text stringlengths 1 330k |
|---|
Michael Bérubé totally destroys all credibility Dinesh D'Souza might ever have had. No one who reads this can pretend to believe that D'Souza has anything to contribute to national debate. He should be in some other line of work. |
It seems unrealistic, bordering on the surreal, to imagine such an arrogant, obnoxious jerk succeeding in, say, customer service at Procter and Gamble, but I blame society not him and believe that, in the event he proves to be unemployable, he should get welfare given that I advocate a radical expansion of welfare. |
However, I do think that Snoop can help D'Souza with his prose style as in |
"[The Civil Rights Movement] sought to undermine white racism through a protest strategy that emphasized the recognition of basic rights for blacks, without considering that racism might be fortified if blacks were unable to exercise their rights effectively and responsibly." |
"Most African American scholars simply refuse to acknowledge the pathology of violence in the black underclass, apparently convinced that black criminals as well as their targets are both victims: the real culprit is societal racism. Activists recommend federal jobs programs and recruitment into the private sector. Yet it seems unrealistic, bordering on the surreal, to imagine underclass blacks with their gold chains, limping walk, obscene language, and arsenal of weapons doing nine-to-five jobs at Procter and Gamble or the State Department." |
"Most African American scholars simply refuse acknowledge da pathology of violence in da black underclass, apparently convinced that black criminals as well as they targets are both victims: da real culprit is societal racism n' shit. Activists recommend federal jobs programs 'n recruitment into da private sector." Yet that shiznit seems unrealistic, bordering on da surreal, imagine underclass blacks wit they gold chains, limping walk, obscene language, 'n arsenal of weapons doing nine--five jobs at Procter 'n Gamble or da State Department n' shit. " |
"Increasingly it appears that it is liberal antiracism that is based on ignorance and fear: ignorance of the true nature of racism, and fear that the racist point of view better explains the world than its liberal counterpart." |
"Increasingly that shiznit appears that that shiznit is liberal antiracism that is based on ignorance 'n fear: ignorance of da true nature of racism, 'n fear that da racist point of view better explains da world than its liberal counterpart." |
"The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well." |
"The American slave wuz treated like property, which is be like, pretty well, know what I'm sayin'? " |
Well no Snoop D'Souza I don't, but that is a big improvement over the Dinesh quote above, which I undertand much too well. |
Thursday, June 10, 2004 |
From reader Cthulhu via General J.C. Christian I learned about the Snoop Dogg shizzolator. I must say that I find Snoops version of the Kurd's letter to Bush (see below) much more convincing than the original, but I thought, that's good that's very good but what about shizzolating Fafblog ? Like I mean cool squared. |
the result of this passing through (unfortunate figure of speech there) askSnoop is |
Ready fight da Germans Giblets," I says Giblets n' shit. |
"Oh yo' ass better believe that shiznit," says Giblets, know what I'm sayin'? |
"Oh those Germans better get ready fo' Fafnir 'n Giblets," I says, know what I'm sayin'? |
"For ol Faf 'n Gibs of da 171st armored balloon division," says Giblets, know what I'm sayin'? |
"And a proud balloon brizzle is," I says." |
"The Germans won't know brizzle is coming," says Giblets, know what I'm sayin'? |
"Unless they look up above da horizon," I says, know what I'm sayin'? |
"Which seems unlikely because how often do Germans do that," says Giblets n' shit. |
"Once a month coincide wit da full moon, or during matin rituals, I read," I says." |
"A strange muthas those Germans," says Giblets n' shit. |
"Wait do those Germans has guns?" I says, know what I'm sayin'? |
"Holy crap nobody be like anythin 'bout guns!" says Giblets, know what I'm sayin'? |
"What are they doing wit guns! They could hurt muthas or even pop izzle balloon!" I says n' shit. |
"Run away!" says Giblets 'n we did, know what I'm sayin'? * |
Anyway n' shit. Thank yo' ass D-Day 'n everyone in that shiznit, know what I'm sayin'? Especially da Canadians." |
*We spent da rest of da war posin as cabaret singers in a French production of "No No Nanette n' shit. " It ran fo' three years terrific reviews! |
&pimpa; posted by Snoop Fafnir at 10:17 AM |
Wednesday, June 09, 2004 |
Via Juan Cole |
Letter from Barzani and Talabani to President Bush |
04 June 2004 |
June 1, 2004 |
His Excellency President George W. Bush |
President of the United States of America |
The White House |
Washington, D.C. |
Dear Mr. President: |
Iraq is a country of two main nationalities, Arabs and Kurds. It seems reasonable that the Arabs might get one of the top jobs (of their choice) but then the other should go to a Kurd. |
We also believe the decision to use sectarian quotas for the top two jobs directly contradicts the Coalition’s repeatedly stated position that democratic Iraq’s government should not be based on ethnic or religious criteria, a position the US wrote into the Transitional Administrative Law. |
So ethnic quotas are good and religious quotas are bad ? Aren't you supposed to put a paragraph or two in between two contradictory assertions ? |
Sneering aside, I have to say that I agree with Barzani and Talibani and disagree with Sistani on this one. The key issue is that the TAL (interim constitution) says the final constitution will take force after a referendum in which 2/3 no votes in 3 governates constitute a veto (by coincidence there are 3 predominantly Kurdish governates). I think this is perfectly reasonable. |
I don't know why Sistani objects. He wrote, in his successful effort to convince the UN security council to not endorce the TAL "This matter contravenes the laws, and most children of the Iraqi people reject it." What laws are above the constitution ? The "laws" must be Sharia, which seems to have aquired equal status with the will of the people. Uh oh. |
The Kurds threaten to seceed "If the TAL is abrogated, the Kurdistan Regional Government will have no choice but to refrain from participating in the central government and its institutions, not to take part in the national elections, and to bar representatives of the central Government from Kurdistan." The last clause seems to me to justify a stronger word than Cole's "boycott". |
All in all, normal high stakes politics I guess. I'd say that things are going relatively OK in Iraq so far this week. |
More on the DOD torture memo |
From the New York Times |
The report also advised that if an interrogator "has a good faith belief his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture." |
The report also said that interrogators could justify breaching laws or treaties by invoking the doctrine of necessity. An interrogator using harmful techniques that cause harm might be inoculated from liability if he "believed at the moment that his act is necessary and designed to avoid greater harm." |
This is bizarre the argument is that the mental state of the alleged torturer must be assessed in order to arrive at a verdict. The alleged torturer is the only person who can know this, so, short of a guilty plea, proof beyond reasonable doubt is impossible. Did the defence department lawyers really mean to say that "gee I didn't know that people minded having limbs cut off" should be an decisive legal defence. Just try to prove I knew (without torturing me of course). Or how aobut "I believed at the moment that I had to torture him or the Martians would invade" |
To me this is related to the argument made by Ashcroft "Ashcroft refused to provide several of the memorandums, saying they amounted to confidential legal advice given the president". It seems to me that the defence department lawyers lacked the proper state of mind to give legal advice, being either insane or completely contemptuous of the concept of law at the time. Does that mean that their memos are not protected ? By their own logic it should. |
Tuesday, June 08, 2004 |
The DOD Torture memo in the WSJ |
The memo is now available for non WSJ subscribers on the web. |
Also non anarchists have probably excerpted all of it in one place or another. |
I haven't seen a specific discussion of this passage yet. |
Foremost, the lawyers rely on the "commander-in-chief authority," concluding that "without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority" to wage war. Moreover, "any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president," the lawyers advised. |
Here the DOD lawyers argue that the president is unlimited by any law or statute whatsoever, when dealing with "unlawful combatants". I find this terrifying because, the Bush administration has clearly stated that Bush can declare anyone an unlawful combatant and no one can overturn such a decision. |
Bush claims to have the authority to do whatever he wants to whomever he wants whenever he wants. |
Most commentators have focused on the briefer quote "authority to set aside the laws is 'inherent in the president.'" I had hoped that its meaning might have been distorted by the removal of context. I now understand that the context was "following a declaration that the chosen victim is an unlawful combatant." |
Saturday, June 05, 2004 |
Billmon agrees with Perle !! |
That the story about why the US knows that Iran knows that we broke their code is crazy. The story "the Iranian official apparently did not immediately believe Mr. Chalabi, because he sent a cable back to Tehran detailing his conversation with Mr. Chalabi" |
Perle said "The whole thing hinges on the idea that the Baghdad station chief of the MOIS commits one of the most amazing trade craft errors I've ever heard of," |
I agree with both of them, it does sound very very odd. However, as Josh Marshall (among others) notes, no one who has access to the facts is willing to defend Chalabi. |
There are a number of possible explanations |
The Baghdad station chief of the MOIS has a Bush administration level of competence (and hey might be looking for a new job). |
The Iranians decided to discredit Chalabi (not clear why they would bother given how friendly he was trying to be and how fast his star was setting already). |
The CIA has finally managed some semi competent wickedness agaist the not yet incarcerated (about time). |
George Bush's gut suddenly told him that Chalabi was no good (the ungratefulness might have ticked him off) and the case against Chalabi is being investigated with the same open mindedness and care as the WMD intelligence. |
My favorite tinfoil hat theory is that the "story" is pure patriotic misinformation and that the US knows for some other reason. It goes like this. |
MOIS has more than one code. We broke one code and Chalabi told them. The US learned this from a human source in MOIS. The Baghdad MOIS station chief used another code. To protect the source, the officially leaked US line is that we decoded that message. This also causes them to be worried about unbroken codes gumming up their operation some. |
An important aspect of the case is that the leak that Chalabi is suspected would appear to damage US national security as noted by Kleiman, Walter Pincus and Dana Priest and me. Going to at least five news sources with this appears to be carrying bureaucratic infighting to Plame outing like levels. |
It would be less extreme if the US had reason to suspect that the Iranians knew we knew they knew we had the code. It is leaked that they checked by talking about Iraqi WMD with the broken code. This is clumsy but makes the broken-ness a pretty open secret. |
The second leak would be much less extreme if the leaked explanation for how we found out is a lie. |
I don't really believe this last hypothesis but it does answer two questions. |
I don't beDrudge them their fun |
but I am amazed at the sudden spike of Capital Hill Blue quotes on the left blogosphere. Atrios and Kevin Drum link to the "Bush has become Nixon" story and Mark Kleiman the "Bush shares the Plame blame" story, all carefully pointing out that Capital Hill Blue is as fun and almost as reliable as The Onion. |
I'm appalled. I'm trembling with rage so hard that I can barely add Capital Hill Blue to my bookmarks (right under the Onion) |
Thursday, June 03, 2004 |
Mysterious ways: |
I may have been a bit too dismissive of christianity. General JC Christian explains to me why I should be grateful to Jesus Christ (hint not for Viagra). |
But if God is so proProzac why did He have Eliot Spitzer drive a story about how Prozac works great for teenagers off the front page. ? |
Then add another story which writes this |
"Most drug trials are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. And that, some critics say, can lead to a conflict of interest." |
to make even more balance for the proprozac story which notes this |
"A government-financed study has found that Prozac helps teenagers overcome depression far better than talk therapy" |
Gimme some talk (or type therapy) but I warn you, I might kid about Jesus but I don't want to hear any disrespect either for Prozac or for Eliot Spitzer (who is suing the makers of Paxil not Prozac) |
Hey wait the current headline on the front page of is |
"Two Studies, Two Results, and a Debate Over a Drug" |
Recall Journal of Record Paxil is not Prozac, Prozac is not Paxil. Jeez. |
Correction: The above post incorrectly described the number of drugs considered in two studies with two results as reported in the New York Times. The number of such drugs was one, that is, Paxil (which works great according to one study) and Paxil which is a sugar pill (according to the other). RJWaldmann regrets the error. |
Mole hunting. |
Silly me, I focused on the smallest of small fry Michael Ledeen. |
While Joshua Marshall has a coded list of suspects. I'm not afraid of getting sued so I will try to decode it |
" known for comparing Chalabi to Mohammed" I should remember that. Wolfowitz or Feith. |
"folks at OSD involved in B-teaming the regular intelligence community" OK that's Feith so above should be Wolfowitz. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.