besides, our ancestors fought and died for millennia to put us on top of the food chain, so how can we spit on their memory by not eating meat?

[wik] Best bumper sticker so far this year: Save a tree. Eat a beaver.

A word to the wise: if you've gone almost five years without your regularly scheduled cleaning at the friendly neighborhood dentist, you may as well just never get one. I feel like my teeth have been peeled, and it hurts to breath through my mouth. The hygienist was gentle with the five megawatt, ultrasonic pain causing device, but I kept thinking of the line from Fight Club, "You can swallow a quart of blood a day and not get sick."

And because I had been so lax in attending to keeping my oral cavity in tip-top condition, I have to go back in a month do do it all over again.

Bush will support a constitutional amendment, designed to permanently enshrine discrimination against gay people into the constitution. Why? It's classic "look over there, not over here" politics. It's disgusting.

If there's ever been a time where state's rights are important, this is it.

Polling consistently shows that younger people have much more tolerance for gay people. In fact, even among young and relatively religious people, there's a who-cares attitude towards gay marriage. Why is this? It's simple.

News for you old people who are screwing up our country: There aren't that many gay people. We'd prefer to just live them alone.

Who gets to live with your stupid constitutional amendment? We do. And our children. You don't have relevance for much longer. Why the hell are you pushing your prejudices on the next generation?

The list of bullshit the greediest generation is forcing on everyone else just gets longer and longer.

I have some comments on Ross’ last post.

Foreign Policy:

Why, then, has Bush's response been so different to the same intelligence reports? Clinton, viewing, the exact same information, chooses to remain at arm's length from Iraq. Bush sets off to war. Bush has 9/11 looming large...but that's what Afghanistan was about.

Bush’s response has been different because every previous president found it politically expedient to ignore the threat. 9/11 makes that more difficult, though you seem up to the challenge. Afghanistan was about 9/11, but it didn’t end there. We still need to hunt al Qaida everywhere else (including Iraq) and then hunt down those who make terror possible – the state sponsors (including Iraq.) It is a war on terror, not on al Qaida. Hunting for bin Laden isn't enough - he is only one instance of the class of terrorism. We need to do everything in our power to eliminate that threat. We've been hit by terrorism incrementally over the last thirty years. 9/11 was only the worst. Letting the problem grow (as five presidents in a row did) only makes it worse. Terrorism is immoral, unethical, antithetical to everything good about civilization, and frankly evil. Hunting bin Laden is merely expedient. We need to stamp out terrorism, and that's a hard enough road without apologists for terror getting in the way.

A necessary war in Afghanistan, and a stupid, wasteful one in Iraq. The entire world holds Bush (and to an extent America), in very low esteem at the moment. Nobody was fooled by the pre-war WMD crap, and it turns out that there was good reason not to be fooled. His current attempts to run away from the considered opinions of his own administration is embarrassing for the country.

Everyone in the world, including the French, was convinced that Iraq had WMD. It is disingenuous for you to suggest that all those farseeing anti-Americans had it right all along. And I’m sure the people of Iraq thank you for calling their liberation wasteful. WMD was never the only reason we invaded Iraq. Humanitarian reasons, violations of the cease fire agreement, threat to other nations, etc. ad nauseum. That the rest of the world thinks ill of us reflects badly on them, not us. We liberated a nation from a brutal tyrant; they opposed it. Which side do you want to be on? And now we have evidence that the French were opposing the war for oil money. Screw them. Saddam killed on average 12,000 people a year. We saved 9,000 so far by invading, and could have saved 9,000 more if we’d invaded the summer before instead of tap dancing with the UN. And why are you embarrassed? You’re Canadian.

Bush is blaming the CIA for feeding him bad information about Iraq. He's also saying that those intelligence reports have been around for a long time, and they've stayed consistent. Fine -- let's assume that's true. Bush gets his information from an inner circle of advisors. He doesn't read the reports directly; he doesn't know what they say. It's highly probably that there was quite a bit of spin put on the information Bush got. The simplest explanation for the whole situation is that some of his closest advisors _didn't_ see justification in the intelligence reports, but were willing to bet that when we got there, we'd find the evidence. The bet didn't pay off. Bush was betrayed by his advisors; they made a decision that's supposed to be made by a President, in full view of the facts. They made the decision because they screwed around with the facts they presented Bush.

I refer you to the Keegan article I linked earlier for some info on how intelligence works. Kay insists that no one was pressuring anyone to color their reports. Ever since the Church commission back in the seventies, our intelligence capabilities have been gutted. We have had to rely on sigint almost entirely. Now, we are supremely good at signals intelligence, satellite reconnaissance and the like. But good intelligence requires human spies, on the ground where we need to know things. We haven’t had that in over a quarter century. So the fact that the intelligence estimates were off is no surprise. But we were also getting information from France, Britain and other sources that all pointed in the same direction. That was what we based our conclusions on. Further, capability is not the only factor in weighing a threat. The other half is intentions – and we know that the Iraqis had that.

But this is all bullshit, because you’re arguing over why we went to war; or more specifically, was this one reason enough to go to war? There were other reasons, and in the end are you pissed that we got rid of Saddam, just because you weren’t satisfied with the decision making process? It was entirely legal – there was a congressional authorization, and then Bush sent in the troops. What did the war achieve – is that a good thing? If you think that leaving Saddam in power would have been a good thing, then maybe your arguments about WMD would make sense.
Environment:

Disagrees with conclusions on global warming, climate change, and so forth. His response? Cut the funding for research. Chewed up and spit out Christie Todd Whitman, who went into the job as EPA administrator thinking that she'd have some impact on policy. All decisions were made before Bush even took office. Maybe God'll sort us all out in the Rapture.

Is everything that much more polluted since Bush took office? Have you noticed the thicker smog, and Bush’s little minions spraying CFC’s on your lawn? The same environmental laws are still there. We are still far less polluted than we were ten, twenty, or forty years ago. Disagreeing with global warming is a cardinal sin, apparently. Oh, and he’s a fundamentalist so he must be wrong. That’s rank bigotry.

Economy:

Has attempted "stimulation" with tax cuts. Negligible effects on the economy, and massive destruction to the federal budget. The long term prospects for the federal government are so bad, it will inhibit the us economy, particularly by scaring off foreign investors, who prop up the government's borrowing habits.

The economy went south before he took office. The stimulus package has had results – the economy is doing better than when he took office. It takes time for the economy to recover from a recession. It doesn’t happen overnight. Deficits are not as bad as you suggest, though I agree that they should be lower. The best way to lower deficits is to lower spending. And that means that you can’t have all your liberal programs.

Here's the biggest mistake you make. You presume that the tax cuts mean that people have "money in their pockets". That's just plain wrong. The tax cuts didn't go to you and me, my friend. They didn't go to the regular people in this country. The vast majority of those dollars went back into the pockets of people who don't need them. People who are already vigorously trying to get around the tax code, to avoid paying _any_ share, let alone a fair share. People who have armies of lawyers devoted to keeping everything they can.

Well, I got to keep more of my money thanks to the tax cuts. I am regular people. Or at least my wife is. You can send your money in, but I’d like to keep mine. We certainly need fundamental tax reform, and I’ve talked about that before.

Bush's casual destruction of the finances of the federal government is truly the greatest security threat facing this country. It turns out that the $200 Billion is doing this war on the cheap; there are serious problems with supplies. In other words, it's gonna cost more in the future. The American government needs to be in a fiscal position to finance necessary actions around the world. Bush is screwing that up, massively. Of course, we could just print more money, right? That'll fix it.

You are complaining that we won’t have enough money to finance a war you oppose? You should be happy. Deficits in 1943 were a third of GDP. Now they are well under 5%. It’s not that big a problem. The government is not going to have its credit rating reduced. We will have the money we need, if for no other reason than the economy will improve and provide more revenue. Greatest security threat? We’re running up the credit card a little, and you think that’s a bigger problem than someone trying to kill us? Terrorism is a reality we have to deal with.

Political Climate

More partisan and divisive and STUPID than it has ever been. The reason? This white house is not interested in discussions. The "smart guys" have already made the decisions. Having international embarrassments like Tom Delay in power doesn't help, either.

I didn’t notice Bush getting up on a stage and insulting the Democratic candidates. I don’t see young republicans waving signs saying Kerry=Hitler. And btw, you think Tom Delay is worse than Chappaquiddick Ted? And you say that Republicans are making the political climate worse when you say this:

Every action Bush has taken has been rooted in one of the following: Making his rich buddies vastly richer with tax cuts, engaging in experimentation with neoconservative foreign policy, pandering to the (relatively) conservative base with wedge issues, and selling access to the donor class. Virtually every domestic policy initiative he has engaged in has been a failure… Most GOP attacks on the Democrats this fall will center on their "hate" for Bush. Whatever...it's not exactly misplaced, to the extent that it exists. The GOP will tell its base that Democrats therefore hate them, as well. The dirty secret is that there are Republicans out there who are honorable, who are fiscally conservative, and who adhere to principle. The crooks in the white house won't have anything to do with those guys.

Well, as I mentioned in my last post, that kind of thing doesn’t exactly contribute to reasoned discourse. It’s not a dirty secret that there are honorable Republicans, they’re half the fucking population.

This morning on the way to work, I saw a funeral procession. It was composed of:

1. The Hearse
2. A Limousine
3. A Ford Taurus

You know what really frosts my muffins? The use of the vocabulary of [ed: moral] transgression in reference to food, especially conjugations of "to indulge." Food is just food, and like most other things its consumption is value-neutral even as its advertising pretends otherwise.

For example, chocoholic.com urges us to "indulge that chocolate passion." Not only do they resort to right/wrong comparisons (where being wrong feels oh, so good!!), but the whole "-holic" thing is just a silly cliche that trivializes addiction while allowing people with poor willpower to claim that they have no self-control when it comes to chocolate.

Or check out Guiltless Gourmet. I enjoy their snacks very much, but I don't see what is so "Sinfully Delicious" about them. As an agnostic who believes in living ethically in the absence of an absolute moral compass, I don't even have a clear idea of what "sinfully delicious" might be. Will Jesus weep if I eat the cookie? Will orphans suffer? Will my immortal soul step closer to perishing in the withering fires of Hell with every bite of salsa (naturally low-fat!)? I haven't heard this much talk about denying the pleasures of the flesh since Jonathan Winthrop. Does Weight Watchers send its members a hair shirt and a scourge for the days when they eat a second helping of lasagna?

"Indulge in our new low-fat yogurt." "Go ahead... be bad." "Guiltless Gourmet." "Try our sinfully decadent low-fat chocolate cake." What does all this mean, anyway? What's a guilty gourmet? And what is so decadent and sinful about cake? Will your pasty-textured, chemically-flavored, wooden, cake-shaped food item be served to you on the backs of two human sex slaves buggering each other with the corpses of endangered birds flown by FedEx from a remote Tropical cloud forest? Is that sinfully decadent, or am I missing the point entirely?

Julia Child always said that she'd rather have a tiny slice of something real than a giant slice of a pretender, and I am 100% with her. Life's too short to compromise-- like Warren Zevon said: "enjoy every sandwich." If actually enjoying your food is important to you (like it is to me!), why putz around with eating half a tray of ostensibly "guiltless" and demonstrably average nonfat brownies (total Kcal intake: 1200)-- it's ok, they're low-fat!-- when you can have one goddamn great brownie (total Kcal intake: more like 200) and then go for a walk?

And what the hell is it with every vegetable in the supermarket being labelled "Low fat!" "Zero Cholesterol." I know it's fat-free... it's a zucchini.

End transmission.

I've blogged before about what scumbags Wal-Mart can be, but these allegations, if true, take the cake.

Remember the illegal immigrants that Wal-Mart was subcontracting to clean its stores? Well, it seems that Wal-Mart was locking them in the building until the end of their shift.

Wal-Mart of course says both that the allegations are "absolutely incorrect" but also "that doors were kept locked, but insisted that a manager with a key was always present." Someone should notify Wal-Mart that issuing two contradictory statements is commonly known as 'lying ineptly'.

The article linked above also clarifies the details of the lawsuit brought by the illegal immigrants back in November: "the original suit claimed some workers were forced to work seven-day, 70-hour weeks, for $1,500 a month." Although back in November I wondered how illegal immigrants could possibly sue anyone, now I say more power to 'em. Their suit still doesn't have much merit, the plaintiffs being illegal aliens and all, but 70 hours for $300 and change is tantamount to wage slavery-- strike that-- wage pecuiliar institution-ry.

I mean, Christ. Locked doors and corporate hijinks... shades of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. This kind of insanity is exactly what the American labor movement was founded to combat-- too bad they're too busy off defending entitlements and whacking opponents to notice that they're losing ground where it matters.

I'm not kidding-- Wal-Mart employees need to unionize now, or the local management will keep taking advantage of the economically marginal status of many workers. I mean, I'm no true-blue (Red?) Marxist by a loooong shot, but this crap went out of style with handlebar mustaches, giant-wheel bicycles, and buggy whips.

[wik] Ezra at Pandagon asks, "Is Wal-Mart Good For Us?" exploring the ins and outs of wage arbitrage and the actual effects of Wal-Mart's pricing strategies on its suppliers and customers. Since this is weblogs and not movies, I'll give away the ending: not good.

The Paratrooper of Love gives us this lovely story from the Borowitz Report:

The French space program took a significant step backward today as the European Space Agency announced that a much-heralded French Mars probe surrendered just moments after landing on the red planet.

The probe, which had been expected to travel extensively across the surface of Mars to collect and analyze rock samples, stunned the French nation by surrendering only eight seconds into its mission.

As millions of astonished Frenchmen watched on national TV, the probe extended a robotic arm -- designed to scoop up rocks from the surface of Mars – and raised a white flag aloft, waving it back and forth.

The probe then used a robotic shovel to dig a hole in the Martian surface before disappearing into the hole, apparently hiding.

At a press conference in Paris, French President Jacques Chirac denied that the probe had surrendered, arguing, “This mission was always intended to be eight seconds long. The probe has performed courageously and superbly.”

Despite earlier announced plans for the French Mars probe to exchange information about the surface of Mars with the American Mars probes, Mr. Chirac said, “The Americans will have to go it alone.”

A vigorous exchange on Winds of Change left me wondering...exactly how many insults were thrown in my direction? I should, of course, count the insults I hurled in return as well. I might have been pre-emptive once or twice as well. ;)

"full of 'understanding' for the suicide bombers"
"bleeding-heart liberal"
"an enabler" (for terrorism)
"I fear the evils of our Islamo-facist enemies less than I fear what fools like Ross may make both inevitable and necessary"
"People like Ross are delaying the American quest for victory"
"secular-left apologist of suicide bombing"
"completely disassociated"
"you are not a serious person"

And here are my uber-insults:

"sanctimonious ass"
"frothing extremists"
"two-tone mental stance"
"As for my conjuration of smart remarks: Someone has to, and you're not holding up your end."
"save your "9/11 means nothing" bullshit for a little rally of like-minded jackboot-steppers"
"Make sure nobody gives Telenko the controls for the spaceship"

Darn it, I don't come out looking too good in the insult count. I believe I have hurled more than I have received, and that is piss-poor news for my purported civility.

I feel bad about the "frothing extremist" thing. That was totally unnecessary. Sorry Mary! Heat of the moment, Lord of the Flies, and all that.

AMac, who has recently graced our comments, recommends this symposium from Slate, which includes Berman; and Michael Totten links to this Dissent Magazine piece by Berman.

I have to say that I'm impressed by his writing, and thinking. Go read them, and we'll talk more about this tomorrow.

Michelle of A Small Victory came up with this nifty guide to the Democratic candidates: 

I don't know that I agree with all her choices - I would have hooked Clark to Niedermeyer and Sharpton to, oh, I don't know, maybe David Duke. Kucinich is spot on though. 

Maybe I like him after all.

From Bike Crazy via my personal deity, Allahpundit.

[wik] I shouldn't kick him when he's down; but if you're not gonna kick a man when he's down, you shouldn't kick him at all.

[alsø wik] I found, over at Mother, May I sleep With Treacher?, another good Dean parody mp3. This one is Deliverencesque.

Sometime ago, my comrade in arms bought a tshirt for my son John Christian. Now, at long last, you can see the boy and his shirt in all their glory.

Note the gangsta style hand positions, and the look of glee as he prepares for battle. And only eight and a half months old - just think what he'll be like when he's two.

Little John will have much to thank Uncle Minister Johno for by the time he grows up. These pictures probably won't be any of them. More great pictures below the fold, including one that I will be sure to show to his every future girlfriend.

Sir John the-I'm-to-drunk-to-realize-what-I've-got-myself-into:

I've got a cunning plan. A plan so cunning, you could brush your teeth with it: