Augustus's blog
Added by Augustus on Jan 11, 2008 - add as a friend | PM me
Self-described "accomplished, well-rounded writer" Burt Prelutsky has some thoughts on torture and the media.
Sometimes I get the idea that America’s MSM is nothing more than an off-shoot of Al Jazeera, a well-oiled propaganda machine for all things Islamic.
That would certainly explain why Lou Dobbs has renamed his most popular segment to "Jihad on the Middle Class," unless that didn't happen. Note, anyway, that Prelutsky takes it for granted that Al Jazeera is some sort of Islamic propaganda machine, even though it's clearly not, which is why actual Islamic governments have had a tendency to give it a hard time over the years. Still, it does bear an Arabic name, which is indeed pretty suspicious.
For instance, we’ve been hearing for the longest time that torture is the worst possible way by which to extract information from the enemy. Who says so? When something that is so nonsensical is passed off as common knowledge, I, for one, get very suspicious.
Me, too. Let's hop into the Mystery Van and try to solve this one together! Or, barring that, I guess we could just Google "torture doesn't work" and see who thinks this to be the case. Why, here's a former Army interrogator who "says so"! Oh, and here are 38 former U.S military leaders who also "say so"!
I think a problem we have when discussing, say, water-boarding is one of semantics. The question isn’t whether water-boarding constitutes torture. (If it’s not, then it’s just a big waste of time and a small waste of water).
How ribald!
When you get right down to it, torture takes many forms. For one man, it’s being dunked repeatedly in water, while for another it’s being forced to sit through a Sean Penn speech or a Dixie Chicks concert.
I know, right? Don't get me started on those Dixie Chicks! Talk about torture, amirite?
In all seriousness, though, I'm genuinely curious at to whether or not the hundreds of minor conservative commentators who make the whole "You want torture? How about listening to X? Now that's torture!" joke actually think that they're the first ones to pull that out of their sleeves. Do they not read each other's stuff?
Lately, I’ve been wondering if the folks who spread the rumor about the failure of torture to garner results are the same ones now insisting that Iran is not trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
Hey, maybe Prelutsky could pick up the phone and call those 38 former U.S. military leaders and ask them what they think! Or not!
Email
Digg
Facebook
reddit
del.icio.us
StumbleUpon
MySpace
For perhaps the first time in the campaign thus far, a clear and universally accepted winner has been proclaimed in the wake of a primary debate, with conservative commentators of every persuasion citing Fred Thompson as having dominated last night's Republican debate in South Carolina. Even Hugh Hewitt, who's usually inclined to support his man Mitt Romney even when the facts don't quite bear him out, was willing to acknowledge the superiority of Thompson's performance. A number of observers are predicting a bounce; frankly, he could use it:
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics South Carolina Primary
John McCain 25%
Mike Huckabee 18%
Mitt Romney 17%
Fred Thompson 9%
Meanwhile, the arch-conservative Human Events has announced its endorsement of Thompson. "On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity," wrote the editors. "Thompson’s record is solid on voting to preserve gun owners’ rights, cut taxes, reduce government spending and drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," with this last issue apparently being very important to the publication.
|
HUMAN EVENTS Endorses Fred Thompson - Human Events |
|
Ronald Reagan's Favorite Paper Endorses Fred Thompson - Red State |
|
Fred Thompson shows some life - Los Angeles Times |
Added by Augustus on Jan 10, 2008 - add as a friend | PM me
Noting that Democratic voters in Michigan have been stripped of their primary votes by the DNC anyway, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is asking those of his readers who reside in that state to vote for Mitt Romney in the GOP primary - which itself is open to Democrats and independents - thereby helping to ensure that the former Massachusetts governor stays in the race for the foreseeable future. As Moulitsas sees it:
John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.
Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.
And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.
It should be interesting to see how Republicans respond to the incorrigible Kos' proposed chicanery. At the very least, Romney opponents might take the opportunity to spin a Romney win as the result of Democratic tinkering.
For his part, Romney has raised eyebrows this week by pulling ads from South Carolina and elsewhere and instead concentrating his resources on Michigan, where a first-place victory has become an inceasingly integral piece of the candidate's overall strategy.
Added by Augustus on Jan 10, 2008 - add as a friend | PM me
A Republican source close to long-embattled Congressman John Doolittle told the AP this morning that the California Republican will be announcing his impending retirement later today. The move comes in the midst of an ongoing Congressional investigation into potential ethics violations of the part of Doolittle, whose involvement in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal has resulted in his dismissal from the House Appropriations Committee, an FBI raid on his home, two declared Republican primary challengers, and widespread criticism from other GOP officials, whom he has in turn characterized as "weasels."
According to other sources, Doolittle will endorse former state senator Rico Oller in the race to succeed him. No word yet on whether Oller actually wanted the endorsement or what.
Added by Augustus on Jan 10, 2008 - add as a friend | PM me
Occasionally, Hugh Hewitt runs out of stupid things to say and must therefore import new talent. Thus it is that former Senator Rick Santorum showed up on Hewitt's radio program this morning in order to offer his sage take on John McCain's electoral prospects:
I mean, this is a guy who on a lot of the core economic issues, is not even close to being a moderate, in my opinion. And then on the issue of, on social conservative issues, you point to me one time John McCain every took the floor of the United States Senate to talk about a social conservative issue. It never happened. I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them. So I mean, this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party.
Rick Santorum, of course, is a one-term senator who was blown out of the water in 2006 by a margin of 18 points, thereby achieving the worst incumbent senatorial defeat since 1980, when George McGovern lost out to his Republican opponent. John McCain, on the other hand, has been re-elected to the Senate three times and is currently polling better than any other GOP candidate in a national match-up against Barack Obama. So, in case you were wondering why it is that the McCain campaign has yet to offer Santorum a job as an electoral strategist, that, uh, might be why.
Added by Augustus on Jan 10, 2008 - add as a friend | PM me
Get yer programs here! Won't know the players without a program!
1. The CIA's covert service head who some believe to have presided over the destruction of tapes which may depict the use of torture against al-Qaeda operatives is requesting immunity ahead of an expected appearance before Congress next week in which he'll be providing testimony on exactly what went down and why. Attorneys for the White House, meanwhile, are still urging a federal court to hold off its own investigation into the incident, claiming that it would interfere with ongoing investigations by Congress and the Justice Department. At any rate, they've been successful in their efforts to convince Judge Edward Kennedy that a judicial inquiry is unnecessary; Kennedy announced yesterday that he agrees, citing the inability of lawyers for a group of detainees to come up with evidence that a specific law pertaining to Guantamo captives was broken in light of revelations that the detainees in question were actually being held in secret prisons elsewhere at the time of the alleged abuse.
2. Allegations by the National Security Archive that the Bush Administration is hiding millions of e-mails that it had previously claimed were accidentally deleted has prompted a federal judge to order the White House to make a formal response to the charges within five business days of last Tuesday. White House spokesman Tony Fratto has thus far declined to comment.
|
|
White House told to answer questions on missing e-mails - CNN |
|
|
Source - Immunity sought in CIA case - CNN |
It's been known for some time that several issues of Ron Paul's Reagan-era newsletter The Ron Paul Survival Report contained several borderline-racist comments in reference to black Americans, but Paul's claims to the effect that the articles in question were ghostwritten by a former aide have been largely accepted up until this point not only by his own backers, but also by such otherwise not-so-sympathetic commentators like Glenn Greenwald, most of whom pointed to the writing style of said pieces as being entirely out of tune with other written work known to have been authored by Paul himself. But an article that appeared yesterday on The New Republic's website reveals that the racist utterances in question were more numerous than once thought, leading many to note that it seems less and less likely that such things just happened to have slipped by without Paul's notice.
Indeed, a handful of libertarian activists who were close to Paul and his Texan cohorts at the time appear to agree that Paul knowingly let the aide in question write such things simply in order to raise money. Says one:
As a writer and editor working in the libertarian movement at the time of these "Ron Paul" newsletters, I have vague recollection of "common knowledge": it was known who wrote these newsletters, and why. It was money for Ron. It was money for the writers. And it was a way of keeping Ron's name in the minds of right wingers with money ... future donors.
It was designed to be entertaining writing. Provocative. It flirted with racism, like Mencken's did, and Mencken was indeed the model. But these writings went further than Mencken usually did (for publication) along the lines of annoying the racially sensitive; and they sometimes did veer into outright racism.
I was embarrassed by the implied racial hatred, for the general level of hate regardlesss of race ... and in part because the writing was so obviously not Ron's, and so obviously the product of the actual writers, with whom I had tangential relations
Interestingly enough, another libertarian who was close to both Paul and the aide in question is calling on that still-anonymous aide to out himself lest any more damage be done to the libertarian movement, and notes that the aide is, in fact, a fairly prominent person in his own right and still serves as an advisor to Paul.
The identity of the author of the 'objectionable' material from past issues of Ron Paul's Newsletter -- material that is currently being used by major media to skewer Paul [see blog post below] -- is an open secret within the circles in which I run. The news accounts refer to him merely as an "aide." We call him by his first name.
Added by Augustus on Jan 9, 2008 - add as a friend | PM me
Among the great variety of wacky utterances one comes across, there is a special sort that, while brief, requires some two or three distinctly different responses.
In the course of an otherwise decent post in which he rightfully accuses Barack Obama of spouting meaningless platitudes, RedState chieftain "Erick" is apparently not content to be correct - he must also be incorrect, for such is his nature. Here's what he wrote today:
There is a reason you have to be at least 25 to be in the House, 30 for the Senate, and 35 for the Presidency -- the 25 and under crowd is easily swayed by empty platitudes because they have yet to lead a substantive life.
... or, rather, this is what he managed to write eventually, with a little help from the good folks in the comment section; Erick had originally misstated the age required for the presidency, only to be informed soon after that he had gotten the number wrong, at which point he fixed his post. I don't know what age he had originally posited, because, whereas most honest bloggers tend to leave mistakes intact with a strike through (like this) lest they be accused of trying to cover up their errors, it simply wouldn't have done for Erick to be shown up as getting his facts wrong in the course of his argument that members of the "25 and under crowd" are ill-informed.
Now, to arms!
Reason Why This is a Stupid Thing to Say #1:
Call it a quibble if you must, but it's doubtful that the decision of the Framers to restrict membership in the House to those of at least 25 years was meant as a response to the unfortunate foolishness of the "25 and under crowd;" if that was the case, they would have restricted it to 26, lest any of these insidious 25-year-olds make it into the lower chamber without first having passed Erick's Magic Conceptual Threshold of 26 (patent pending).
Reason Why This is a Stupid Thing to Say #2:
In his libel of the "25 and under crowd," one finds quite a bit of collateral damage among those U.S. troops of whom Erick and his drinking buddies are so universally fond. Has a young man who's spent the last two years fighting in Babylon at the behest of his nation not yet "lead a substantive life"? And what has the presumably elderly and consequently "substantive" Erick been doing? Writing sonnets? Founding Greek city-states? We may presume, at any rate, that his metabolism has decreased. Good for him.
One commenter does notice that Erick has accidentally denounced the bulk of the troops and points this out, but another is ready with a retort. "To the extent that the twenty-somethings wearing their Country's [sic] uniform think about politics, you certainly won't find many of them spouting mindless platitudes and supporting Obama - or any other Democrat," he says, in an apparent effort to be as wrong as humanly possible.
Reason Why This is a Stupid Thing to Say #3:
RedState blogger Ben Domenech was among the "25 and under crowd" up until a few months ago, and he was so much better than the average conservative blogger that the Washington Post offered him his own column. Of course, this fell through when it was revealed that Domenech had plagiarized the work of others in at least a dozen or so instances.
On the other hand, Domenech is himself no stranger to "empty platitudes":
Enough. What they say doesn't matter. What we do here, now, that's what matters. Time to shape up, or we're going to get the crap beat out of us. That's the truth. We keep it together now, or we're going down hard. And if we don't get on same page here, we'll be going down without a fight.
Wait. Okay, Erick wins this one.