![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Chain links
Feb. 17th, 2005 12:07 pmFirst up,Digby The Company One Keeps points out an interesting, and to me telling, difference between the public face of the Republican Party, the attitudes of those who are the movers and shapers.
Which he follows with comments on what taht means in terms of strategyWe need to give them wedgies
Digby also has some commentary on the Guckertt/Gannon/Manchurian Beefcake story Sex, and scandal, "Paraphrasing a comment I read somewhere yesterday (apologies to the author) "pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in the middle of the family values white house living room." Goldberg affects a jocular dismissiveness for a reason. He knows what a real story is and he knows how they work. And he is trivializing this one because it is actually quite dangerous." and I have to admit, he makes some telling points about what it could mean, if we were willing to use it to give them the aforementions wedgies. I guess some of my comments are going to change when the Guckert/Gannon story comes up; sex and scandals.
Leaving Digby behind we turn to Orcinus Spreading the Virus and the Washington Times.
Now, it probably isn't much of a surprise that I don't care for (and barring follow up on things like this, won't read) Rev. Moons propaganda rag. How it slants the news is bad enough, but what passes for op-ed is sickening. Orcinus is discussing the paper's claims that immigrants are bearing disease, and we risk lethal epidemics.
That would be bad enough, but the Washington Times being the Faux News of the print medium means that people like Michelle Malkin pick up the theme, which isn't new, and is no less false for the psuedo-science being used to promulgate it today.
Lost, perhaps, in all the blather on SS, and the The Manchurian Beefcake are some more pressing issues (hard to believe there are issues more pressing than SS, but that is big ticket, there are some quiet things being done to change the playing field).
The President is once again re-nominating judges the Senate has rejected. No more mister nice blog tells us that not only is Janice Brown being tossed in the ring again, she may not believe the Constituion doesn't prevent a state from establishing a religion, then again, she might not believe any of the rest of the Bill of Rights are more than federal restrictions. In a 1999 speech at Pepperdine University titled "Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion on the Public Square," Brown disputed the doctrine of separation of church and state and questioned whether the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, applied to the states....
That would apply to things like the Second, and the Fourth, and Fifth (ponder that, not only would a state be allowed to search without a warrant, it could compell you to testify against yourself, after; of course, it made it illegal for anyone, other than cops, to have a gun).
You'd think the right would be against that, but nope. They are pondering the use of the "nuclear" option (whereby filibusters would be, effectively, dead, and the Republicans in the Senate would be able to get anything they wanted passed out of it), to get her to the bench.
This idea, that the Bill of Right only applies to the federal government isn't new. Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a run down of some of the present arguments being made in that regard. Included are some topical references to people who had strong feelings on the matter, at the time the constitution was adopted; for a little context.
Which ties into this. It's evil, 'nuff said.
I'm not sure quite what to make of this Exit polls were right. I say I don't know what to make of it, because I 1: don't want to believe it 2: can, 3: the report they are talking about follows the pattern predicted for shaving the points, as well as my irony meter still recovering from Bush calling on Ukraine to recount/revote because the exit polls and the tallies didn't match.
Finally, for those who are still paying any attention to the Ward Churchill nonsense, Eric Muller Is that Legal points out that Thomas Woods (Lincoln freed nobody) is using his tenured position to teach false history, as well as all sorts of things Mr. Muller was linking to, about his recent writings on secession, which no longer work.
Which he follows with comments on what taht means in terms of strategyWe need to give them wedgies
Digby also has some commentary on the Guckertt/Gannon/Manchurian Beefcake story Sex, and scandal, "Paraphrasing a comment I read somewhere yesterday (apologies to the author) "pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in the middle of the family values white house living room." Goldberg affects a jocular dismissiveness for a reason. He knows what a real story is and he knows how they work. And he is trivializing this one because it is actually quite dangerous." and I have to admit, he makes some telling points about what it could mean, if we were willing to use it to give them the aforementions wedgies. I guess some of my comments are going to change when the Guckert/Gannon story comes up; sex and scandals.
Leaving Digby behind we turn to Orcinus Spreading the Virus and the Washington Times.
Now, it probably isn't much of a surprise that I don't care for (and barring follow up on things like this, won't read) Rev. Moons propaganda rag. How it slants the news is bad enough, but what passes for op-ed is sickening. Orcinus is discussing the paper's claims that immigrants are bearing disease, and we risk lethal epidemics.
That would be bad enough, but the Washington Times being the Faux News of the print medium means that people like Michelle Malkin pick up the theme, which isn't new, and is no less false for the psuedo-science being used to promulgate it today.
Lost, perhaps, in all the blather on SS, and the The Manchurian Beefcake are some more pressing issues (hard to believe there are issues more pressing than SS, but that is big ticket, there are some quiet things being done to change the playing field).
The President is once again re-nominating judges the Senate has rejected. No more mister nice blog tells us that not only is Janice Brown being tossed in the ring again, she may not believe the Constituion doesn't prevent a state from establishing a religion, then again, she might not believe any of the rest of the Bill of Rights are more than federal restrictions. In a 1999 speech at Pepperdine University titled "Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion on the Public Square," Brown disputed the doctrine of separation of church and state and questioned whether the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, applied to the states....
That would apply to things like the Second, and the Fourth, and Fifth (ponder that, not only would a state be allowed to search without a warrant, it could compell you to testify against yourself, after; of course, it made it illegal for anyone, other than cops, to have a gun).
You'd think the right would be against that, but nope. They are pondering the use of the "nuclear" option (whereby filibusters would be, effectively, dead, and the Republicans in the Senate would be able to get anything they wanted passed out of it), to get her to the bench.
This idea, that the Bill of Right only applies to the federal government isn't new. Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a run down of some of the present arguments being made in that regard. Included are some topical references to people who had strong feelings on the matter, at the time the constitution was adopted; for a little context.
Which ties into this. It's evil, 'nuff said.
I'm not sure quite what to make of this Exit polls were right. I say I don't know what to make of it, because I 1: don't want to believe it 2: can, 3: the report they are talking about follows the pattern predicted for shaving the points, as well as my irony meter still recovering from Bush calling on Ukraine to recount/revote because the exit polls and the tallies didn't match.
Finally, for those who are still paying any attention to the Ward Churchill nonsense, Eric Muller Is that Legal points out that Thomas Woods (Lincoln freed nobody) is using his tenured position to teach false history, as well as all sorts of things Mr. Muller was linking to, about his recent writings on secession, which no longer work.
