Look Who's Back On The Spike...

Via Atrios... it's Billmon. That would be The Mighty Billmon to us benighted wankers on the hinterlands of Blogotopia...

Don't worry, Billmon. You'll be able to quit again after the campaign is over. Maybe it'll take for good next time.

I'm surprised it took this long...

The McCain campaign finally began going where we all knew the GOP would eventually go with a black candidate..Look out Red State, it's time to hide the white womens..:

It's only marginally about celebrity. This is about young white girls and black men. Let racism ring...!

A**holes...

Can You Hear Me Now?!

So now they have started shooting.

"Gunfire erupted Sunday during the children's performance at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, which authorities said Jim D. Adkisson intentionally targeted because of its congregation's liberal policies. A four-page letter found in Adkisson's SUV indicated he picked the church because, the police chief said, 'he hated the liberal movement.'"

Of course the source of those beliefs should come as no surprise:

"Still seized three books from Adkisson's home, including "The O'Reilly Factor," by television commentator Bill O'Reilly; "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder," by radio personality Michael Savage; and "Let Freedom Ring," by political pundit Sean Hannity."

Frankly, I'm not sure which cranks me more, the blatant encouragement behind the attack or the pious bleatings of the Right Blogistan to "end the politicizing of personal tragedies..."

I really think this my favorite part though from RealClearPolitics:

"In other words, the Adkisson case provides a case study in the secular demonology of the left. We're seeing the politics of hatred in action. It's marked by demands for vengeance and modes of discourse seeking to protect the perceived purity of the liberal sensibility. It is irreligious and opportunistic. It is the repudiation of decency."

A guy guns down a bunch of kids in a church because he "hates the liberal movement," and our anger over this is actually the problem.

The moral bankruptcy and toxic politically-degenerate nature of blaming the victims of what was nothing more less than a public lynching, is really a new low. Of course a lot of the usual suspects... the Moonbatteries, Emperor Mishas, Michelle Malkins, have not even mentioned this, not even in the misbegotten attempt at raising the spectre of "gun control = death" hackery so common in the wake of such tragedies.

Perhaps it is because they are not-so-secretly pleased that Unitarians are pacifists for the most part and would not think of bringing instruments of violence into church that they make easier targets...

You know... I am trying real hard keep a leash on my own nascent pacifism... but this kind of shit is only going to become more common place I am afraid and that is going to lead to an open shooting conflict. These people are bound and determine to turn America into Northern Ireland c. 1975 or Israel c. anytime in the last 50 years.

I am just going to stop now, before I write something that gets me in trouble...

mojo sends

History Repeats As Farce

Consider this from the CarpetBagger Report:

[...]
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic adviser, told Slate, “[McCain] has certainly I’m sure said things in town halls that don’t jibe perfectly with his written plan. But that doesn’t mean it’s official.”

Got that? If we want to better understand John McCain’s economic policies, we should overlook what John McCain says about his economic policies. McCain’s “official” positions don’t come from McCain.
[...]

Good to know that we have so mainstreamed this nonsense that nobody even blinks when it happens.

Think about this for a second, people... we have presumptive GOP nominee for President openly lying in campaign speeches, and when he's called on it by the evil liberal press, the official response from the campaign is that the candidate doesn't speak for himself when he's making personal appearances in public.

This should be an astounding development. It's a milestone in the deterioration of our politics.

We have become so inured to the sad state of affairs of having a President so divorced from reality that his public appearances are a surreal farce that we don't even blink when his party expressly claims that their chosen successor is a suitable candidate because he's good at lying to the public.

Does The CIA Need To Update Its Operations Manual?

I hear the unmistakable sound of rats fucking.

Get Your War On!

Oh Canada, which is where this story gets the proper headline, as opposed to here in the United States, where the extensibility of the feature enhancements make for streamlining the core competencies of news organizations more extensive and competently, featureful...

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress should explicitly declare a state of armed conflict with al Qaeda to make clear the United States can detain suspected members as long as the war on terrorism lasts, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said on Monday.

Mukasey urged Congress to make the declaration in a package of legislative proposals to establish a legal process for terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo, in response to a Supreme Court ruling last month that detainees had a constitutional right to challenge their detention.

"Any legislation should acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us," Mukasey said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.

"Congress should reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations," he said.

Mukasey was not asking for a formal declaration of war, which would trigger certain emergency powers under the Constitution and international law, a Justice Department spokesman said. U.S. President George W. Bush has on numerous occasions said the United States was "at war" against terrorists and cited that as a basis for his powers.

[...]

Mukasey may not have *explicitly* asked for it, but that's no reason to think the Congress won't deliver it anyway.

Q1: How many people here can recite the collective and exhaustive list of all those "certain emergency powers" such a formal declaration would legally provide to the executive branch?

Q2: How many of those powers have yet to be exercised by this President despite not having been legally afforded to him?

water policy wonkage

For those of you unfamiliar with it, Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert is a brilliant book about the history of water policy in the West, particularly California. Micheal O'Hare at The Reality Based Community points out however, that the state of water issues in Ca has changed since 1986 when the book was published, and that water policy geeks would be well advised to get a little current on how things work now. If you are interested in these issues, it's a succinct update on what has changed in water and ag policy since then. Check it out.

Stupid Or Evil? You Decide!

Over at the Lake, Dr. Murphy serves up a round of medical horror that makes me clutch my head like a stunned monkey.

For at least two years, the Nashville PD have been recklessly endangering citizens by using emergency medical personnel to forcibly inject Versed -- a powerful prescription medication with side effects including agitation and confusion -- into agitated, confused people. This potentially lethal stupidity is what we can expect when people who go to work with guns on their belt decide to play "doctor".

Or, as I would say, "...when credible reports of official state-sanctioned drug torture are ignored by policy-makers and the perpetrators are not held accountable for their crimes."

I want to scream at the top of my lungs that I told you this would happen, but the truth is I didn't specifically imagine this particular variant of the horror. But look, the situation is this: we let a bunch of assholes in the state security apparatus get away with using medical procedures to apply punishment for refusing to respect their authoritay, so now we're going to see more of it.

Think about that the next time you voluntarily let somebody knock you out before you go into a surgery.

Listen To The Chair Leg Of Truth!

It does not lie!

Those Courageous Democrats!

Remind me again why I should feel hopeful that Democrats are interested in restoring the rule of law.

I have firm confirmation that Nancy Pelosi is urging the Judiciary committee NOT to go forward with contempt against Rove.

Congressman John Conyers and the Judiciary staff are battling for it but this has become an infight among dems.

Time to burn up the phone lines.

Click though and raise hell.

What Then, Larry? What Then?

Kagro X at DailyKos explains the problem.

The executive branch shall construe the requirements on the Inspectors General in section 301(b) as advisory in nature, so that the provisions are consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

"What then?" she says.

I'll tell you what happens then... everyone in Congress who supported the new FISA bill, including the Democrats among them, cheers as the White House turns the line-eaters loose on everybody in their enemies list, and they feed everything caught in the net straight to Charlie Black— who uses it to ratfuck anybody who doesn't put their back into getting McCain elected this November.

Then, on the odd chance that counting the votes somehow results in an Obama victory (don't count on it yet, homies), then and only then will it suddenly become a Constitutional Crisis that the government has trash-canned the 4th Amendment. I'm not sure I foresee how the crisis gets resolved, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it all just blows over without anything getting fixed. Democrats will definitely love them line-eaters.

I'm really getting tired of explaining this shit to people.

No Subject, Really...

It occurs to me that, if the GOP wants to attack Obama on his most perceived strength, i.e. his rhetorical ability, then the appropriate response is to go after McCain likewise, i.e. to attack him on his most perceived strength, i.e. basically to call out McCain as a coward and a fraud. (He is, you know. He is.)

Will Democrats do this? Somehow, I very much doubt it.