Hating the military is all in a day's work

I first learned about a person named Michael Crook (left, sort of) yesterday, after he linked to my coverage of the KSFO Spockobash (to which he called in, by the way -- clearly a devoted fan of the hatemongers). I don't know whether this guy considers himself conservative, or libertarian, or what (he's clearly not liberal), but if nothing else, he's a certifiable nut job who seems to think the world was made and designed for him. And when I read further, it didn't surprise me that the picture he chose of himself was a deliberately blurry high school yearbook photo from years ago.*

It wasn't his delusions about the faking of the first moon landing (he oddly doesn't mention the subsequent landings) that shocked me. It wasn't even his frothing anti-semitic denials of the Holocaust. No, what really struck me is how much this guy hates the military.

Today's screed is a prime example (emphases here, as elsewhere, in bold face are mine):

Numerous soldiers from New Jersey got a rude awakening: Uncle Sam owns their asses.

They were expecting to come home as soon as March, but learned through a soldier’s mother that their tour had been extended, and they aren’t coming home for a long time.

Kim Barreca, mother of Michael Barreca, from Vineland, is whining about how they were expecting him home so he could get married in June.

Welcome to real life, soldiers. This sort of thing makes me laugh, only because these punk kids who join to milk the government (and we, the taxpayers) for college money and exhorbant [sic] pay packages get a real wake up call when they realize that things such as stop loss really do exist.

Hah ... pwnage. A great way to start the weekend.

I'm no stranger to schadenfreude, but I target public officials who deserve derision because of their rank hypocrisy, misconduct, and the like. This bully goes after real people with real lives who are suffering because of Drunky McStagger's vendetta. What a little punk this guy is.

But it gets worse, at least with regard to the military. Crook believes that the military is (get ready for this) grossly overpaid.

Obviously, I am of the contention [he means "opinion" -- Ed.] that the United States military is paid entirely too much.

So I disown them. Now, don't go reading into that. I am not wishing them bodily harm, although I do admit I do not shed a tear when I hear of a military death. Does that sound harsh? Maybe not, when you consider that they chose to sign up. When I say disown the troops, I mean that I do not consider them heroes, and I do not consider their jobs to be valid.

There is no need for emotion here, nor is there a need for cries of "treason" or accusations of anti-American sentiments.

I don't wave the flag, and I don't have a yellow ribbon on my home or my car, and patriotic music makes me want to puke. I simply cannot feel gratitude for the military, past or present. As far as I am concerned, they did not matter in the past, they do not matter now, and they will certainly not matter in the future.

I do grudgingly acknowledge my American citizenship, and I am aware [of] the freedoms we enjoy. However, these are rights, and not privileges.

I do not credit the modern-day military with "defending" any of these freedoms. I credit the taxes we pay, and the lawmakers who work for us daily. The military is merely a PR tool for the President.

Our military has turned into a joke.

And this joke's expensive. Financially speaking, it's the Pacific Avenue hooker of our economy.

Base salary, allowances, hazard pay, combat pay, separation pay, uniform allowances ... the list goes on and on. And that's to say nothing of BAH and other so-called "allowances". Where else but the military would an "employee" get allowances for each family member, separation pay, hazard pay, and so forth? It's a classic example of double and triple dipping, and the government turns a blind eye, as do the brainwashed American citizens.
In the real world, one is paid a wage or salary and is expected to support themselves on that. So then my question would be: what makes the members of the military think they matter? They don't. We, as a country, could survive quite nicely without them, and save billions in tax dollars in the process.

Crook's basic premise seems to be that members of the military unjustly are rewarded, at the taxpayers' expense, for their choice to join the military.

His conclusion ties everything up in a set of "ideals:"

Ideal One:

Members of the U.S. military must be held accountable, namely for knowingly accepting an obscene pay package -- base salary, allowances, not to mention the benefits, none of which they earn.

Ideal Two:

So-called "terrorist attacks" such as the alleged one on September 11, 2001 [I wonder what his theory is on that? -- Ed.] do not justify the current "war." Soldiers do nothing to defend our freedom of speech. Hence, when it comes to defense of our country, the military is useless in modern times.

Ideal Three:

If members of the military love their country as they claim, they will agree with this essay.

Ideal Four:

If we must have a military, its members must immediately accept a low monthly stipend, which shall be the same regardless of rank or time of so-called "service." [Crook recommends $1,100 a month. -- Ed.]

Ideal Five:

If a member of the military dies, the member's family should pay any and all costs, and must forgo any benefits whatsoever.

If after reading all of this, you aren't enraged about the military being paid too much, I submit that there's something seriously wrong with you.

The stupid -- it burns!! I find it absolutely appalling that there are people out there who believe this tripe, let alone those like Crook that broadcast it. Crook clearly has a Paul Bunyan-sized ax to grind, but one wonders what it was that set him off ... there's got to be some common thread that ties together debunking the moon landing, denying the Holocaust, and disowning the U.S. military.

I'm no flag-waver myself by any means, but to say the military is useless, well, that's just batshit insane.

* Granted, I use Charlie Brown as my picture, but it isn't that hard to find pictures of me around, if you're clever.

UPDATE (2:39 pm EST 1/13/07): Jesus H. Smack-Flappity Tap Dancing Christ! No sooner do I get this posted than I see Crook's throwing more feces around his cage, this time about a ruling that members of the clergy in New Jersey cannot be compelled to perform civil unions. The money shot:

However, people such as mayors must perform marriages for all who ask, which is an insult to taxpayers.

It’s sad when flamers can get the same protections that normal people have.

I'm all for free speech, but holy shit, this guy is as far off the deep end as anyone I've ever seen. It's frightening, really.

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: George W. Bush

Poor widdle Drunky McStagger can't figure out why no one wants to play with him, especially with his new game of "Surge." You can almost hear the whiny, desperate tone in his voice just from reading his words:

President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.

"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.

In a pitch to lawmakers and the American people, Bush said the United States will keep the onus on the Iraqi government to take charge of security and reach a political reconciliation. He countered Democrats and his fellow Republicans who argue that Bush is sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into Iraq on the same mission.

"We have a new strategy with a new mission: Helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead."

Allow me to inject a little perspective. Can you imagine any of the great statesmen and commanders-in-chief in American history -- Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, JFK -- saying, "Well, if you don't like what I'm proposing, let's hear your ideas!"? And how galling must it be for you to have your latest plan put someone other than the United-States-by-God-military "in the lead" (and I'm taking that with a mountain of salt, I might add)?

It's funny (in a funny-strange, not a funny-ha-ha way) -- with all the efforts that have been made (and people -- particularly the more than 3,000 American military men and women -- who have died) to make Drunky seem strong and virile, he's actually proving his own weakness because he won't admit his plan has failed.

I was always taught that you're more of a man if you can admit failure and move on. Obviously that's not part of the McStagger Bush genetic code.

This is your game, Drunky. You are the commander [codpiece]-in-chief, and it's your responsibility, not Congress or the military or anyone else, to come up with a plan. You got us into it, and you're going to have to get us out.

It's just like junior high school, Drunky, and everyone is pointing and laughing at you because you dropped your lunch tray. And you want to cry and run away, but you can't, because you have more reports to give and classes to attend and science fairs and tests and exams ... for the next two years.

It's a tough situation, Drunky, no doubt about it, but you've no one to blame but the face in the mirror (and I don't mean this face). Too bad you didn't listen to advice before you went off half-cocked (pun most assuredly intended) on your little vendetta -- a vendetta that literally has changed the world, but not exactly in the way you wanted.

So, as the Mission Accomplished train slowly, inexorably derails, plunging into the crevasse of presidential history along with failures like Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Nixon and, yes, even your daddy (heck, Drunky, I think you've probably out-failed all of 'em!), I laugh and point with everyone else, and I gleefully announce that, George W. Bush, today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfruede is for you!

Friday Cat Blogging

After the "fun" with KSFO today, I need a break. Perhaps you do, too.

I need to keep a promise I made. My first (and, likely, only) Friday Cat Blogging is a tribute to the life of the much-loved Lion Kitty Maxx, the world's plushiest kitty.

You will be missed, dear Maxx. By fourlegsgood, and by all of us.

Revealing another KSFO lie

Perhaps there's an audio link out there. I don't know. But I liveblogged this when it happened, and not having heard of the incident before, I decided to check it out. Believing it needs broader dissemination, I decided it deserved its own post.

Several times on the air this afternoon, Lee Rodgers at KSFO alluded to the beatings inflicted on members of a Yale University choral group, the "Baker's Dozen," in San Francisco earlier this week. Based on Rodgers' description -- he said they were beaten for singing the National Anthem (paraphrasing) -- you might think it was a gang of rowdy left-wing hoodlums who brought the hammer down on the unsuspecting, patriotic young Ivy Leaguers.

Well, you probably won't be too surprised to learn that Rodgers lied like Mark Foley to a page misrepresented the facts:

Appearing On KTVU Mornings On 2, former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer -- an attorney for one of the injured choir members -- said the party where the attack took place was being held for members of Yale's Baker's Dozen during their West Coast appearances.

"They were the guests of honor at the party (held at the home of a San Francisco police sergeant and her husband)," Hammer said. "During this party, some uninvited guests came in and that's when the trouble began."

Members of the all-male singing group were taunted with anti-gay slurs after singing "The Star Stangled Banner."

"There were some words exchanged…some (members) were violently assaulted," Hammer said. "The Yale kids rather than fight back -- cooled things down -- and left the party. That's when it got really ugly outside."

At least three members of the Baker's Dozen a cappella group were hurt. One member of the group suffered a broken jaw and another was left with a concussion.

"That's how vicious and serious this was," Hammer said. "You kick people in the head, you can kill someone."

Sharyar Aziz Jr., an 18-year-old Baker's Dozen member whose jaw was broken, said slurs were hurled at the group by their attackers.

"You're not welcome here," Aziz Jr. quoted one partygoer as saying. "He called a few members of the group, whether it was fag or homo, very, I would say, juvenile taunting."

So, yeah, they had sung The Star-Spangled Banner. But the beatings actually were a hate crime! There's no evidence that I can find stating that any members of the Baker's Dozen were in fact gay, but that doesn't diminish the nature of the attack as a hate crime in any way.

Yet, Rodgers is trying to pass this appalling incident off as some kind of anti-American display. No, Lee, in fact, I'd be willing to bet that the culprits actually are big fans of yours. They hear you incite your listeners to violence, and it's only natural that they'd act out.

Turning this hate crime into something to benefit your unconscionable, hate-filled agenda is truly an abomination of journalism, indeed of citizenship. You -- and your listeners -- ought to be ashamed. I trust you'll clear up any misunderstanding on your next broadcast ... (yeah, right).

UPDATE (9:36 am EST 1/13/07): I just discovered I failed to include a link to the article I quoted. Whoops.

Fifteen yards for unsportsmanlike blogging. My apologies. I've now rectified that. Steve Simels regrets the error.

KSFO wankfest summary

Give the KSFO wankers credit for framing the issue for their listeners, but they are wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels. This is not, nor has it ever been, a freedom of speech issue. I said it before and I'll say it again, slower this time:

1. No ... one ... is ... saying ... you ... can't ... broadcast ... your ... filth.

It is simply an issue of notifying your advertisers that they are supporting said filth. Period. If you can't figure that out, well, you're dumber than I thought (and that's saying something.)

2. Anonymity ... is ... irrelevant.

Admit it: you want people like Spocko and me to reveal our identities so you can target us, or better yet, get some of your more unbalanced listeners (that's like picking the dumbest Bush -- where do you start?) to do your dirty work. We won't be your monkeys. Besides, our identities aren't even relevant -- knowing who we are doesn't change one iota what you've spewed forth on your show, nor will it change the shit you throw around in the future. So get off the obsession with bloggers' identities and move on to the substance of your argument. (By the way, until proven otherwise, I still maintain that the KSFO wankers aren't using their real names, either ... it's quite common in broadcasting, as "everyone knows," right, "Lee?"

3. Your ... speech ... is ... hateful ... and ... violent.

I actually don't think we disagree on this point. You've all but admitted it throughout the three-hour wankfest this afternoon. The key difference is, liberals believe that advocating their death through execution, or painting a bulls-eye on the speaker of the House, crosses the line of acceptable broadcast speech, and you disagree.

It would be so simple if you just looked at it this way: you can say whatever you want on your radio station, and we can say whatever we want to your advertisers. What's wrong with that?

KSFO live-blog thread #2

4:43 EST: Lee says "if you don't like what we say, turn off the radio." Unfortunately, while I think Stark is hanging in there, he's a little out of his element. I applaud him for wading into the muck, however. I'd love a shot at this (being their monkey notwithstanding), but I can't get through on the phone.

And here comes Melanie playing the anonymity card again. Lee refers to a "grown man naming himself after a Star Trek character" - then he says the name Spocko, at 4:45. First time. Stark responds regarding pseudonyms used by Ben Franklin and Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'll bet anyone a dollar that "Lee Rodgers" and "Melanie Morgan" are not their real names. Dear Kettle: You are black. Love, Pot.

(By the way, they have a person on the show called "Officer Vic." Why did Mr. & Mrs. Vic name their son "Officer?" How strange ...)

Melanie: "I've had security people looking at this Spocko character, and they've told me I should be concerned that he might come after me." Oh fuck me with a stick. Seriously.

4:50 EST: They let Stark go on for a while, but then finally cut him off ... because, methinks, he was making too much sense.

4:55 EST: Caller says the hosts go overboard, even though he doesn't agree with 90% of what they say. Apparently they know him personally. Caller also says the other side is going too far as well.

5:03 EST: They're in a news and commercial break now ... time for me to catch my breath!

5:07 EST: Calling Spocko an "anonymous coward," Melanie says they have lost only one advertiser. Some pulled their ads, says Melanie, but after they were told the "context" of the purportedly offensive statements, they all came back on board except the one. (I presume the KSFO sales crew got on the phones hard for this.) She's not giving names of the advertisers ... "that's not the purpose here." HAHAHAHAHAHA!

This would be a good point, too, to mention that the advertising is not broadcast over the Internet feed, so I have no idea what ads are being run today.

5:13 EST: Brian Sussman: "Apologies have been made when necessary." Sounds a lot like "Mistakes were made," the classic passive-voice dodge by Drunky McStagger.

5:14 EST: Spocko is being called out for not permitting anonymous comments ... now all liberal bloggers are "phony hypocrites" for editing comments and such. (I should note that I neither forbid anonymous comments nor do I edit them -- in fact, I welcome them and respond in kind, as I did in the last thread.)

Caller says "lefties are on the fringe and don't have any power." Melanie responds that she can't understand that because "they have NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR ..." Oh, please.

Then, when they were going to "Dan in Denver," a purportedly liberal caller, they "went to the wrong caller," then he apparently "gave up." Riiiiiiiiiiight.

5:18 EST: Melanie's mother is a "left-wing liberal" and, as she said earlier, her father is (was?) a "card-carrying member of the ACLU." How in the world could they have spawned what they did?

5:25 EST: Crap. Life is interfering, so I'm on the phone with one ear and listening to KSFO with the other. Do I get bonus pay for this? ;)

5:28 EST: Cool! I just found myself linked on a right-wing mouth-breathing website! Sweet! I guess that makes me ... what did Michael Crook (how's that for an apt real name?!) say? Ah ... I'm one of Spocko's "butt-fucking blogging buddies!" Congratulate me! And congratulate Mr. Crook (sorry, can't say that without laughing) for his stunning rhetorical talent.

5:39 EST: Regrettably, I've had to be away from this for ten minutes because of a phone call -- frankly, I'm arguing with my Verizon provider about my service.

5:54 EST: Still on the phone with Verizon. I wouldn't do this now except they threatened to cut off my service -- long story, but it seems to be resolved.

5:58 EST: Lee says a "skank" dancing on tables is protected speech, whereas liberals contend that opposing viewpoints to theirs is not.

6:10 EST: Once again, I apologize for being pulled away for personal reasons during the last half-hour of the wankfest. I really would have loved to cover the whole thing but, based on the caller I heard when I returned to the show around 5:55, they had nothing but sycophantic idiots for callers the entire time. In other words ... I didn't miss much.

SUMMARY POSTED ABOVE IN NEXT THREAD.

KSFO live-blogging

Rather than continue to extend the last post with updates, I'll just liveblog the KSFO wankfest here. All audio links are available here as well as through the links themselves.

3:49 EST: Because Brian's kids are adopted and he worships at a predominately black church, he should be forgiven for calling Barack Obama a "halfrican." Oh, and he apologized. Well, good. Actually, I'm more concerned myself about the threats against public officials, not to mention all liberals ...

Callers (415-808-5600) are being welcomed, left or right. We shall see ...

3:55 EST: Here comes the attaching things to testicles statement ... it's okay, sez Lee, because the person in question has a lengthy rap sheet, and because he didn't mention race (the guy was black) and because it was taken out of context. "Put a bullet between his eyes because he's never going to be anything but a criminal," said Lee. Obviously, this has nothing to do with race, and Online Blogintegrity didn't make any reference to race! Goddamn, the misstatements are rampant!

Lee goes on to explain that since Fidel Castro has done worse to his people, that makes his words (advocating batteries connected to testicles and then blowing a guy's head off) acceptable. What a fucking idiot.

Now they're saying the remarks were taken out of context again -- right after they played the exact clip! How is it lifted out of context?! I'm astounded. I really am.

4:09 EST: Lee feels no compunction to be compassionate towards the "Muslim crazies" that have attacked America. You know what -- I agree. The problem is that he goes on to add his hatred of "anyone who supports them directly or indirectly," and I have no doubt that he means simply that anyone who is of the Islamic faith "supports [crazies] ... indirectly." In short, he's clearly painting all Muslims -- indeed, I believe, all people of color -- as supporters of terrorists.

4:12 EST: We're onto the "stomped to death" comment (they played even less "context" than in the link and than I included below) ... and Lee says no apology is forthcoming. Big surprise there.

Holy fuck!! The wankers at KSFO keep referring to the horrible people -- presumably "leftists" -- who attacked and beat members of a Yale University all-male choral ensemble in San Francisco on December 31. Lee Rodgers in particular has been railing about how the Yalies were attacked "for singing The Star-Spangled Banner."

But guess which side of the ideological fence the attackers really are on?

Members of the all-male singing group were taunted with anti-gay slurs after singing "The Star Stangled Banner."

"There were some words exchanged…some (members) were violently assaulted," Hammer said.

"The Yale kids rather than fight back -- cooled things down -- and left the party. That's when it got really ugly outside."

At least three members of the Baker's Dozen a cappella group were hurt. One member of the group suffered a broken jaw and another was left with a concussion.

"That's how vicious and serious this was," Hammer said. "You kick people in the head, you can kill someone."

Sharyar Aziz Jr., an 18-year-old Baker's Dozen member whose jaw was broken, said slurs were hurled at the group by their attackers.

"You're not welcome here," Aziz Jr. quoted one partygoer as saying. "He called a few members of the group, whether it was fag or homo, very, I would say, juvenile taunting."

Can any reasonable person conclude that "left-wingers" would be hurling anti-gay invective at these guys? Moreover, I wonder who might have instigated the attackers ... that is, what radio station do you think they're listening to? Hmmm .....

4:20 EST: Now they're attacking Spocko ... and they're saying "none of the talent ever said 'don't blog on this.' " Even if that's true, Spocko points out himself that KSFO administration are the ones responsible for shutting down his blog ... but the idea that the "talent" (and I use that term loosely) can avoid responsibility for it simply because it's a colleague who really made the call, well, that's specious at best ... really, it's downright absurd. It is, as we say in the law, "a distinction without a difference."

4:30 EST: Commercial break ... I think this Yale bit has legs ... I can't get through on the phone but I think I'll send an e-mail.

4:33 EST: Haven't had time for an e-mail just yet, but they're taking callers.

Mike from NY: "I'm behind you all the way."
Tim from Carlsbad (?): "You're giving this too much attention."
Richard from San Jose: "Parallels between anonymous bloggers and terrorists - they both are hiding and trying to cause trouble." Holy shit. They really believe this. Lee responds, "Leftist bloggers, thy name is cowardice." Brian adds, "If you are anonymous, you have no integrity."
Jean from San Jose: "Keep up the good work."

Melanie says, "It seems we're frontloading our calls, but we're not." Apparently Mike Stark is trying to get through on the phone. This should get interesting.

4:38 EST: KSFO is insinuating that Mike Stark is the "blogswarm organizer." I think they're conflating Stark with Spocko.

Here's the right-wing radio trick: they are grilling Stark about his "stalking" of George Allen and completely deflecting the attention. Unfortunately, Stark is falling right into the trap ...

Goddamn it. Stark sounds like he's reading a script with the questions. But he asks a good question about why they are against Rep. Ellison ... and Lee responds that his Islamic faith would be inseparable from his legislative duties, and he has a problem with that. He did not deny that he is racist.

New thread upstairs.

An open letter to Melanie Morgan

As the time for KSFO's Spockobash approaches (an event for which Melanie Morgan already has planted her minions for calling in), Spocko has asked me, via e-mail, to respond to Morgan's latest online rant. I'm happy to oblige.

First, I'll copy it (fair use, you right-wing gasbag!) for reference here, in its entirety.

Silencing conservatives on the airwaves

A final thought for this week is a personal one.

I've been the target, as have a number of other conservative talk-radio hosts, of an effort by liberal bloggers to get me fired for engaging in what these far-left activists are calling "hate speech."

The move by liberal activists to silence conservative radio hosts comes after the failure of the left-wing Air America radio network. Given that liberalism couldn't compete and win in the marketplace of ideas, liberals now want to silence conservative radio hosts.

One anonymous online blogger compiled audio clips edited to make it look like I was calling for the murder of Nancy Pelosi, when I did no such thing. (You can listen for yourself and understand how they are now trying to impugn my credibility by misrepresenting my words).

One blogger called for fining me and my station $325,000 for each "offense" so as to shut down our station. Another liberal blogger is lining up activists to do a drill to get Congress to pass a new Fairness Doctrine. Another blogger said they were going to work until they got me "off the air."

I've been on the air for 12 years at KSFO radio in San Francisco – one of the highest-rated talk-radio stations in the nation.

Every day for four hours I sit behind a radio microphone, fighting for a better America that promotes freedom, liberty, security, honesty and integrity. That calculates to be about 1,200 minutes every week. That's a total of more than 60,000 minutes each year for 12 years.

Over the course of all these years, I have of course said things I regretted, or worded things in a way I wished I hadn't. When that happens I've retracted the statement and made a public apology, such as I did concerning comments made about Sen. Barrack Obama. You should read my statement on this matter here.

Despite the efforts by liberal censors to silence me, I will never back away from what I believe in: a strong national defense, respect for the men and women of the United States military, a secure border and enforcement of our nation's immigration laws, lower taxes, less government regulation in our lives and in business, respect for the values of decency, honesty and morality.

Any efforts to silence me are just further proof of how desperate and pathetic liberals have become.

Okay. This is almost too easy.

Look, Ms. Morgan, first things first. I'll say it slowly and use short words, so you can understand.

No one is trying to silence you.

You have a right to spew forth your garbage all you want. It's called the Constitution, and despite Drunky McStagger's best efforts to make it irrelevant, it's still the law of the land. Your right to free speech is inviolate, just as mine or the Ku Klux Klan's or Spocko's is. The issue is merely one of notifying KSFO's advertisers as to the kind of vicious, hateful ranting they've been supporting. Sure, you may have lost some national accounts, but I'm sure Bill's Gun & Tackle Shop can pick up the slack, right? So let's forget all the bullshit about "silencing you."

Regarding what you said about Speaker Pelosi ... here are your exact words:

MORGAN: Oh. We've got a bull's-eye painted on her big, wide laughing eyes.

So you weren't threatening the Speaker there? Then what exactly did those words mean? You've been denying your threats, Ms. Morgan, but you haven't given even one alternative interpretation for that statement. Unless and until you do, the obvious interpretation -- that you were advocating attacks on Speaker Pelosi -- stands.

Okay, Ms. Morgan. Let's assume for the sake of argument that your Pelosi statement was completely innocuous. What about your threats against others, or the threats by your colleagues to which you obviously subscribed? For example:

ANN COULTER: I think it's agreed, all we have to determine is the method of execution [of liberals].
MORGAN: Yes, we can quibble about it.

MORGAN (referring to New York Times editors): Get 'em.
MALE CO-HOST: Yeah, yeah, as Peter Mulhern said earlier, "Prosecute!"
MORGAN: Yes! Hang 'em!
MALE CO-HOST: Don't make grumpy noises - do it!
MORGAN: Yeah!

MORGAN: One of [Cindy Sheehan's] groupies comes up to a Gold Star Mother -- a woman who lost her son in Iraq -- and said, "Did you lose a son in Iraq?" The mother said, "Yes." The groupie said, "Do you know how many women he raped and how many children he murdered before he died?" Yes. It is so reprehensible, it is beyond comment.
MALE HOST: Oh, yeah. Yeah. This is kind of thing -- I'm sorry, exception to the law, whoever did that should have been stomped to death, right there, just stomp their bleeping guts out.
MORGAN: I'm tellin' ya, I actually -- there is, um, video of this available, and audio as well, and I've gotta track -- I had it e-mailed to me, and I forgot to forward it to my office this morning. I'm gonna get that ...
MALE HOST: So we can find out who that person was.
MORGAN: Y-yeah. And we're gonna play and show, uh, the rest of America what kind of bleeping idiots are out there in this world who deserve nothing but our contempt, and of course Cindy Sheehan doesn't even condemn that kind of speech. She just wants her rights -- her free speech rights protected. It is just unbelievable.

So, don't bother with the denials. Your speech, and that of your colleagues, is utterly abhorrent and reprehensible. You advocate violence against those with whom you disagree time and time again, and you show not even a scintilla of human decency in spewing this garbage. Yes, again, you have the right to say it, but we have the right to notify your advertisers, too.

Believe me, Ms. Morgan, you do well enough impugning your own credibility than an army of liberal bloggers (I thought you'd like that imagery) could do in a hundred years.

I've got to stop now, so I can listen to your Spockobash. Good luck storming the castle. You'll need it.

P.S. That's "Barack," with one "r." Dumbass.

UPDATE (3:16 pm 1/12/07): KSFO's call-in number (good luck getting past the screeners) is 415-808-5600.

Also, here's a response, as I listen to their ridiculous, fact-free diatribe (Lee Whats-his-fuck just called Cindy Sheehan a "whore"), to their complaints about anonymity: first, what difference does the identity of the bloggers make? You said what you said! An anonymous messenger doesn't change the hate inherent in your statements.

Second, I worked in radio before I went to law school. I know many broadcasters use pseudonyms. Are you working under your real names? I rather doubt it ...

UPDATE (3:36 pm 1/12/07): So far the defense is pretty weak. According to Ms. Morgan, she didn't actually advocate the killing of New York Times editor Bill Keller. Rather, she said that if Keller were tried and convicted of treason, she would celebrate his execution (complete with frying sound effects). Oh, yeah, I see the difference - thanks for clearing that up. (I'm being sarcastic, Ms. Morgan, since you probably couldn't tell.)

UPDATE (3:42 pm 1/12/07): The "bulls-eye" comment defense was that it was "taken out of context," even though the link over at Online Blogintegrity was to the exact same clip that they played on KSFO! Lee Rodgers added (paraphrased), "Everyone knows that the term 'bulls-eye' is regularly used in political discourse, and everyone knows what it means," in a way that suggests it's a minor little metaphor. Uh huh ... that's exactly how she meant it.

UPDATE (10:09 am 1/13/07): In his open letter to Ms. Morgan, jurassicpork says it far more eloquently than I ... but beware the picture of my neighbor Mr. Ms. Coulter at the top of his post. It's nightmare-inducing.

Michelle Malkin, embedded

Here's Michelle showing off her favorite Christmas gift.


She's so cute, getting ready for her little adventure in Iraq. Hope she's having a swell time. Her friends are so concerned ... although she's no GI.

In the words of geor3ge, it's just a big game of dress-up for them. Real lives are being lost, but this picture will stand alongside that of Commander Codpiece as examples of how seriously the wingnuts are taking the reality of Bush's Folly.

Ron Klein to serve as speaker pro tempore today

This isn't earth-shattering news or anything, but it's still pretty cool. I received the following e-mail this morning:

U.S. Rep. Ron Klein to Serve as House Speaker Pro Tempore Friday
Speaker Pelosi Designates Klein to Sit in Speaker's Chair and
Preside Over House Floor

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - U.S. Rep. Ron Klein (FL-22) was appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to preside over the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in her absence this Friday, Jan. 12th. Klein, who is scheduled to take the gavel between 2:00 - 4:30 p.m., will be one of the first newly-elected Members of the 110th Congress to receive this opportunity.

"It is truly a privilege to be chosen by Speaker Pelosi to preside over the floor of the House of Representatives," said Klein. "Sitting in the Speaker's Chair, where so many of those I've admired over the years have sat, is an amazing opportunity, and I will accept this gavel with honor as I represent the families of South Florida in this position."

According to House rules, the Speaker is the presiding officer of the House, and she may appoint a Member as Speaker pro tempore to perform the duties of the Chair for up to three legislative days. As circumstances arise during daily House proceedings, the Speaker may appoint informally a Member to preside during her temporary absence in the House.

Pretty much every member of the House gets to preside sometimes, but it's still cool that my new Democratic representative will be in the speaker's chair today. Hopefully I can get a screen shot from C-SPAN ...

She blinded me with science!

According to a recent survey by Science magazine, those who are conservative are less likely to believe in evolution. Besides the politically conservative, scientific knowledge also tends to elude those with less formal education, and those who identify themselves as fundamentalist Christians.

(click image or here for larger version)

This provides further evidence -- as if any were needed -- that conservatism no longer refers so much to a political or economic ideology, but now has become so conflated with fundamentalism that the two are becoming virtually indistinguishable. This also shows a strong correlation between lack of education and conservatism, which in turns indicates that conservatives tend to be less intellectually curious than liberals.

Sadly, this news will appear to many analogous to "Water is wet!" But the fact is, we have to begin to understand the electorate not in terms of what we, as intellectually curious liberals, believe "should" be the way things are, but instead in terms of how people really are, as a true cross-section of society. There will always be those who blindly support Republicans, no matter how much of a miserable failure they may be. But perhaps the gains made by Democrats recently is a function of a better informed (i.e., better educated) populace, which works for the benefit of all.

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Melanie Morgan and the fascists at KSFO

Have you been keeping up with the Spocko's Brain controversy? Short version: Spocko was offended by the messages of hate spewing forth from San Francisco radio station KSFO, and he decided to write to the station's advertisers to alert them to what they were supporting. When advertisers started cancelling their accounts, KSFO (an ABC/Disney station) fought back by strong-arming Spocko's ISP into shutting down his blog. Now, the San Francisco Chronicle has picked up the story, so for more details I'd refer you to their article yesterday.

Well, one of the worst offenders at KSFO, Melanie Morgan, responded yesterday, and it's obvious that she is utterly, irretrievably delusional.

There is a very, very serious story, folks, that we need to tell you about. We had hoped never to have this discussion on the air, that a crank with a keyboard would simply go away. But clearly, he has been joined by some very dangerous and frightening fringe-left groups in this country, and have tried to portray KSFO as a big corporate giant stomping on their rights to free speech, when in fact just the opposite is true. In the San Francisco Chronicle today, there's a big article about this, written by Joe Garafoli. The headline on page A2 is "Trying to Censor Blogger: Owner of conservative radio station KSFO demands liberal critic quit using audio clips."

Let me just sum this up for you. There is a liberal, left-wing kook by the name of Spocko's Brain, who is a Star Trek fan, and refuses to identify himself publicly and just cowers in anonymity. I think he's just a chicken bleep because he won't come forward with his own name. Of course, he attacks us as hate radio, as hatemongers, as spewers of violent rhetoric. Well, I have to tell you that what he has done is take a lot of our old comments from audio from our radio station, which is copyrighted. They're old, lacking in context, and in some cases just outright lies. He's put these audio cuts up on his little tiny website, and then he's contacted all of our advertisers and asked them to quit advertising with us and then, you know, keeps pushing these audio clips which are out of context, old, or in some cases just outright lies, as I said.

[...]

I'm not going to get into any more details about this, other than to say that tomorrow morn -- [Friday] at noon [Pacific time], we're going to do something we have never done before here at KSFO. We are going to bust out of our regular format, we are going to drop Dr. Laura programming at 12 noon tomorrow, and we are all going to go on live for three hours or however long it takes to answer all the questions. We are going to invite people to call us on the phones at 808-5600, we're going to invite the media to participate or watch -- either participate via our computer stream or to be involved by watching us here in the studio.

It's almost too easy to take apart Morgan's self-important rhetoric, and the commenters at Media Matters already have done so in fine fashion. The bottom line is, there's simply no defense for the hate speech that KSFO broadcasts. Morgan's attempt is simply pathetic: first, no one, least of all Spocko, claims that she and KSFO lack the right to spew the hate that they do; Spocko merely alerted advertisers to what they were saying, verbatim. Conversely, ABC/Disney's strongarm shutdown of Spocko's Brain is a restriction of free speech, for no other reason than they're WATBs. Second, regarding the clips themselves -- what "context" is necessary to interpret threats against Nancy Pelosi, calls to murder liberals, or any of the other incitements to violence that they've broadcast? And what the hell does Spocko's identity or anonymity have to do with the issue here? Morgan and her pals said what they said, and whether it's been disseminated by an anonymous blogger or by the Pope makes absolutely no difference.

Like so many other right-wing whackjobs, elected and otherwise, Morgan et al. whine about how they're the victims in all of this, but the facts, as always, clearly demonstrate otherwise. It might be worth listening at noon Pacific time (3:00 EST) today to see how KSFO defends itself, but I'm sure it's going to be nothing more than a massive circle-jerk for the hosts and their mouth-breathing, sycophantic followers. Don't expect any dissenting opinions to get past the call screeners ...

I'm proud of the liberal blogosphere and especially Spocko for taking a principled and eminently defensible stand here, and I'm honored to be on their team. Meanwhile, to Morgan and the other Hitler Youth at KSFO, congratulations - this Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Fear factor

It's sad that every time I hear of some kind of attack, à la the courthouse yesterday, the first thing I think (so long as it's relatively minor) is that Drunky McStagger will use it for political means, to frighten the country.

This one's no different ... breaking news that the U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece has been hit and damaged by a rocket:

Police cordoned off streets around the heavily guarded building after the explosion shortly before 6 a.m. The shell struck the third floor and smashed glass in nearby buildings.

Investigators found the device used to fire the rocket shell at a construction site near the embassy.

"This is an act of terrorism. We don't know where from," Attica Police Chief Asimakis Golfis said.

"There was a shell that exploded in the toilets of the building ... It was fired from street level."

Thanks for giving Drunky his carte blanche, Chief Golfis. I don't mean to minimize the incident, and I certainly don't have any firsthand information, but calling it "terrorism" right off the bat doesn't seem to be very circumspect. If it's "discovered" that the shooter(s) was/were Iranian, it'll be Katy bar the door.

Hopefully this will be much ado about nothing, and I'm grateful there were no injuries, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear about this again soon ... like, say, in the State of the Union address.

Powder scare at Palm Beach County Courthouse

Reminiscent of the anthrax attacks of 2001 in nearby Boca Raton, two letters bearing a white powdery substance were found this afternoon at the Palm Beach County Courthouse in West Palm Beach.

The FBI said it had no immediate information on what the substance was or whether the letters contained any threats.

People had to strip off their clothes and take showers in a decontamination test set up outside, authorities said.

Sheriff's spokeswoman Teri Barbera said the letters were carried by a mail clerk into the law library and two judges' chambers on the building's ninth floor. She said those areas were sealed off and evacuated, but business went on elsewhere in the courthouse, including several trials.

Here we go again. If someone wanted to create a panic, this would be a good place to start, since my county was the site of the only anthrax death in the U.S. Stay tuned ...

UPDATE (2:02 am 1/12/07): The powder was "tellurium:"

More than two hours after the powder's discovery at about 11:30 a.m., fire-rescue officials identified the substance as tellurium, a poisonous alloying agent used in coloring glass and strengthening lead. If ingested it can cause abdominal disruptions, and if inhaled it can cause drowsiness, headaches, nausea and a garlic odor, according to the Web site of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The substance was stuck to the outside of an envelope addressed to Circuit Judge John Hoy from a local law firm, court operations manager Rick Hussey said. Hussey saw the envelope and said the powder appeared to have been transferred from somewhere else, possibly postal equipment.

So apparently much ado about nothing.

Bonus Daily Schadenfreude: Rudy Giuliani

So, I'm a couple of days behind in my schadenfreude-fest, so how 'bout a bonus? Ol' Rudy's got some 'splainin' to do:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Thursday dismissed his liberal social views, his divorces and his former aide's imbroglio as irrelevant to a presidential bid.

Asked about a leaked political strategy memo that cited such issues as potentially insurmountable obstacles to a campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, Giuliani said: "That is not going to be the issue."

"I sure have strengths and weaknesses," Giuliani said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sort of puts me in the same category as just about everybody else that's running. Are my strengths greater or my weaknesses worse? I don't know. You have to sort of examine that. That won't be the issue."

[...]

Aides claimed the 140-page document was pilfered from a piece of luggage when a staffer changed planes. The document acknowledged the obvious: a moderate Republican who has supported abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control may be a tough sell to GOP primary voters.

It also cited his stormy divorce from Donna Hanover, one of his former wives, and his ties to scandal-plagued former New York City police chief Bernard Kerik as potential obstacles.

Isn't that interesting? Rudy says his personal life is irrelevant to his presidential campaign. Kind of like President Clinton's blow job was irrelevant to his presidency (*cough*impeachment*cough*) and how Mark Foley's indiscretions with pages were irrelevant to his congressional career?

Actually, Rudy, I happen to agree with you to to some extent: your personal life should be irrelevant, at least insofar as it doesn't affect your professional life. And I certainly appreciate your socially progressive views. But you really must know you don't have a chance when the fundies, who after all still control your beloved Republican Party, get a hold of all of your "weaknesses." Good luck with that ... and congratulations, Rudy Giuliani -- this bonus Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Vetting the surge

Today's Post had an interesting perspective on Drunky McStagger's surge speech, from some men who know a thing or two about military service.

As President Bush spoke Wednesday night of sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq to fight America's latest war, some men who have fought earlier wars leaned on the bar at American Legion Post 141 off Belvedere Road, watching the television, wondering and remembering.

"Before we send more troops over there, we should know more about why we're sending more troops," said J.B. "Jimbo" Howe, 64, who served with the 101st Airborne Division from 1959 to 1966. "I think we're losing a war because we're fighting a country that's been at war for many, many years. We don't want any wars we're not going to win again."

Howe hesitated. "But he's the commander in chief," he said of Bush, "and I do support my president - even though I didn't vote for him - because I'm an American citizen."

Howe's response was echoed by several other vets who stood silently watching the president's speech. They didn't favor more troops. They doubted his plan would work. But they wanted their support for the president, and especially for the troops already in Iraq, perfectly clear.

It's really rather simple, and I still don't understand why the wingnuts don't get it. It is possible to support the troops without supporting the president and, as these men show us (even though I don't agree), it's even possible to support the president without supporting the "surge."

"I'm not for sending more troops over there," said Ken Powell, 58, a Vietnam vet who is a past state commander of the American Legion. "I'm for bringing them out as soon as we can bring them out safely. When they didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, we should have started reducing our troops."

But Powell, too, was quick to emphasize his respect for the nation's leader. "I'm not downing the president," he said. "He's done what he's done because he thought it was right at the time. But backing the troops now means bringing them home."

See the distinction? I'll be the first to "down" the preznit, and I don't care if he did what "he thought ... was right at the time." That's no excuse. However, I love the phrasing, "backing the troops now means bringing them home."

It's not about "winning" or "losing" -- now it's just about the lives of loyal, patriotic Americans, fighting someone else's war, and dying only for the pride of the madman in the White House.

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Jeb! Bush and his "midnight appointees"

Looks like there's a new sheriff in Tallahassee after all.

I've been skeptical of the ability of Gov. Crist to overcome the GOP money machine and be his own man, but to his credit, he appears to be doing so, at least at the outset:

One week after taking office, Gov. Charlie Crist Wednesday withdrew the names of 283 members of various state boards and panels who had been appointed by Republican predecessor Jeb Bush but who had not yet been confirmed by the Senate.

Pulled were a dozen names from the Space Florida board of directors, six from the Board of Medicine, one from the Palm Beach Community College board, three from the Pilotage Rate Review Board and two from the Barbers' Board.

The highest-profile jobs affected: two of Bush's choices for the state Board of Education, which oversees public schools, and two for the Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities.

"I want to honor the will of the people," Crist said. "We had an election. And every governor that I can research in recent memory has done this. And the reason, I think, is pretty obvious. People made a choice, they'd like a fresh start and some new blood, and we're going to give it to them."

He said some of the names yanked might be reappointed but that most would be fresh faces of his own choosing.

Two of the most odious names withdrawn were a couple of Jeb!'s biggest political cronies, T. Willard Fair and F. Phillip Handy.

One top administration official said privately that Crist also had been troubled by what the official called the "arrogance" of T. Willard Fair and Phil Handy.

"I think there is some justice in this world," said Jim Warford, the former K-12 schools chancellor who was forced from his job after questioning the validity of Bush's school grading system. "I applaud our new governor."

Fair and Handy, both loyal political supporters of Bush, were seen as the best chance Bush had of maintaining influence over the state's education system after his departure.

Just last month, Fair said to Jeb!, when Fair was elected chairman of the Board of Education (now rescinded), "In my judgment, there is no greater person on this Earth than you. I love you." That's good enough for me to enjoy the withdrawal of his appointment. Meanwhile, it seems the ironic attempt by Jeb! to extend the term of Handy, who was the champion of the "Eight is Enough" term limit measure, has failed, deliciously.

Jeb! Bush essentially gutted the quality of K-12 education in Florida by introducing and maintaining the FCAT. He also created literally hundreds of new gubernatorially-appointed posts in higher education, thereby reducing oversight over higher education by decentralizing and politicizing the governance of the state's 28 community colleges and 11 universities. Anything that can be done to reduce or eliminate Jeb!'s influence over education is, in my opinion, a good thing.

Admittedly, it's a common practice in Florida for governors to rescind the later, unconfirmed appointments* of their predecessors. However, in comparison to Jeb!'s rescission of about 170 of Democratic governor Lawton Chiles' appointees in 1999, Crist's bold move of taking away more than half again as many from a predecessor of his own party is notable, if not historic.

So, to the 283 disappointed Bushies in Florida this morning, I revel in your misfortune! Congratulations -- today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

* I call them "midnight appointments" in the title in deference to the incident when Thomas Jefferson refused to transmit to Congress the names of the "midnight judges" appointed by John Adams just before leaving the presidency in 1801. This controversy was the genesis of the seminal U.S. Supreme Court opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison.

There's your history lesson for today.

Heads I win, tails you lose

The unscientific website polls are all the rage, right? CNN, MSNBC, ABC, they all love 'em.

ABC tops them all with the single most biased, ridiculously-worded non-choice poll I've ever seen:

If Bush admits making mistakes in the War in Iraq, should he apologize?

Yes. I think mistakes were made and that if he admits them, his future plan will be more credible.

No. He believed he was making the best decisions at the time he made them. No apology necessary.

So, either he should apologize so he's more credible in the future, or no, he shouldn't because he was doing his best. Unbelievable.

So, ABC, I've got a third option for you:

Yes. He lied to get us into the war and consistently mishandled the war for over four years, but the presence or absence of an apology is completely irrelevant to whether or not more troops should be condemned to die for your folly.

Too strongly worded? Hey, it's just a suggestion ...

Anti-war protests nationwide tomorrow

With Drunky McStagger expected to call in his address tonight for more troops who will fight and die for Bush's Folly, activists across the country are mobilizing for protests tomorrow, January 11.

There are a number of protests planned for south Florida, including:

• downtown Fort Lauderdale, in front of the Federal Building on Broward Blvd. at NE 3rd Ave., 6:00 pm
• Boca Raton, corner of Glades and St. Andrews adjacent to the Town Center Mall, 6:30 pm
• Stuart, south end of the Roosevelt Bridge on US 1, 4:00 pm
• Lake Worth, City Hall, 7 N. Dixie Hwy., 5:00 pm

You can search for events planned near you as well.

It's time for our voices to be heard. Let's remind Drunky why the 2006 election and the latest poll numbers are more than just statistics.

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Bush judicial appointees

Oh, is this ever sweet. I've long held that the real, long-term effect of elections occurs in the only non-elected branch of federal government: the judiciary. Therefore, I can conceive of no better early example of the positive effect from Democratic control of Congress than this:

In a concession to the Senate's new Democratic majority, four of President Bush's appeals court appointees have asked to have their nominations withdrawn, Republican officials said Tuesday.

These officials said that William Haynes, William G. Myers III and Terrence Boyle had all decided to abandon their quest for confirmation. Another nominee, Michael Wallace, let it be known last month that he, too, had asked Bush to withdraw his nomination.

Haynes is the Pentagon's top lawyer, and was an architect of the Bush's now-abandoned policy toward treatment of detainees in the war on terror. He had been tapped for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Boyle is a federal judge in North Carolina, and his appointment to the 4th Circuit provoked opposition from Democrats who cited his rulings in civil rights and disability cases, as well as his higher-than-average reversal rate by higher courts.

Myers, nominated to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sparked opposition from environmentalist organizations and their allies among Senate Democrats.

Wallace's appointment to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals drew opposition from Democrats, civil rights groups and the American Bar Association.

Drunky McStagger is notorious for appointing only the most rabid wingnuts to the federal bench, so it's refreshing and satisfying to see the checks and balances actually occurring.

Of course, the Rethugs are crying foul:

But Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center [hahahaha! - Ed.] and a former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, countered for conservatives. "In support of their own agenda of liberal judicial activism, Senate Democrats have engaged in unprecedented measures of obstruction against the president's highly qualified nominees," he said.

Yep, he said unprecedented measures of obstruction. This guy must have balls the size of, well, Antonin Scalia. Now, where might we have heard language like that before, hmmm?

Citing "unprecedented obstructionist tactics," President Bush resorted to using his recess appointment power twice during the 108th Congress. He invoked his recess appointment power for the first time to appoint Charles Pickering to the 5th Circuit on January 16, 2004, between sessions of Congress. This action ratcheted up the partisan feuding over nominees, particularly because Pickering had previously been rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 107th Congress. According to Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) in remarks later given on the floor of the Senate, this marked the first time a President had used his recess appointment power to install a rejected nominee. President Bush used his recess appointment power a second time on February 20, 2004, naming William Pryor, the former Attorney General of Alabama, to the 11th Circuit. This recess appointment occurred during a five-day winter break, not between sessions, and provoked calls for retaliation from the Democrats who pledged to challenge the validity of Pryor's recess appointment.

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true, Mr. Whelan. It just makes you sound like a whiny-ass titty baby.

But wait -- there's more. Let's examine "unprecedented," shall we?

In total, during the 106th Congress [(1999-2000)], President Clinton nominated 116 individuals and the Senate confirmed 73 nominees (15 to the U.S. courts of appeals, 57 to the U.S. district courts, and one to the Court of International Trade) and rejected one. At the close of the 106th Congress 67 vacancies remained (25 in the U.S. courts of appeals and 42 in the U.S. district courts) and 41 nominations were returned to the President. In December 2000, President Clinton exercised his recess appointment power by appointing Roger Gregory to the 4th Circuit.

[...]

By the end of the 107th Congress [(2001-02)], [President Bush] had nominated 131 individuals to the bench; the Senate Judiciary Committee had held hearings for 103 nominees and approved 100, rejected two (Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen, both for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals) and not voted on one; and the Senate confirmed 100 nominees -- 83 to the district courts and 17 to the courts of appeals. Thirty-one nominations were returned to the President. The Senate Judiciary Committee did not take any action on 28 of the 31 returned nominees.

The 108th Congress [(2003-04)] continued to process nominees until the final days of the 2nd Session. The Senate Judiciary Committee held its last hearing on judicial nominees on November 16, 2004, and the Senate voted to confirm five district court nominees on November 20, 2004.

In the end, 104 of President Bush's 131 nominees were confirmed (28 to the courts of appeals, 85 to the district courts and one to the Court of International Trade), 2 were recessed appointed and 23 nominations were pending. At the close of the 108th Congress, twenty-eight out of 875 Article III judgeships were vacant, producing a record-low vacancy rate, which had hovered around or below 4.0% since summer 2003.

I'm having trouble finding statistics for the just-concluded 109th Congress. But, if you're scoring at home, here's the tally:

106th Congress (Clinton): 116 nominated, 73 confirmed, for a 62.9% conversion rate.
107th Congress (Bush): 131 nominated, 100 confirmed, 76.3% conversion rate.
108th Congress (Bush): 131 nominated, 104 confirmed, 79.4% conversion rate.

"Unprecedented measures of obstruction," my pasty white ass. Once again, the GOP weakly (and repetitively) tries to revise history, and once again, their contentions are easily refuted.

It's so nice to see these four wingnut nominees have to slink off with their tails between their legs. And so, congratulations to Messrs. Haynes, Myers, Boyle, and Wallace. You may not have a lifetime pass to restrict basic human rights, but I hope you can console yourselves with the knowledge that today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Call off the slobbering media hounds: Sen. Johnson upgraded to fair

Here's some good news: although Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) is still in intensive care, he is improving steadily.

Sen. Tim Johnson's condition has been upgraded from critical to fair, four weeks after he was hospitalized for a brain hemorrhage, his office said Tuesday.

The South Dakota Democrat, who was rushed to the hospital on Dec. 13 and underwent emergency surgery, remains in intensive care, said his spokeswoman, Julianne Fisher.

"The senator continues to make progress," Fisher said. "The next step would be rehabilitation and we hope that would happen within the week."

So, all the media that had been lathered up, hoping for a switch back to a Republican-controlled Senate, ought to cool their jets for a while at least. Get well soon, Sen. Johnson.

Everyone in the pool!

It's a free-for-all today as the 2008 campaign season picks up momentum (but, we hope, not "Joe-mentum").

First, proving that wingnuts of a feather flock together, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is endorsing former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for president. This is notable if only because Romney doesn't have a chance in hell the other South Carolina senator, Lindsey Graham (R), is a big Surge McCain supporter. It's a strange situation when Lindsey Graham, one of the leaders of the Clinton impeachment proceedings in the House, is the more moderate senator of any pair.
Next, in an apparent effort to show that anyone with a pulse is better than what we've got now, former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore (R) has filed papers to establish an exploratory committee. Touting himself as a "true conservative," he's all about cutting taxes. No one knows anything else about him -- including his family -- so good luck with that, Jim.

Meanwhile, there's excitement on the Democratic side ... well, okay, perhaps not "excitement," but at least, um, a pulse of activity ... as Al Sharpton may be back in the picture.

"If we're talking about the urban agenda, can you tell me anybody else in the field who's representing that right now?" Sharpton asked. "We clearly have a reason to run, and whether we do it or not we'll see over the next couple of months."

[...]

Despite widespread interest in the likely candidacy of another influential black Democrat, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Sharpton said he's heard little substantive discussion of issues that might influence his decision about running.

"Right now we're hearing a lot of media razzle dazzle," Sharpton said. "I'm not hearing a lot of meat, or a lot of content. I think when the meat hits the fire, we'll find out if it's just fat or if there's some real meat there."

Well, so much for the vegetarian vote.

And the circus continues ...

Adjusting my tin-foil hat

With tonight's news of the military strike against al-Qaeda targets in Somalia, let's pause to appreciate the timing of the action.

Surely it's coincidental that this occurs, or at least is announced, less than 48 hours before Drunky McStagger announces his "new way forward" ... I mean, it's not designed to prop up his flagging poll numbers or give him any "evidence" of further terrorist threats, right? I'm sure Drunky wouldn't use the military as his personal plaything to accomplish political ends.


...


HAHAHAHAHAHA!

I knew I couldn't say all that with a straight face!

Of course today's strike was politically motivated! You need go no further than the above-linked article to reach that conclusion:

The U.S. has believed for years that a group of al-Qaida operatives has been hiding in Somalia.

That's years, folks ... not weeks or months, but years. And only just now, two days before a big speech, is it militarily and strategically expedient to strike.

If you believe that, I've got some real estate not too far west of here that may interest you ...

Five years of lip service

Today marks the fifth anniversary of the program that practically defined the term "unfunded mandate," No Child Left Behind.

In his remarks recognizing the occasion, the preznit reminded us why education is so important, and why it's bad to not be educated:

And in our discussions today, we've all agreed to work together to address some of the major concerns that some people have on this piece of legislation, without weakening the essence of the bill, and get a piece of legislation done.

This man has degrees from Yale and Harvard. Both institutions should be ashamed.

Surge protector

The way to stop a surge, obviously, is to stop paying for it.

In an interview in her new office at the capitol, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi told reporters ... that a troop surge translates to an escalation of the war in Iraq. She said sending more forces is the exact opposite of what most Americans want and the White House can’t expect the new Congress to approve money for the action.

"They have to know that the election of a Democratic Congress has made a difference in the oversight of in war in Iraq."

Pelosi said she is now willing to cut off money for the whole war, but will demand justification for any new funding. "You can have tremendous sway in saying, what is this money for, how is it a path to a resolution of this conflict," she said.

I give it, oh, a couple of hours before we hear how the Democrats don't support the troops, and the SCLM manages to turn "no funding for sending new troops" into "no funding for troops."

But, just remember, folks, which party actually supports the troops where it counts, with their votes.

Dems control Congress, McCain still alive

Thanks to a letter to the editor in this morning's South Florida Sun-Sentinel, I'm reminded of the pledge John "Surge" McCain made back in October. Said the Surgemeister, if the Democrats take control of Congress:

"I think I'd just commit suicide," McCain told reporters, to accompanying laughter from Republicans standing with him. "I don't want to face that eventuality because I don't think it's going to happen."

Well? We're waiting.

Speak of the devil

Yep, this is Blast Off!'s 666th post.

In honor of that, some special photos for your enjoyment ...




I wanted to find the pic of Drunky McStagger with devil horns from the seal behind him, but I couldn't find it ... gotta board my flight as I head home to Florida.

Happy 666th post, Blast Off!