pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts

I've not done a Sunday Thoughts in awhile. This Sunday had some exceptional statements worth mentioning. I didn't get to post it earlier because of the power outages. So here it is!

On Reliable Sources, when confronted with an accusation by Richard Perle of lying -- saying that Perle's remarks about the war would not be published by Vanity Fair until after the election -- Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter responded first by playing tu quoque, saying, "I think having the neoconservatives who helped plan the war and support the war be angry with the magazine is not the worst possible thing." Dude, your epidermis is showing! So hopes for a reasonable explanation are dashed right off the bat. And indeed, he didn't even try to explain his lie, but only added that the publication before the election was in the "public's right to know." Note to self: never, ever, trust the editors of Vanity Fair.

Charlie Rangel repeated his claim on Fox News Sunday that our fighting forces are too poor, too minority, and too uneducated. Chris Wallace quoted data that proved otherwise, and asked him, "Congressman, in fact, contrary to what you've been saying, isn't the volunteer army better educated and well-to-do than the general population?" Rangel's reply: "Of course not." He added, "who are you going to believe, me, or the facts?" OK, I made that last part up, but it's an apt summary of what he actually said (including such lies as "most all of [our recruits] come from places of very very high unemployment"), and I am astonished that Wallace didn't press the point that Rangel was just making it all up.

Speaking of astonishment, Dick Durbin, on This Week, actually said that he is tired of party politics and litmus tests in judicial nominations. "I think we ought to step back here and try to move away from this political agenda for a moment. You know, these are important lifetime appointments. These men and women who serve on the bench, we really trust their judgment and their wisdom, and giving these political litmus tests, I don't think is in the best interest of justice in America."

Durbin has been second only to Chuck Schumer in making Senate judicial nominations precisely about political agendas and litmus tests. And they've been doing it ever since Bush got into office. If you believe the Constitution means what it says when it says the executive authority of the U.S. government is vested in the President, or if you personally believe abortion is wrong, then Dick Durbin will vote against you, and if it is for an important judicial post, he will try to block your nomination from being voted on. His saying what he did would be like James Dobson saying we should keep religious views completely separate from political views.

Perle

[jamie]

See panel 4 [salon.com].

I'm a little surprised... you saw a discussion about one of the architects of war admitting that he tried to hide his criticisms of our Secretary of Defense from Americans until, get this, after the election ... so that voters would go into the booth uninformed ... and the only "exceptional" thing about this to your mind is some remark made by some magazine editor? Huh.

Re:

[Jhon]

And it is always good practice to get ones news and information from comic strips.

Of course, in the need to reduce the wordage down to 9 or so panels, we'll drop out huge chungs of pertinant information and context... but what the heck, right?

/sarcasm.

It's not like you have a habit of actually LOOKING INTO and RESEARCHING [slashdot.org] any of the stuff you post. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't post with an air authority. Hell, you've made up your mind! Damn the facts, full speed ahead!

Re:

[jamie]

What, you think you zinged me with that previous comment? No. It was too stupid to merit a response. I asked for evidence, and maybe if you had provided some I would have continued the conversation.

Re:

[Jhon]

What was stupid was your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject. Again, you were the one making a claim. It's not up to me to prove you wrong and do work you were too lazy to do yourself. You need to prove yourself right.

Honestly, you zinged yourself. Particularly with your citation of a comic strip above -- as well as earlier when you claimed you understood 64.1200 by providing your OWN (out of context) interpretation which, had you bothered to look, would have shown contradicted the FCC.

You are lazy

Re:

[pudge]

you saw a discussion about one of the architects of war admitting that he tried to hide his criticisms of our Secretary of Defense from Americans until, get this, after the election ... so that voters would go into the booth uninformed ... and the only "exceptional" thing about this to your mind is some remark made by some magazine editor?

Nope. What makes you say that?

Don't have to remind me!

[GMontag]

You don't have to remind me to never trust an editor [slashdot.org]!