Who Will be 'The Ultimate Wingnut'?Our friend David E. has suggested a fun new contest. Here it is:
Or like one of Norbizness's tournaments, only using wingnuts! Well, I loved David's idea. I loved it so much that I rebuilt it -- I made it, faster, stronger, bigger (and more expensive -- it will now cost about 6 cents to run). So, here's an intro to the new program. I picked some of my favorite columnist wingnuts, but also addded some bloggers and a radio host who provides daily transcripts of his stuff). And then I divided them into teams, thinking we'd start by making them compete against their own team, and then we'd start letting them compete against the other teams (I see this as a reality show, much like "Survivor," "I Want to be a These are the teams I came up with: 1. The Korner Kids (People who, though they may have syndicated columns, are best known for their witty repartee at the NRO's "Corner" -- or, in the case of Pod, best known for being the son of one of the founding neo-cons)
2. Townhall Columnists
3. Writers for Renew America & Other Low-Rent Sites (They Do What the TownHallers Do, But for Free)
4. Media Wingnuts(They may write weekly columns -- except for Rush, who doesn't -- but they are probably best known for their TV and/or radio appearances.)
5. Canadians(As a tribute to Bill O'Reilly, we will honor some of America's enemies to the North)
6. "Lifestyle" Wingnuts (You know, people whose columns would be in the paper's "Women's Section," if papers still had them)
7. Blog Stars
8, Respected Conservative/Libertarian Thinkers(At least, that's what I've heard them called)
Okay, your assignment for this round: Vote off one person from each team, so there are only 4 wingnuts per team. Just base it on what you know about them so far (their looks, their names, the fact that you know nothing about them -- whatever). Submit a vote (either in a comment, or in an email, if you seem to be blocked from using comments) with the name of the eight people (one from each team) whom you want eliminated. You can explain why you want them gone if you so desire -- and if you do a good enough job at it, your vote might count double or triple (just like in real elections). This game is like "American Idol," in that I'll tally your votes, and announce who gets to stick around -- but I may cheat. You just won't be able to prove anything. Oh, and this is also your chance to suggest other possible members for the teams, if you have any good suggestions -- these individuals may be brought in as contestants later, if any of our regulars screw up or cease to be amusing. Plus, if you hate one of the teams (personally, I already hate the Respected Conservatives and the Blog Stars), or have a better idea for one or more new teams, suggest that also. We can even vote back people, if we end up hating the ones we're left with. I see all kinds of possible intrigue and skullduggery on the way to crowning 'The King of the Wingnuts" or "The Ultimate Wingnut" Or "Wingnut Fear Factor" (the network hasn't decided on the official name yet). Now, get busy eliminating eight of these people! (But only for the purposes of the game, of course ... at least, that's what our lawyer advised us to say.) 6:06:52 AM  |
'It's Like a Lottery That Rewards Stupidity'I have a headache, and so am in no mood to deal with deliberate stupidity right now -- and the fact that there is so much of it today makes my head ache even worse. But here are some thoughts on some of the items that especially irritated me today: 1. From Michelle Malkin's blog, quoting that Little Green Footballs guy, who was defending his blog's blood-thirsty commenters:
I'm pretty sure that Bowers knows that there is a difference. I'd be willing to bet he thinks Hitler, say, was a worse person than the typical LGF. However, just as one can express patriotic sentiments without actually doing anything substantive to support one's country, one can express genocidal sentiments without actually committing genocide. So, the LGF commenters are probably as genocidal as they are patriotic. And, of course, just because said commenters haven't actually committed the genocide they have called for doesn't mean that they aren't worthy of the contempt of decent people. Now, part of Michelle's comment about the LGF Guy's comment:
Michelle, while I appreciate the bulk of this post (which calls on commenters at right-wing sites to stop the hate speech), why is it bad to substitute rage with something else?. Why shouldn't we westerners try to understand our foes, and use that understanding to devise effective ways to prevent further attacks? And why is it wrong to devote more energy worrying about the the victims of an attack than to thirst for the blood of those who attacked them? After all, anger isn't a moral quality, it's an emotion. And while anger may be a natural reaction to certain events or perceived conditions, lashing out because you're mad doesn't make you a better person than those who control their anger. In fact, it can be argued (based on the Bible) that a good person is someone who doesn't react out of anger, but who instead takes measured action. As it says in Psalms, "Cease from anger, and forsake wrath; fret not yourself in any wise to do evil. " Proverbs adds, "He that is soon angry dealeth foolishly," and, "Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go; lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul." Per Ecclesiastes, "Be not hasty in they spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools." And so on. And in that vein, a certain guy I read about said that we are to even love our enemies. To me, this means that while we try to keep them from killing more innocents, that we don't give in to revenge fantasies and racial hatred (for our own sake more than theirs). At least, that's what the Bible seems to say -- but maybe it's just substituting rage with therapeutic impulses. 2. From Hindrocket's analysis of why Rove did no wrong by leaking Valerie Plame's CIA employment to Newsweek:
Hindrocket, here's part of the Newsweek item you quoted:
So, how do you think that Rove learned that the DCI didn't approve the trip? From Fox News, maybe? Or perhaps he read about it in his fortune cookie? Of COURSE Rove learned about the background of Wilson's Niger assignment through his access to classified information (meaning, that because Rove has a security clearance and the requisite "need to know," he is privy to classified information). And he most likely learned about Plame working in the Non-Proliferation Center (and about the NPC being the CIA office that tasked Wilson to travel to Niger) from someone in the Vice President's office or Doug Feith's office. Rove (and Scooter, if he was the other leaker) obviously got their information about Plame's CIA affiliation, her work on WMDs, and about Wilson's trip to Niger from their access to classified information -- to claim otherwise is to show one's self to be a moron.
Since a substantial portion of stateside CIA employees ARE under cover, no reasonable senior White House official who holds a security clearance would tell a reporter that an individual was a CIA employee without verifying that said employee wasn't under cover. To reveal to a reporter the actual status of an undercover CIA employee (I'm not talking about a "covert agent," just a regular CIA officer who has been placed under cover) is to have disclosed Confidential (the lowest level of classification) material to an unauthorized person. So, whether or not Rove actually knew Plame was undercover, he damn well should have found out before contacting reporters -- negligence is no excuse when dealing with national security matters. To paraphrase somebody who reportedly had a security clearance for one summer, "Against this background, it strikes me as ludicrous to suggest that a senior official like Karl Rove, with years of experience in the White House, would forget that he is not supposed to disclose CIA affiliations (and said officers' assignments) to reporters. No, there was a very serious reason why Rove committed a serious security breach: he did it because he thinks petty politics are more important than national security."
Hindrocket, you moron, what do you THINK it means when the Agency sets up a cover company (which isn't a casual undertaking), and puts in place mechanisms to "backstop" the employment of certain employees by having the front company issue W-2s, set up insurance accounts, etc. for these employees? Do you think the Agency does stuff like that because it WANTS these employees to be named in print as CIA employees? Could you BE any stupider?
Well, the leak occurred in July 2003, and DOJ announced it was pursuing a criminal investigation in Sept. 2003 -- and yet presumably Rove hadn't told the President as of Oct. 6, 2003, when Bush answered a reporter who asked about the leaker as follows: "I don't know who leaked the information, for starters. So it's hard for me to answer that question until I find out the truth." He also said that he would like to know who leaked the information about Plame. What do you make of that, Mr. Hindrocket? Did Rove sandbag his President about his involvement in the matter even after the investigation had commenced? Did Bush really NOT want to know who leaked? Or what? And, of course, on 10 Oct, 2003, there was this exchange at a WH press conference:
So, was Scottie playing a "that depends on the meaning of 'involved'" game, or did Rove mislead Scottie, or is this an entire administration where nobody has any honesty and integrity? But back to Hindrocket, who will now explain why it's GOOD that Bush believes in surrounding himself with people who play games with national security matters.
Too bad the President doesn't believe in loyalty to career CIA officers trying to keep WMDs out of the hands of our enemies. Now, the other two stooges weigh in:
Deacon, per the Newsweek memo that Hindrocket quoted, Rove said that "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." That is a lie. Valerie Plame, a mid-level CIA employee, could not authorize anybody's overseas assignment. As the CIA has said, she did NOT authorize her husband's mission, it was either done by the DDO or somebody under him (she offered his services, but she didn't choose him for the assignment or authorize him to carry out the mission). So, this is a case of a top aide providing lies AND committing a statutory violation (with possible perjury on the side) in response to information that politically embarrassed the administration. Get your facts straight, and leave the dumbassery to Hindrocket, guy.
Even if BigTrunk is right about what Gildin said (BT didn't provide a link, and I can't find Gildin's statement via Google), and Gildin accurately characterized Ms. Mitchell's remarks, and Ms. Mitchell was being truthful and accurate about what she believed news people were aware of at some point it time -- even if we grant all that, the fact that some news people may think they know something does not give a senior government official the right to call reporters, confirm it to them, and urge them to use this classified information in their stories. And it certainly doesn't mean it's okay to make a CIA employee "fair game" for political purposes. In fact, as a certain George W. Bush said, "This is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action." Hey, Mr. Gildin (and Mr.BigTrunk, et. al.), I think disagreeing with the President in time of war is treason or something. 1:13:49 AM |
No comments:
Post a Comment