Palin is the anti-feminist feminist. Barbara Kay (Updated)

And Barbara Kay is as dishonest as Sarah Palin.

Palin's mockery tickled Obama's worrisome polyps of swollen self-regard (the "styrofoam pillars"), his history of words over action ("two memoirs, but no major bills"), his curious pattern of risk avoidance (unlike community organizers, mayors have "actual responsibilities") and his tendency to solipsism(presidential journeys are not "voyages of personal discovery").

Kay might want to become a reading pundit as well as a writing pundit. The Associated Press dissected Palin's speech quite nicely and called it (politely) a litany of exaggerations and "whoppers". The truth is that the Republicans stood on the stage of their convention and lied.

Then Kay, in an effort to paint the Republicans as the party of equality and enlightenment, tries to portray Palin as some kind of ground-breaking anti-feminist.

But win or lose the election, Sarah Palin has already altered the cultural landscape of America, possibly of the Western world. In years to come, social archeologists will mark her speech as the official beginning of an end to the gender wars, and, one hopes, a return to trust and collaboration between the sexes.

You haven't gone far enough back, baby. Social archeologists will wonder why Kay didn't bother to do a little research and why her column completely missed the accomplishments of Nellie Tayloe Ross and Miriam A. Ferguson, both of whom were Democratic governors of Wyoming and Texas respectively before Sarah Palin's parents were even born.

Because Palin proved you don't need the Sisterhood to pierce the glass ceiling. In her single calculated comment about women, she said, "This is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity."

Really?! Does Palin believe she picked herself for the position on the McCain ticket? The "Sisterhood" to which Kay refers has a longer history than she's willing to admit, as evidenced by her failure to acknowledge the existence of others who have gone before Palin. And perhaps Kay can explain the reason political parties and corporations are overwhelmingly populated by males at the upper levels.

Got that? It wasn't Gloria Steinem that put me on this podium. It was my made-in-small-town-America traditional social values combined with old-fashioned patriotism and Alaska-instilled pioneerism.

Aha! Now Kay decides to name the enemy while giving Palin a nice homey stroke. But then Palin put herself in that frame. What she wasn't counting on was, (since the Republicans didn't do it), a severe vetting by the media. What they're finding isn't what Kay is trying to present.

Ideologybased behaviour of any kind is irrelevant to Palin, and millions of other small-town women -- and always was. Love of family, community, country -- not conspiracy theories -- is what guides their political compass.

Right. She's a real sweetheart. So much so that a judge had to tell her to shut her cakehole.

Having issued forth with the name Gloria Steinem, who Kay apparently doesn't get, her next target is perhaps more familiar and Kay does herself in nicely.

Betty Friedan, author of The Feminist Mystique*, the 1963 book that kicked off the modern feminist movement, was no Adam Smith or Karl Marx. She was a political nobody, a bored, disgruntled housewife who mistook her own tiny world of white, urban, middle-class, university-educated peers as representative of all American women.

In fact, Friedan's true acolytes always were, and remain, "dormitory feminists," a small, but noisily aggrieved iceberg calved from the real female masses Palin so brilliantly champions.

What were Friedan's credentials for changing the world? Friedan studied psychology at Smith College, dabbled in journalism, flirted with communism(it shows in feminism's Marxist stripes), mothered three children and gave domestically violent tit for tat to her husband in a failed marriage before writing her famous book. Some resume.

So, we get it. Kay thinks Friedan is unqualified to "change the world", then goes on to mock Friedan's qualifications by... get ready for this... criticizing her middle-class existence. Not to mention that Kay now identifies feminism with Marxism, without so much as real reference. But that comes with punditry, doesn't it?

Then Kay cuts herself off at the knees. She simply guts her own argument. (Emphasis mine)

And yet she emerged from her utter political obscurity and academic amateurism as the matriarch of an enormously consequential movement. Following the book's landslide success -- one of its direct offshoots was the disruption of the Miss America pageant Mr. Kay details in his column-- Friedan became the guiding force for the National Women's Political Caucus and the National Abortion Rights Action Council (NARAL). Her reign had more impact on American life than the work of any 50 vice-presidents combined.

Landslide success. Now why the fuck do you suppose that happened? Do you think Friedan struck a nerve? Kay didn't like the quality of research, disapproved of Friedan's lifestyle and mocked her motherhood, yet this woman wrote a book which started, in Kay's own words, an enormously consequential movement. In fact, Kay cuts Palin down to 1/50th of Friedan's stature by stating that Friedan has done more than 50 vice-presidents combined. Do you suppose it's because women didn't care about the research but saw themselves in the lines of Friedan's book? Or was it just a good way to spend the extra grocery money? Friedan tore the plastic wrap off an old movement - she didn't start it. The life she was describing was a constructed creation of the last half of the 20th Century and she exposed it for what it was.

Palin, who Kay is obviously trying to hold up in a side-by-side comparison with Friedan, has done nothing similar.

So feminists, enough with the hypocrisy. Show some respect for Sarah Palin, who is far more credentialed to advance America's interests than Friedan was for yours.

Really? Nice try but Kay is short by a country mile. If Palin's only detractors were feminists, (and she means men-hating, hairy feminists), she might have a point. But Palin's critics come from a wide cross-section of society and have nothing to do with either movement or non-movement feminists. Kay is lashing out at a strawman because women are making it clear that they understand what Palin is not.

Palin is not representative of feminists because she is not representative of humanists.

Palin did not shatter the glass ceiling through any action of her own. Someone pushed her through it. And it was done in true Republican fashion.

Befitting the GOP history of running crooks, B movie actors, born-again business failures and draft-deferment specialists, the Republicans have stuck to their old formula. Now they have a religious fundamentalist, runner-up beauty pageant princess, under investigation for abuse of authority.

Yeah. She fits perfectly.

*By the way, Barbara.... If you insist on trashing the authors of books which have become classics you might want to at least provide some evidence that you actually read them, or perhaps even looked at the cover. The title of Betty Friedan's 1963 now-classic book is The Feminine Mystique - not, as you labeled it, The Feminist Mystique. Really. It's been on the shelf for 45 years... still available... title hasn't changed... you've never read it, have you?

Ha! Sadly, No! gives Barbara the "fly" treatment.

Note: I've corrected my spelling errors. Let's see if Barbara does the same.

Whack!!!

Christopher Bird of the Osgood Hall Law School at York University dismantles the spurious allegations of the Canada Family Action Coalition against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and leaves them in a smoking heap on the ground at The Court.

It seems McVety and company aren't just being dishonest about their "degrees". They are misrepresenting the law and attempting to twist the established conventions of the Order of Canada.

And you "senior" media types are being taken for a ride.

Go read.

Tony (I'm not in the pocket of agri-food) Clement discusses ethics.

As Impolitical and LuLu point out, the idea of Tony Clement discussing medical ethics is just slightly more than grossly uncomfortable.

"I find the ethical considerations of supervised injections to be profoundly disturbing."

Right. And the chair of the Canadian Medical Association's ethics committee was having none of it.

Bonnie Cham, chair of the association's ethics committee, took Mr. Clement to task during the meeting's question period.

"I found the use of medical ethics to justify a political decision, which will affect social policy to be troubling at best and misleading at worst," the Winnipeg doctor told the health minister.

"Ethics consist of a balancing of rights and harms, as do all medical decisions that physicians in this room help their patients reach every day. IV drug users, as the rest of us, have the right to compassion and to access and care, which has proven to be beneficial."

Sorry Dr. Cham, that's not the way this lot thinks. Now, if the kid of a Conservative Party leader suddenly turned to illicit drugs as a result of listening to his Big Daddy's Beatles records, well, that would be a different story. It wouldn't be his fault and there would be harm reduction efforts popping up all over Sussex Drive.

But I digress.

Let's check Clement's qualifications:

Medical doctor: No.

Lawyer: Yes.

Qualification in medical ethics: None.

Degree in political science: Yes.

Personal heros: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (Neither of whom were medical professionals).

Riding: Parry Sound -Muskoka, where he took the seat with 28 votes after a judicial recount. (Gee, he was OK with that judicial decision.) Why is he representing Parry Sound - Muskoka when he was actually living in Brampton at the time of his election? Well, because when he ran in 2004 in Brampton he got creamed by Liberal Colleen Beaumier and it was pretty clear he wasn't going to do any better in 2006... so he switched to Parry Sound - Muskoka where he (COUGH!) owns a (COUGH!) cottage. Change of address cards were issued to those who needed to know.

Medical affiliations: When appointed Health Minister he held a 25 percent share in Vikram Kharuna's Prudential Chem Inc., a pharma company. That, of course, was a conflict of interest and he was forced to divest himself of his holdings, not on taking office but in July 2006 after consumer lobbyists blew the whistle on him. And Vikram Kharuna? Oh yeah, suddenly he ends up being appointed by the Harper cabinet to a directorship on the Asia-Pacific Foundation.

Previous medical exposure: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care in the Ontario governments of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves where he earned himself the nickname "Two Tier Tony".

Famous for: Little other than the attack ads he employed against fellow neo-con Jim Flaherty in a failed bid to gain leadership of the Ontario Conservative Party.

And then there is the Chalk River fiasco during which Clement displayed either gross incompetence or a distinct lack of ethics.

Then of course there was his decision to ditch the online Canadian Health Network in favour of a picture of himself and a link to the Throne Speech. Not to mention how he installed the heads of food production companies on the panel advising a revision in the now badly mangled Canada Food Guide.

Yeah. Doctors really need an "ethics" lecture from the ethically challenged.

How are those hospital wait times coming Clement?

Children of the Corn

Rep. Steve King (not exactly as pictured) announces that

He Who Walks Behind The Rows has commanded him

to stand for a fourth term in Congress.

How do people this stupid manage to get out of the house in the morning without cutting their own wrists on the mirror they shatter trying to grab " that guy I keep seeing in the bathroom" and do they really think there are people even stupider than them that will fall for their "klever planz"?

Lawmaker: Terrorists to cheer Obama win
By James Beltran
Associated Press Writer
/ March 7, 2008
DES MOINES, Iowa—An Iowa Republican congressman said Friday that terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if Democratic candidate Barack Obama were to win the presidency.
Rep. Steve King based his prediction on Obama's pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, his Kenyan heritage and his middle name, Hussein.
"The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida ... would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror," King said in an interview with the Daily Reporter in Spencer, Iowa. King said his comments were not meant to demean Obama but to warn how an Obama presidency would look to the world.
"His middle name does matter," King said. "It matters because they read a meaning into that."

The AP gets it wrong, sort of. King was not being interviewed by the Daily Reporter, but speaking on radio at the time of his incredibly assinine remarks. Read the original piece for the pure unadulterated wingnuttery.

The Carpetbagger report gives us the story and then turns Rep. King into Swiss cheese with the machine gun of truth pumping out bullets made of all the other vile and stupid things King has said in the past

There are many good things about Iowa worthy of admiration, the Iowa Writer's Workshop not the least of them. People there should do the right thing and vote for anyone other than Steve King in November.

Crossposted from The Woodshed

Filosify.... really

Via Acerbic Politics, wanker philosophy on a t-shirt.

You want an inconvenient truth? Try this one.

I see Mark Steyn and Lorne Gunter have joined the throng of global warming deniers in picking up the correction to the GISS data-sets.

Steyn:

They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for US temperatures. The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934. Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top Ten altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century Â-- 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 Â-- plummeted even lower down the Hot One Hundred. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the Nineties and Oughts has had its temperature rating reduced. Four of America's Top Ten hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast. If climate change is, as Al Gore says, the most important issue anyone's ever faced in the history of anything ever, then Franklin Roosevelt didn't have a word to say about it.

Unhuh. And then Gunter:

In his enviro-propaganda flick, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claims nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. That's been a common refrain for environmentalists, too, and one of the centrepieces of global warming hysteria: It's been really hot lately -- abnormally hot -- so we all need to be afraid, very afraid. The trouble is, it's no longer true.

What both of these two are dodging around is that the dataset corrections apply only to U.S. land stations. In fact, Gore is still correct. Even with the corrected data-set, global surface temperatures have risen significantly and 2005 is actually the hottest year on record.

The NASA GISS data correction is being made a big deal among some groups. The trouble is, it's only one part of the science. And therein lies a problem.

Neither Steyn nor Gunter know a shmuck about climate science. They're relying on the word of others, who fall conveniently into their camp, and cherry-picking one event as being significant proof of their... "beliefs". (They don't have a theory.)

While they go about pointing at a data correction, which impact still doesn't change the global picture, they are ignoring other climatological factors and evidence.

Sea levels have risen 15 centimeters in the last 100 years. When I, as the old phart in the class, was studying oceanography, the attribution for that rise fell to 50 percent due to thermal expansion of the water mass and 50 percent due to glacial melt. Even then, we felt the figures were "best guesses" because we knew next to nothing about the dynamics of melting glaciers. As the science grows and the research moves forward corrections have been made. Today thermal expansion of the ocean water mass accounts for only 40 percent of the rise in sea level and 60 percent is attributed to glacial melt.

We know more about how a glacier responds to melting and, well, it's pretty shocking. Glaciers don't just sit there and melt. They actually move. When the melt becomes significant enough, the water provides a grease belt on which the glacier slides towards the shore and causes accelerated calving.

And none of this is happening because the planet is getting any cooler. It takes increasing heat to speed the movement of a glacier. Combine the current rate of disappearing glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica and you could see a rise in sea levels of up to 5 meters. Consider that the loss of the ice face, which reflects heat away from the surface, will cause heat to be absorbed by the now unprotected landmass and the melt will accelerate exponentially. It's possible we could see a 7 to 10 meter rise in sea levels within the next 100 years.

Steyn and Gunter have also ignored other significant facts. There has been a rise in sea surface temperatures and its effect is readily apparent. Mass bleaching of coral reefs is occurring at a rate never seen before. And these are not localized problems caused by small zone stresses. These are mass areas affected by sustained high air temperatures. Coral reefs are a delicate but vital part of the ocean ecosystem. A sea level rise of 1 to 2 millimeters per year is about the rate of growth of a healthy coral reef. If the reef has been bleached it stops growing and as the sea level rises can never recover.

We've already started to witness softer shells on some crustaceans and mollusks. Why? Increased carbon dioxide levels in sea water. CO2 and sea water mix to form an acid. As the carbon dioxide load in the ocean rises, the sea water becomes more acidic. A high proportion of marine life form exoskeletons from calcium carbonate (CaCO3). In order to do that sea water needs a pH of 8.7. Make it more acidic, by increasing CO2 levels, and the CO3 levels decrease as they react with hydrogen. By way of a demonstration, drop a simple piece of chalk into a weak acid like vinegar and watch what happens.

Compared to preindustrial times, the global ocean overall has dropped by .1 of a pH unit. That translates to an increase in acidity of 30 percent in the surface layers over the past 200 years. In the past 15 years alone, the ocean pH level has dropped .025 - and it's accelerating.

The reason we're not experiencing runaway global warming now is because the oceans are absorbing about half of the CO2 being pumped out into the atmosphere. As CO2 saturation levels increase, oxygen levels decrease and the entire marine ecosystem starts to suffocate. Increased acidification will eventually make it impossible for tiny shelled plankton to survive and when it's gone, you can declare the oceans dead.

And all that CO2 is coming from somewhere. Steyn and Gunter can point at U.S. land stations all they want and complain that the Goddard Space Center is diddling with the data-sets. The ocean data is hard, taken directly from the sea and seabeds then studied in the lab. Sea surface temperatures come from research ships, not a land station which might be affected by the "urban island". And every ship at sea records sea temperature at least once per day but more typically, once per watch (every 4 to 6 hours). The ocean data is good - and it's bad news.

You don't even have to believe in global warming to see that the oceans are taking a beating.

But I suppose neither Steyn nor Gunter nor any of their fellow travelers give a tinker's damn about something as insignificant as a prawn. Until they can't order one. Then perhaps they'll pull their heads out from where the sun don't shine.

The march of the wingnuts

Via Lindsay we get a list of all the wingnuts who have taken to blaming the victims for yesterday's slaughter at Virginia Tech. The blame is being cast all over the place, including taking a shot at co-ed dorms as the root cause for someone going right of their nut.

By far the worst out there, however, is that admirer of 15-year old girls, John Derbyshire.

As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.

Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It's true—none of us knows what he'd do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd at least take a run at the guy.

First, Derbyshire admits he's a chickenhawk, and we can use any definition of that word that we want to.

Second, Derbyshire has a point: Why didn't all those students count the shots? I mean, there was fuck all else going on at the time, right?!

Derbyshire then suggests, based on his own pathetic markmanship, that the shooter couldn't possibly have been that good. This leap of logic defies all facts. The guy managed to kill 33 people and send several others to hospital in critical condition. Then there is the suggestion that a .22 round can't do any real damage. I wonder what kind of blubbering mess Derbyshire would become if somebody grazed his earlobe with a .22 round?

Finally, there is the Derbyshire bravado that, given he was probably going to die anyway, he'd rush the guy. Really. How, pray tell, would he do that while he's slipping in his own shit just trying to stay on his feet?

Salvage decided not to let Derbyshire get away with it and sent him an email... to which Derbyshire replied. That alone indicates that Derbyshire is more of an idiot than we all realize and Salvage makes the point well. His exchange is definitely worth reading.

James Wolcott finds the wanker community picking on another target, namely the gun control community fronted by Sarah Brady, whose husband Jim Brady took a bullet in the head during the March 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.

Roy, at Alicublog takes on a wingnut who can't seem to understand why the shooter wasn't dealt with before because he seemed weird. The wingnut is Ace O Spades, who has a history of odd behaviour and Roy is only too willing to point it out and suggest that Ace's idea has some merit.

If we lived in the kind of world Mr. Spades favors, he'd be in a nuthouse quicker than you could say Preventive Detention. For the moment we live in another kind of world, and one which I prefer -- though it's nice to know that, once that other world comes around, it will have an upside.

And there's more. Lots more. Because the wingnuts just can't stand it when reality doesn't look like an episode of 24.

Powertools does heroes. (And leaves out a few details)

Shorter Ass-Rocket: If I had been captured... well, if I had actually ever been in combat... well, if I had actually ever been anywhere near a real war zone... well, if I had actually ever been a member of any armed services, I would have dispatched myself with heroism. But I've never actually done any of those things which makes me fully qualified to pass judgment on those who, you know, join the service, go to war and get captured.

McCain rarely talks about his own Vietnam era heroism, and he would be the last person to criticize the British hostages for their less than inspiring performance over the last couple of weeks. But that story can only remind us of the extraordinary courage and integrity that McCain showed under the most trying conditions possible.

Really?!

Well, Hindraker, I don't doubt McCain limits his discussions when it comes to his "heroism" in Vietnam. And he should be the last person to criticize the behaviour of the Royal Navy personnel taken captive by Iran. Unlike McCain's situation, where the US was a belligerent in a war with North Vietnam, Britain is not at war with Iran.

Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant.

Faith of My Fathers
Page 193
John McCain

Reds Say PW Songbird Is Pilot Son of Admiral . . . Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of United States Commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain, purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praises medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner.

United Press International
June 4, 1969

McCain lost five planes in his naval flying career. Bush just quit showing up for training with the Air National Guard.

But hey! At least they seem to have set aside the inter-service rivalry.

Powertools makes a long stretch.

The kids with the ice-cream cones stuck to their foreheads are at it again:

Gonzales gave incorrect testimony to Congress about matters relating the replacement of the eight U.S. Attorneys. If he knew the information was incorrect, then he lied. If he lied to Congress, he should be removed and prosecuted. But at this juncture, there appears to be no evidence that he lied. Instead, the evidence goes no further than establishing that he failed to inform himself well enough to answer some of the questions he was asked during his appearance on the Hill and made the mistake of answering the questions anyway.

There's a new twist!

Alberto Gonzales is one of the Bush administration's artful dodgers. It doesn't matter which committee he appears before, he's more than willing to dodge a question with the reply, "I don't know," or words to that effect.

On February 6th, 2006 before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wartime Executive Power and the NSA's Surveillance Authority, in response to direct questions from Senator Patrick Leahy:

LEAHY: The president has said publicly that he gave about 30 of these authorizations, having held off for a period of time, I think when the administration heard the New York Times was looking into it.

But you were White House counsel: Did the president give his first authorization before or after Attorney General Ashcroft met with us and gave us the proposals from the administration which ultimately went into the USA Patriot Act?

GONZALES: Sir, I don't know. I don't know when he gave you those proposals.

LEAHY: Well, we enacted the USA Patriot Act in October 2001. And you were there at the signing ceremony. We tried to encompass those things that the administration said they needed.

Was the first one of the president's authorizations done before he signed the USA Patriot Act?

GONZALES: I'd have to go back and check. I don't know.

On January 17, 2007 when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Maher Arar case, again in an exchange with Senator Patrick Leahy:

LEAHY:Why is he on a government watch list if he's been found completely innocent by this Canadian commission, which actually had the information from us?

GONZALES: Senator, I've got some very definite views about this particular case, as you know...

LEAHY: Well, go ahead.

GONZALES: ... beyond litigation. What I want to do is, hopefully, in the next few days – I'm happy to sit down with you and Senator (Arlen) Specter and give you more information.

In fact, we may be able to publicly say more about this shortly. I'm just not at liberty, at this time, to...

LEAHY: Let me ask you this: Why aren't you at liberty?

I don't understand that. It's not a matter of executive privilege.

GONZALES: No, sir, again, and I'm not ...

LEAHY: It's only the president that can ...

GONZALES: No, I'm not suggesting that I will not be able to answer your questions. I'm just suggesting I can't do it today.

LEAHY: Why?

GONZALES: I just – sir, I'm not – there is not a position – I can't represent the position of the executive branch on this particular issue.

But I think, in a relatively short period of time, there's more information that I should be able to share with you, and hopefully, that we can share publicly.

LEAHY: But why was he sent to Syria instead of Canada?

GONZALES: Well, again, Senator, I'd be happy to answer these questions I think we can say a lot more about it, if you just simply give me some additional time.

This is a guy who doesn't answer questions to which he does have the information. Now, Mirengoff is going so far as to suggest that Gonzales, lacking information to provide a truthful, complete answer, instead of his trademark, "I don't know" or "I'll have to get back to you", made something up!

That would make him incompetent. Short of that, he's lying. Both good reasons to send him back to Texas with a pink slip in his hands.

Because you present awards to the wankers you've got; Not the wankers you'd like to have.

Donald Rumsfeld is about to receive an award for "statesmanship".

























Now, before anyone starts to hyperventilate too badly over this, try to keep it in perspective. The Claremont Institute gives out all kinds of "statesmanship" awards.

One better known recipient is Victor Davis (There hasn't been a war invented on which I am not the consummate expert) Hanson.

The occasional doctor-shopping drug addict.

And, Bush-fellating clowns in lawyer suits.

Oh yeah... I almost forgot. They also like to honour Conrad Black connected, entertainment-columnist-turned-political-pundit, hobbits.

This is nothing more than Rumsfeld becoming a "made man".

Sadly, No! has the Claremont formula for awards.

(Hat tip... Skippy)

The Surge is.... SSDD

Last Sunday Robert Kagan wrote in the Washington Post that Bush's "surge" was "succeeding". That has caused others to jump on that bandwagon declaring "success" without being so brash as to declare outright victory, all the while claiming that the "truth" isn't being reported.

Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.

Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.

[...]

There is still violence, as Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda seek to prove that the surge is not working. However, they are striking at more vulnerable targets in the provinces. Violence is down in Baghdad. As for Sadr and the Mahdi Army, it is possible they may reemerge as a problem later. But trying to wait out the American and Iraqi effort may be hazardous if the public becomes less tolerant of their violence. It could not be comforting to Sadr or al-Qaeda to read in the New York Times that the United States plans to keep higher force levels in Iraq through at least the beginning of 2008. The only good news for them would be if the Bush administration in its infinite wisdom starts to talk again about drawing down forces.

No one is asking American journalists to start emphasizing the "good" news. All they have to do is report what is occurring, though it may conflict with their previous judgments. Some are still selling books based on the premise that the war is lost, end of story. But what if there is a new chapter in the story?

Right. So, Kagan, with less than half of the forces promised General David Petraeus in place says that things have turned around. This despite the fact that Petraeus himself is not reporting such a turn-around at all. He says it's too soon to be able to report that kind of result.

Kagan also decries the lack of journalists reporting the "good news" by suggesting they are not reporting what is actually happening on the ground. This, despite the fact that it is journalistic reports from which he is gathering his information on the improvements in Baghdad.

His commentary also chastizes the media for repeating Pentagon reports that the number of troops required for Bush's plan did not exist when, as he points out, there they are. He fails however, to add precision to his comment. Two out of five brigades have arrived and a survey of US Army and Marine Corps strengths has already revealed that units are being extended, units are returning much earlier than promised, units are being deployed without proper training and their equipment is well below standard. You can have a million troops but if they are not kitted-out properly for the job, if they are not properly trained and prepared, and they are suffering from exhaustion, they do not represent a viable force.

Even so, Kagan says it's succeeding.

That assertion was countered by Justin Logan with unbelievable ease.

The job of neoconservative writers analyzing the Iraq war has largely been to obscure objective analysis and provide talking points for war supporters. Robert Kagan's column in Sunday's Washington Post (promptly distributed by the Bush administration in its "Iraq Update" email early Monday) fulfills that role with aplomb. Simultaneously smearing opponents of the war (not to mention journalists) as praying for failure and proclaiming that "the surge is succeeding," Kagan adds to his regrettable legacy of undue optimism.

Logan goes on to point out Kagan's most egregious misdemeanors of journalistic punditry. The fact is, Kagan, who criticized journalists for not reporting what they saw, actually did just that without taking note of actions all around him which would suggest there is something either wrong or the lull in Baghdad is not steeped in the permanence he would like us to believe.

The more troubling aspect of the Kagan piece, however, is the substantive claim: that the surge is working. The first problem with this argument is that the surge has hardly gotten underway yet. Earlier this month, none other than General David Petraeus remarked that "we've just started" with the surge and that only two of the five projected brigades had even arrived. The claim that two brigades (less than 10,000 troops) have transformed Baghdad is either mendacious or simply daft. A more sober view comes from President Bush, who recently announced his plan to send almost 5,000 more U.S. troops into Iraq on top of the 21,500 already promised.

Kagan, as Logan points out, is jumping the gun - by miles, and ignoring events. And he's also ignoring history. The US has been in Iraq for long enough now to be able to predict the cyclical nature of the insurgency.

But the most damning fact about the "surge is working" narrative is that the violence in Iraq always has been cyclical, with dips in violence occurring every year in the months from January through March or April. So, in fact, the decline in violence Kagan observes was entirely predictable, and indeed was predicted. The Pentagon's own "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" report pointed out that by the end of 2006, the violence in Iraq had reached its highest level since the war began, and so the downtick should be viewed in that context. But what appears likely to happen is what has happened since the beginning of the war: these temporary downticks do not stop the overall upward trend of violence in Iraq.

Using Kagan's logic to assess the results of Bush's escalation is comparable to a small investor watching the stock market rise slowly for one week and declaring an income from investments that just hasn't happened yet. Kagan is simply repeating a talking point that we were warned about. It's a success that hasn't occurred yet.

The president and supporters of the war protest that we should "give the surge a chance to succeed" before criticizing it. But since the plan in place defies, for one, the joint Army-Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual authored by General Petraeus himself, this is akin to wishful thinking. By the metric of Petraeus and countless others, to run a serious counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq, we would need 500,000 troops; if we could somehow sequester Baghdad and only fight there, we would need roughly 120,000 troops.

Kagan's column doesn't even reference Petraeus' publication. Instead we are admonished to develop a sense of greater optimism. Elsewhere, out in the war-bloggers box, some headers have been declaring just that. Optimism abounds, with at least one daring to title a post, The Surge Is Working, based on this BBC report by Andrew North:

Baghdad diary: Relative lull

That's the headline and apparently that's enough to convince the war-bloggers. Like Kagans commentary, it is a notorious act of cherry-picking. What North reports is likely true and he tempers any unfounded enthusiasm with this:

Even though some pro-war commentators in the US are already jumping on these positive signs to attack the anti-war lobby, the reality is that it is far too early to say.

There are plenty of reasons for caution. Many of the insurgents and militia fighters are simply lying low.

While the violence may have dropped off in the city, it has risen in the volatile mixed areas bordering Baghdad.

And as the rash of dreadful bombings aimed at Shia pilgrims last week showed, some groups are as determined as ever to commit mass casualty attacks.

They still see sparking a civil war as one of their best hopes of bringing down the government.

Over the past four years, it is the pessimists who have usually been right here, not the optimists. So Iraqis are hoping for the best, but still in their minds ready for the worst.

So, despite Kagan's admonition for optimism, even the journalists which are reporting the facts, and there is no denying that is what they are, are hesitant to suggest that this is an actual turn-around.

I think everyone, for the sake of the Iraqis, who have had their lives shredded, and the troops in Iraq, who are now the longest serving American troops committed to combat since 1865, would hope for some form of success if only to end this fiasco.

Kagan doesn't help matters by ignoring events, discounting historical trends and wishing for ponies. The race isn't won until the finish line is crossed. And where, Mr. Kagan, is the finish line?

Jesus is back! All you fundies get packin'!

Umm, that's Jesus Christ. As PZ Meyers says, "Not just a guy named Jesus, but the Son of God."

Liberal Debutante has more on this amazing development and notes that instead of being born in the old-fashioned virgin-birth way and then being chaste, the returned messiah came by way of drug addiction and a spell in prison.

I have to say, he has much better bling than he had a couple of thousand years ago. I wonder if he gets twitchy at the sight of a power pole?

It's interesting that his disciples actually look like a security detail.

Conservapedia has not updated its Jesus entry yet and God's own blog still claims this guy is only a nephew.

Let us focus on the surge... oh look! A pony!

Shorter Paul Mirengoff: If Bush's plan were working there would be endless praise and a detailed analysis of every bullet spent and every MRE consumed. It's not working so we have nothing to say. But keep reading because we all wish we had a pony.

The devil is in the details.

D.C. lawyer vs Basseteer.

No contest.

From Malkin's Cahulawassee River home

Oh. My. Gawd.

When Michelle Malkin made a drive to become the new Ann Coulter none of us could have expected her to check in her marbles quite so quickly.

If I were a conservative I'd suggest shooting her to put her out of her misery. Since I don't subscribe to that however, I'll just say that this woman needs help. A great deal of help.

TBogg lays the table on this one.

One of the powertools steps on his dick again

Shorter verbatim Ass Rocket: (emphasis mine)

My biggest concern about the surge is that we are signing on to the concept that "success" in Iraq means not having much violence in Baghdad. This may be a standard of success that cannot be achieved in the time the administration has available, and it isn't obvious to me that peace in Baghdad is a prerequisite to achieving our strategic goals. Nevertheless, President Bush has concluded, and has stated publicly, that in his view, a far lower level of violence in Baghdad is indeed a prerequisite to success; hence the surge. I hope that he is right in believing that increased American force in Baghdad can make a big enough difference to matter.

Oh? What are the strategic goals? This is at least one of them, according to Jet-Butt's hero.

We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace...

President George W. Bush, June 28th, 2003

Jeez, John, what happened to the liberation met with flowers and candies?

The CowardGoldberg responds

So, Jonah Goldberg is a coward. Go figure. After taking up the cause here, I sent off an email to the Doughy Pantload. To his credit, he actually replied and sent me to this link. To his detriment, he didn't add anything to the email except to say it was his final word on the subject.

Well, the deadline for the proposed bet is looming and various leftwing pests are clogging my email box saying if I have any honor I will pay up for a wager Cole refused to accept and denounced me for offering. Well, guess what? The baiting doesn't work. I will give money to war-related charities, as I have done in the past, on my schedule not that of these goads or Cole or anyone else. I will not announce it when I do it, which I have never done in the past because it's not anyone's business (even this post is somewhat sickening in that I'm even responding to these gadflies).

As a matter of intellectual honesty, I'm perfectly willing to admit that, had Cole had the courage to accept the wager, he would have won and I would have made good on it. But, since he didn't, I won't be jumping through hoops for this crowd beyond this post.

War-related charities? War-related??? Who the fuck are you trying to snow, Goldberg? No receipt; no proof. Although it would take but a few minutes to turn over the fact you donate to, ahem, political efforts provided they demonstrate the proper right-wing attributes.

Juan Cole didn't need courage to tell you to stuff your wager. And, as for whether you would have made good on it, we have but to take you at your word, although it remains hypothetical. I would recommend you don't use the term intellectual honesty when referring to yourself.

By the way Goldberg, have you visited a recruiting office yet? I love the different excuses you provide for not fighting the war you so adamantly promote.

By the way... how's that "superior judgment of the big picture" working out for you?

Fucking loser.

David Frum: Sound your horn if you're going to back up that fast.

Shorter David Frum: If Bush had done it the way PNAC and the American Enterprise Institute told him he should have done it, we'd all be sniffing roses right now. Oh by the way, none of it is my fault.

George Mascolo interviewed David Frum who, at one point at least, thought George W. Bush was the right man for the job. Apparently, Bush just wasn't enough of a neo-con to get the job done right.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Frum, five years ago you coined the now world famous term "Axis of Evil."

David Frum: A presidential speech is always the work of many hands. When the president makes the decision to accept it, these are his words. We were in the middle of a very big debate. Did the United States and the Western allies have a problem with al-Qaida, or did they face a larger threat from Islamic extremism combined with weapons of mass destruction? The president took the view that this is a bigger problem, that we are dealing with a whole network of countries who together will develop over time access to terrible weapons. He was trying to broaden people's focus in that speech.

Right. Because from that moment onward, al Qaeda would show up wherever the Bush administration was wont to go, including Iraq, Iran or Syria.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Initially, only Iran and Iraq were slated for membership. What prompted the inclusion of North Korea, a country which has no significant Muslim community?

Frum: With the concerns clearly defined, it was very difficult not to mention North Korea since they are such a blatant case. But I think there was one critical failure: Not to consider at all Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Oh... oops! How did that slip out?! Oh can you imagine the suffering? All those Hummers sitting on blocks as Saudi oil dried up.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: That sounds like a really late excuse.

Frum: If you are looking for states that sponsor terrorism, I think there is no state in the world that has a worse record than Pakistan. And if you are concerned about the spread of extremist ideology, there is no state in the world that has a worse record than Saudi Arabia. So, if you are going to criticize what we did and said five years ago, the question should be how can you omit Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

Because it is an excuse. The mistake Frum is talking about here is not executing the plan the real neo-cons had in mind - World War III.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The simple answer is probably: Because they were and they are close American allies.

Frum: There was too much readiness to believe that Pakistan wanted to completely cooperate with the West, and that is a big part of the problem in Afghanistan. And if terrorists ever get their hands on a really terrible weapon, the history of that weapon will ultimately be traced back to Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has been very helpful in many ways, but if you are thinking about the people who put gas bombs on German trains, they get their ideas from teachers paid by the Saudi government.

Jeez!! Some revelation that is. And how suddenly did a neo-con come to the sudden realization that Saudi Arabia was a problem?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: We don't remember anybody in Washington proposing to deal with Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq.

Frum: I would say that the story of the Bush Administration is the story of an administration caught halfway across the bridge; they did not want to face up to the magnitude of the problems. Its policies are premised on the assumption that we have a firm alliance with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. If it had been possible in 2001 to address the problem of Saudi Arabia, maybe there never would have been an Iraq war.

Oh. my. fucking. gawd. Halfway across a bridge?! If only the bear hadn't stopped to have a crap the dog would have caught the rabbit.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: This sounds hard to believe. So what would have been the appropriate reaction -- attacking Saudi Arabia?

Frum: No, not at all. But we should have faced up to the truth about what Saudi Arabia does and what it pays for. And the US and the other democracies do have the strength to demand that Saudi Arabia change its ways. It would not be too much to demand, for example, that the Saudi government cease financial support to religious missions beyond its own borders. No American administration has ever been willing to acknowledge the nature of the Saudi problem.

Which would have been a whole lot smarter than attacking Iraq, but what the hell, when you're mad, you're mad. You just have to put your fist through the wall.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you think the President ever regretted the choice of words?"

Frum: President Bush is not a man for regrets, but the phrase does leave him with a problem. He committed himself in the most solemn possible way to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and yet the administration has no policy, even now. So he has this loose unguarded commitment without a policy to make it a reality.

Ummm. This is not news... is it?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Back then it sounded like a scary unoffical task schedule for his presidency, and today Iraq is in chaos, North Korea a nuclear power and Iran obviously on its way. So is the doctrine still valid?

Frum: The fact that there has been little progress does not make the goal less urgent. It is my sense that, whereas five years ago Europeans often criticized Americans for trying to do too much, today they worry that Americans are doing too little.

Wow. You can cut the arrogance and the hubris with a machete. Actually it's not that Bush is doing too much or too little. It's that he's doing too much wrong. We still don't have a good reason for invading Iraq.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The feeling in Europe seems to be much more, that by attacking Iraq, America lost the credibility to deal with the much more serious problems like North Korea and Iran.

Frum: That is a criticism that looks very powerful, five years later. One of the things the Bush Administration believed in 2002 was precisely that because Iraq was the weakest link it would be the easiest to deal with. The administration's plans were all premised on the idea that Iraq could be a success story, fairly quickly.

Was that the Mother Goose or the Brothers' Grimm plans? Given all the "intelligence" that was being spread around to sell the Bush administration ideas on Iraq, you'd have thought they would have looked at some, y'know, real stuff.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Today, among the most fervent critics of the war in Iraq are the neocons, among them your friend Richard Perle. He said that if he had known how many mistakes the Bush Administration made, he would have been against the invasion. Are you distancing yourself from the war you supported so loudly?

Frum: That's a very difficult question. Let me say that terrible mistakes were made. There was discussion about handing over power to an Iraqi provisional government immediately. But we never did. The other plan that might have worked was a truly massive invasion with 300,000 men, and you had better prepare to stay a long time. The decision between these two plans was not made, so we ended up with an American occupation with only as many forces as were intended to support an Iraqi provisional government ...

Oh yeah. First, the little worm doesn't answer a direct question and then he goes on to blame the current problem on not using a plan that didn't exist.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: ... because there were many optimists among the neocons, who even did part of the so-called planning in the Pentagon, who even predicted a "cakewalk."

Frum: Whenever you discuss politics, it is always better to use individual names rather then the term neocon. The real misunderstanding was: Military war planners assumed that the United States could move in and encounter a functioning bureaucracy in a functioning state. It was the Japan parallel, that a thin layer of military people at the top working through a bureaucracy would be sufficent to run the country. But under the pressure of the sanctions of the 1990's the state collapsed and Saddam reverted to establishing a kind of feudal tribal regime. There was a sheik, and he was loyal, so he gave him Land Rovers and money. There was a sheik and he was not loyal. So he killed him.

A yes... the "cakewalk" was the plan. Then... don't blame the neo-cons. It was only certain neo-cons - the ones who did it wrong. And then the kicker. How is it the Bush administration did not know the state of Saddam's Iraq before they invaded it? Clearly, sanctions were working. But, Frum is trying to say that they didn't know this before they invaded Iraq. And, if he is telling us that they did know in 2002, it's clear Iraq didn't need to be invaded. Either way, Frum cannot justify his position.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The much too rosy assumptions even lead to the decision to kick out the members of the Baath party and send the Iraqi army home.

Frum: There are a lot of mysteries about the war, and one is where did those orders come from. Donald Rumsfeld insists he did not give them. Yet, Paul Bremer insists that he was carrying out an order given to him by somebody else.

And, hell, you'd think that Bremer would be able to identify the person who gave him the order. You know, from something like a police photo array. I guess that's the problem with "war presidents": they always wear disguises.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So do you come to the same conclusion regarding the Iraq disaster as Richard Perle?

Frum: I am not going to use that kind of language. All I will say in answer to that question is that I absolutely believed that Iraq was very close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction. And I have to think that the president shared that belief.

Hmmm... after he just finished telling us that Saddam had gone feudal. For what it's worth, anyone with a lottery ticket is very close to acquiring at least a million dollars.

This is a picture of a rat scrambling to find a way out of the sewer as the water starts to rise. Brought to you by the American Enterprise Institute where a plan is a terrible thing to waste time on.

One who's been there. One who hasn't.

Via Canadian Cynic we get another Tony Snow job.

QUESTION: Two questions on public perceptions. Are you saying that four years into this war, the American people don’t have an accurate picture of what’s going on in Iraq?

TONY SNOW: I think, Wendell, four years into a war, the picture constantly changes. The picture that we saw in April of 2003 was different than the one we saw a year ago. If you think a year ago, Wendell, there was considerable optimism, Democrats and Republicans both coming back from the region saying, you know, we think things are going okay. We’ve had the election. They did not anticipate the, I guess, eruption of sectarian violence.

Think Progress details just a few of the open source details of sectarian violence which occurred before Snow's "year ago".

Who didn't anticipate? Bushco, that's who. Iraq, the quagmire, was forecast by someone who knew what it would turn into as far back as 1992.

I think we'd still be there, we'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit, we could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying one hundred percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.

General H. Norman Schwarzkopf
In response to the question: Why didn't you go to Baghdad and finish the job? (1991 Gulf War)
Aired January, 1996

"Up the middle" Norm is "constructively" on the side of the enemy. It's not nice to leave quotes around for the wanker class to trip over.

The Doughy Pantload fills his diapers

I'm not sure why the Los Angeles Times bothers with Jonah Goldberg but I suppose his columns occasionally provide some comic relief from endless stories of misery and despair.

Golderg long ago lost any credibility as an authority on anything except sucking up to a moron but his latest column in the LA Times is once again a picture of the right-wing punditry chewing off their own arms and scratching at the dirt. This bit is simply amazing:

With last night's speech, President Bush made it clear that he will settle for nothing less than winning it. He may be deluding himself, and his plan may not work, but he at least has done the nation the courtesy of saying what his position is, despite an antagonistic political establishment and a hostile public. What is maddening is that the Democratic leadership cannot, or will not, clearly tell the American people whether they are the party of "end it" or "win it."

Where to start? Where to start?

OK, an interpretation. George Bush is deluding himself. His plan is lousy. But, hell, at least he told us all about it! And, he's got guts! Look how many people hate the whole idea - almost everybody. I George W. Bush. Anything that goes wrong is the Democrats' fault. I want my mommy. Can I have a pony?

Jeebus, does this guy ever quit?

Last night, Bush finally acknowledged what Americans already knew: The war has not gone well.

And Goldberg now believes that is courage. He doesn't get into the fact that Bush has been lying up to now by suggesting the situation in Iraq was coming up roses.

Goldberg's president - right or wrong. He won't let go. And, he's trying to shift the blame.

Since Goldberg kept dodging the recruiting office, since he continually pounded the desks of national talk-show hosts defending the reasons to invade Iraq, since he insists that he had an inside track on Bushco's Iraq strategy we can effectively and confidently say this:

It's your fault, shit-for-brains!

Do drop in with another column, Goldberg... when you have something intelligent to say. In the meantime we'll write off this latest little temper tantrum as yet another incontinent wanker who can't reconcile the picture of his hero on TV, scared, full of shit and having to admit to being a total fuck-up.

Wear it, Goldberg. It fits you well.

Wingnut potential - working on western sunrises.

There are times when all of us write something which, little more than a brain-fart, probably shouldn't have found its way into the annals of internet history, but Cliff May has managed to empty his bowels at the National Review Online's Corner with....

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT [Cliff May]
Imagine that Saddam had not been executed. Imagine that he had been sentenced to life in prison.
Now imagine that a group of pro-Saddam terrorists seizes an elementary school. They say they will kill all the students and teachers if Saddam is not released within 24 hours.
Should Saddam then be released? Or should several dozen innocent children and their teachers be killed?

Is it not better that we have guaranteed that it will never be necessary to make such a choice?

Oh. My. Gawd. Is this evidence of writing while suffering the effects of the previous night's celebratory punch?

So, Cliff is playing the newest wingnut talking point - potential. Let's apply that elsewhere then, shall we.

George W. Bush should be impeached immediately for getting a blow-job from an intern and lying about it. Not that it's happened yet, but the potential is there and the citizens of the United States need to be guaranteed that he won't get away with it.

Excuse me while I go have myself drycleaned and burned.