August 19, 2004 by s.z.

Carnival of the Wingnuts Because it's so damned easy. 1.  Let's start today with a fun, new discovery: Karen Pittman.  She's basically the female Doug Giles, although not actually a pastor. Karen Hathaway Pittman is a freelance writer and published poet whose work regularly appears on Wednesdays on A. M. Siriano's websites. [Note: you'll remember Mr. Siriano from Tuesday's wingnut roundup .] Her rants typically generate considerable attention and no small amount of controversy. Her style is as acerbic as it is witty. Occasionally resplendent, often raucous, always refreshing, her no-holds-barred, tell-it-like-is commentary not only informs — it entertains. She's the Lay's Potato Chip of political punditry: You can't read just one! Enjoy! So, enjoy away today's rant, entitled "Liar, liar, pants on fire: Why Scott Peterson deserves to Frey." Yes, Karen is taking the position that Scott isn't a nice person, and deserve the electric chair -- for lying. On one point at least, the pundits have it right: We all know Scott Peterson's breeches were burning, long before now. We all know he was hot as a firecracker for Amber Frey. We all know he's a heinous creep, a complete and total cad, a dirty double-dealing rake. But what we don't all know, the lone remaining riddle tied tight like a Gordian Knot at the heart of this whole rotten affair, is the inconceivable dark truth this mum bum ain't about to tell, known solely to him. The only mystery lingering in the wake of last week's much-publicized courtroom "Amber Alert" lurks behind the one question left hanging on everyone's lips: Is our covetous cad a killer? Is this all-too-human man really an inhuman monster capable of murdering his wife and kid? On this point, I think the pundits have it wrong, and here's why. Never mind all the talk about how Scott burned to be with Amber. Amber wasn't the thing putting the sting in Scott's pants. What really fired Scott up was Conner, whose unlucky arrival would soon turn his chronic, babe-happy cod-burn into all-night fits of baby burping and heart-burn. Scott was getting the baby blues. And Romeo's crib of fibs was about to be rocked, all right — by reality, the kind that stinks like waste. Anyway, there's a lot more in this vein, each paragraph packed with gems like "Our pathetic Scott had gotten himself into a pregnant pickle that was now growing every bit as large as Laci's stretched, marked belly."  And who can resist this description of Amber: "Doubtless a tangy appetizer, this fresh tart from Fresno, this juicy hors d'oeuvre from down south, was just the side dish to arouse Scott's craving for the main course. Thanks to her, Peterson's tongue, amply titillated, was now training toward the larger smorgasbord to come"?  There is nothing I can add. 2.  Christopher Adamo, "a freelance writer from southeastern Wyoming," brings us some more commentary on the McGreevey affair.  He takes the standard wingnut line that it's not about the homosexuality, it's about how McGreevey played into al Qaeda's hands by using the position of New Jersey's homeland security adviser for his "taxpayer-funded homosexual concubine."  By hiring an unqualified individual to fulfill such a critically important position, McGreevey left the needs of that position completely vacant in order to indulge his own personal interests.  Thus, the security of the people of New Jersey was fundamentally compromised because of a public official’s willingness to pursue his lascivious desires, with no regard for public safety. Well, say what you will about McGreevey's "lasivious desires," he really didn't compromise New Jersey's security, it seems: Cipel's co-counsel, New York attorney Rachel Yosevitz, argues, however, that the media has been misrepresenting Cipel's former role, especially during the last week after his former boss announced his resignation. In an interview with the Forward, Yosevitz said that Cipel never was in charge of homeland security. She accused the media of getting the story wrong. "He was a liaison between the governor's office and security divisions. He was never named homeland security director," Yosevitz said. Press reports have described Cipel as the state's former homeland security chief in addition to outlining his role as the governor's liaison to the Jewish community. But, in fact, when McGreevey first came into office he created two new positions in the state's fight against terrorism. On January 24, 2002, the governor appointed Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Flicker to head his newly created Office of Counterterrorism. Flicker, the former director of the Division of Criminal Justice, was charged with increasing coordination among law-enforcement agencies, including the attorney general's office, the State Police, and local, county and federal law enforcement agencies. [...] A veteran New Jersey government expert confirmed this portrayal and Yosevitz's contention. "She's right," the expert said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "This issue has been misrepresented. The state wasn't in jeopardy," noting that the important counterterrorism functions were headed by Flicker. But Christopher explains how, if only al Qaeda had known that McGreevey was getting some extramarital nookie, the state would have been toast: Fortunately, al Qaeda was either unaware of, or unable to take advantage of this breech in New Jersey’s statewide line of defense.  Otherwise, McGreevey might bear some responsibility for attacks against Newark or Trenton.  But if al Qaeda ever finds out that YOUR governor is "engaged in reprehensible and immoral behavior while holding high office," you're doomed, DOOMED! America has yet to recover from the constant humiliation of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  But more significantly, during the 1990’s the Clinton White House primarily structured its policy-making in order to fend off backlash from illicit sexual exploits and other scandals.  Clearly, any hostile foreign entity could recognize the signs of a chief executive who regularly compromised national security in order to pursue his personal interests, both physical and ideological. Hey, if hostile foreign entities can tell when our political leaders are involved in "illicit sexual exploits," then they should pick up some extra cash as reporters for the National Enquirer. 3.  Ketan Desai is also new to the Carnival. He is "a physician in Pennsylvania, author "Germs of War" (a book on biological warfare), and writer on politics, religion, and healthcare topics."   He wishes to talk to us today about cloning.  There appears to be a consensus that animal cloning is acceptable so long as it satisfies the need for human medical and scientific advancement.  The present purpose of cloning animals is for animals to serve as modern organ factories--a combination of Orwell's ''Animal Farm'' (in reverse) and Charlie Chaplin's ''Modern Times.''   Um, okay.  So let's move on to human cloning. The issue of human cloning seems to be a different matter altogether.  It is an issue that pits scientists and medics against religious leaders and politicians (with plenty of crossover between the groups).  The subliminal question appears to be--if God creates an individual human (however indirectly) can there be more than one of that individual at the same time?  Would that second individual have a soul?  If not, do we want soul-less beings amongst us?  Allow me to answer for everyone: no, we don't want any more Fox News personalities running around. If the duplicate had a soul, where did that soul come from?  Certainly it would not come from the traditional route assumed in most, if not all, religions of the world.  If two identical beings did exist at the same time, it implies that the first one is not unique, with attendant implications on life and creation as a whole. Yes, identitical twins are clearly some kind of hideous plan by Satan to create souless beings which make us question God and everything we hold dear. No wonder the strongest opposition to human cloning comes from the creationists amongst us. Yeah, they're the stupidest ones amongst us, so it only figures. As can be expected, there are many counter arguments.  Some say that human cloning is justified for scientific progress.  Others would say that cloning is justified for the medical benefits it could provide--stem cells, haplo-identical organs, etc.  Finally, there are some that seek immortality, through cloning.  After all, if one can buy a stairway to heaven, cloning is certainly a step in the right direction. Who seeks immortaility through cloning?  Well, bad guys in science fiction novels primarily.  So, do we listen to them, and allow people to buy stairways to heaven and new clone bodies; or do we heed the creationists, and prevent all those souless people from monopolizing the CEO positions with our Fortune 500 companies?  We want to thank Ketan for giving us something to think about. [I have a question for Dr. BDH: how many of our nation's physicians are idiots, in your opinion?]  4.   Dennis Campbell, a "freelance writer and reformed liberal ex-journalist living in New Mexico," offers a warning in the title of his latest column: "Criticize 'gays' and be ready to pay the price."  That price seems to be that they write you emails, criticizing you right back.  The horror, the horror! He also explains how the "gays" get away with such rehensible behavior. In today's popular American culture, where the worst thing one can be called is intolerant (unless one is intolerant of true Christianity, President Bush, conservative principles, and Ann Coulter, which is acceptable), homosexuals have become our most pampered, pandered-to and protected sub-culture. Man, I wish I were a homosexual, so I could live a life of luxury and ease, being pampered and adored by everyone. But I disagree with Dennis about it being acceptable in our culture to be intolerant of Ann Coulter -- actually, it's REQUIRED.  You know, unless you're evil or braindead or something.  The homosexual agenda is focused, relentless, and highly successful. It has succeeded in making immoral sexual behavior acceptable to half the population. Yes, people like New Gingrich never thought that adultery was okay until the homosexual agenda came along. It has succeeded in introducing homosexuality to our children, even those in grade school. It has succeeded in causing enormous harm to the Boy Scouts — the Scouts, for crying out loud!  Gad, has it no shame, sir!  If the agenda would harm an organization like the Boy Scouts, there's no telling what it would do!  Next we'll hear of it bilking old ladies of their pension checks and foreclosing on orphanages.  So, take a lesson from Dennis and don't cross the "gays"; or if you do, prepare to pay the price. And that's today's Carnival.  It has been brought to you by ChronWatch, and by Renew America, which reminds you that Alan Keyes is running for the Senate in Illinois, and although Keyes isn't actually FROM the state, Illinois is the "Land of Lincoln," and Lincoln was against slavery.  However, Barack Obama is for the slavery of abortion -- so who's really the carpet bagger? 5:56:11 AM

Ann Coulter, Queen of the Damned Wingnuts Ann's thesis this week is, "The mainstream media and John Kerry, sitting in a tree ..."  She begins by mocking a Wash Post article in which a friend notes Kerry's "complexity." Apparently, Kerry's answers on the LSAT were too nuanced and complex for the Harvard Law School admissions committee: Despite all his connections, fancy education and war-protesting, Kerry couldn't get into Harvard Law School and went to Boston College Law School instead.   Ann, of course, went to University of Michigan Law School, not being admitted to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, New York University, or any number of schools to which she may or may not have applied.  (Being rejected by a university is, to Ann, the most shameful thing that can happen to a person -- remember this slam from the past: "I am prepared – just this once – to name a traitor: Pinch Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times.  To be sure, if any liberal could legitimately use the stupid defense, it is the one Sulzberger who couldn't get in to Columbia University"?  So, I guess those rejection letters from Harvard and Columbia are still wounds to Ann's soul, and so she derides people like Kerry and Sulzberger for being as dumb as she is.) Now, on to her big expose: Tom Harkin, Crazed Moron, was shouting this week that Dick Cheney is a "coward," evidently for not fighting in Vietnam like Harkin. Except Harkin didn't fight in Vietnam either! "Evidently" that's what Harkin meant because that's what Ann wants it to mean.  See, if Harkin meant that Cheney was a "coward" for not completing ANY military service "during the Vietnam war," then she can't blast Harkin for a 1984 comment. The last time Harkin was bragging about his Vietnam service was in 1984 when he told David Broder of the Washington Post: "I spent five years as a Navy pilot, starting in November of 1962. One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions." But was he "bragging about his Vietnam service" this time?  This is what he said: Harkin says it makes his "blood boil" to hear criticism of Kerry from Cheney. Cheney has recently been mocking John Kerry for calling for a "more sensitive war on terror." "When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," said Harkin. "He'll be tough, but he'll be tough with someone else's kid's blood." Harkin accused President George W. Bush and his vice president of "resorting to dirty attacks on John Kerry's war record. Harkin said Bush and Cheney are running scared because John Kerry has a war record and they don't. And he called Cheney's statements cowardly. Back to Ann's fact-checking: Sen. Barry Goldwater – not the Post – checked with the Defense Department and soon Harkin was forced to admit he had never been in combat in Vietnam, but was based in Japan during the war, ferrying damaged planes from the Saigon airport to Japan for repairs. Oops! Well, InstaGlenn, the Two of Wingnuts, is also all over the Harkin remarks and gives us this link to a 1991 Wall Street Journal  "expose" on Harkin, which includes these clarifications from Harkin bout his military service: Though Mr. Harkin stresses he is proud of his Navy record--"I put my ass on the line day after day"--he concedes now he never flew combat air patrols in Vietnam. He was stationed at the U.S. Naval Air Station at Atsugi, Japan. Damaged aircraft were flown into Atsugi for repairs or sometimes flown out of Atsugi to the Philippines for more substantial work. Mr. Harkin says he and three other Navy pilots flew these ferry flights. And, when the planes had been repaired, he and his fellow pilots took them up on test flights. "I had always wanted to be a test pilot," he says. "It was damned demanding work." How much time did he actually spend in Vietnam? "I wouldn't really know," he says. He estimates that over a period of about 12 months he flew in and out of Vietnam "a dozen times, maybe 10 times." But what about those combat air patrols and the photo-reconnaissance support missions? He says he did fly combat air patrols, in Cuba, in 1965 and 1966. He was stationed at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. base, "and we were on frigging alert for 18 months, the whole time I was there." He would take off whenever a U-2 American spy plane flew by, in case Cuban dictator Fidel Castro scrambled his fighters to intercept it. And he says he flew photo-reconnaissance missions too, out of Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, D.C., while he was serving in the ready reserve. So, Harkin was never stationed in Vietnam, but he did fly planes into Vietnam during wartime, and he did fly photo-reconnaissance support missions, but not in Vietnam.  So, yes, he embellished his record.  When he talked to the Post, back in 1984.  But he did serve his country during wartime, as did John Kerry.  And Dick Cheney didn't, as he had other priorities.  Which would explain the vehemance on the part of the wingnuts to smear Harkin . . . Here's some more from Glenn: It would seem that when Harkin -- who didn't serve in Vietnam combat but who lied about it, and whose actual military service seems rather similar to Bush's -- calls Dick Cheney a "coward" because he didn't serve in Vietnam, well, it ought to be worth mentioning. Shouldn't it be? Instead, CNN calls Harkin a "former Navy fighter pilot," (though it at least gets the details of his service correct). Calling Harkin "a Senator who, like President Bush, flew fighter jets during the Vietnam era without seeing combat but who, unlike President Bush, lied about it," would be more accurate, but it would kind of change the story. Would it be more accurate?  In A Charge to Keep, Bush (or rather, Karen Hughes, writing Bush's life for him) claims that after learning to fly the F-102 fighter jet in 1970, he was turned down for Vietnam duty because "had not logged enough flight hours" to qualify for a combat assignment.  However, there isn't any evidence that he ever sought duty in Vietnam.   And then, before going on to recall the "challenging moments" that involved close formation drills at night during poor weather, he adds: "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." Of course, that isn't true either.  In May 1972, only 22 months after he completed pilot training, he stopped flying. In August 1972, he failed to show up for his annual physical examination and was automatically grounded. So, I guess what Glenn meant to say was that it would be more accurate to say that Harkin was "A senator, who, like like President Bush, flew fighter jets during the Vietnam era, but served five years of active duty overseas and then three years in the ready reserves, not just five or so years of part-time reserve duty.  But, like Bush, Harkin embellished his exploits, but unlike Bush, there's no contraversy about what he was doing for his last year of service." Anyway, Ann concludes with a story about Lyndon Johnson's phony medal, proving that, um, Dick Cheney is not a coward, and that John Kerry's medals probably came from a box of Cracker Jacks. 4:33:06 AM