April 8, 2005 by s.z.

Like 'Carnival of the Wingnuts,' Only Classier Hey, my latest American Street post is up.  It has monkey butts, Nazis, and a plan to end teen-age instant messaging once and for all.  Check it out!  8:30:47 AM

From AMERICAN STREET: April 8, 2005 WNS: Wingnut News Service Scouring third-rate right-wing sites like RenewAmerica and ChronWatch — so you don’t have to. Many of the wingnuts in our study are, as expected, writing about the Pope this week; however, unlike the higher-status wingnuts at Townhall, the lowly nuts are writing about other things too. Here are some of the topics of conversation I noted during this observation period: 1. Monkeys Like Porn — And That’s Why Sex Education is Wrong Christopher Flickinger tells us about a study that involved giving male Rhesus monkeys the choice between viewing photos of “another male primate low in the chain of command,” or photos of a “female monkey’s behind.” If they chose the photos of the male’s posterior, they were given some juice as a reward — but they got no juice if they chose to look at the female’s derriere. Per Christopher, “The choice was easy. Each monkey preferred staring at the female’s butt.” And what does this teach us (besides that nobody wants to look at the butt of a male primate low in the chain of command)? Well, that it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault that teens are having oral sex. Who’s to blame for this immoral, unhealthy and destructive influence on our youth? […] We can’t forget about “Slick Willy” himself. As of April 4th, Reuters reported, one out of every five teenagers in the United States was engaging in oral sex and believed what they were doing wasn’t sex at all. Hmm, where do you think they got that idea? Well, actually the Reuters piece said that, “One in five U.S. teenagers say they have engaged in oral sex, an activity that some adolescents view as not sex at all.” And the article implies that Abstinence Only programs may be why kids are having oral sex these days (they haven’t been taught that they can catch STDs from non-coital sex, and believe that preserving their virginity is the big goal). Bill Clinton’s name doesn’t come up in the study. But Christopher still thinks that Abstinence Only education is the only sex education teens should get, because otherwise, “It’s like telling kids, ‘Drugs are bad, but here’s some crack, and here’s how you smoke it.’” And here’s the bottom (no pun intended) line, per Christopher: Despite the glamorous, love-struck and seemingly perfect lives the rich and powerful lead on television, teenagers need to realize mimicking such behavior is no different than monkeys who give-up a great reward in order to look at another monkey’s butt. So, teens, there will be no juice for you if you have sex or look at monkey butts! 2. Terri Schiavo Was Murdered By Nazis Now let’s give the floor to Helen M. Valois, a “homemaker and mom” who is here to give us a report on her vacation in Pinellas Park: Perhaps, in years to come, I will be able to articulate systematically the mind-throwing horror of all that went on. At the moment, though, still prone to crying jags and long spells of zombie-like silence, I can only begin to pull together the jumble of impressions assaulting one’s sensibilities at and around Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, our own little Auschwitz tucked away in the heart of America’s playground. And not only did Helen have to cope with the horror of having the baggers at the local Winn Dixie wishing her a nice day while Terri was being murdered (”Like every other thoughtful denizen of the post-World War II world, I have wondered, often and urgently, how the Germans were able to go about their daily lives while their countrymen were dragged from their homes and butchered in plain sight of the whole country. Now, I know”), but she also had to deal with other atrocities (”Nature’s beauty is blemished by ‘adult pleasure’ stores on practically every block, while billboards exhort the exploitably indolent to ‘Find Your Inner Gamer.’”) No wonder Helen still suffers from zombie spells. 3. Kids Watch Too Much TV — So They Should Be Sent to Military School Paul M. Weyrich, Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation (and King of the Wingnuts), weighs in with a little essay that notes that many kids “are being raised by parents who have inherited a 1960s mindset.” These children watch too much TV, play video games, and send instant messages — all signs that they are going to hell, just like their hippie parents. Meanwhile, Chicago’s inner-city now has three “militarily-oriented high schools” which teach students discipline. Discipline and character. Oh, and also values. And if military school is good enough for poor urban kids, it’s damned well good enough for those spoiled white kids in the suburbs. America’s urban youth are benefiting from the discipline offered by the military academies. What about the middle class kids living in the suburbs? Military academies are less predominant there and the private military academies to which many affluent parents once sent their children suffered a noticeable enrollment decline in the 1960s. […] The academies are an institution that should benefit more Americans regardless of whether they live in a large city and come from families of modest means or live in affluent suburbs and have TVs, computers in their rooms and instant messaging. Hey, send them all to military school. That will stop them from sending so many damned instant messages! 4. Bush’s Social Security Plan Will be Passed, Despite the Fact that Nobody Likes It, Because Bush Never Loses! Advancing this idea is Isaiah Z. Sterrett, a young man who looks like he escaped from Styx or Air Supply. But let’s let hear him out anyway: For the benefit of those who are so gleefully kvelling over their puerile predictions: this President doesn’t lose. If that sounds like undue arrogance, recall the presidential election of 2000, the midterms of 2002, and then Bush�€™s resounding reelection in �€™04. Those weren�€™t good times for Democrats, as I recall. Even Europeans have come to understand that fighting Bush is pointless. After all the anti-American, anti-Semitic jabbering about vicious neocon Paul Wolfowitz, he coasted rather bump-free to his new position at the World Bank. So, if Bush managed to get 51% of the vote in 2004 and 47.87% in 2000 (and apparently wasn’t thrown out of office mid-term in 2002), and the snooty Europeans had to accept his choice to head up the World Bank, then we will have no choice but to accept Bush’s Social Security Plan, because he’s a winner! Resistance is futile. 5. Tom DeLay is a Great American Who Hasn’t Actually Killed Any Judges, As Far As You Know This message is brought to you by one Matthew Holmes (who probably isn’t Sherlock Holmes’ smarter brother). Matthew says that liberals complained about DeLay’s remark about the judges in the Schiavo case (you know, when DeLay said something like, “Nice family you judges got there — be a shame if somebody killed them, and you too, ’cause you didn’t rule the way the Godfather asked you to”) because they are elitists who hate babies and God (and love sodomy). As usual, liberals are in a snit over DeLay�€™s attempt to stop their only remaining form of obstructing the will of the American people�€”relying on un-elected judges to legislate liberalism from the bench. […] As long as the Left can depend on judges to preserve abortion, create sodomy and gay marriage laws from state Constitutions that mention neither sodomy nor gay marriage, and remove God from American life, who needs Congress or the Oval Office? A popular wingnut theme lately is, “Congress should just take over the judiciary branch, since the judges we have now think the Constitution said something about a right to sodomy; yeah, we just want to go by what the Constitution says, checks and balances be damned!” But this is the part of Matthew’s column that I found especially thought provoking: Ted Kennedy went further, warning DeLay about the dangerous practice of using �€œviolent�€� rhetoric, in light of the recent murder of a Georgia judge and the killing of a federal judge�€™s husband and mother in Chicago. Interestingly, neither of these murders were committed by conservatives�€”the former was killed by a criminal on trial for rape, and the latter by Islamic terrorists�€”ironically, two groups liberals would never allow to be starved to death by the government. Judge Lefkow’s mother and husband were killed by Islamic terrorists??? Why am I always the last to hear about these things? Anyway, that concludes this week’s WNS report. I hope you found it helpful, and possibly enlightening — because a wingnut is a terrible thing to waste. By S. Z.   5:29 am     Comedy & Satire Janice Says: April 8th, 2005 at 8:06 am Let’s see if I have this right: The Clenis killed Terri Schiavo. Florida is plagued by monkey-butt craving zombies. Instant messages cause oral sex. Dubya will kill judges if they don’t support his Social Security demolition plan. Oh, and we should starve imaginary Islamic terrorists to death. No wonder the wingnuts can’t figure out the Sandy Berger story. Scaramouche Says: April 8th, 2005 at 9:24 am Reading Helen M. Valois’ account you think it’s like she went to a nutter Woodstock. By the time we got to Woodside We were half a hundred strong And everywhere there was strong intimidation And I dreamed I was a bomber Hiding shotguns, some nearby And we�€™re burning with our nutter lies To love our nation We are stark lust Billion tears for unborn We�€™re emboldened Caught in the devil�€™s bargain And we�€™ve got to get ourselves Back Terri�€™s pardon�€� Apologies to Joni Mitchell. masaccio Says: April 8th, 2005 at 10:36 am Thanks for reading this crap for those of us with low pain threshholds. But I have to warn you that too much of it will cause brain damage. darth vegas Says: April 8th, 2005 at 10:53 am I am upset that science is using my tax dollars to encourge gay monkey lust. If a monkey perfers firm boy monkey buttocks then he is given juice. If he is tempted by the female’s rear end- he is given nothing. This is just like the liberal judges! Giving rights to gay people while withholding juice to proud Hetro-Americans like Terri Schiavo. the sooner the judges are replaced with Tom Delay overseeing EVERY legal aspect of ‘Merica- the better! Frederick Says: April 8th, 2005 at 3:19 pm That Matthew Holmes link you have is broken. Probably the Homeland Security Department shut it down because they didn’t want word getting out about those judge-family-murdering-Islamic-terrorists. Or maybe it was the evil libruls, who as we all know just love Islamic terrorists to bits and didn’t want them to get a bad name. Frederick Says: April 8th, 2005 at 3:33 pm Bill Maher is on record as wishing that they had had abstinence pledges back when he was in high school, since girls who sign them are more than six times as likely to engage in oral sex, and four times as likely in engage in anal sex, as those who don’t sign them. gayle Says: April 8th, 2005 at 3:59 pm “She is a member of the MI (Militia Immaculatae) movement” But of course she is!! Madelyn Says: April 8th, 2005 at 8:20 pm Dear SZ: Thanks for WNS–you are providing a valuable public service. Reading the nutblogs is an ugly, arduous, & painful task (I tried once to do so & almost immediately experienced symptoms including high blood pressure, grinding teeth, and an irresistible urge to self-medicate); your fortitude is admirable, and I hope you can manage to continue! Cheers, M moonbiter Says: April 9th, 2005 at 2:28 am I’m glad S.Z. provides this service, thereby keeping us up-to-date on the distain of our less-mentally-mentally-endowed fellow citizens. Personally, I can’t even stand to watch sitcoms that depict fictional characters do stupid things and embarrass themselves, much less watch real-life stupid people display their stupidity to the entire world. moonbiter Says: April 9th, 2005 at 2:29 am “mentally-mentally,” says I! Damn you TownHall! Damn you to hell! Frederick Says: April 9th, 2005 at 8:58 am Now the Matthew Holmes link works. Never mind. Hey, Wingnuts, the WSJ Has a Message for You From the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Page: Some people won't let a bad conspiracy theory go. We're referring to those who loudly assert that former NSC adviser Sandy Berger was trying to protect the Clinton Administration when he illegally removed copies of sensitive documents from the National Archives in late 2003. On Wednesday, we quoted Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman that no original documents were destroyed, and that the contents of all five at issue still exist and were made available to the 9/11 Commission. But that point didn't register with some readers, who continue to suggest a vast, well, apparently a vast left- and right-wing conspiracy. The Washington Times, the Rocky Mountain News and former Clintonite Dick Morris have also been peddling dark suspicions based on misinformation. The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an "urban myth," prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was "so inaccurate as to be laughable." In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror "after-action" report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all. Hey, to prove this really came from the WSJ, here's the last line: Meanwhile, conservatives don't do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left. So, Wingnuts, will you start paying attention to your Control Voice, and get on the right page? The WSJ properly chided the following nitwits: Dick Morris, who wrote that Berger probably stole the documents, which could have included notes on them written by Berger or Clinton, in order to "stop the 9/11 Commission from including embarrassing revelations in its report"; the Moonie Times, which said in an editorial that Berger most likely "sought to conceal" handwritten notes which "bore telling indications of the Clinton administration's approach to terrorism"; and the Rocky Mountain News, whose editorial includes the interesting claim that on one of the copies, Berger had written "no" next to a proposal to attack al-Qaida facilities before the week of Jan. 1, 2000. But here are some of the other wingnuts who apparently failed to pay attention in class, and are still using the "Berger destroyed copies with secret notes in the margins which prove that Bill Clinton paid Osama to attack America and/or he destroyed our only copies of vital defense information" meme: Glenn Reynolds He quotes Dick Morris, and says "read the whole thing," which is the lazy man's way of maligning Berger and Bill Clinton.  Glenn also quotes the Moonie Times editorial, proving that he knows his hacks.  But, as the old saying goes,"The road to hell is paved with cutting and pasting."  (Oh, and Glenn, the reason that Berger didn't get prosecuted for lying to federal authories and Martha Steward did, is that, per the federal authorities, Berger didn't lie to them.  Here's what prosecutor Noel Hillman told the NY Post: "He may have lied to the press when he suggested he did it by mistake, but lying to the press isn't a federal crime. If he had lied to us, we would have prosecuted." ) James Lileks: Justice concluded that he didn't really mean to destroy or cover up evidence of Clinton administration failings that might come up in 9/11 hearings. But it seems somewhat inconsistent with Berger's own admission that he scissored the things to shreds, no? Ah, but they were copies, that's all. Nothing more. But were they copies with damning notes in the margins, perhaps? No.  No, they weren't.  But thanks for playing, James.  William Rusher (who is a "Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy"): The burning question here, of course, is what was in the three documents that Berger destroyed. We can be sure that Berger won't tell us, or more precisely that we will never know whether anything he chooses to say on the subject is a lie. The documents are irretrievably gone, and Berger can carry the secret of their contents to his grave. Nope, we'll never know what was in those documents ... unless we print out another copy of them and read them, of course. Plus, of course, there are the minor league wingnuts like Chris Adamo: Last year, Berger was caught stealing and destroying documents from the National Archives. Those documents contained crucial classified information pertaining to lapses in national security during the Clinton years that left America open to the attacks of 9-11. Destroying evidence of problems that increased the nation’s vulnerability to terrorism can only undercut efforts to correct the situation, and thus constitutes nothing less than a treasonous abetting of al Qaeda’s sinister agenda. I think we now know why Berger destroyed those printouts of the documents: because he's an al Qaeda agent, and he wants us all to die!!!  I bet he also authored the "Schiavo Talking Points Memo" and then framed Brian Darling, as part of some terrorist plot against Feeding Tube Americans.  After all, Berger used to be a National Security Advisor, and you know that THOSE people are like! Anyway, when we are reduced to pleading with wingnuts to heed the words of the WSJ's editorial staff, you know that the end times are near. UPDATE: Hindrocket continues his winning streak by refusing to give up this lovely conspiracy theory either (because the WSJ isn't the boss of him): Why would Berger remove five identical copies of the same report, shred three of them with a pair of scissors, and return the other two to the archives? The same Wash Post story that Hindrocket mentions in his post contains the answers to his question: per "the Berger associate authorized to speak with reporters," Berger took home one copy of the Clarke report on Sept. 2, 2003.  On Oct. 2, he took four more versions of the document. Back in his office, he studied them in detail, realized they were largely identical, and took the scissors to three of the copies, the associate said. He presumably destroyed the duplicate copies so he wouldn't have to try to return them.  He returned the two copies he hadn't shredded when the Archives asked for them.  Now was that so hard to understand? But back to Hindrocket: And why, as he has now admitted, would he lie about such conduct? Because he was embarassed?  Because he realized what he had done was a crime?  Because his lawyer told him to?   And, if Berger shredded three of the copies, how can Hiillman have seen them to verify that they contained no notes? Because they were computer printouts, you twit!  Didn't you READ the WSJ story, or did you just take umbrage at the title?  Here, maybe the NY Post can make it clearer to you: The prosecutor disputed reports that there were potentially revealing notations handwritten by Berger in the margins of the memos, saying, "There were no notations — none." He said the originals had been scanned into an Archives' computer and Berger only got copies printed from it. But the Blog of the Year isn't done yet: Hillman says the truth will come out when Berger is sentenced. Let's hope so. For now, consider me unconvinced. There's still that polygraph, you know, Mr. Hindrocket.  And anyway, despite what you may believe, the Department of Justice doesn't have to convince you before it can sentence somebody.  And what's with the Journal's recent habit of unfairly blasting conservatives in unsigned editorials? Um, the Journal says that you loonies are making the rest of the conservatives look bad, and they want you to knock it off -- that's what's up with that. 2:03:50 AM

Florida: America's Wang From NewsMax: Jeb Bush: Horowitz a 'Fighter for Freedom' Free speech advocate David Horowitz urged Florida legislators Tuesday to pass a bill that would restore freedom of speech on college campuses long dominated by liberal faculties. [...] Crafted by Horowitz and introduced in the Legislature by Rep. Dennis Baxley, the bill seeks to rectify the suppression of conservative thought on Florida's college campuses.  Florida Governor Jeb Bush has expressed support for the bill, calling Horowitz a "fighter for freedom." "The idea that speech rights are given comfortably to one side but not the other is wrong," Bush told the [Palm Beach] Post. "Universities need to be sensitive to the fact that some people feel their rights are restricted and they feel isolated." Hey, as a single woman living in a family-values community, I often feel restricted and isolated.  And as a liberal residing in the heart of a red state, I frequently feel uncomfortable about using my speech rights.  And now that I know that it's illegal for other people to make me feel this way, I demand that Horowitz craft legislation requiring that nobody infringe on me by being different than me.  After all, if students don't have to deal with other points of view while at college (which is supposed to be where that kind of thing happens), why should anybody else? 1:01:10 AM