Baggage

MANIFESTO

Justice Clarence Thomas settles scores in an angry and vivid forthcoming memoir, scathingly condemning the media, the Democratic senators who opposed his nomination to the Supreme Court, and the "mob" of liberal elites and activist groups that he says desecrated his life.

It's always been clear that Justice Thomas is an intellectual lightweight, but now we find that he's got some serious psychological issues.

It's scary—but not surprising, given his Republican ties—to think that such a vicious man sits on the highest court in the land.

This week's lowlight

MANIFESTO

(The subtitle of this post is "Let 'em Die.")

Mr. Compassionate Conservative has shown his true colors in promising to veto the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a program that will expand health care to lower and middle class children.

It beggars belief that such a veto is being threatened in the name of fiscal responsibility while the Secretary of Defense is telling Congress that $190 billion is needed to support the hideous wars in the Mideast for just the next year.

Let's face it: Gorgeous George doesn't want adequate health care for lower and middle class children because it's unlikely that they'll grow up to vote Republican.

His attempt to decrease the number of Democratic voters isn't much unlike Republican accusations of voter fraud where none exists.

Ideology vs. Real Life, Cont'd

MANIFESTO

Here's Exhibit A.

What's the Difference?

SPORTING GOODS

Which of these players would you prefer (both currently play in the same league, though in different divisions):

Player A: .264 batting average, 42 HR, 125 RBI, 88 Runs
Player B: .264 batting average, 40 HR, 106 RBI, 101 Runs

Player A: 26 doubles, 0 triples, 103 BB 5 HBP, .388 OBP, .563 SLG
Player B: 27 doubles, 2 triples, 101 BB, 5 HBP .386 OBP, .554 SLG

Player A : 13 GIDP
Player B : 12 GIDP

Player A : Born : November 19, 1979
Player B : Born : November 9, 1979

Hard to imagine having two more similar players, isn’t it? Having a little trouble? Here’s some more help:

Player B has 9 steals and 2 caught stealings, compared to 1 steal and no CS for Player A
Player B has struck out 30 fewer times than Player A
Neither is considered a very good fielder, though Player B is probably considered a worse fielder, at a more difficult position

Player A had this said about him by a current MLB Hall of Famer: “Right at this moment in time, he might be more dangerous than Barry Bonds ever was in his prime”

Player B had this said about him on a random baseball website I found: “I really think that [Player B], though not a Kingman candidate per se, really personifies ‘the least with the most.’”

Give up, or did you figure it out by now? Player A is Ryan Howard, reigning MVP of the NL and all-around beloved baseball star. Player B is Adam Dunn, perennial trade candidate and punching bag of everyone who knows the name “Dave Kingman.”

Surprised? I’m a big Dunn fan, and I was still very surprised. Just a little something to encourage you to defend Mr. Dunn next time he is being insulted!

Thanks to Chill for the idea that led to me looking up the stats.

Ideology vs. Real Life

MANIFESTO

Steve Benen states the obvious when he points out that

[C]onservatives ... don't mind restrictions on free speech, until they have something provocative to say. They want to restrict reproductive rights, until someone close to them has an unwanted pregnancy. They want to break down the church-state wall, until they feel like their faith is in the minority. They want to treat embryos as people, until they suffer from an ailment that could benefit from stem-cell research. And they balk at the idea of equal rights for gay people, until it's their daughter who is looking for equality.

The problem, of course, is that these mental midgets have so little real world experience (led by, of course, the let-them-eat-cake tyro in the White House) that they can hardly relate to anything until (you should pardon the metaphor) it hits them in the face.

You just don't find a lot of conservatives in South Philly, or South Los Angeles, or Bridgeport.

We have nothing on the Canadians

MANIFESTO

The whole Petraeus/Betray Us farce is nothing compared to this Maclean's article, which really tells it like it is.

This week's lowlight

MANIFESTO

One really has to wonder if Connecticut's junior senator is still in charge of his faculties these days.

Josh Marshall picks up on this, too. I mean, Senator Sanctimony's always been king of the nerds, but now he's just plain crazy.

Here's Exhibit A.

If the Democrats had any guts at all

MANIFESTO

Mark Kleiman explains how the Dems could demonstrate some integrity:

Anything that can be ridden on the Defense Appropriations bill (or on a continuing resolution) doesn't need 60 votes in the Senate. It needs 51 votes in the Senate, or 218 in the House, that will stand firm.

Take, for example, the Webb Amendment, forbidding troops from being required to serve tours in Iraq longer than the spells between tours. If passed, it would force a troop drawdown by spring.

The Democrats should offer the Webb Amendment when the Defense Appropriation comes up. If the Republicans want to filibuster, fine. Don't pull the amendment. Just let them keep filibustering. As long as the amendment is on the floor, there can be no vote on the bill itself. Keep calling cloture votes, one per day. After a few days, start asking how long the Republicans intend to withhold money to fund troops in the field in order to pursue their petty partisan agenda.

If the Republicans in the Senate hold firm, it's their stubbornness that's holding up the bill. If they fold, and the bill gets to the President's desk and he vetoes it, then pass the same damned bill again. And start asking how long the President intends to block funding for troops in the field in order to pursue his petty partisan agenda.

As of October 1, there's no money to fund the war. So the usual move is to pass a continuing resolution, which keeps the money flowing until the appropriation passes. Fine. Pass a continuing resolution with the Webb Amendment attached. If the CR runs into a filibuster or a veto, ask how long ...

Really, this isn't very hard. With the voters overwhelmingly interested in getting us the hell out of Iraq, the Democrats can make full use of the power of the purse without worrying about a backlash, especially with Webb as the public face of the campaign.

Alas, such a rational strategy will never occur, but I suppose it's nice to think about.

Six years later

MANIFESTO

Read it and weep.

The Petraeus "Report"

MANIFESTO

The New York Times's editorial board on the loyal Bushie's "report:"

Mr. Bush, we fear, isn’t looking for the truth, only for ways to confound the public, scare Democrats into dropping their demands for a sound exit strategy, and prolong the war until he leaves office.

Of course, that type of mentality has been evinced over and over again.

Having said that, I don't understand the contradiction between the Times's assertion that such a report will be "deliver[ed] to Congress on Monday" and the Washington Times story that a written report won't be created at all. Tomorrow may or may not be interesting in that regard.

Weekly411?

MANIFESTO

In my opinion, the most amusing story of the week surely had to be the public disagreement of Feckless Leader and South Korea's President Roh Moo-Hyun.

Here's a piece of the transcript:

PRESIDENT ROH: I think I might be wrong -- I think I did not hear President Bush mention the -- a declaration to end the Korean War just now. Did you say so, President Bush?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I said it's up to Kim Jong Il as to whether or not we're able to sign a peace treaty to end the Korean War. He's got to get rid of his weapons in a verifiable fashion. And we're making progress toward that goal. It's up to him.

PRESIDENT ROH: I believe that they are the same thing, Mr. President. If you could be a little bit clearer in your message, I think --

PRESIDENT BUSH: I can't make it any more clear, Mr. President. We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War. That will end -- will happen when Kim Jong-il verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons. Thank you, sir.

And then, of course, President Petulant precipitously ended the get-together and left in a huff. The whole exchange is quite funny when actually heard because Roh's female interpreter's tone is just dripping with sarcasm. One assumes Roh's inflection was comparable.

NPR's Tom Regan has a take on Gorgeous George's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Thursday.

Limited Posting

ESOTERICA

Alas, I find myself returning to the halls of academe only to find that Blogger is now blocked by a filter. It's been deemed to be of the "Chat Group" category, and so posting during the week will have to be limited to evenings. (I can read Daily411; I just can't post to it.)

This situation may or may not be of any concern to readers of Daily411.