The Crowbar

I actually laughed out loud when I read this:

This is only the second time in its nearly ten-year history that the Dish has gone silent. The reason now is the same as the reason then. When dealing with a delusional fantasist like Sarah Palin, it takes time to absorb and make sense of the various competing narratives that she tells about her life. There are so many fabrications and delusions in the book, mixed in with facts, that just making sense of it – and comparing it with objective reality as we know it, and the subjective reality she has previously provided – is a bewildering task. She is a deeply disturbed person which makes this work of fiction and fact all the more challenging to read. And the fact that she is now the leader of the Republican party and a potential presidential candidate, makes this process of deconstruction an important civil responsibility. We take this seriously as we always have. We want to be fair to her, and to her family, and to the innocent people she has brought into the spotlight. And we are not reporters. We are merely analysts trying to make sense of evidence already in the public domain, evidence that points in all sorts of directions, only one of which can be true.

My God, the pot smoking/gay sex seeking Andew Sullivan went SILENT!  OMG - gasp! -  Stop the presses!

It’s just so…. shockingly childish. True to his narcissistic nature, Sullivan waxes dramatic that he is the Heroic (!) Stalwart against the Big Bad Evil Sarah Palin as though she’s some kind of grave threat to humanity’s existence. Though, I suppose many liberals do view her that way – they don’t cope well with the fact that she exists. She threatens their dark worldview.

Anyway, how amazing is it that Sullivan can say “we want to be fair to her, and to her family” and call her a “delusional fantasist” in the same paragraph? Excuse me for not believing Sullivan, he’s consistently been pretty horrible to Palin. 

I have no doubt who is suffering from mental instability.

 

With many more instances to come, I’m sure, Andrew Sullivan the Great Defender of Detained Psychopaths and Embracer of Selective Empathy openly disrespects Glenn Beck by approving of this nonsense:

While defending the National Endowment of the Arts against the latest GOP broadside, Scott Eric Kaufman coins a new word:

*beck v. trans. beck-ing, beck-ed, to be baselessly attacked by an idiot with a megaphone, then have those accusations alter your life for the worse because it’s politically expedient for your spineless superiors to demote or fire you

It’s “baseless” to attack the “non-partisan” NEA for using taxpayer money to promote a Obama’s political agenda? It’s “politically expedient” to fire someone for being uncivil AND believing that the US government is responsible for attacking the World Trade Center?

An ad hominem attack is usually the first line of defense for those who are losing the argument – badly.

It’s good to see Sullivan putting his Harvard education to good use.

Taking a disrespectful snipe at his former Atlantic colleague, Andrew Sullivan manages to show the world what a petty, disgraceful man he is:

Douthat’s Nixonian Delusions

Some helpful factual testing of Ross’s wishful thinking that Sarah Palin is the Evita for the right, ushering in a new era of criminalized abortion, closeted gays, federally subsidized churches, and lots of subsidies for “real Americans”. Mark Blumenthal analyzes herChristianist base here; Charles Franklin shows why everyone else is slack-jawed.

He didn’t even bother to cite his subject: Douthat’s original article, Palin & Her Enemies.

Douthat never claimed “Palin is the Evita for the right,” nor does Douthat advocate “criminalized abortion, closeted gays, federally subsidized churches, and lots of subsidies for “real Americans.” This really makes no sense because Douthat is clearly not Palin’s cheerleader:

But last Friday’s bizarre, rambling resignation speech should take her off the political map for the duration of the Obama era.

I suspect Sullivan is carrying a grudge against Douthat for this little gem:

If Palin were exactly what her critics believe she is — the distillation of every right-wing pathology, from anti-intellectualism to apocalyptic Christianity — then she wouldn’t be a terribly interesting figure. But this caricature has always missed the point of the Alaska governor’s appeal — one that extends well outside the Republican Party’s shrinking base…

…Male commentators will attack you for parading your children. Female commentators will attack you for not staying home with them. You’ll be sneered at for how you talk and how many colleges you attended. You’ll endure gibes about your “slutty” looks and your “white trash concupiscence,” while a prominent female academic declares that your “greatest hypocrisy” is the “pretense” that you’re a woman. And eight months after the election, the professionals who pressed you into the service of a gimmicky, dreary, idea-free campaign will still be blaming you for their defeat.

Ouch. These words must have burned bouncing around Sullivan’s tiny mind.

Maybe, too, Sullivan is just jealous that Douthat got the coveted NYT columnist slot and HE didn’t.

It wouldn’t suprise me. Really, it wouldn’t.

If you have to explain a joke, it isn’t a good joke.

If you have to explain a blog post…

“The president is also speaking in code. The Pope [John Paul II] spoke in a code which was implicit and understood support for the forces of freedom. The code the administration is using is implicit support for this repressive, tyrannical regime,” - Charles Krauthammer.

Unbelievable. Stuck in the ancient past.

Would you mind explaining please, Sullivan? How is supporting the forces of freedom being “stuck in the ancient past?”

Obviously Sullivan is greatly displeased with Krauthammer’s criticism of the stance Obama is taking on Iran. But, why? Hmmm.

So, Obama is desperately worried about displeasing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei whom he referes to as “the Supreme Leader.”

From Ralph Peters:

Silence is complicity. Our president’s refusal to take a forthright moral stand on the side of the Iranian freedom marchers is read in Tehran as a blank check for the current regime.

The fundamentalist junta has begun arresting opposition figures, with regime mouthpieces raising the prospect of the death penalty. Inevitably, there are claims that dissidents have been “hoarding weapons and explosives.”

Foreign media reps are under house arrest. Cellphone frequencies are jammed. Students are killed and the killings disavowed.

And our president is “troubled,” but doesn’t believe we should “meddle” in Iran’s internal affairs. (Meddling in Israel’s domestic affairs is just fine, though.)

We just turned our backs on freedom.

Again.

Yeah. Don’t you just love the postmodernist diplomatic flair Obama brings to the world stage? While he’s fretting over how to make good with whoever wins, the mullahs are busy trying to kill freedom that may eventually come to fruition.

It’s painfully obvious who we should be supporting in Iran. But Obama wants to play his naive diplomacy games, disgracefully worrying about not offending the Mullahs instead supporting a few million disenfranchised Iranians whose last glimmer of freedom is being stamped out before their eyes.

Does Andrew Sullivan really support a free Iran? Is he, like Obama, trying to have it both ways?

SILENCE is complicity. Our president’s refusal to take a forthright moral stand on the side of the Iranian freedom marchers is read in Tehran as a blank check for the current regime.

The fundamentalist junta has begun arresting opposition figures, with regime mouthpieces raising the prospect of the death penalty. Inevitably, there are claims that dissidents have been “hoarding weapons and explosives.”

Foreign media reps are under house arrest. Cellphone frequencies are jammed. Students are killed and the killings disavowed.

And our president is “troubled,” but doesn’t believe we should “meddle” in Iran’s internal affairs. (Meddling in Israel’s domestic affairs is just fine, though.)

We just turned our backs on freedom.

Again.

Say what you will about Cheney, but the top left bloggers really REALLY hate him with a passion. They’ve recently devoted lots of webspace to their rage: HuffPo’s Borowitz spews out lame satire at Cheney, saying the Former VP is To Travel Around Country In Sound Truck. Groan. DailyKos’ David Swanson verbosely explains the Three Worst Reasons to Delay Putting Cheney in Prison. Like all morally confused liberals, Swanson is SO for “enforcing laws.” Of course, laws only apply to liberal causes, they can be skirted with “empathy” when laws cause “social injustice.” Aside from that, it’s doubtful that any laws were actually broken, and there will never be prosecutions b/c top Democrats would be dragged down, too.  The fringe leftists at Democratic Underground indulge in ancient Cheney-based fantasy claiming Cheney Confirms Iran-Contra Cover-Up; says Cheney:

“I went through the Iran-contra hearings and watched the way administration officials ran for cover and left the little guys out to dry. And I was bound and determined that wasn’t going to happen this time.”

Because he used the word “cover,” he has now admitted a “cover-up”? Oy. The ever-excitable Andrew Sullivan has another go at Cheney, implying that Cheney betrayed his oath of office by supporting harsh interrogation of deranged psychopaths bent on killing Americans. Says Sully, “Is Cheney’s ultimate defense is that he didn’t understand the oath he took?” Go ahead and believe that Sullivan, you’re already a lost cause. ThinkProgress works it over hard, trying to make Cheney look bad because he’d choose Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell. Who in their right mind would choose Powell the Backstabber? Greg Sargent at Plumb Line gets himself all excited when he finds out White House To Declassify “Holy Grail” Torture Report That Could Undercut Cheney. The report supposedly says it’s “difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks.” Just because it’s difficult, doesn’t mean it’s impossible, duh. Another secret the White House will give to the terrorists for free. How quaint. Josh Marshall at TPM is so hot and bothered he decided to share a Dick Cheney Deep Thought, “Megalomania is a hard drug to kick.” Save it for twitter, Marshall.  Heather at Crooks and Liars thinks she really has something in taking advantage of Cheney and Limbaugh’s negative poll numbers. Take a look-see at Mary Matalin: Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh Exemplify Conservatism. Heather seems to think that Republican policies have been rejected by a large portion of the electorate. Yep. That would be the self-identified “Democrats.” Brilliant like a stone light bulb. Hilzoy at Political Animal gets dramatically offended by Cheney and decries, “How Dare He?”

Dick Cheney forfeited the right to lecture anyone on their willingness to sacrifice American lives the day he decided to deceive us into an unnecessary war.

Please stop with your Superior Moral SuperForce, Hilzoy, you’re making the chickens nervous.

The deceptive Andrew Sullivan calls coercive interrogation defenders ignorant because they allegedly don’t know that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions bans “waterboarding, forced nudity, total sensory deprivation, slamming against walls, multiple beatings, hypothermia, stress positions, hooding, phobias (dogs, insects), confined coffin-like spaces, and brutal long-term sleep deprivation.” How does he prove his point? By citing commentary about Article 3, of course! In Sullivan’s world, approved commentary = fact:

Article 3 has been called a “Convention in miniature.” It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts. It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory’s territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3′s protections exist even though no one is classified as aprisoner of war. The article text for Article 3 of the Second Geneva Convention differs from the other three Conventions in that it adds “shipwrecked” to the “wounded and sick.” Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Oh no! Whatever will the “torture lovers” do when they read this? Sullivan triumphantly beats his chest and authoritatively declares:

Notice that this isn’t just a ban on “torture” however legally parsed. But a ban on all inhuman treatment, including outrages on personal dignity.

Yes, Sullivan, that IS indeed what the commentary is implying. So, why, oh why, did he NOT cite the full text instead of  commentary? What a GREAT question! That would be because the spirit of the full text doesn’t fulfill Sullivan’s neurotic need for reality to conform to his viewpoint. Here is the FULL TEXT of Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘ hors de combat ‘ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

My, my OH my – isn’t THIS interesting? So, according to Article 3 Section 1a, “torture” is grouped with “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment.” That effectively excludes ALL of the coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA; that would mean that they aren’t classified as torture. That’s what Sullivan means by “legally parsed;” yeah, that crazy technical leagalese, LOL. Now it’s clear why Sullivan deceptively quoted commentary and tried to pass it off as the actual Article 3 – it makes him look like a dunce and obliterates his huffy puffy arguments on “torture.”

As I’ve become more familiar with Andrew Sullivan’s blog, I’ve begun to note his left-wing populism and intellectual laziness.  For example, Sullivan has attempted to dismiss Bill Kristol’s recent reasonable but brief analysis stating that Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democrats “may help produce greater GOP gains in November 2010, and a brighter Republican future.” Maybe so, maybe not, but what’s interesting is Sullivan’s response. He entitles his two word post “Losing is Winning.” The two words he wrote would be “Kristol Daydreams.” I’m not a Harvard graduate with a PhD in Government, but Sullivan seems to be denying that political cycles exist. Maybe he skipped out on the American Government class? In America’s two party system, losing is winning and winning is losing. The Republicans are out of power for the moment, but it will last only as long as the Democrats don’t screw up the country too much. With a hard core socialist-leftist & zero executive experience n00b in the White House, Crazy Nancy in the House House, and Dirty Harry in the Senate House – that won’t take long. Duh. It appears that Sullivan’s visceral desire to see the Republican party marginalized has overwhelmed that intellectually superiour British brain of his. It’s all about gay marriage for him – I think he’s mad at the Republicans for not wanting the define marriage HIS way and he’s gonna make ‘em pay DEARLY. Whatever. Specter leaving the Republican party is good for the Republican party because when the Democrats screw everything up (and, oh, they WILL) it will make the Republican party as a whole look more attractive if it lacks leftist baggage. America is slightly center-right, which make the long term prospects of a center-right party quite strong – if that party manages to remain slightly center-right. Specter is a backstabber – let him go backstab the Democrats for awhile; for them, winning Specter to their side is losing.

The Left Blogsphere  joined hands today to commit mass abuse of conservative Tea Party protesters. The left’s putrid hate rained down upon the Internet like sewage dumped from 1000 Hollywood-owned airplanes. Unable to contain the sludge within their minds, the left uniformly referred to the Tea Party Movement with the crude sexual reference “Tea Bagging,” showing just how immature and unprofessional they really are. More > Snark II | Snark III ***** Steve Benen attempted to discredit the Washington DC/White House Tea Party protest with the “if it’s not well planned it’s not legitimate” bit. Protesters threw a box of tea into the White House lawn and got in trouble with authorities. If this were a liberal protest and Bush was in the White House, you better believe Benen wouldn’t have this snark to offer:

So, these guys didn’t think it was important to come up with a rationale for the protests or to get permits for the protests … It’s hard not to get the impression that very little thought went into these far-right festivities.

We also know that not a lot of thought went into the civil rights movement at first, it started as slowly building emotion.  ***** We hear only muffled sounds from Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo as he attempts to remove his foot from his mouth for calling this picture and the 28 subsequent pics of protests “Anti-Tax Porn:” ***** Everyone’s favorite fake conservative Andrew Sullivan featured a post from hard left Pandagon blogger Jesse Taylor. From “Unicorn Nuts…On Your Face,” a shrill upchuck of liberal malevolence:

This gets to the basic issue with the whole Tea Party movement.  It’s a group of fucknuts joining other groups of marginally related fucknuts to protest something or other, in a hugely fucknutty way.  The point of the Tea Party movement, besides the largest thrusting of testicles to America’s collective face since the Soviets launched Sputnik, is to protest…well, basically the entire functioning of the government with no alternative plan or goal whatsoever. 

LOL, what great prose and impeccable logic! Good to know what Sullivan considers to be “curt.” He thinks “the goal of the Tea Parties” is to “DOMINATE THE AGENDA,” whatever that means.  Stay tuned for more, folks…

I was not able to post yesterday, so I made up for it with the following roundup of the top 10 blogs.

Huffington Post > It’s obvious liberals are starting to feel threatened by the Tea Party Movement, they are devoting more webspace trying to kill it. Huffpo blogger Karl Frisch (also a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America), tries desperately to discredit all of Fox News for allegedly cheer-leading the movement. Fox News isn’t, but their opinion show hosts are. You know, kinda like MSNBC and CNN opinion show hosts drooled over Obama, which Media Matters strangely didn’t cover. It’s a truly lame attempt, but I’m sure lots of hard left HuffPo readers will take it as fact.

Democratic Underground > Trouble for Obama from the suicidal dove faction. DU Poster AmyCamus reposted a story on Alternet by hard left Iraq Marine veteran Benjamin Lewis, who is likely to be court marshaled “for his intention to refuse reactivation.” Lewis is Against Obama’s Afghanistan, and after the usual peacenik screed he expresses his disappointment quite tellingly:

If it was not evident before, it should be apparent by now that Obama is not our savior.

You heard it here at The Crowbar nearly first, folks!

Daily Kos > Kossack Susan Gardner gives us all a preview of what’s to coming this Sunday 4/13 on Kos…

• A lame attack by Michael Lazzaro on the Tea Party Movement pretending that the left/ACORN is DEFINITELY NOT attempting to infiltrate the Movement, really.
• Dana Houle will attempt to discredit Glenn Beck by tying him to “manifestos of the violent radical right”  and saying he “traffics in violent conspiratorial rhetoric of the kind that inspired Timothy McVeigh”
• Gardner will pass on hard left propaganda by David Neiwert bashing talk radio and insulting talk radio listeners.

The Daily Dish | Andrew Sullivan > Sullivan spent the entire day dismissively bashing the Tea Party movement, calling it the “Tea Tantrum movement.” Sullivan puts on his “fiscal conservative” hat (conical with a red puffy ball on top) to give himself false authority to declare the movement “adolescent, unserious hysteria” and proof of the Republican “party’s fast-accelerating nervous breakdown.” Sullivan takes us on an unfantastic journey devoting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 posts to deriding the movement. You see, the mistake the Tea Party Movement made is not consulting Sullivan and his clearly superior British intellect first – the man has a PhD in Government from Harvard, donchya know.

Talking Points Memo (TPM)  > Trouble in paradise, specifically Guantanamo Bay. Harsh reality may be setting for Obama. Seems Obama’s DOJ is stonewalling Gitmo case just like Bush. I guess sending the terrorists to Pennsylvania is no loger viable? In any case, the anger of the Liberalati is rising. Hard left Gitmo lawyer David Cynamon says:

What I have been hoping for, and am getting increasingly frustrated about, is to see that closing Guantanamo be matched with a change in policy at the Justice Department to actually try to get these cases heard to test the evidence and then to determine, if there’s no evidence, to release these people. That part I haven’t seen at all.

Think Progress > Lee Fang nostalgically engages in Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) by wishing that Bush would hate himself as much as Fang and other BDS sufferers do. In a promo video for Bush’s Presidential library, Bush fails to say that he lied and people died, that he traded blood for oil, that 9/11 was his inside job and that he personally used a weather satellite to aim Katrina at New Orleans because lots of black people live there.

The Conscience of a Liberal >Krugman  ties income inequality with “intense partisanship” in The financial factor  ”But what caused the fall and rise of inequality?… regulation and deregulation.” So Krugman is arguing for more regulation – you’re shocked, I know. The kicker is that he damages his own argument, “OK, correlation does not imply causation yada yada.” Meh.

Crooks and Liars > Nicole Belle writes an open letter to National Organization for Marriage, hoping to affect change by the sheer force of her condescending insults:

I find your stance akin to those bigots who protested for miscegenation…

…unless of course, your marriage is simply not as strong as mine and having others commit would suddenly inspire you or your spouse to up and leave.

…it might actually have more credibility if you could find an actual doctor to claim her job is somehow threatened, rather than using a really, really bad actor.

…you boneheads.

Yours in complete and utter scorn…

Aren’t top liberal bloggers fun people?

Wonkette > It’s correction time as Wonkete jumps to conclusions about a fake YouTube video of “the libidinous fartsack Silvio Berlusconi, who still lives with his mom, assaulting some poor woman who just wanted to write a goddamn parking ticket in peace.”  Isn’t that special. Then comes the correction:

Oh well shit our own former editor Alex Pareene debunked this dumb thing three years ago. Ha ha, fact-checking!

Do you think Wonkette will see how their hyperactive, venomous hatred made them assume the worst even after their own blogger debunked it three years ago? Fat chance. 

Glenn Greenwald > Greenwald spends another day taking on the “Obama DOJ’s inexcusable embrace of some of the most radical Bush/Cheney secrecy doctrines.” Uh-oh, sounds like MORE trouble in paradise. Wait, wait… isn’t criticizing the DOJ racist since Attorney General Eric Holder is the first black man to be appointed to the office? OH, that’s right – Greenwald is a liberal. Different standards, my bad – he’s not racist.

Political Animal | Steve Benen > Benen spends time patronizing Glenn Beck for his speaking style. Benen, unable to hold back his poisonous sneer, accuses Beck of actually being “insane,” “deranged,” and “crazy” and says, “might try to eat his shoes while arguing with mailboxes. Getting dressed and making it to a television studio every day would be difficult.” I’ve no doubt it’s Benen who needs therapy.

Andrew Sullivan at his tiresome worst, passing along propaganda and trashing US military efforts simultaneously:

As tribal Muslim society returns to its violent, bigoted normal. But this time, Americans died to ensure gays could be lynched.

Yeah, because things were GREAT for gays under Saddam! He was such a defender of secular society!!!

Saddam liked to show himself as a strict Muslim. This was to calm down the religious parts of the society. Some parts of the Sharia law were brought back. This included the 2001 law imposing the death penalty for homosexuality (gay people.) 

Oops! Looks to me like Saddam didn’t give a flying flip about gays to me.  Better go to Wikipedia and delete that, Sullivan! A more likely reason gays are getting killed more often in Iraq is because they feel safer coming out of the closet now that those heroic American soldiers crushed Saddam the Tyrant, Al Qaeda and the rebel Baathists. Since Iraqi society more open (esp after the EVIL Surge worked), wouldn’t THAT explain why there’s more backlash in a society that wasn’t used to the increased openness before? In any case, we can be sure that the upswing in muslim religious extremism takes a lion’s share of the blame for murdering homosexuals, and NOT the US invasion – either the first or the second. I guess Sullivan doesn’t care that the US soldiers who died also stopped Saddam’s rape gangs, political killings, pursuit of WMD, and all the rest – those things don’t matter. To Sullivan and his ilk, US soldiers died for nothing.