General Asscrack And The Bill of Rights

Most experts say those barriers had been firmly in place since the mid-1980s. But if blame for insufficient terror-fighting tools is being doled out, maybe Ashcroft is in for a bit too. When Janet Reno's Justice Department protested efforts in the 1990s to make it easier for Silicon Valley to export encryption technology overseas, then-Senator Ashcroft seemed unconcerned with her contention that terrorists were turning to Internet encryption to communicate. One example she, FBI head Louis Freeh and others in law enforcement cited: Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, used encryption to hide details of his plot to blow up 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific. But Ashcroft, in a 1997 piece in USIA Electronic Journal, wrote that while coded messages and maps might be used to facilitate crimes, the Administration's "police state policy on encryption" was at odds with the Bill of Rights -- an argument that foes of the Patriot Act might be surprised to hear from him now. President Clinton, he said, "is attempting to foist his rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer industry."

Former Clinton Commerce Department officials say pressure from Capitol Hill played a large role in their eventual decision to lift export controls on encryption technology. "They had us against the wall," says one. Ashcroft at the time said he was "pleased" that "the Administration finally has listened to those of us in Congress who long have urged export decontrol." That was in 1999, a year after the U.S. indicted Wadih El Hage in the plot to bomb two American embassies in East Africa. According to the indictment, El Hage sent encrypted e-mails to associates in al-Qaeda. Since becoming Attorney General, Ashcroft has not pushed to change the policy. Time magazine, May 1, 2004

Bush Suck-Up Watch

Only a lunatic would read the following as the work of a "liberal journalist," desperate to "rescue" the Kerry campaign:

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio, April 27 - The man who would be president takes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches - on whole wheat, strawberry jelly preferred to grape - twice a day on the campaign trail. He wears $15 reading glasses, off the rack at CVS. Before bedtime, he starts but rarely finishes movies like "Seabiscuit" and "The Blues Brothers" in his hotel suite. Come morning, he leaves $20 for the maid.

The story is about Senator Kerry's personal assistant on the campaign trail. At best, the article fluff is taking space from the message and substance of Kerry's campaign. At worst (and I agree with this view), it's moronic Kerry bashing, portraying Kerry as an elitist with his own butler/valet.

But to which voters does Sully think this portrait of Kerry will appeal? Jelly lovers? Shareholders in Spectravision? Underpaid hotel workers who aren't stupid enough to vote for Bush anyway? Sully hasn't insulted liberals, he's insulted the voting public who he imagines are as obsessed with trivialities as he is.

TBogg posts Hugh "Jass" Hewitt's Los Angeles Times op-ed page Dream Team, which Huge recommends to the page's new editor, Michael Kinsley. Huge's picks:

Roger L. Simon

Dennis Prager

Patt Morrison

Susan Estrich

Laura Ingraham

Max Boot

James Lileks

Charles Krauthammer

George Fwill

Mickey Kaus (but only if he learns to write)

So we have eight bats right, one bats left and one switch hitter. Oh, and a "guest column from the ranks of the bloggers," in case Kaus is caught using steriods or corking his head. The Times might as well just print the URL for Clownhall and save the cost of ink and paper.

Not only are Huge's choices convservative, they're also conservative. If the Times is going to make a change, why not line up some fresh voices, some up-and-coming talents, instead of fossils like Will, Prager and Kaus?

Why not recommend federal courts/gastrointestinal specialist Kaye Grogan:

With all due respect to the United States Supreme court, I don't think it sets a good example to be selective in what cases they will hear and won't hear. They should hear all cases that come before them. In the ongoing battle between what is really the meaning of separation between church and state, Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in Virginia, has been hanging out on a limb for quite awhile now, with no resolution in sight. What alternative is left after being rejected by the highest court in the land to hear their case? They could be hung out to dry. . .permanently

For many years the military institution has been saying grace before meals, until a lower federal court ruled the mealtime grace was unconstitutional. Baloney! Has anyone ever considered getting nauseated or heartburn after meals could be associated with not thanking God for their food?

Sure. The makers of Prilosec did, but they conspired with the ACLU to surpress the information for commercial gain.

Or how about European history expert Barbara Stock:

Oh, for the days when knights wore shining armor and came to the rescue of damsels in distress. They slew mythical dragons and searched for the Holy Grail. The world has a different kind of knight these days. King Arthur would take an axe to the Round Table if he were alive today.

And who would blame him for decapitating Billy Sardell?

Or to opine on L.A.'s primary industry, showbiz savant Richard Mullenax:

However, some of the celebrities that were at the [March for Women's Lives] flabbergasted me: Ashley Judd, Lisa Loeb, Salma Hayek, and Amy Jo Johnson, who starred in the once popular kid's television series ''Mighty Morphing Power Rangers.'' It was sad and disappointing for me to see such talented people support an unholy act of human ignorance. After all, these are the entertainers we give our hard-earned money to so that they may entertain us.

Dick lists the celebrities who "backed" the march, urges his reader to "[w]rite firm, but non-threatening, letters to any if not all of the entertainers and express your disappointment in them." And in Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie.

Sure, the average Hewitt listener may lack the ability to grasp such subtle writing, but we can't dumb down everything to the level of the Jassheads.

Larry Elder Busts A Jig

Larry "Misdemeanor" Elder is not down with Senator John Kerry, because Kerry finds rap music interesting. Says Lar:

Despite "Jiggy Fly" Kerry's respect for "music" that, in some cases, calls women "bitches" and "hos," his message should be: "Hard work wins. You get out of life what you put into it. Avoid making bad moral mistakes. No matter how dire your circumstances, you have a moral obligation to attempt to better yourself. If your home lacks a good role model, seek out a teacher, relative, friend, member of the clergy, or neighborhood youth center or some other charitable or self-help organization."

Larry also gives us the 411 on rap videos:

The jewelry-draped performers often bounce around with barely-dressed, jiggling women. The rappers rap about having sex, getting high or doing drugs -- often with a backdrop of a spacious mansion, equipped with swimming pool and Jacuzzi.

Damn, Larry, now you've spoiled the ending for me!

Larry also calls Kerry "Senator Dawg," confusing him with the junior senator from the Keystone State.

I'm not sure what eVote is, but it also has an interesting article on blogs and the rumor about Texas Governor Rick Perry. The article's premise is somewhat overblown, and the topic sentence is just ludicrous: "On February 13th, 2004, the nature of the political dirty trick changed forever, but almost nobody noticed at the time." Oh really? 2/13/04 is the first time a "dirty" political rumor was reported on a blog? Do I even need to link to something here?

More Jesse Taylor, less hysteria, please.

As previously noted, Matt Drudge will appear on C-SPAN's Washington Journal tomorrow at 8 a.m. Eastern time. I hope my fellow Republicans who are able to get through will query Drudge on the issues of the day:

Should Senator Kerry be eggscommunicated?

Why doesn't Bush have an eggsit strategy in Iraq?

Fertilized egg: life or nature's Viagra?

Karen Hughes: hard-boiled or cracked?

And, to Brian Lamb: Does it smell like sulphur right now?

Where Kaus Slept: Not In Vietnam!

Midget Mickey Kaus triumphantly trumpets -- with an exclamation point! -- his supposed debunking of a lie told by Senator Kerry. Kaus claims that Kerry lied when he said he did not sleep on the Mall in Washington D.C. while protesting the Vietnam War with his fellow veterans. The hairless hack unequivocally states:

Kerry didn't throw his own medals over the wall in that 1971 antiwar protest and he didn't sleep on the Mall with his Viet Vet buddies either. He snuck off and slept in a Georgetown townhouse.

But Kaus doesn't even begin to make his case for his assertion. The only source he cites is a Robert Sam Anson piece from the New York Observer in which Anson plainly does not state that Kerry slept at a Georgetown townhouse.

The hairless hack also sneers at Kerry's website for its denial of the charge:

Kerry's own Web site dismisses the Kerry-slept-in-Georgetown charge as an attempt to "smear him with the same unsubstantiated charge the Nixon White House used in 1971." Now not so unsubstantiated ... although I suppose Kerry will now claim he secretly snuck back to the Mall to sleep after the brandies in the library. ... (Emphasis added.)

Had Kaus bothered to read the Kerry page to which he links, he would have seen this:

In Fact, Kerry Biographer Says Kerry Slept on Mall, Used house for business and organizing (its not like he had a cell phone in 1971).

"Although he slept on the Mall, he [Kerry] used the Georgetown home of Oatsie and Robert Charles as a place to conduct business." [Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty, p. 364]

So the Kerry campaign's description of Kerry's activities is fully consistent with the Anson article, while Kaus's misreading of the article is not. And the website provides a source -- the Brinkley book -- which the hack didn't bother to consult.

Let's recap: Little Mick asserts, unequivocally, that Kerry "didn't sleep on the Mall .... He snuck off and slept in a Georgetown townhouse." He then links to an article which doesn't say that Kerry slept in a Georgetown townhouse, as proof of his claim. He then bashes the Kerry campaign for calling the charges "unsubstantiated" without bothering to substantiate the charges. And he insinuates that Kerry will have to change his story ("I suppose Kerry will now claim...") when Kerry's story is already consistent with the Anson piece.

That's got to be the Triple Crown of Hackery!

But that's not good enough for Kaus; he wants the Lifetime Acheivement Award. In a later post, Kaus simpers:

If Kerry spent only one night in Georgetown and several nights on the mall, why didn't he just say that, instead of denying the charge and letting his campaign call it a 'smear'? If he just drank brandy in the library (see Update), why doesn't he say that?

You see, it's Kerry's fault for denying the allegation that was made against him, rather than another one that exists only in Kaus's mind. ("Kerry failed to reveal that he drank brandy during the same time he was protesting the war!") And it's not Kaus's burden to present actual evidence for his own assertion. Here are my questions: If Kaus has no evidence that Kerry slept where he says he did, why doesn't he say that, instead of repeating a smear? When the Anson article doesn't say what Kaus claims, why doesn't Kaus just say that?

It's amusing -- and easy -- to point out Kaus's hate-fueled hackery, but the deviant workings of a small and twisted mind aren't all that important. The more significant matter is Kaus's bashing of Kerry on matters of little significance. Kerry served -- and slept -- in Vietnam, while Kaus, though fit for service, did not serve his country in the armed forces. Did Kaus protest the war or make any sacrifices to end the war? Who knows. But the fact that Kaus is obsessed with Kerry's sleeping arrangements and completely ignores the relevant issues behind the trivia -- the validity of the War in Vietnam, military service, the military draft, and the right to dissent against government policies -- demonstrates that Kaus is a man of no substance, unfit (though entitled) speak on any matters of national importance.

Who Said It?

The Bush administration lied America into war, and the damage to our credibility will be long-lasting and grave. Admitting the truth would help repair the harm.

The Passion of Mad Pat

With his own history of distorting the statements of others for rhetorical gain, it's fittingly ironic that Dr. Charles Quackhammer is being subjected to similar abuse by Pat Buchanan.

In a column in The American Conservative, Pat asks: "Speaking of blood libel, has there been one greater than Krauthammer's accusation that the Gospel of Jesus Christ paved the way to Auschwitz?" In an article mostly taking on Jewish critics of Mad Mel's Cruciflix, The Passion of The Christ, Buchanan writes:

In a Washington Post column titled "Gibson’s Blood Libel," Charles Krauthammer links the crucifixion story to "a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands." For 2000 years, he says, the Catholic Church taught that "the Jews were Christ killers." Only at Vatican II did Rome take responsibility for the "baleful history" that came out of the "central story" of the Gospels.

The blood libel that this story [of the crucifixion] affixed upon the Jewish people had led to countless Christian massacres of Jews and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre—6 million Jews systematically murdered in six years—in the heart, alas, of a Christian continent. It is no accident Vatican II occurred just two decades after the Holocaust, indeed in its shadow.

But Krauthammer stands truth on its head. Not until the ideas of Rousseau, Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud had poisoned the soul of Europe and Christianity had lost the continent did Hitler and Stalin come to power to work their evil will upon Christians and Jews. Hitler learned his hatreds in Viennese gutters, not Catholic schools.

And Mad Pat insinuates that anti-semitic violence throughout the ages was the product not of Catholic teaching, but of the Enlightenment and liberal, "non-Christian" ideas such as evolution, communism and psychotherapy. Because anti-semitism didn't exist before 1760, as we all know.

Mad Pat's thesis is basically that millions of Christians loved the Passion -- as demonstrated by the fact that they paid nine bucks to see it, and there was a longer line at confession recently -- so if you criticize the film, you're guilty of a "hate crime" against those Christians. (Pat's words.) Plus no one at Pat's grade school ever called Jews "Christ killers." So bite me.

Pat then quotes himself as saying, "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America," and says that those who hated The Passion "are, almost all, on the other side in that war." (Or: Judeo has always been at war with Christiania.) He also paraphrases Irving Kristol as stating that if American Jews know what's good for them -- if they wish "to maintain their separate and unique religious and ethnic character"-- they'll clam up and "not be in the vanguard of those seeking to prevent Christians from maintaining the Christian character of their country."

Anyway, Krauthammer can take care of himself, and Mad Pat surely would never "punch his lights out," as he imagines someone doing to Frank Rich. Maybe Pat's essay will help Chuck learn the consequences of misquoting and distorting. At least, we'd imagine, those Tribute to Saint Ronnie dinners in D.C. will be a bit livelier for the forseeable future.

(Link courtesy of Roy Edroso at alicublog.)

For once my e-mail from readers is actually outpacing that from my dedicated foreign correspondents such the widow Mariam Abacha and former Senator Pius Anyim. I read every e-mail I receive that doesn't look like spam or have a suspicious attachment, and try to respond to most of them. And I truly appreciate your comments and contributions. Please forgive me if I haven't responded, as it usually is just due to a lack of time.

Eggspose Hypocrisy

Here's an eggcellent opportunity for the little people who have basic cable to eggspose hypocrisy in high places. Matt Drudge has announced that he will be a guest on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this Friday morning. I hope my Republican readers (if you know what I mean) will eggsploit this opportunity to eggsamine Matt in eggscruciating detail on some of those eggsplosive rumors in current circulation. You know, the ones about Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, the Bush family, and the like. (And others -- I'm not very well connected on this stuff.) Ask if Matt's developed any contacts on these stories, and if he's following up leads. If not, help him out with potential sources.

And if Brian Lamb gives you any lip, remind him about dogs and fleas.

Hate Radio

It's always instructive to watch the wingnuts lie.

Last week, Boston talk show host Jay Severin, a G.O.P. stalwart and veteran of several Republican political campaigns, said "I think we should kill them" while referring to Muslims.

Matthew Mills, the general manager of the station that employs Severin raised the purported defense that Severin would only kill all non-American Muslims, given the chance. According to Rabiah Ahmed: "[Mills] said that [Severin] wasn't talking about American Muslims, he was talking about Muslims outside the US."

According to the Boston Globe, Mills was lying.

The station, demonstrating the courage of its convictions, refused to provide the paper with a tape of the program. However, according to a transcript:

As part of his response [to a caller], Severin said, "I believe that Muslims in this country are a fifth column. . . . The vast majority of Muslims in this country are very obviously loyal, not to the United States, but to their religion. And I'm worried that when the time comes for them to stand up and be counted, the reason they are here is to take over our culture and eventually take over our country."

He said: "My suspicion is that the majority of Muslims in the United States, who regard themselves as Muslims first and not as Americans really at all, see an American map one day where this is the United States of Islam, not the United States of America. I think it pays to harbor those suspicions."

So Mills said that Severin was talking about Muslims outside the U.S., but Severin refers repeatedly to Muslims "in the country" and "in the United States."

Although the Globe does not a provide a complete copy of the transcript, it appears that nowhere before the "kill them" statement does Severin change the subject to foreign Muslims, or radical Muslims, or anti-American Muslims. In fact, the caller also refers to "Muslims in this country" right before Severin makes the kill comment.

A few weeks back, in a column bashing Air America, Severin claimed that liberals spent years "dismissing talk radio as a vast, embarrassing wasteland of doltish, bigoted, old, angry, overweight, religious white men named Chuck." Clearly they were wrong. In Beantown, talk radio is a vast, embarrassing wasteland of doltish, bigoted, old, angry, relatively slender, religious white men named Jay.

I'm going to make a special effort to praise Republicans who condemn this hateful bigot. If you see any, please let me know.

On the other hand, I'm also happy to give the spotlight to any bloviating GOP asswipes who stand up for Severin and decry "the crushing of dissent." (Link via Hesiod.)

Update: I've removed "like whores" from the end of the first sentence. Comparing Severin and his station manager to whores is disrespectful to whores.

Straight To Hale

The only thing that could improve this story is if Gluteus Maximus receives the maximum sentence.

A federal jury today found white supremacist Matthew Hale guilty of seeking the murder of a federal judge who had ruled against him in a civil case.

Hale, 32, was found guilty of four of five counts against him --ne of solicitation for murder and three of obstruction of justice.

The jury's verdict, announced this morning in the downtown Chicago courtroom of U.S. District Judge James Moody, came on the third day of deliberations in the case of the one-time "Pontifex Maximus" of the former World Church of the Creator.

You can now contribute to the presidential candidate of your choice through amazon.com. Senator Kerry is leading Bush by over $100,000 at present, with a total of $135,050 in donations. When you click on the link to donate for Bush, the site reads:

Customers who bought this candidate also bought:

-- Lies About Weapons of Mass Destruction

-- Hundreds of Billions of Dollars Worth of Death and Destruction, packaged as light entertainment on basic cable news

-- Unconscionable Deficits Which Will Burden The Country For Generations

-- Security, At The Cost Of Liberty (not currently available)

Customers interested in this candidate may also be interested in:

Freelance Jobs. $2.95

Hundreds of work-at-home jobs. Start your work at home career now.

And someone (or more than one person) actually gave Lyndon LaRouche 300 clams. Stay tuned for an announcement regarding the launch of the Roger Ailes 2004 Exploratory Committee.

Nick Pistof, the Evangelical Avenger, writes:

And in polite society, conservative Christians -- especially Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses -- are among the last groups it's still acceptable to mock.

Could someone remind Nick that many of his maltreated evangelicals don't think that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. Now that's tolerance!

We also suspect that no research was committed in the preparation of this sentence:

But on many campuses, it's easier to find people who can discuss the Upanishads than the "Left Behind" books about Jesus' Second Coming — which, with more than 40 million copies, are the best-selling American novels of our age.

Pisty's column is full of such unsubstantiated assertions -- Exactly which campuses are those? Exactly which "polls show that evangelical Christians are more likely to contribute to charities that help the needy?" (And more likely than who?) I guess I'm too impolite to get invited to the elite Jehovah's Witness-bashing parties that are all the rage.

Kristof concludes, "It's always easy to point out the intolerance of others. Why, this column took me less than 20 minutes to write."

I hope the Democratic Party provides at least some sort of convention access to progressive bloggers without SCLM ties, including those linked at the DNC's own blog, Kicking Ass, and/or many of the fine writers listed to the right.

This isn't self-promotion, since I have neither the time nor the abilities to undertake such an effort. I will happily follow the Democratic convention from my couch, watching on C-SPAN. (Plus, my meager talents for ridicule would be much better used at the Republican National Convention.) But I would eagerly read dispatches from Boston from the many lefty bloggers I read daily.

And it would help the Dems get their story out while the mighty mainstream media flatulates on and on about Wafergate, Medalomania and Teresa's taxes.

Roger's Bad Taste Corner

Jesse Taylor at Pandagon.net links to a Republican National Convention contest in which Republicans aged 18-24 years are supposed to "Stand Up And Holla!" by composing a short essay which "answers this question (sic): Why is the President's call to community service important and how have you demonstrated it?"

Channelling the types of Young (and old) Republicans who are prominent on the 'net and elsewhere, I've come up with this:

My Community Service, by a Hipublican

I'm gonna holla!

I'm a GOP-baller!

I'ma bitch-smack anyone prayin' to Allah!

Dead fuckin' meat all over Ramallah!*

N' fuck them losers livin' in squalor!

Rudy shoot their asses with a service revolva!

Keep 'em outta sight, build the wall taller!

But service is my right when my crime is white collar!

I'm Karl Rove Jnr., right down to the pallor!

Like Ken Mehlman's dick, nobody's smaller!

* No military service offered or implied by this sentiment.