Right Wing Nut House

It had to happen sooner or later. A major TV network is planning to produce a mini-series with the events surrounding September 11, 2001 as the backdrop.

Some may argue that it’s too soon, that to give 9/11 the Hollywood touch is cruel and unfeeling to the family members who lost loved ones both in the air and on the ground that horrible day.

These reasons haven’t stopped TV moguls in the past. The drama about Lacy Peterson’s murder was aired less than two years after the poor woman’s family went through a trauma no family should have to go through; the loss of a daughter, murdered at the hands of a formerly beloved son-in-law. And who could forget the “Long Island Lolita” Amy Fischer who had three made for TV movies in the can before poor little teenage Amy was sent to the pen for trying to murder her older lover’s wife.

One can imagine Mrs. Buttafucco’s distress at having to live that nightmare over and over again.

In this case, there should be a recognition that 9/11 is different. As much as we feel for the individuals and family members who lost loved ones, September 11, 2001 is a day that belongs to all of us. It was the single most transformational day in American history. Pearl Harbor, for all of its devastating surprise and outrage, was nonetheless carried out at a time when the rest of the world was already at war. The shock was tempered by the foreknowledge that sooner or later, we were going to be involved. FDR’s institution of the first peacetime draft in American history and other signposts like the passage of the Lend-Lease Act that placed the US firmly on the side of Great Britain and Russia against Hitler showed that America, however reluctantly, was moving to intervene.

And the day JFK was shot generated its own degree of shock and horror but was hardly as immediately transforming as that horrible September day. An argument can be made that the triple shocks of assassination/Viet Nam/Watergate demonstrated over a period of a decade or more that America would never be the same. Some say we lost” innocence” as a result of those events. Perhaps its more accurate to say we had our eyes opened to the perfidy and faithlessness of the people we elect to represent us.

But on September 11, 2001 the United States and the world were at peace - or what used to pass for peace in the post cold war pre 9/11 reality. We had troops in the Balkans trying to keep an uneasy peace. We were in a low level combat situation in Iraq trying to keep Saddam Hussein in his box. And there were the usual tribal conflicts, coup d’ etats, genocidal rampages, and border disputes that somehow never quite made it through the screen erected by the guardians of information in the mainstream media so as to penetrate our consciousness and cause us to lose any sleep.

This self-generated myopia disappeared in the clouds of fire and smoke that rose from the ruins of the twin towers. For some, September 11 was a call to arms, a sudden and transmogrifying episode that not only showed how vulnerable we were to our enemies, but that these same implacable foes were hell bent on killing all of us in a very real and very literal sense.

For others, 9/11 remains a tragedy but not much else. They resent measures we’ve taken to protect ourselves be it passage of internal security proposals or the implementation of new military strategies like pre-emptive war.

At bottom, the difference in these two views of the meaning of September 11 is what drives most our politics today. In that respect, there has never been a day before or since in American history that has had such a profound effect on either our domestic political alignments or our foreign policy. America is divided between 9/10 and 9/12 advocates.

The question for ABC is from what perspective will the miniseries approach the events surrounding that day? From the looks of this report on the casting calls, it could go either way at this point:

Here it comes, the miniseries no one wanted to see.

Nevertheless, ABC seems to be readying a major and secret “fictionalized” multi-parter about the history of terrorism, from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the disasters of Sept. 11, 2001.

From the looks of it, the story is going to be about how stupid the government was: If only they’d listened to one man, all would have been right!

The title offered on call sheets for actors is “The Untitled ABC History Project.”

Last week, the call went out for dozens of Arab actors. Today, ABC showed a little more of its effort by putting out requests for 16 characters.

The main one? Former FBI agent John O’Neill, who seems to be the lead figure in this ‘history.’

The use of O’Neill as a central character may give away more about the thrust of the story than ABC may have wished. For almost a decade, Agent O’Neill, who was something of a legend in the counter terrorism culture of our national security apparatus, tracked many of the 9/11 hijackers. The excellent Frontline documentary about his exploits and colorful personality gave tantalizing clues to just how close O’Neill came to unmasking al Queda and preventing the attacks on 9/11.

The problem from ABC’s perspective is how to show that the Clinton administration and especially FBI Director Louis Freeh tried to thwart O’Neil at almost every turn without making it seem as if the worst attack on American soil in history could have been prevented. Part of the problem was O’Neill’s personality. The way Frontline portrayed him, O’Neill was something of a roue who liked fast women, fast cars, and fast times. Part beefy Irish cop, part dandy, O’Neill was a bulldog when he got a hold of a case. His relentless pursuit of al Quaeda led him to accidentally stumble upon elements of Mohamed Atta’s 9/11 cell in the Philippines and Indonesia. Realizing that something was being planned, O’Neill haunted the locations of terrorist attacks throughout the 1990’s; in Africa at the site of our embassy bombings, in Saudi Arabia at the Khobar Towers bombing, and finally in Yemen where the USS Cole was struck by suicide bombers and where O’Neill could have just about cracked the 9/11 conspiracy wide open.

The conspiracy to bomb the USS Cole had the involvement of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers. But due to bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and the State Department, the connection was missed. Shortly after being rebuffed in continuing the investigation in Yemen and marginalized by Director Freeh back home, O’Neill resigned from the FBI.

And in one of the supreme and tragic ironies of 9/11, O’Neill took a job as Chief of Security at the World Trade Center. He started his new job in late August, 2001 and died a few days later in the attack.

Clearly the dramatic potential is there for a blockbuster series. The real problem appears to be in the creative staff hired to make the project:

Historians should have a field day with this version of the decade-long terrorist plot. But why not? Screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh got his start on another soap opera, “Falcon Crest.” He also wrote the upcoming miniseries “Into the West” and was cited for “The Day Reagan Was Shot.” Marc Platt is the producer, and David L. Cunningham — who helmed the recent miniseries revival of “Little House on the Prairie” and several B-movies — will direct.

“The Day Reagan was Shot” was an excreable effort that portrays President Reagan’s cabinet as a bunch of hapless buffoons with Richard Dreyfuss’s portrayal of Secretary of State Al Haig as some sort of megalomaniac intent on overthrowing the government a low point in “docu-drama” film making. The fact that this hack has been hired to write the script for a mini-series on 9/11 does not bode well either for history or entertainment for that matter.

Regardless of who writes or directs, the fact that such a series is even being contemplated is probably a good thing. Even the upcoming release of “The Great New Wonderful” which will track the lives of New Yorkers who lived through that awful day (and in which the star Maggie Gyllenhaal has said “America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way” for 9/11) will be a valuable contribution to our national dialog on the subject.

And given the impact of that day, perhaps its time to put the events of 9/11 into the pantheon of American myth as only Hollywood can do. Like movies about World War II that followed closely on the heels of the end of that conflict - “From Here to Eternity” comes to mind - sometimes a close perspective to a particular event can crystallize emotions and sharpen the senses about an incident that will haunt those of us who lived it until the day we die.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network and Cao’s Blog

You’ve got to be completely clueless and totally out of touch not to know that the Public Broadcasting System has a decidedly liberal slant when it comes to programs that touch in any way on politics. Then again…there’s the New York Times:

The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.

Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests’ political leanings on one program, “Now With Bill Moyers.”

PBS has been a liberal sacred cow almost since its inception. And while some of its non-political programming - including science shows like “Nova” and “Nature” - as well as its broadcast of the theater and music programs have made invaluable contributions to excellence in broadcasting, only the most willfully self-deluded would argue that its political programming is anything but a recitation of liberal themes and dogmas.

The Bill Moyers show was a perfect example. While Moyers occasionally had conservative guests on his interview show, the questions he asked were of the “How many times did you beat your wife today” variety. Conversely, liberal guests receive the gushy treatment with Moyers carrying on colloquies with guests where the guided conversation could have been lifted out whole and made into a Democratic Party campaign commercial.

The coordinated attack on Mr. Tomlinson by people inside the PBS family is to be expected. After all, these are the same people that sold lists of PBS financial contributors to the Democratic Party. And why not? Surveys show that PBS viewers are more supportive of Democratic positions on the environment, on education, and a whole litany of other liberal causes.

So it should come as no surprise that Mr. Thomlinson’s efforts to bring some balance to the network’s leftward tilt would meet fierce resistance:

Pat Mitchell, president and chief executive of PBS, who has sparred with Mr. Tomlinson privately but till now has not challenged him publicly, disputed the accusation of bias and was critical of some of his actions.

“I believe there has been no chilling effect, but I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective that I do not consider appropriate,” Ms. Mitchell, who plans to step down when her contract expires next year, said Friday.

Why isn’t it appropriate when the PBS charter requires “balance?”

The corporation is a private, nonprofit entity financed by Congress to ensure the vitality of public television and radio. Tension is hardwired into its charter, where its mandate to ensure “objectivity and balance” is accompanied by an exhortation to maintain public broadcasting’s independence. Mr. Tomlinson said that in his view, objectivity and balance meant “a program schedule that’s not skewed in one direction or another.” Some corporation board members say that complaints about ideological pressure are premature.

Bill Moyers (who left “Now” earlier last year and now hosts another PBS show “Wide Angle”) is not the only blatantly leftist program on the network. The relentlessly liberal “POV” that highlights “independent” filmmakers almost uniformly deals with issues that highlight leftist causes. And the news documentary show “Frontline” has been shown to be as biased in reporting a story as any mainstream press organ.

The “Frontline Election Special” is just one example. The program gave what were supposed to be side by side bios of both Senator Kerry and President Bush. What emerged was a breathtaking model of bias so one sided that it’s a good thing hardly anyone watched it. Not only were the snippets of Kerry invariably accompanied by flattering pictures and worshipful commentary from friends and colleagues but the focus on issues and Kerry’s position on them were from a decidedly Democratic point of view. When the “documentary” for instance, focused on Iraq, the liberation wasn’t even mentioned. Instead, the “issues” were Abu Ghraib, rising casualties, and the futility expressed by commenter after commenter.

Contrasting that portrayal of Kerry and the issues, with images of the President in the most unflattering light imaginable along with backhanded compliments (even from friends!) is what made the piece so fascinating to me. I couldn’t tear my eyes away from it. It was exactly like watching a really bad movie. You just had to stick around and see how much worse it could get.

“Frontline Election Special” did not disappoint.

Recently, Tomlinson sought to have PBS stations live up to their charter in deeds as well as words by holding up the contract local stations sign with the Corporation:

Recently, PBS refused for months to sign its latest contract with the corporation governing federal financing of national programming, holding up the release of $26.5 million. For the first time, the corporation argued that PBS’s agreeing to abide by its own journalistic standards was not sufficient, but that it must adhere to the “objectivity and balance” language in the charter. In a January letter to the leaders of the three biggest producing stations, in New York, Boston and Washington, the deputy general counsel of PBS warned that this could give the corporation editorial control, infringing on its First Amendment rights and possibly leading to a demand for balance in each and every show.

As it stands now, Tomlinson can do little except fight a rear guard action on behalf of conservatives. He’s pushed to have Paul Gigot’s excellent “The Journal’s Editorial Report” featuring Wall Street Journal reporters and editors accepted going so far as assisting in lining up the private financing necessary to put it on the air. But such programming is a drop in the bucket compared to the implacable leftist slant that permeates programming on public TV.

I don’t support cutting off all funding for public television for the simple reason there are programs that simply would not find a home anywhere else in the increasingly dull uniformity of cable and satellite channels. But some reform is necessary. And Mr. Tomlinson appears to be doing the best he can.

Anytime you get liberals angry at you, you’ve got to be doing something right.

UPDATE

Jesse Taylor has some intelligent thoughts on relative bias:

PBS hosts/hosted Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot, who just happen to also be conservative talking heads on 24-hour cable nets - the conservative presence at PBS in one fell swoop has far outstripped any liberal influence the channel might have…but it may still be infected with the dread liberalism.

MMMMM…I don’t know if I buy it. If you have 1 hour of Paul Gigot (Carlson’s show, now cancelled, was as quirky and boring as the host’s ridiculous bow ties) and 23 hours of POV, Moyers, etc. it seems like a stretch to say that the impact of someone as recognizable (?) as Paul Gigot outweighs everything else.

Then again, I’m not used to thinking like a liberal. Now, maybe if I put my tin foil hat on and adjust it like so…

UPDATE II

One more interesting note…A Technorati search reveals that out of 27 blogs posting on this NYT story, I seem to be the only conservative. C’mon guys help me out here!

The last two days have seen two stories appear in two newspapers about the same report; The Iraq Survey Group’s Final Report on the search for WMD’s in Iraq. One would think that given both the Washington Post and Washington Times were looking at the same document, both publications would report the same conclusions. After all, that’s the whole purpose of a final report; we’ve spent a couple of hundred million dollars and Congress and the American people want to know what the experts have found.

Turns out, the experts can’t make up their minds.

Here’s the meat from the Washington Post story dated 4/26:

U.S. investigators hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have found no evidence that such material was moved to Syria for safekeeping before the war, according to a final report of the investigation released yesterday.

Although Syria helped Iraq evade U.N.-imposed sanctions by shipping military and other products across its borders, the investigators “found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD.” Because of the insular nature of Saddam Hussein’s government, however, the investigators were “unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.”

That’s a fair assessment if you read the gist of the report published here.

But today, the Washington Times came to a significantly different conclusion:

The CIA’s chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing “sufficiently credible” evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.

Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq — the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein — has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s.

But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. “ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war,” Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA’s Web site Monday night.

So which is it? Did Syria collaborate with Saddam to spirit WMD’s across the border in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq? Or didn’t they?

Back in February, I did a post on a story that appeared in the Daily Telegraph detailing the outrageous behavior of UN weapons inspectors who got drunk in their hotel rooms while huge convoys of trucks were moved right under their noses from Iraq to the Syrian border:

UN inspectors in Iraq spent their working hours drinking vodka while ignoring a shadowy nocturnal fleet believed to be smuggling goods for Saddam Hussein, a former senior inspector told the US Senate yesterday.

In a move that provoked fury from officials of the Swiss firm Cotecna, an Australian former inspector detailed a picture of incompetence, indifference and drunkeness among the men acting as the frontline for UN sanctions.

Then there was the Russian connection to the large scale movement of trucks to Syria prior to the invasion:

“The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units,” Mr. Shaw said. “Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units.”

“Most of Saddam’s most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.”

The evidence gathered by the Duelfer group would seem to point to the total absence of WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion. But all of these comings and goings between Iraq and Syria prior to the war would also seem to indicate the Saddam was shipping something to Damascus that he didn’t want to fall into enemy hands.

Somehow, I have the feeling it wasn’t baby formula.

These two stories bring to mind the old political joke told by every President since at least Herbert Hoover about the Chief Executive wishing for a one armed economist because all of his advisors were saying “on the one hand…and on the other hand…”

Perhaps if events play out in Syria where democracy were to triumph, we may someday unravel the mystery of what the heck was being shipped to that country in the weeks prior to the war. Until then, we’re stuck wishing for a one armed WMD expert.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE:

Right Voices believes that even if no WMD was found, going to war with Iraq was still worth it:

Yet, I still strongly believe in our having invaded Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime from power. The report also stated that the missing equipment was never located and it could have easily been given to terrorists and/or insurgents to produce chemical and biological agents.

Spot on. The link between Hizballah in Lebanon and Syria is well established as the terrorist group’s armed militia acted as enforcer for Bashir Assad’s bully boys. Now that Syria is ostensibly out of Lebanon, it remains to be seen what Hizballah will do. Will they maintain close relations with Syria? Not if they want to accomplish anything in the political arena in Lebanon. It will be political death to be seen as a toady for Assad. My guess would be that Hizballah will lean more heavily on their sponsors in Tehran - which does not bode well for Israel or us for that matter.

Captain Ed nails CNN for ignoring Duelfer’s conclusions, concentrating instead on his statement that no official communication between Saddam and Syria could be found that pointed to a WMD transfer. Yeah…like this is something they’re gonna write down? On paper?

Had Duelfer and the ISG meant to conclusively state that no WMD transfers of any kind had occurred, it would not have been left as a footnote or an addendum. That usage indicates an explanation for an unfulfilled mandate of the mission, not a positive conclusion, as a close read of the language used indicates.

I try not to believe that there’s deliberate spinning of the facts in a case like this where the MSM pulls things out of context to make a political point. But with the facts staring you in the face as it does with the difference between the Post story yesterday and the Times today, what else are we to believe?

Funny. I always thought that the initials “BBC” stood for British Broadcasting Company. As revealed in this story however, it seems that I was mistaken. The most recognized broadcasting initials on the planet actually stand for “Bloviating, Biased Cads:”

The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging general election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.

The Tories have made an official protest after the hecklers, who were given the microphones by producers, were caught at a party event in the North West last week. Guy Black, the party’s head of communications, wrote in a letter to Helen Boaden, the BBC’s director of news, that the hecklers began shouting slogans that were “distracting and clearly hostile to the Conservative Party”.

Last night, the BBC claimed that the exercise was part of a “completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling” and said that other parties’ meetings were being “observed”. However, The Telegraph has established that none of Tony Blair’s meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in similar fashion.

This is both horrifying and extremely satisfying - kind of like the reaction I get when watching Michael Meyers slice and dice deserving teenagers in the “Halloween” movies. Have you noticed that Mickey always seems to target kids who were in the clique in high school that you hated with a passion? The good looking, smarmy, image-obsessed lightweights who always seemed to be the first to get laid and always seemed to have money to go to the best concerts, wear the best clothes, and drive the best cars? To watch the football star get it was always a cathartic moment for me, an almost orgasmic gratification in watching some of my worst nemeses scream in anguish as the knife plunges into their well built, muscular bodies over and over…

But I digress.

It’s horrifying, of course, because the BBC didn’t have the good sense to use different hecklers at different events and because the camera crew was way too obvious when filming the stunt:

Tory officials became suspicious at the meeting in Horwich, near Bolton, last Wednesday, when they saw BBC camera crew focusing on the hecklers rather than Mr Howard. They twice challenged the two men and a woman involved, and discovered they had been equipped with radio microphones.

Mr Black said that they described themselves as “shoppers”. In fact, they were under direction from a BBC team making a programme called The History of Heckling for the BBC3 channel. The programme, whose producer is Paul Woolwich, is in the process of being edited.

For God’s sake guys! If you’re going to pull a political dirty trick at least have the smarts to carry it out with a little bit of subterfuge. Next time, use two camera crews. That way you can have one crew on the politician you’re trying to smear and the other one on your brave, heroic citizens speaking truth to power.

And that explanation! You’ve got to come up with something better than this:

Last night a BBC spokesman said: “This is a completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling. The programme observes hecklers at other parties’ campaign meetings and not just the Conservatives. The hecklers were not under the direction of the BBC and their activities did not disrupt the meeting in any way. The incident at the Michael Howard meeting only plays a small part in the overall programme. However, we will be investigating the complaint very fully and will be replying in due course.”

The spokesman was unable to provide details of any other campaign meetings attended by the BBC3 crew. He said that the hecklers had not been paid a fee, but could not say whether they had received expenses.

The “art” of political heckling? Only a clueless moonbat would think that shouting down the opposition is artistic expression. That explanation just won’t fly. And please, no humor is necessary in your official statements. Saying “we will be investigating the complaint very fully and will be replying in due course.” is an unnecessary interjection of levity. People have to believe that you’re serious about the inquiry into this deliberate smear. You and I know that when you use the words “in due course” you mean “after the election when our explanation won’t matter” which is actually pretty rich! But it may be too subtle for most Brits whose sense of humor tends more toward the broad strokes of Benny Hill or Monty Python.

Finally, please don’t make the same mistake that Dan Rather and CBS made here when they were caught trying to smear the President with fake documents. The folks at Black Rock caved in to the pressure way too quickly. If they had stuck it out a few more weeks, who knows what might have happened? They could have achieved their goal of electing John Kerry. At the very least, they could have saved themselves the time and trouble of going through the charade of an official “investigation.” Sure they would have been taking a chance that the only people who would’ve been watching CBS News after a few weeks would be either inmates in mental institutions and other folks unable to switch the channel on their TV away from CBS or people who only get one channel on their TV anyway.. As it is, that’s just about their entire audience right now so I guess it wouldn’t have mattered.

I would suggest the next time you want to pull something as outrageously clever and vindictive as this, you contact our own Democratic party. Or maybe some unreconstructed communists.

Pretty much the same thing, come to think of it…

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

Columnist Kersh Kuntzman is a piece of work.

It’s not often that I sputter so much after reading something that my monitor requires a thorough cleaning. But after reading Mr. Kuntzman’s column in Newsweek regarding the recent spate of attacks on conservative speakers on college campuses in which he gleefully celebrates these assaults as a crime in which the victim “deserved” to be assailed, I realized that spitting wasn’t enough. If it had been my old monitor, I would have emptied some other bodily fluid on the screen to register my disgust with this vainglorious lickspittle’s celebration of mayhem and the stifling of free speech. As it was, I settled for leaving the monitor alone and almost punching a fist-sized hole in my living room wall.

The schedule of lecturers on college campuses around the country has begun reading like the police blotter: Conservative author Ann Coulter—hit by a pie tossed by two attackers last year. Conservative editor William Kristol—hit by an ice cream pie at a Quaker college in Indiana in March. Really conservative guy Pat Buchanan hit by salad dressing two days later. Liberal-turned-conservative author David Horowitz—hit by a chocolate cream pie a few days after that.

It’s disgusting, isn’t it? The salad dressing, I mean. Everyone knows that salad dressing is simply not an effective medium for expressing dissent. But pie on the other hand…

This fella is just too cute by half. It’s a shame that Mr. Kuntface doesn’t have the guts to come out my way and give a lecture. Other things can go in pies besides fruit or cream…and the horse that lives next door is owned by a Republican.

The last few days have seen the predictable lament that the pie-throwers represent the worst thing about democracy—people so inarticulate that the only way they can counter such toxic thinkers as Coulter is to seize the moral low ground by trying to curtail their free speech.

That is far too simple an argument. Throwing a pie at someone who deserves it is one of the most celebrated traditions in our so-called culture.

Now that’s odd. The “predictable lament” that Mr. Dickman talks about is one explanation that I haven’t heard from liberals or conservatives. Gee…ya think he just sort of, you know, made it up out of whole cloth? And calling Ann Coulter’s thinking “toxic” shows a jealosy unbecoming of a professional journalist; even toxic thoughts are better than having no thoughts at all.

To prove that Mr. Kunttwaddle doesn’t have brain cell active enough in his cranium to ask the time of day, he interviews a relic from the 1970’s, one Aron Kaye who I guess is sort of a legend among the tie-dyed and now greying members of the old/new left that conducted a reign of terror with their pie throwing (and bomb throwing) back in the 1970’s. But hey! As long as they “deserved” it…:

I called Soupy Sales, who has received an estimated 20,000 pies in his career, and was surprised to hear that a man who spent his whole life honing this slapstick routine did not object to this overt politicization of the pie.

“It’s OK as long as you’re hitting someone who deserves it,” Sales said. “Nixon would have been perfect. As long as it’s funny, it can be political.”

Kay agreed: “Pieing is an essential tool for deflating the pomposity of these politicians and commentators. I considered myself a defender of justice. But believe me, I still have a list of people who need to be pied.”

To even say “I considered myself a defender of justice” without blinking an eye at the irony bespeaks a breathtaking kind of leftist hubris that still surprises me to this day. And for Mr. Kuntwoman to not remark on it says even more.

Here’s more “cutey pie” thoughts from Mr. Kuntzman:

Clearly, throwing a pie at a lecturer is anathema to serious debate. But what’s worse is the quality of pie-throwing today. Coulter was barely grazed. A PETA pie-hurler a few years ago hit Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman in the back (the back!). Horowitz had more pie on his shirt than on his face. Perhaps, the pie itself is the culprit.

The moonbat then delves into the “art” of pie throwing (or is it the science?). He discovers that certain pies are better than others for throwing. To prove his point, he actually gets a dingbat named Shenk to act as his guinea pig. The reason I call him a dingbat is his reaction to having pies thrown in his face:

When we compared notes, Shenk felt no humiliation. “In fact, being hit by a pie is liberating,” he said. “Before the pie, a lecturer like myself is being judged—by the audience, by himself. Everyone is wondering ‘Who is this guy? Who died and made him an authority on anything.’ But once the pie hits, suddenly, there’s this swelling of support for the speaker. The pie breaks the tension.” (even Horowitz admitted that “after the pie, I probably did have some of the crowd’s sympathy.”

I don’t quite know what to say to something like that, do you? I mean, what kind of wootsucker actually enjoys being hit by a pie? I guess there’s no accounting for the stupidity and cluelessness of some people.

Finally, Kuntzman has a warning for people who disagree with him:

For my part, I learned an even more valuable lesson: If you’re going to be conservative and lecture on a college campus, bring a change of clothes.

It says on this intellectual thug’s website that he’s a “humorist.” Perhaps in later columns we can get more examples of his wit. Maybe he can write a column on how women “deserve” to be raped for wearing provacative clothing or perhaps victims of muggings who merit getting the crap beaten out of them because they were out alone after dark.

I’m sure someone with this pudknocker’s talent can come up with something witty to say about those subjects.

A conservative Pope has been elected! ROUND UP THE USUAL SUSPECTS!

I’ve had a difficult time trying to come up with a suitable odious metaphor to describe all of the media outlets and individuals who are now, less than 12 hours after his election, in full throated cry against the new Pope, Benedict XVI.

At first I thought maybe Anklebiters would be appropriate but then I realized that’s already been taken (Pat Hynes would have a knipshit being linked to these knaves). Then I pondered using “circling wolves” but that would be a horrible insult to such a noble and intelligent animal. I eliminated vultures because they don’t work well together, being just as keen to fight another competitor as enjoy their meal of carrion. I even contemplated an obscure reference to the flesh eating bacteria known as Necrotizing Fasciitis, but figured that would gross you out oh gentle and discerning reader.

Finally, I settled on slugs. After reading this, I realized it was actually a no brainer. If this doesn’t describe the New York Times, I don’t know what does:

Other slugs are found on land, but their soft, slimy bodies are prone to desiccation, so they are confined to moist environments. (Like the fever swamps of the left!).

Here’s the Times take on the election of Papa Ratzo:

As an ultraconservative, he had shut the door on any discussion on several issues, including the ordination of women, celibacy of priests and homosexuality, defending his positions by invoking theological truth. In the name of orthodoxy, he is in favor of a smaller church, but one that is more ideologically pure.

On Monday, at a Mass before the conclave convened, he delivered an uncompromising warning against any deviation from traditional Catholic teaching.

Well, duh! Guess what guys. THE POPE IS CATHOLIC!. The folks at the Times have become so sophisticated and so urbane that they’ve forgotten (or just simply ignored) the fact that the teachings of the Catholic Church on those issues are rooted in both tradition and theology - the revealed word of God. Now, I’m not a believer but even I can grasp the position of the Church’s hierarchy. If, by their lights, God tells them that this is the way it is, liberals here and elsewhere are going to have about as much influence in changing that position as the sun has of coming up in the west or setting in the east.

Then there’s the patron saint of looniness Andrew Sullivan whose resemblance to the slug is quite pronounced in this respect:

Slugs are hermaphroditic: having both female and male reproductive organs. Once a slug has located a mate they encircle each other and sperm is exchanged through their protruding genitalia. A few days later hundreds of eggs are laid in holes in the ground. Although some species hibernate over the winter in temperate climates, in most species the adults die in the autumn.

Various species of slug can also reproduce via tiny darts of sperm which they fling in the direction of their mate’s genitalia.

Andrew sure is “slinging” a whole bunch of something at the new pope…and it ain’t kudos:

And what is the creed of the Church? That is for the Grand Inquisitor to decide. Everything else - especially faithful attempts to question and understand the faith itself - is “human trickery.” It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It’s not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It’s a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism.

Andrew, taking his cue from yesterday’s 230th anniversary of Paul Revere’s ride, has decided to gallop off the deep end while screaming at the top of his voice “The end is nigh!”

Contrast Mr. Sullivan’s hyperventilating with Dale Franks’ response to Andrew’s rants:

So, while the Apostle Paul does dwell at length on the virtue of celibacy in various epistles, he also clearly tells both Timothy and Titus that marriage is a requirement for church leaders. The Catholic Church has gone another way on this, clearly, holding the virtue of celibacy to be superior to the married priesthood.

That strikes me as extraordinarily arrogant. Or even worse, petulant and childish.

Couldn’t have said it better myself…which come to think of it, is why I included Dale’s analysis rather than try to think up something better. I think “petulant and childish” should be tattooed on Andrews forehead so that when he opens his mouth, we can be reminded of just why we think he’s such an hysteric.

And what would a roundup of moonbat reaction be without a comment or two from the Major League of moonbattery, the Democratic Underground. Their secretions are really quite slug-like:

Slugs produce two types of mucus: one which is thin and watery, and another which is thick and sticky. Both are hygroscopic. The thin mucus is spread out from the center of the foot to the edges,the thick mucus spreads out from front to back. Mucus is very important to slugs as it helps them move around, and contains fibers which prevent the slug from sliding down vertical surfaces.

Whatever they’re secreting, it’s getting pretty thick at Dingbat Central:

This is BS. Maybe we’ll get lucky he will “die in his sleep” like our 33 day “Progressive Pope” John Paul 1st, did.

Look on the bright side… this ensures that Bush** is not the most fascist leader in the known universe. Berlusconi (out-and-out fascist Fini in cabinet) might have had the edge, but this makes it official.

Whatever else may have been going on in there, I’m reasonably sure that God was not speaking to them, saying “Hey, guys, why not shake things up a little bit? Go for the Nazi!”

Ah yes…these are the discussion threads that makes one say “Is this a great country, or what?” Where else but the United States of America would the certifiably insane be given their very own website to spout their fantasies and delusions?

I’ll let Confederate Yankee introduce us to this next denizen of DU:

And the “Nurse, we need to up his meds” award goes to goclark for:

I knew he would be named. The rest of the names were just ROVE tricks to throw off everyone. He was placed there by the likes of BushCO. It sends a STRONG signal to the non white people of the world that “WHITE POWER” is the name of the game.

It was also a strong signal for WHITES to return to the church and be welcomed with open arms. They don’t care about the Hispanics and Africans that are devoting themselves to the church.

(HT: To the Con/Yank for doing all the hazardous research, plumbing the depths of depravity to come up with these gems of idiocy).

One thing’s for sure, the new Pope has his work cut out for him. If these are examples of the liberal mindset he has to overcome, I would guess a whole slew of Novenas wouldn’t be enough to conquer the kind of fatuous disdain shown toward his election by the slugs of media and politics.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

Ann Coulter describes herself as a polemicist. For years, she’s used the sharpest pen in the business to provoke, enrage, delight, and enrapture her audiences with her own peculiar brand of political commentary. In this respect, she resembles Tom Paine, the revolutionary war pamphleteer who penned the most memorable call to arms of the war:

“”These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their county; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered yet we have this consolation with us, the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”

Yes, ‘ole Tom could turn a phrase; especially when he turned it on his enemies, the elites:

To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.

Paine’s effectiveness was in the way he used language as invective, imagery as a form of character assassination, and exaggeration as metaphor. He could slice and dice his political opponents and those he saw as an enemy with the best of them. His only rival as a propagandist was Sam Adams. And Adams couldn’t write half as well but had an uncanny sense of where the jugular was. Some of his broadsides are absolute treasures:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

OUCH!

Miss Coulter follows then a long line of literary patriots whose writings have changed our politics. Ace has some excellent thoughts on this and how the mainstream media has bitten off its own nose to spite its face for years, passing up Coulter’s obvious saleability because of their own myopic political views:

Ann Coulter has been a story — a big story, a compelling story, and important political story, and, yes, a sexy story that’s pretty damn easy on the eyes — for years. But it’s only after years of studiously ignoring her that someone in the media finally realizes, “Hey, maybe I don’t like this woman’s politics, but millions of Americans do; perhaps it’s time to actually, you know, acknowledge she in fact exists.”

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, anyone? Remember them? Our fair and balanced media is still trying to forget.

Spot on. And gracing the cover (and I do mean “grace” as in “to confer dignity or honor on”) of Time Magazine, one is reminded that like Paine and Adams who spent their own hellish time in the political wilderness, Coulter has now finally come in from the cold.

Will it affect her writing? Will she soften her approach? Will she become less confrontational?

Are you serious, Superhawk?

Looks like the New York Times has made a deliberate editorial decision to bring down powerful House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. But like a cowardly assassin who plunges the knife in from behind, they’ve apparently been fishing around for a prominent Republican to do their dirty work for them:

Conservative columnist Robert Novak reports that the Times got in touch with former House speaker Bob Livingston who was forced to resign during the Clinton impeachment imbroglio because of his own extramarital shenanigans, and asked him to write a piece that would have essentially cut Delay’s feet from under him and urged his resignation. Livingston would have none of it:

Livingston in effect declined by responding that if he wrote anything for the Times, it would be pro-DeLay. But this remarkable case of that august newspaper fishing for an op-ed piece makes it appear part of a calculated campaign to bring down the single most powerful Republican in Congress. The Democratic establishment and left-wing activists have targeted DeLay as the way to end a decade of Republican control of the House.

Ironically, this campaign’s intensity may protect DeLay from Republicans who in their secret hearts would like to see the sometimes-overbearing Texan fall. No GOP politician wants to be the handmaiden of DeLay’s Democratic detractors. Last Wednesday’s closed-door caucus of House Republicans gave DeLay a standing ovation. Contrary to claims on leftist Web sites, no Republican member has called for the majority leader’s resignation.

Would somebody tell me how the Times can look its readers in the eye and say with a straight face that they even pretend to be impartial? With all the lefty whining about Fox News and its bias toward Republicans, why is it that this type of activity is seen as “crusading journalism” rather than the shallow, crass partisan politics it really is.

Kudos to Livingston for turning them down. And for shame on the Times for violating journalistic ethics by turning the op-ed page of its newspaper over to the notion of advancing the agenda of a bunch of partisan radicals.

WELCOME AOL BLOG NEWS READERS!

Welcome to the House! Feel free to browse some recent posts. Click the painting of the notorious London insane asylum Bedlam above to get to today’s post on last night’s exciting episode of “24.”

Politics Watch bills itself as “Canada’s Political Portal. It looks like a very nice news site with dozens of useful links to stories in major Canadian publications as well as some really nice photos and a slick, professional layout.

That’s why I’m kind of at a loss to explain how, amidst all of these links to major publications and all, there’s a link to to little old me! Rightwing Nuthouse!

If you follow the link above and go down the left side of the page, 2nd column, you’ll see a box headed “Politics Watch: Morning Briefing” And there it is…7 links down is my post describing the Adscam scandal entitled: “Adscam: Truly Elegant Sleaze.”

There are no other blog posts in this box, only links to newspapers and magazines.

Now believe me, I’m flattered to have such a professional looking publication link to me. Being a tiny website with no more than 400-500 hits a day, I’ll take any exposure I can get. But doesn’t this, um, violate the Publication Ban imposed on Adscam testimony? If not, then I’m very happy to have the exposure for my writing that such a professional looking website can offer (if they need an American correspondent, I work for peanuts).

On the other hand, if the information in my post violates the ban, won’t these people get in trouble? I realize there are dozens of brave Canadians who are ignoring the ban and blogging like crazy about the scandal, but these guys might be a little too conspicuous to avoid detection. Should I email them and point out what they’re doing? Should I save them from being held in contempt? Should I do the right thing?

Nah…I need the traffic.

UPDATE:

The publication in Politics Watch of a link to my post that gives details of the Adscam mess may not violate the Publication Ban after all…at least if Judge Gomery decides to lift it:

In another update, CTV confirms that Justice Gomery will decide this morning whether to continue the publication ban now that Jean Brault’s testimony has been completed, and of course reported through this site and others. As I mentioned before, an end to the ban would be the best possible result, as Canadians would get first-hand reporting on the courtroom testimony and all the information they want on the scandal.

However, if Justice Gomery does not lift the ban, my source has prepared an update which will be sent later today to me. I assume that will cover the testimony from Monday and Tuesday, and possibly the cross-examination yesterday. If it comes through — which is completely at the discretion of my source — I will post it as soon as I’m able.

I hope that won’t be necessary, Capn’. If it is though, we’ll know where to go to get information that peoples in a free country like Canada have a right to.

Brian H. Darling is a legal counsel for freshly minted Florida Senator Mel Martinez. He’s also a certifiable idiot:

The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.

Martinez, the GOP’s Senate point man on the issue, said he earlier had been assured by aides that his office had nothing to do with producing the memo. “I never did an investigation, as such,” he said. “I just took it for granted that we wouldn’t be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue.

Harkin said in an interview that Martinez handed him the memo on the Senate floor, in hopes of gaining his support for the bill giving federal courts jurisdiction in the Florida case in an effort to restore the brain-damaged Florida woman’s feeding tube. “He said these were talking points — something that we’re working on here,” Harkin said.

(Courtesy: Yahoo News)

Darling is a former lobbyist for The Alexander Group. One interesting point that’s mentioned in the linked AP story is that The Alexander Strategy Group is a conservative lobbying company. What the AP fails to mention is that they’re in business with The Harbor Group, a liberal lobbying organization.

Why do you suppose they’d leave that out?

At any rate, Darling is a fool. And it may not be entirely his fault. Martinez may not be giving us the whole story here.

Darling may have fallen on his sword to protect his boss. Senator Harkin’s quote - that Martinez handed him the memo and said they were “talking points” sounds plausible. It’s very possible that Senator Martinez asked Darling to come up with such a document and that he never read it. It’s equally possible Darling had no clue that the memo was for bi-partisan consumption.

Both men should know better. The first thing you learn on Capitol Hill as a senior staffer is to assume that every word you write may eventually see the light of day. That’s why most political strategy memo’s are done outside the legislative office of the lawmaker. It was always plausible to me that the memo could have originated with a GOP staffer because it was clearly written to delineate political advantages for the Senator. Some of it was grandiose, amateurish posturing - especially the bit about giving the party an advantage with the Christian right. A pro wouldn’t point out something so patently obvious. Such documents are never done on “letterhead” and are usually composed by the senior staffer himself, thus accounting for errors in spelling and such.

It very well could be that Martinez handed the memo to Harkin after not having read the darn thing. This will teach him. Admittedly, it takes a while for a freshman lawmaker to figure out what he should be reading and what he can safely trust his staff on. But one glance at that memo and it seems clear that Martinez is either a Democratic party plant or he never read the contents of the memo.

There are still questions as the Powerline guys point out; the way the story was reported originally be ABC and WAPO made it seem as if this was some widely circulated action plan from senior Republican Senators. This is obviously not the case. And then there’s the little matter of the second draft of the memo where the spelling and factual errors are cleaned up. It’s entirely possible that a Democratic staffer made the memo all nice and neat so that they could give it to the press and skewer the Republicans with it.

All this being said, the unspoken (so far) issue is that Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Anklebiting Pundits, and a host of larger blogs may have let their enthusiasm to nail another scalp to the wall get in the way of their better judgment.

Powerline, which led the charge in investigating the memo’s origins and the way it was reported by the MSM, was, I thought, pretty circumspect in it’s claims that the memo was a Democratic dirty trick. Others weren’t so subtle. There’s a lesson here for all of us.

There are some things the blogosphere does very well. And then there’s journalism. Being so large, the sphere is eventually going to sort itself out and those who wish to practice journalism will have a chance to do so, probably as an adjunct to a mainstream media outlet. Those who wish to offer opinions and rant about events like myself will also have a place although I suspect most people will tire of this one dimensional aspect of the sphere and, unless one is a really excellent writer, those sites will fall by the wayside.

The point is, I guess, is that in this case we offered analysis and opinion that, for the most part turned out to be wrong. And the MSM is going to jump all over this faux pas and cite it as “proof” that people in pajamas should stay out of the news collecting business and go back to reporting what they had for dinner, how hard it is to toilet train their kid, and whether or not Aunt Martha’s gallstones will keep her from visiting during the holidays.

The looks of smug satisfaction on the faces of our critics over the next few days will be hard to take. Just remember it’s something we brought upon ourselves. And don’t worry, our critics will get over it. If they’re dumb enough to believe that this one slip will send bloggers scurrying for cover, let them indulge their myopia. Their laziness and hubris will continue to supply the blogosphere with plenty of ammunition. And as their declining readership could tell them, they still just don’t get it.

UPDATE: FALLOUT AND BACKTRACKING

Michelle Malkin, whose journalistic hide was exposed a little more than some others, is all over the story this morning, sparing no one (including herself) and asking all the right questions. A sample from Post #1:

After John Hinderaker at Power Line first started asking necessary questions about the reporting on the memo, many on the Right jumped to conclusions that the memo was “fake” or a “dirty trick.” I concur that those who made such claims should issue clear retractions and corrections. And I urge those bloggers and pundits to do so.

But contrary to what the left-wing gloaters who have not bothered to follow the story until last night are writing, I have never made such claims, a point I stressed yesterday afternoon in an e-mail exchange with Post reporter Mike Allen.

Malkin’s real exposure occurred when she reported that Josh Claybourn of “The Agora” had tipped her about seeing the memo passed by a staffer for Senator Reid. Michelle dug hard to try and corroborate that story and was never able to pin it down, eventually deciding that Claybourn was being misled. She covers this in Post #2:

To date, Claybourn has not responded to my suggestion that he divulge the phone numbers of his sources. Will he continue to play nicey-nice with his sources now that they have been shown to be manipulative, lying smear merchants?

The story’s not over. Sen. Martinez and his former legal counsel may still have plenty of ’splainin’ to do.

I doubt whether we’ll hear more from the Senator as he’ll try and hunker down and weather the storm. And it’s doubful we’ll hear anything from Darling who’s probably on his way back to The Alexander Group as I write this.

I’ll try and keep an eye on both Michelle’s site and Powerline today to see if they get any cooperation from WAPO reporter Mike Allen who orginially broke the story.

UPDATE: FALLOUT AND BACKTRACKING II

Here’s a quick round up of sites blogging this morning about the memo:

Myopic Zeal has an excellent round-up himself and has been tracking the story since it broke last night.

Outside the Beltway has been asking the right questions from the beginning:

While some on the Right have made claims that the memo was a Democratic forgery, that’s not what the story was about. Rather, the argument was that the source of the memo was unknown but was played in such a way by ABC News and others as to give the impression that it came from the Republican leadership and was widely circulated. Neither of those seems to be true.

Lawshawn Barber like other larger blogs, are really hearing it from liberal trolls:

My liberal readers are such sweet folks, in their own way. A couple of them made haste and posted a link and story blurb in comments last night, bless their hearts. One fan prefaced the blurb with this comment: “[I]n case you really cared…” He assumes I don’t care because a conservative wrote the memo. The implication is that I don’t criticize conservatives.

Kobayashi Maru is also troubled by trolls and wonders what the big deal was about the memo in the first place. Answer? One more club for the Democrats to use on conservatives.

Captain Ed wonders how Darling ever got a job on Capitol Hill in the first place. Darling’s old boss is Ed Buckham, former Chief of Staff to Representative Tom Delay. Nuff said?

Perhaps most courageously, Pat Hynes at Anklebiting Pundits admits error:

We’ve been tough on the Democrats for floating fake memos in the past. So when the Schiavo-Quiddick scandal hit, we were tough on ‘em again. But we were wrong.

Finally, what would a round-up be if we didn’t get the gloating from the other side? Here’s Kos with the gloat…and a threat:

The wingnutosphere spent the last few weeks screaming bloody murder about the memo (which frankly I had forgotten about), claiming it was some sinister Democratic plot. They wanted to make a big deal about it, so let’s make sure we oblige.