Thursday, April 01, 2004

April Fool's Townhall   In honor of the holiday most associated of Townhall.com, that "one-stop mall of ideas," allow me to present a special edition of Townhall Review.  Speciall, in that this time I give you TWO quotes from each columnist:.  Some of the quotes are fake, some are real, and some are by other people.  Can YOU figure out which is which?  The answers will appear at the bottom of the piece.  (Note: the summaries of the columns are, as always, true and accurate representations of the authors' work, more or less.) 1.  Marvin Olasky Marve, editor of World Magazine and cofounder of the World Institute of Journalism ("injecting an evangelical bias into the news in order to hasten the apocalypse"), instructs us on how to write good.  To do this, he quotes from The Elements of Style, which, as the non-evil Roger Ailes pointed out, is recommended reading at the WJI, while The New Thought Police by Tammy Bruce is REQUIRED reading.  A. Prayer is a daily, daily, if not an hourly part of my job here. In my entire life, I cannot separate my faith from my profession. If I did, I wouldn't be in this profession. I wouldn't have had the success that I've had. I think it's a gift, and I can tell when I'm in tune with the Lord. Circumstances just happen. Stories just fall into my lap. I kid you not. Stories just fall into my lap when I'm in tune with the Lord. B.  Young writers need true friends, teachers and editors who are willing to make them cry. 2.  Emmett Tyrrell Emmett, editor of American Spectator (where they hate Bill Clinton like it's 1999), tells us that John Kerry is a "second-tier" candidate, and recommends he be dumped in favor of a first-tier one like Hillary Clinton so Emmett can use all that Scaife-funded "research" about Hillary putting crack in Girl Scout cookies, and holding black masses in the Little Rock govenor's mansion.  A.  Now, the French-looking senator is again in the public eye, and what that eye perceives it obviously does not like: the macho candidate ostentatiously purchasing an athletic supporter (size large!), the vacationing skier taking spills on the slopes and bellowing, "I don't fall down."     B.  Moreover, everyone knows that throughout her marriage, Mrs. Clinton has been involved in intimidating and buying off the various victims of her husband's inflamed libido; a job made immeasurably easier by the Secret Service assistance.  This will be a major factor in her decision to seek the presidency. 3.  Michelle Malkin Michelle, whose gimmick is being a child of immigrants who hates foreigners, discusses "National People's Action," the pro-immigrant's rights group that made Karl Rove cry (he said it was his teenage son and his son's friend, but we heard it was Karl) by pounding on his windows: A.  A more accurate description is left-wing goon squad. This nationwide organization is made up of professional grievance-mongers.    B.  Now Rove knows how millions of ordinary Americans -- who don't have Secret Service protection -- feel when illegal invaders overrun their homes and darken their doors.   4.  Brent Bozell Brent, who watches TV for a living, tells us that the lying liberal media is promoting the treasonous idea that idea that 9/11 wasn't all Clinton's fault. A.  But how could you take Brokaw's questioning seriously after knowing that he sat on the story of Richard Clarke's "questionable personal life"?  Doesn't the media have a responsibility to report on the moral failings of those who would criticize a wartime President?   B.  This increasingly partisan 9-11 Commission issue is being played up by the TV news elite as a way to make the American people forget the Bush Administration's record in dismantling al Qaeda.   5.  Jonah Goldberg Jonah, the product of the unholy confluence of Lucianne Goldberg and Kenneth Starr, recommends delaying the Iraqi election until the Iraqis aren't on the brink of civil war, or until Star Trek technology can make a rock-creature Abraham Lincoln to be their president -- whichever comes first. A.  Elections aren't any more inherently moral or useful than a hammer. I can use a hammer to build a house or to smack you in the forehead (which could also be moral if you're doing something very bad to provoke me).  B.  I am looking forward to an orderly election, which will eliminate the need for a violent blood bath.  6.  Ben Shapiro Ben, whose gimmick is being young, pious, and whiny, tells us how the College Republicans won a big victory at UCLA by having the old Republicans fight their battles for them. A.   They're young, and the party needs to keep an infusion of young people and young ideas if we're going to recruit more members and get new candidates and have a brighter future    B.  College Republicans, meanwhile, have the energy, if not the money, to do serious damage to liberal dominance on campus. 7.  Larry Elder Larry, whose gimmick is being a conservative black man, brings us the news that John Kerry is unlikable, as demonstrated by an alleged incident in which Kerry forgot somebody's name.  Unlikable people never wins the presidency.  Oh, and Kerry also said a bad word! A.  Republicans equal: crooks-liars-warmongers-environmental-rapists and protectors-of-friends-in-high-places.  B.  I want to be sure he is a ruthless son of a bitch, that he will do what he's told, ... that he will go after our enemies and not our friends. Now, it's as simple as that. If he isn't, he doesn't get the job.  8.  Kathleen Parker Kathleen, whose gimmick consists of being a bitch, tried to counter the pursuasive case Peanut made at Sadly, No! for Georgie being gay. A.  You see President George W. Bush whacking brambles at his Texas ranch, jogging sweat-streaked through blistering heat, chopping wood - all universally recognized as manly tasks, even if performed by a former cheerleader.  B.  They say you can learn a lot about a man by engaging him in sports. Plenty of businessmen play golf expressly for this purpose. Get a man out on the green and find out what he's made of. Or across the net for a few sets of tennis. Or in a duck blind if, say, you've got an important Supreme Court case hanging in the balance.  9.  Ann Coulter Ann, whose gimmick is being a man pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man, details how 9/11 was the fault of Democrats -- as proven by her totally factual timeline.  From it you can see that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton didn't take any real action against our swarthy, Muslim enemies, while Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush killed people every chance they got -- so obviously no blame for 9/11 can be attributed to them.  George H. Bush was a sissy Republican, so he's kind of a wash. A. Guns are our friends. God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal  B. It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted      Answers: 1.  "A"  was said by former WJI guest instructor Jack Kelley.   (Now does the part about "Stories just fall in my lap when I'm in tune with the Lord" see extra-inspirational?)  However, "B" is from Marve -- I don't think I want to attend that WJI workshop now. 2.  "A" is Tyrell. "B" is made up. 3.  They're both Michelle. 4.  "A" is made up, "B" is Brent. 5.  "A" is Jonah, "B" is Kodos. 6.  "A" is Al Rantel, the talk-radio host who urged his listeners to threaten to UCLA until they gave the College Republicans a big break on the price of their little convention.  "B" is young Ben himself. 7.  "A" is Larry, "B" is Richard Nixon. 8.  Both "A" and "B" are Kathleen. 9. Both are quotes from Ann, but from a Guardian interview from last year that I like better than her column.     Bonus Ann Stuff Since April Fool's Day is also a day to honor Ann, here are the lyrics to a song recommended to us by our friend David E.: MY CONSERVATIVE GIRLFRIEND words and music by Roy Zimmerman © 1995 Watunes (BMI) (From "Folk Heroes" on Reprise Records) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- She's a real Type A And she's over-insured Her favorite castaway Is Thurston Howell, the third She doesn't like big government so it's no surprise I can be her lover long as I downsize My conservative girlfriend Got a tiny little heart full of passion My conservative girlfriend Every Friday we go liberal bashin' She got the Supreme Court Tattooed on her rump Beside an autographed port- rait of Donald Trump And from the day I checked her out from front to back I knew her private sector could take up the slack My conservative girlfriend Got a tiny little heart full of passion My conservative girlfriend Every Sunday we go Medicare slashin' (spoken) Oh, baby, I close my eyes and I can see you ordering breakfast. You're having the spotted owl omelet... Whites only. Come on, baby, Raise my interest rate, bust my union, light my library fire... (sung) She only deals in quality narcotics and guns Got a Mexican wallet made from real Mexicans My conservative girlfriend Got a tiny little heart full of passion My conservative girlfriend Her white collar and her red neck are clashin' My conservative girlfriend Think she's lookin' for a good tongue lashin' My conservative girlfriend Every summer we go wilderness trashin'   And here are a couple of magazine covers featuring Ann, which Ivan from Thrilling Days of Yesteryear pointed us to, and which we loved: http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/anncoulter2.jpg http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/coulter.jpg   So, in conclusion, Happy April Fools Day.  As they say in Texas, Fool me once, um, won't get fooled again. 6:09:05 AM     comment [] trackback []

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Manuel Miranda Died For Your Sins   WorldNetDaily gives us the latest FileGate news in a piece they call GOP scapegoat now hero to conservatives; it's taken from an interview Miranda gave Insight Magazine (emphasis added): Republican leaders have broken a promise they made to expose the shocking contents of memos exchanged among Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, says Manuel Miranda, the former GOP aide who is the whistleblower at the center of the so-called Memogate scandal. "Sen. Hatch told me specifically, point blank, that if I resigned he could then talk about the substance of the memos," Miranda tells Insight. "I was told by the Frist office that, if I resigned, the Democrats would basically calm down" and the Republicans could make the memos public. Miranda said the same promises were made to conservative groups that assist the Republicans in gaining support for judicial nominees. At the heart of the scandal, which many believe has been spiked or overlooked by the mainstream press, are thousands of Democratic memos that were viewed and subsequently downloaded from a computer server shared by both Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. These memos, which were not password protected, outlined Democratic talking points and strategies for blocking judicial nominees at the behest of special-interest groups.   So, there are "conservative groups that assist the Republicans in gaining support for judicial nominees" and then there are nefarious "special-interest groups" who give advice and suggestions to the Democrats about blocking conservative judicial nominees.  One collection of groups is composed of upstanding American patriots.  The other collection of groups is evil, EEEEVIL!  Or course, when Kerry wins in November, expect these groups to swap their gaining support/blocking roles.  The Democratic ones will remain EEEEVIL, however.  And it's pretty disturbing to learn that Frist and Hatch told scapegoat/hero Manual Miranda that if he resigned, they would leak the Democratic memos, and now they aren't doing it.  I am shocked, SHOCKED, to hear allegations of duplicity regarding the Republican congressional leadership. Anyway, here's a few more portions of the article: The contents of the still unreleased memos have not been made public, but Miranda claims they contain even more incriminating information than those memos already released. He told Insight that, while collusive rather than unlawful, revelation of the contents of those memos would so "corrode public trust" in the judicial system that he would never reveal all that he knows about them. These memos would corrode public trust in the judicial system by showing that Democrats block Republican judicial appointees? Heaven forfend!  And thank God that Miranda has the decency to never reveal what he knows, and instead he just presses the Republican leadership to release the actual memos. "In any other institution, Manuel Miranda would be hailed as a whistleblower. Manuel, as an officer of the court, did his duty and reported a crime. And for his trouble he was shown the door," says Daly [Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary]. Okay, Miranda said that the memos weren't evidence of anything unlawful.  However, he apparently violated federal regulations about misuse of federal computers and theft of information in order to leak them to the media.  And now HE's the one in trouble.  That just doesn't seem fair, when he was just doing his duty as a lawyer and a Republican. 5:51:24 AM     comment [] trackback []   Bush-Cheney Email a Book Recomendation   An Insightful Look at the Bush White House From One of the People Who Knows the President Best - His Trusted Counselor Karen Hughes. Karen Hughes will be traveling across the nation throughout April promoting her new book, Ten Minutes from Normal.  She will be visiting the following cities: Austin, Dallas, Houston, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Miami, Kansas City, Chicago, Tampa/St. Petersburg, Atlanta, Santa Barbara, and Greenwich, CT. This is the best scam ever: having a publisher pay a Bush adviser to campaign for Bush.  Anyway, if you're in any of these cities, you can have Karen autograph your copy of Ten I.Q. Points Below Normal.  Or just for fun, have her autograph your copy of Against All Enemies. Her book brings a message of optimism to families all over America. "I hope my work in the White House and my decision to come home say several things: that you can be measured by the quality of your work, not how long the lights stay on in your office; you are not trapped by circumstances and the most important thing you can do in life is to choose your loves and order them very carefully." To me, her decision to quit the White House to go home, and then her decision to quit her home to campaign for George Bush, say just one thing: the most important thing you can do in life is whatever the hell you feel like doing, as long as you can spin it well. Like Julia (the esteemed woman behind Sisyphus Shrugged who is going to be featured on the Janeane Garofalo radio show in the near future) commented: "Whose idea was it to promote this book as the story of a woman who chose between the White House and her family when she worked the entire time and only stayed away a year before she came back to go on the road full time?"  And like Mary (who seems to have the inside track on America's Top Ten Worst Mothers®) wrote: "And now according to Salon she’s going on a 6-week book promotion tour and then going to work fulltime on Bush’s election campaign, thereby becoming a role model for all those mothers who gave up their high-powered careers to stay home with the kids and then found that they couldn’t stand it. So, I can see why Bush-Cheney are recommending the book so highly.   P.S.  I also got an email from GOPTeam Leader.com.  It seems that there are now special interest "Outreach Groups" to join!  And you get 10 GOPoints for signing up!  I'm going to assume (because I want to) that this means you get 10 points for each group you join, meaning that if I join them all, I can get that TeamLeader pony I've always wanted. Here are just a portion of the many Outreach Groups available for Team Leaders: Catholic Team Leader                Conservative TL Disability Team Leader               Eastern European TL  Evangelical Team Leader            Farmer & Rancher TL  First Responder Team Leader     Greek American TL  Hispanic Team Leader                Home School TL  Latter-day Saint Team Leader     Law Enforcement TL  Snow Mobiler Team Leader         Sportsman TL  Stock Car Team Leader               Student TL  Veteran Team Leader                  Women TL      I signed up for Evangelical, Home School, High School, Latter-day Saint, Snow Mobiler, Stock Car, and Women.  If I get points for each of them, I'll join some more groups.  In any case, I'll let you know all the Stock Cars For Bush news, as soon as I start receiving it.   5:04:58 AM     comment [] trackback []   Backfence of the Damned   Well, I registered with the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (using fake info, of course) so I could read James Lileks' Backfence column.  This week's is entitled "Out of the Mouth of Babes," so I knew it would be about Gnat.  What I didn't know is how horrifying it would be ... But in a good way, this time.  Anyway, it all starts out as a typical Lileks piece: how do Easter rabbits lay eggs?  What would an alien think of Easter if he went shopping at Target and saw those Oreos with the seasonal fillings?  Screw the aliens: in Minnesota we don't care what they think! Then Lileks contemplates the sad and unfulfilling Easters of his childhood, and that's when things started to get dark: Spring seemed very far away. All we had for consolation was ham, and I never liked ham. Pink and tender, it was like eating mildly salted Lutheran. And I always wondered where it came from. Not the middle part of the pig; that was mostly innards, right? Not the front. Not the head. I always suspected I was eating, well, pig butt. Now forget everything I've written so far except for "pig butt," because we're switching subjects. Let me explain. After I wrote the previous paragraphs, I headed downstairs, and heard Toddler™ laughing her head off. She looks at me, and as the Russell Stover Hollow Bunny is my witness, she says: PIG BUTT. Friends, I'm dead serious: I think this child can read minds. This isn't the first time she's given voice to something we've thought. Toddler™, eh?  It sounds like somebody is jealous of America's Worst Mother™, and is trying to cut into Tbogg's territory -- and I got there first, bub! Anyway, I warned Lilleks about Gnat's eerie powers back in January when she ganged up with her cousins to flout adult authority and scan people until their heads exploded.  He didn't want to hear about it then, but now that his pwecious widdle insect has wished Mommy, Gramma, and the entire pre-school into the cornfield, he's starting to see what I was talking about.  I had suggested tinfoil hats (or at least thought about suggesting them), but Lileks always said they weren't the solution, since he needs to save the tinfoil to protect the family against those nuclear attacks which al Qaeda is always launching on the Minnesota suburbs. But foil-lined hats aren't the solution, as I've often said. We'll have to get her into a Mutant School like they have in the X-Men movies. But where does one find such a thing? You'd have to bring it up somehow while you talk to the admissions officer. "Does your school cater to, ah, differently gifted children?" "We accommodate all manner of needs, sir; what sort of situation did you mean?" "Kid's a mutant." "You mean she cannot speak?" "Not a mute, a mutant. A freak of nature. She can read minds. And maybe control them, as well -- we don't know. She looks at the dog and he gets up on his hind legs and barks his name in Morse code. Could be coincidence. So do you handle this sort of thing?" The admissions officer thought Lileks was crazy, of course.  Gnat made him think that.  She did the same thing when Lileks tried to tell the police, the Army, and the world's leading scientists about his freak of a child -- and so nobody would help him.  Now it will just be daddy and daughter, alone together forever, just the way he wanted it.  Or so he thought.  Only now that Gnat has realized that she has The Power, expect to see a lot less adoring mockery of the way she talks.   And somebody is going to pay for calling her "goatish." 3:11:47 AM     comment [] trackback []   Wall Street Journal Recommends Thugs Stalk Karl Rove's Kid   From the Wall Street Journal featured article Stark Rove-ing Mad: Meet the "pro-immigrant" thugs at National People's Action [N]ine busloads of activists "stormed" (the Washington Post's word) Mr. Rove's yard, blocking the street, surrounding both sides of the house and pounding on the windows at a time when he was inside with his 15-year-old son and his son's friend.  [snip]  It's hard to know which is more outrageous here: the thuggery or the stupidity. The thuggery we've mentioned. But let's not discount the stupidity. Mr. Rove serves a President who has proved himself willing to buck a significant part of his own coalition by pushing a forward-looking, pro-immigration plan. To put it another way, what we had on Sunday was the spectacle of immigration "leaders" directing their ire at the most pro-immigration Administration in recent memory. Had they done their homework, moreover, they might have learned that the boy who was inside the Rove house with Mr. Rove's young son on Sunday is himself an immigrant from India and the son of an immigrant attorney--Shakun Drew--who specializes in immigration law. Exactly what kind of "homework" does the WSJ suggest that the group might have done to learn whom the Rove kid was playing with that day?  Stake out the Rove home and get I.D's on all foriegn-looking people who enter?  Interrogate the neighbors? Or just follow around Rove Jr., in case he has any immigrant friends?  Yeah, let's not discount the stupidity. 2:52:26 AM     comment [] trackback []

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

World O'Crap Bookclub Selection:  Ten Minutes from Normal by Karen Hughes Book Description Karen Hughes has worked beside President George W. Bush since, as she says, "the motorcade was only one car and he was sometimes the one driving it." As counselor to the president, she brought the working mom’s perspective to the White House, often asking of President Bush’s policies, "What does this mean for the average person?" And then the President would say, "Screw the average person!" and they'd laugh and laugh. In this disarmingly down-to-earth, warm, often funny, and frank book, Hughes looks at her unique career in George W. Bush’s inner circle and the universal concerns of balancing work and family. Well, the book is a "frank" look at George Bush the same way that Triumph of the Will is an unvarnished look at just how awesome Hitler is. This is a book for the legions of women and men everywhere who are seeking new inspiration for how to remember their priorities and achieve balance in their lives. Most important, in a post-9/11 world, Hughes redefines the very notion of what is "normal" as something special and precious, never to be taken for granted in America again. So, it's a book cashing in on God, motherhood, and 9/11 -- not that there's anything wrong with that, as long as you're a Republican. Since there aren't any Amazon customer reviews out yet, let's hear what the press (Time, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and The NY Post ) had to say about Karen and her book. First, Time:  On a recent day at the airport in Austin, Texas, a tall woman with a familiar face was standing alone, waiting to catch a plane, when a man strode purposefully across the terminal and started talking to her. She did not know the man, she says, recounting the story, but he knew her --knew, at least, what she had once been -- and he had something urgent to say. "You've spent enough time with your family now," the stranger, earnest and friendly, told Karen Hughes. "They need you back at the White House." And in an eerie coincidence, he was the same stranger who told Jim Caviezel that he'd play Jesus in six months.  Is he a messenger from God, sent to tell people what they should do with their lives?  Or he is just some escaped mental patient who goes around giving crazy advice to strangers?  Nobody knows. Anyway, as we all know, Karen had quit her job as the President's closest adviser in summer 2002 because her son needed her.   When her son told her that she had not just ruined his life, but also the life of their dog, it made Karen do some thinking.  "Too tired to make brownies," she says. "What does that say about our life?"  It said that she should take her family back to Texas, where she could teach her son to drive, serve as an elder in her church, and presumably make brownies, all while continuing to advise the President on a part-time basis, and also make speeches at $50,000 a pop, and write this book, for which she reportedly got a $1 million advance.  And her walking away from the White House showed that she's a role model for Bush's family values, for as the NY Post said, "Her exit lived up to Bush's own credo that 'the first job anyone has is to be a good mom or dad.'"  Especially if it gets you away from that obnoxious Karl Rove.  And after seeing how well the Bush twins turned out, Karen knew that Bush's credo had merit. Now let's go back to Time to learn what the book says about Bush: Readers looking for West Wing intrigue will be disappointed by the Hughes book; when the subject is the President or Hughes' colleagues in the Administration, Ten Minutes from Normal is all kiss and no tell. Bush is presented as "humble," "wonderful," "tough-minded," "decent and thoughtful," with a "laserlike ability to distill an issue to its core" and "a knack for provoking discussion." Even his tendency to mangle words is a sign, to Hughes, of a "highly intelligent" mind outpacing a sluggish tongue.  The Dewey Decimal classification for the book will place it in the 200s, along with other books about religion and myths. But based on the above information, here's my idea of what Karen had to say about September 11th: "It was September 11, 2001.  The highly-intelligent President was in Sarasota, FL,  reading books with the second graders.  Andrew Card waited until there was a lull, and then whispered to the President that a plane had hit the World Trade Center --and actually, this was the second time it had happened that morning. The laser-like mind of George Bush distilled the issue to it's core: that was a mighty bad pilot!  "The decent and thoughful President didn't want the tragedy to interfere with these children's education, so he picked up The Pet Goat, and practiced phonics with them.  Using his knack for provoking discussion, he asked the children questions about the goat (it apparently "did some things that made the girl's dad mad").  The wonderful man chatted with the kids about reading, advised them to stay in school, and answered questions about his education policy.  He cordially posed for some leader-like photos.  He graciously waited until the press was gone, and then he stuck around for another twenty minutes, thoughtfully protecting the school with his divine presence from any other terrorist-controlled planes that might be around.  "And then he humbly acceded to Dick Cheney's guidance, and spent the rest of the day flying to  Louisiana and Nebraska." Anyway, while the book is mostly about what Karen thinks of Bush, it's also about God -- and what He thinks of Bush.  Per the Star-Telegram: Deeply religious like her boss, Hughes similarly sees a world of black and white and good vs. evil -- and perhaps even a presidency preordained by God to fight the war on terrorism. Drawing inspiration from the Old Testament on Sept. 11, 2001, she wonders whether Bush had won one the closest elections in American history and "come to a royal position for such a time as this." So, God rigged the ballots in Florida so that Bush would win the election and could fight evil (by killing them all, and letting God sort them out) when the time for that came. And, as mentioned before, the book is also about motherhood, as practiced by "real-life Soccer Mom" Karen: And so the most powerful woman in the White House and therefore, arguably, in the world up and quit, instantly becoming a celebrated role model for mothers considering whether to ditch high-powered jobs to spend more time with their kids.  "I have a lot of young women come up to me and ask, 'Can you have a career and a family?'" Hughes says. "My answer is yes, but you have to make choices." To be sure, not every woman has the choice of giving up the office job only to take up a more a lucrative, self-directed one: her celebrity status made it possible for her to land a hefty book contract and lecture fees of up to $50,000 an appearance So, it's obvious that young women should follow Karen's example and become advisors to George Bush, so they can have it all: the time with their kids, and the big, fat pay checks.  That's what it means to be truly liberated.  And the book is also about why conservatives are better than those smug liberals who think they're so superior to everyone else:  As far back as the 1960s, Hughes began to harbor doubts about a liberalized American culture. She recalls that her parents, while more conservative than President Kennedy, saw his assassination as a blow to America's "formerly shared code of conduct and moral authority." Years later, Bush would rail against a culture that promoted the idea that "if it feels good, do it." And just as Bush, a graduate of Yale and Harvard, has expressed disdain for East Coast elitism, Hughes writes about developing a "lifelong aversion to people who think they are better than anyone else" and rails against the "smug superiority conveyed by many elites." Yes, when the hippies killed JFK because it "felt good," they showed they didn't have the moral authority to lead this nation.  And that's why we needed George Bush to be our President when the terrorists attacked, for he is a man born and raised far from the East Coast elites who think they're so smart just because they can use words correctly. Of course, Karen slipped once herself, doing something because it felt good.  But she's never done it again (and that's why she just has the one son). Now that she's no longer working in the Bush White House, presidential confidante Karen Hughes can finally reveal the embarrassing truth: She voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976. And has regretted it ever since.  That she came unhinged even once from her conservative moorings is perhaps the most surprising disclosure in Ten Minutes from Normal, Hughes' newly published memoir. So, now that you know the big surprise in the book, I've ruined it for you, and you don't have to read it.  6:50:16 AM     comment [] trackback []

Monday, March 29, 2004

We Have Ways of Making You Not Talk   Oh, and the rest of Howard Kurtz's column for today is about Fox News saying it's okay to out your "background" sources if they later write books critical of the White House.  Per "Fox News correspondent Jim Angle," after Richard Clarke begain "assailing" President Bush's anti-terrorism record, he [Angle] recalled a 2002 tape of Clarke defending the administration's actions.  It was just sitting there in a drawer, lonely and forgotten.  Of course, the briefing was done "on background," so Angle asked the White House for permission to "put it on the record."  And they readily and happily waived "the confidentiality rule that had shielded Clarke's identity when he was spinning for Bush." "They knew zip," Angle says. "They didn't know when it happened, that it happened or who was on the call." But wasn't this an unfair outing of Clarke, who was blindsided? Former senator Bob Kerrey, a member of the 9/11 investigating commission, grumbled that "Fox should say 'occasionally fair and balanced' after putting something like this out, because they violated a serious trust." But Angle, who says he left two messages for Clarke, says: "It wasn't his rule. It was an easy call," and that he would have done the same story if he were still working for ABC. What the heck is Angle talking about?  Kurtz provides two direct quotes from the guy, and I can't understand either one of them?  Doesn't Kurtz ever ask people to explain themselves? I'm guessing that the rule Angle is referring to is, "You don't out sources to whom you've promised confidentiality," but who exactly is Angle claiming doesn't own that rule?  Kerrey?  Clarke?  Angle?  Kurtz?   (It clear who DOES own that rule: The White House.) And I think that maybe the "they" who knew "zip" are the Bush Administration.  Apparently, per Angle, they didn't know, either in 2002 or now, that Clarke had done a background interview for Fox defending their anti-terrorism record.  Well, they didn't know until Angle told them.  But if they didn't know about it, how could they rescind the confidentiality which they had never asked for, because they didn't know about the interview?  And didn't Angle already blow Clarke's confidentiality when he told the White House that was Clarke who gave Fox the 2002 info?  Also, if this "waiving" for somebody else is okay, why can't George Bush, who really wants the Plame case solved, tell Novak that the White House is waiving the confidentiality of that source who outed Mrs. Joe Wilson? And I the only one who finds everything Angle said confusing?  But let's hear from Scottie McClellan, who is always as clear as a tack: What about the administration's extraordinary waiving of confidentiality to discredit a critic? "It's important for the American people to have the facts," says White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Clarke had made "comments that contradict what he was now asserting publicly. It was very much in the public interest." (Clarke says he would have been fired had he criticized the president as a White House aide.) It's important for the American people to have the facts, but not if it means that Condi Rice has to violate the tradition that National Security Advisers don't testify on the record unless they feel like it. And whenever there are confidential comments from the past which contradict what somebody later asserts publically, then the public has a right to know about those formerly confidential comments.  You know, like what Bush was told about al Queda terrorist threats in the President's Daily Brief in August 2001. McClellan says the administration has put such background comments on the record before, though he concedes it "may be something of a unique situation" to do it so long after the fact. To "be fair to all reporters," he says, the White House notified the other network correspondents who had heard the Clarke briefing that it was fair game. Only Fox went with the story. You know, just like Karl Rove called everybody and told them Valerie Plame was fair game after Novak outed her.  What a nice, fair, Administration they are.  But at least none of the other networks went along with the dirty, little game.  But I'm sure all White House officials still currently employed are getting the message about what happens to people who cross Don Bushone. 7:56:26 AM     comment [] trackback []   Reliable Howard Kurtz   Today's Howard Kurtz column, That's Incredible, is about the Jack Kelley story, and how everybody was fooled by Kelley because he seemed so trustworthy and brave. The rise and spectacular fall of USA Today's star foreign correspondent raises a host of difficult questions: Why did Kelley fake and embellish his stories when he was devoting huge energy to reporting from world trouble spots? Why did editors fail to question the dramatic scenes -- from the supposed drowning of Cuban refugees to Israeli settlers ostensibly firing on a Palestinian taxi -- that only he seemed able to get? What demons were driving a man who told Christian Reader magazine that he was a journalist "because God has called me to proclaim truth"? Howie quotes several journalists who say that they always thought that there was something wrong with Kelley's stories, but everybody else seemed to believe him so they didn't say anything: and besides, the other journalists would have "ostracized" them if they'd said raised a fuss about one their own.  So, peer pressure among journalism is a powerful thing -- is that the underlying message that Howie wants you to get from this piece?  You know, so you'll understand why he never asked any critical questions about Kelley (despite that being his job) until after USA Today had outed the dashing reporter as a fraud and a liar?  I don't know.  I'm just asking questions. But Howie sure didn't "question the dramatic scenes" in Kelley's Pulizer-nominated piece when Kelley was a guest on "Reliable Sources" back in 2001.  Let's roll the transcript and do some "20/20 hindsight" investigating: CNN RELIABLE SOURCES  -- August 18, 2001 HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: A brush with death. An American reporter barely misses being blown up in Jerusalem, and then has to report on another tragedy in the escalating Middle East violence. We'll talk with "USA Today's" Jack Kelley. Welcome to RELIABLE SOURCES, where we turn a critical lens on the media. I'm Howard Kurtz, along with Bernard Kalb. [snip] KURTZ: "USA Today" reporter Jack Kelley joins us now from Jerusalem. On the day of the blast, you were going to have pizza for lunch in Jerusalem. Tell us what happened, briefly, and also, is it difficult to cover such a heart-rending tragedy when you're right there? JACK KELLEY, "USA TODAY": Sure. Let me just say, it's great to be here, thank you. We had walked into the Sbarro Pizza restaurant. We thought, let's get a quick slice of pizza and the line at that time was extremely long. There were lots of young mothers with their children and there were two strollers in front of the restaurant, so we walked out. I turned, and there was a gentleman who would be the suicide bomber in front of me. I said excuse me and walked about 30 yards right down the street when, kaboom, the blast went off. It knocked me and the other gentleman who I was with right to our, right to our knees. We turned and the first thing I remember seeing were several bodies just hit the ground and decapitate. And then I turned and I saw several people with nails in their eyes, nails in their chest, nails in their arms. And it pretty much went downhill from there. Yeah, those heads from the people whom Kelly saw get decapitated just rolled down the street!  And their eyes were still blinking! Okay, the "blinking eyes" never made it into print, as they were deleted by either Kelley or his editor, but the three severed, rolling heads were in Kelley's story as it appeared in USA Today.  So, some questions Howie could have asked at this point: "You saw several people get decapitated.  You saw heads rolling down the street?  How come the police reports say no adults were beheaded?  How come the photos don't show any severed heads?  Oh, and  the bomber was right in front of you; you even spoke to him.  So how come your story doesn't mention the guitar case he was carrying -- the one that contained the bomb, per authoritiest?  And how come you're always bumping into suicide bombers, Chechen Mafia members, Haitain hit squads, and people like that -- isn't it rather improbable that one guy could have so many adventures? Okay, maybe Howie wouldn't have had enough info at the time to ask most of these questions, but I would posit that he still could have done enough prep for the show to ask about the guitar case.  You'd think the guy who played such a big part in exposing Jayson Blair would have showed more curiousity about the unusual aspects of Kelley's story. But let's move on: BERNARD KALB, HOST: Jack, do you ever reach a point as a journalist, and we've all been in combat war experiences and so forth, where in fact you put down the notebook, the famous notebook, and administer as much first-aid as you possibly can? KELLEY: On this case, I actually went into auto-pilot. The very first thing that I did was look and find a clock to see what time the actual blast took place, and I ran and I was right in the middle of the flesh and blood. And I can remember looking around and there was one moment when I just wanted to drop the notebook and try to do as much as I could. There was an injured gentleman on the ground and his legs had come off and he was bleeding profusely from where his genital, from where his genitals had been, and he turned to me and said, "please help me, mister" and there was nothing that I could really do. And I just watched as he bled to death. And that happened at least one other time. Some questions that seem natural at this point: "So, one of the victims actually talked to you, and you watched him die before your very eyes.  And this has happened to you 'at least' one other time before.  Can you be more specific about the number of times this has happened to you?  What would you say if we told you we reviewed your stories and found you reported watching TEN people die?  Don't you find it odd that you have nearly a dozen people die in your presence, while most of the other foreign correspondents we talked to said that while on a story, they haven't seen even one person die?" But that's not what Howie asked.  He asked how this all made Kelley feel. (It made him feel bad, and drove him to Diet Coke.) Now on to a new topic: KURTZ: Some columnist are saying now, Jack Kelley, that there is a false balance in the media in which both sides in this conflict are portrayed as being equally responsible for the violence, when in fact the Palestinians are, they say, murdering innocent civilians, Israeli civilians and children. The Israelis retaliating, mainly against military targets and terrorists. Do you think there is any pressure on Western reporters to describe this story as one in which there is some kind of false balance, meanwhile the tactics are very different on each side. KELLEY: Let me give you one example. I wrote a cover story on suicide bombers last month. We've gotten, I guess, more than 2,000 e- mails, of which they are 50/50. 50 percent of the people saying we like the story; 50 percent, we didn't. I've gotten several calls since the Sbarro bombing story has come out saying how dare you only report one side of this story. So, we're inundated. I feel a great deal of pressure every single time that I write a story. Before I press that button to send that story back to Washington, I sit there and think, is this story as objective as I can possibly make it? How would an Israeli see it? How would a Palestinian see it? There are several pro-Israeli Web sites back in the states, pro- Palestinian Web sites, and they watch everything I write and everything my colleagues write. So, you feel a tremendous amount of pressure. So, there are people watching Kelley on the web, keeping the pressure on him to be fair and accurate.  You'd think maybe a thing would make a guy worry about making stuff up.  But NOOOO! Just a month later, Kelley gave us his famous story about "Avi Shapiro," the Jewish settler on the West Bank who let Kelley hang out with him and his friends as they waited in a ditch to ambush passing Arabs in cars.  Heck, Kelley even heard Avi order his group to "open fire" on a taxi, and kill as many of the "blood-sucking Arab" passengers as possible.  Yes, Avi was a colorful figure, calling his foes things like "sons of Arab whores" and "Muslim filth."   But nobody (Israeli officials, USA Today investigators) found any any evidence that Avi ever existed.  However, the investigators did find a letter on Kelley's laptop in which he asked to pretend to once again be a source named "David," and to tell a reporter investigating the story that "Avi" can't be questioned because he isn't in Israel anymore.  ("David" was also supposed to be the Israeli intelligence officer who was with Kelley at the time of the explosion in Jerusalem -- however, he told USA Today that he's just a businessman.)  Back in his January article, Howie wrote, "Sources familiar with the inquiry say an Israeli official has confirmed the incident to USA Today."  I'd imagine that the "official" who confirmed the "Avi" incident was "David."  But Howard has never told us anything more about his gullible sources. However, there were questions about the "Avi Shapiro" story at the time: other reporters familiar with the West Bank doubted the incident ever happened.  Hebron spokesman David Wilder says he wrote a rebuttal to Kelley's article, and sent letters of protest to the USA Today editorial staff, but never got a response.  So, the whole world didn't find the story credible.  But let's see what Kelley had to say about the fallout from the piece when he was on "Reliable Sources" in April 2002, and let's learn what follow-up questions Howie asked about the whole drama Kelley was describing: KURTZ: Michael Holmes, we'll come back to you in a moment. Jack, do you want to make a point? KELLEY: Yes, one of the things that seems to me that has taken place was that both sides now tend to see reporters as the combatants. That is the only way you can possibly express why it's become open season on people like Michael Holmes and people like myself and several others. Kelley has interrupted Micheal Holmes, who was telling about how the Israeli military used stun guns and rubber bullets on some Western journalists in Ramallah.  Even though Kelley was in Washington at the time, it seems that he too was a victim.  Who was gunning for him?  What did they do to him?  We don't know.  We don't know because Howie never asks.  So, let's jump ahead a bit. KURTZ: Jack Kelley, I see you shaking your head. KELLEY: Sure, look, I've been shot at. I've been punched. I've been knocked. I've been -- I mean hit -- once hit with a stun gun from both sides. But let me just give you one example. Last August, I wrote one cover story on Jewish vigilantes in the West Bank and how they fired on a taxi carrying Palestinian women and children, received 3,000 e-mails per day for 10 straight days. After that we had to switch my e-mail address. Got seven death threats and got a bouquet of white funeral flowers right -- sent to our building. Now I got -- I got the message right there. It basically says if you write something we don't like, you will pay a price, and Israel right now is shooting itself in its foot. You don't go after the messenger. Kelley got seven death threats (presumably from Jews) because of that Avi Shapiro story? Wow, since he apparently made the whole thing up, you'd think that would have taught him the folly of lying.  But he undoubtedly made up the death threats too. Howie didn't ask Kelley any questions -- he went to another guest.  But what should Howie have asked Kelley here?  Personally, I would have liked to have known something about those times Kelley was "hit by a stun gun" by both the Israelis and the Palestinians.  I can't find any Kelley story which mention stun guns -- and you'd think that a thing like that would make great copy.  I wonder why he never told anybody but Howie about it? And 3000 emails a DAY for TEN STRAIGHT DAYS?  That's 30,000 emails.  (He only got 2000 emails total about that piece on suicide bombers in July 2001).  And it was only after he got 30,000 angry emails about the story that USA Today thought to change his email address?  Wow, that's incredible!  You'd think Howie would have asked something about that.  And if he didn't have time to grill Kelley on the air, it might have been something he could have followed up for his column.  But I guess he had other things to do.  You know, it sure sounds like Howie didn't ever ask Kelley any critical questions at all.  I guess he was fooled too -- which he will surely acknowledge sometime, right? I mean, he's written about the story, what, four times now, and surely someday he'll mention how he got the wool pulled over his eyes.  He's the Reliable Sources guy, n'est-ce pas?   Oh, and if you want more tales of Kelley's derring-do, he's told some great stories in his speeches to students at various colleges.  Here's a bit of what he told Baylor students in September 2003: Kelley’s career has given him plenty of his own life-changing experiences, some of which were so horrifying he said he sometimes relives them in nightmares. During Kelley’s 22nd visit to Israel in August 2001, he met a friend for lunch at a Sbarro pizzeria. On his way out of the restaurant, Kelley looked straight into the eyes of the man who moments later would detonate the explosives hidden under his clothing, killing 15 people and injuring more than 90. Wow, this time Kelley looked right in the bomber's eyes -- and that happened just moments before the guy detonated that bomb hidden under his clothing (which is probably where he was hiding the guitar).  And even though authorities say that the guy Kelley described wasn't the bomber (and Kelley was too far away from the bomber to have been able to see him), doesn't give you a tingle the way Kelley tells it?  If so, his work was all worth while. And why does he continually put his life at risk? “I’m very passionate about reporting the truth,” he said, “And I will not allow anyone to tell me what to write or what not to write.” Not even suicide bombers who fail to actually be suicide bombers. 2:27:12 AM     comment [] trackback []

Sunday, March 28, 2004

Ann for a Day   In a piece called Liberalism is Unpatriotic, young master Kyle Williams tries out for the position of Ann Coulter's understudy: Eve Harrington to her Margo Channing, Roy Cohn to her Joe McCarthy.  And while he has many of Ann's techniques down cold, he's still missing that extra touch of slimness and venom that makes Ann Ann.  But let's study his work, and see if we can help him improve. During the dead heat of this election year, sharp criticism is in the air against President Bush, and this being a post-war time, critics are out in further attacks over the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. In return, these critics are being attacked by conservatives and by the administration; thus an all-out political war is ongoing. These critics must concur with Hillary Clinton, who, in April 2003, shouted out to a group of supporters, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." Okay, I admire the way he started out with a strawman (Why must Bush critics concur with what Hillary said in 2003?  Because Kyle said so -- and watch him prove them wrong!)  And Hillary bashing is always a nice touch.  But in order to be properly Coultereque, Kyle should have said something about how Bill sold secrets to the Chinese while raping Juanita, as Hillary performed abortions on unwilling Christian teens.  And then sneered about how they weren't patriots as they looted the White House art to fund their opium smuggling ring. Primarily because of the war and further because of the Republican controlled legislative and executive branches, liberals have been attempting to take the side of the underdog, the victim. In Hollywood, socialist actors complain of blacklisting and Tim Robbins carps about his lack of popularity. On Capitol Hill, politicians like Clinton are complaining about their standing as patriots, claiming another Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is out to get them. A caller into Matt Drudge's weekend show accused President Bush of silencing her and keeping her from thinking. Many radical liberals are accusing the media of not criticizing the Bush administration and its war in Iraq. It's almost Ann-like the way he presents unsubstantiated allegations (WHICH socialist actors are complaining about blacklisting?), lies (neither Hillary Clinton nor politician "like her" are complaining of right-wing conspiracies), and irrelevancies (a caller to Matt Drudge's show said something stupid -- big whoop).  But here's how Ann might have done the latter paragraph: In Hollywood, where they give standing ovations whenever Leni Riefenstahl's name is mentioned on Oscar night, socialist actors complain of being blacklisted, even though they are such America-hating cretins that they think that Joe McCarthy had something to do with the Hollywood blacklist, when of course he didn't, as he was too busy keeping Truman from selling our nuclear codes to the USSR at the time.  And anyway, blacklisting was much better than those Stalin-loving, mass-murderers deserved.  And Tim Robbins, who never met an American flag he didn't spit on, now cries to his mommy-figure, Susan Sarandon, about how nobody likes him just because he's a traitor.  On Capitol Hill, Hillary Clinton's secret cell of Satan-worshipping accolytes have been blackmailed into following her lead and making ridiculous claims about "Vast Right-Wing" conspiracies hiding in their closets.  Just what would these "Right-Wing conspiracies do to them anyway: make them stop scooping out the brains of babies, or force them to touch a Bible? And so on -- it's making my head hurt to write like Ann, so I'm going to quit now. Anyway, the gist of young Kyle's arguement is that the libs are whining about being underdogs, which is ludicrous, because they have the schools, the courts, the media, and "a billion-dollar political machines on their side."  And despite their constant boo-hooing about being called unpatriotic, nobody actually ever does that to them.  Because it wouldn't be nice, and conservatives are nice, above all. And what does "patriotism" mean anyway?  Since nobody has ever bothered to define it before, as a public service, Kyle does.  It turns out that it means "a love of the people of the nation and a love of the land. America is home, and Americans are fellow citizens. Home is not France or Germany, and fellow citizens are not Germans or Frenchmen." So, if you marry a German, you're not a patriot.  If you like French toast or French kissing, you're not a patriot. If you care in any way about the rest of the world (what they think, what happens to them, etc.), you're not a patriot.  To prove your patriotism, you should be willing to nuke them all right now. Secondly, patriotism is an allegiance to the ideas of a nation. The ideas of our country, contained within the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and writings of the founding era are our principles. These are not all-inclusive ideas, but are strict and exclusive. Thus, logically, if patriotism can be defined, there are those who are patriotic and those who are unpatriotic. So, if you want to abolish slavery, let women vote, or impose an income tax, then you aren't a patriot. And it also turns out that "Modern-day liberalism – which is really socialism or eventually communism," is, by it's very (Kyle-written) definition, unpatriotic, because communists like Russia better than America, and so come in conflict with Statute One of the "Kyle Williams Patriot Act."  And even some Republicans are unpatriotic, because they don't believe in strict Constitutionalism, and won't let Oklahoma choose The Passion of the Christ as their state religion, even though David Limbaugh and Alan Keyes insist that the Constitution says it's their right.  Although Kyle doesn't give any figures, I think the number of true patriots in America must be small: maybe only Kyle, his family (except his older brother, who always teases Kyle), the members of his church, the people on his buddy list, the members of the John Birch Society, and Rush Limbaugh.    Sen. Clinton, no mainstream conservative has branded you as unpatriotic. Yet, if patriotism is not just another demagogic word to throw around, then you don't have it. Patriotism has meaning and it's important, but it's sorely lacking in American today. While "no mainstream conservative" may have used that exact word, I get 2850 Google hits (one of them being a copy of Kyle's column, and the associated admiring comments, posted at Free Republic) when I search for "Hillary Clinton" and "unpatriotic."  And yes, Kyle, patriotism has meaning, but you don't get to make up that meaning -- at least, not until you grow up and buy a dictionary company of your own.  Or until you go Through the Looking Glass:  "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." So, nice try, but no Adam's apple.  And one more suggestion: instead of calling this column "Liberalism is Unpatriotic," you should have called it Child Molesting: How Liberals Destroy American by Not Agreeing With Me.  THAT would get Ann's attention! 5:25:35 AM     comment [] trackback []   Next Time On the WSJ's Opinion Page: "Michael Jackson Has Rights Too," By His Lawyer   From Rush Limbaugh Has Rights Too, a Wall Street Journal editorial "Extra" piece, by Roy Black:  I'm Rush Limbaugh's attorney, and as anyone who has been following my client's situation is probably aware, the local prosecutor (or state attorney, as we call them in Florida) has been having a field day at Rush's expense ever since Rush announced last October that he'd become dependent on prescription pain medication and was entering a rehab clinic to deal with the problem. Oh, if only Rush hadn't bravely announced that he was an addict, then no one would have known and he would have been spared all this persecution ... except that that the prosecution actually became interested in him when his former dealer ratted him out.  That there was the big National Enquirer expose -- which surely added some impetus to their investigation.  So, while Roy wants to make it seem that Rush was savaged when he courageously admitted his addiction, the fact that Rush only courageously admitted it after everybody already knew kind of undercuts that part of the martyrdom story. Normally, people with drug dependencies who acknowledge their problems and seek treatment are lauded for their courage, not prosecuted. They weren't lauded by RUSH, were they? Anyway, "The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too." So am I wrong to wonder if something is out of whack when the Palm Beach County State Attorney pulls out all the stops in an effort to nail Rush, while giving immunity to the traffickers who supposedly kept him supplied with painkillers, and who, as a result of a deal with the prosecutor, were able to make a six-figure killing selling their "story" to a tabloid? The "traffickers" (Rush's former housekeeper and her husband) were given immunity so they could testify about the people from whom they bought the drugs -- you know, the big fish.  It's a standard prosecution ploy, and you know it, Roy.  So, yes, you are wrong to wonder.  But you're getting paid huge legal fees do it, so be my guest.  I just wonder who's paying off the WSJ's editorial page staff. (Oh, and I like how the "traffickers" just "supposedly" supplied Rush with drugs -- it's the mark of a good lawyer that he never admits his client's guilt about ANYTHING when writing an editorial.) There are lots of theories about why the prosecutor is doing what he's doing (he's an elected Democrat, Rush is a big fish, etc.), none of which matter. Um, even though none of theories matter (and so you didn't need to mention them in the first place), couldn't one of those theories be "Because the prosecutor believes Rush is guilty of a crime, and it's his job to prosecute crimes"? Rush's situation should trouble everyone who believes in the principle of equal treatment under the law. Which Rush does, of course.  So, Rush is using his millions to hire nationally-known defense lawyers to represent every addict being investigated for drug-related offenses. Undeterred, Mr. Krischer and his staff, who have yet to charge Rush with anything, continue to mutter darkly that Rush is a "suspect" for this or that crime. First it was drug trafficking, then money laundering; most recently, it's doctor shopping. For his part, Rush tries to get on with his life. But he, and I, worry about the precedent that's being set in this case. So should you. They never said that Rush was suspected of drug trafficking, they said he was being investigated in connection with a drug trafficking ring -- you know, that ring that sold the painkillers to Rush's housekeeper in the parking lot, so she could keep him supplied in what he called "little blues" in that email.  And Rush admitted to the elements which compose the crime of money laundering on his radio show (but that was before he hired you, Roy, so you can't be blamed).  And if he wasn't doctor shopping, then his doctors were "rich addict patient shopping," because there was obviously something very wrong if he was getting hundreds of pain killers a month.  Hey, that sounds like the kind of thing a prosecutor should investigate! My bottom line: I believe that a subpoena should be required for medical records.  I also believe that the Palm Beach State's Attorney's office has leaked stuff to the media which it shouldn't have.  However, because I am so annoyed with the WJS for letting Roy use their forum for an obviously partisan purpose (and allowing him to misrepresent the facts while futhering that end), that if Rush's case every goes to trial and I am somehow called as a juror (after I move to Palm Beach County), I would have to find Roy Black guilty of murder or something.  So I can get on with MY life. 12:52:16 AM     comment [] trackback []

© Copyright 2004 World O' Crap. Last update: 4/1/2004; 11:12:20 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.