Wingnuts Unhinged Yet Again (UPDATED)

First, let me just say that the new Hillary Clinton campaign video is a parody of the last scene of The Sopranos. And it's pretty lame. Even worse, the point of the video is to announce that Hillary (and no doubt the usual gang of Beltway consultants) has selected her campaign anthem--and it's a song by Celine Dion. Oy. If you actually NEEDED another reason not to vote for Ms. Republican Lite this primary season, there you go.

But one thing I do like about Hillary is her ability to drive right wingers completely over the edge into babbling dementia. Take this blog entry from Wisconsin Law Professor Ann Althouse: Bill says 'No onion rings?' and Hillary responds 'I'm looking out for ya.' Now, the script says onion rings, because that's what the Sopranos were eating in that final scene, but I doubt if any blogger will disagree with my assertion that, coming from Bill Clinton, the 'O' of an onion ring is a vagina symbol. Hillary says no to that, driving the symbolism home. She's 'looking out' all right, vigilant over her husband, denying him the sustenance he craves."

Dear God, the woman is utterly demented.

For the record, this blogger DOES disagree that the onion ring is a vagina symbol. If your lady parts are brown with a flaky crust, you need to see a doctor, stat.

UPDATE: Gotta love this from Althouse's followup post:

I'm saying outright: Come on, everybody, into the vortex. And in they hop. It's an anti-Althousiana fest. I love it!

Translation: I'm not a nutcase, I'm an attention whore! I say stupid stuff so you'll bash me and I can play the martyr! And you've all fallen for it! HAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

The lady sure does know how to bring the crazy.

Letters, Oh We Get Letters, The So F'ing What? Edition

ThePilot.com : Column Was 'Amazing': "

Dusty Rhoades' June 10 column was truly amazing. I have followed Dusty's columns and recognize his disappointment in the ethics and character of President Clinton.

Clinton on the brain, still. Will this obsession with the Clenis never end?

I would like to request a definition of the words "lie" and "lying," as perceived by Mr. Rhoades.

Lying: What Scooter Libby was convicted of.

Lie: What Scooter Libby was convicted of telling.

I would also appreciate it if he would quote one lie spoken by President Bush.

Soon as you tell me where in the column I specifically attributed a lie to President Bush. I'll wait.

Valerie Plame was the "smokin' hot CIA WMD" specialist whom the taxpayers paid enough to buy a Jaguar convertible.

So? You think Scooter Libby drove a Moped to work?

Why was her husband needed in the first place, and how much did that cost?

Ask the CIA. They sent him. And who cares, anyway?

The British never changed their opinion.

So? The Bushistas did. Read the column again.

Little children learn that calling other people names does not improve the character or ethics of the people they wish to idolize.

I suppose that's true. Again, so?

Richard Kiehl

Pinehurst

I'm A Moron--And I VOTE!

N.Y. Town Accidentally Bans Beer:

When they held a referendum in the little town of Potter, New York, to determine if one of the town's restaurants, which already sold beer in its attached convenience store, could sell brewskis in the restaurant itself, well, hijinks ensued:

State alcoholic beverage control laws require that whenever a town wants to expand the way it sells alcohol, it must ask voters five questions — “stupid questions,” according to the town supervisor, Leonard Lisenbee, a retired federal game warden who has been in office six years and who characterized the state-mandated wording as post-Prohibition-era legalese.

The questions, requiring more than 300 words, ask whether alcohol should be allowed in a variety of settings, including a hotel and, separately, a “summer hotel.” “Shall any person be authorized to sell alcoholic beverages at retail to be consumed on premises licensed pursuant to the provisions of Section 64 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law?” was the relevant one to the Hitchin’ Rail. But there was also “Shall any person be authorized to sell alcoholic beverages at retail, not to be consumed on the premises, where sold in the town of Potter?” which relates to stores like the Federal Hollow.

“I read it and I couldn’t understand it, and I’ve got a college education,” Mr. Lisenbee said. “When voters get confused, they vote no.”

And they did.

And so, the town of Potter brought back Prohibition.

The voters said no to all five questions, not only keeping the Hitchin’ Rail’s restaurant from serving beer and wine, but also blocking both stores from selling it, upon the expiration of their current licenses. Which means that on July 1, when the Federal’s license expires, the closest six-pack available for purchase will be in a town 10 miles away.

Pigs Get Wings

It's a common cliche in advertising that the product in question makes you more beddable in the eyes of the opposite sex. This ad for the well-known and well-respected Trojan brand of condoms merely takes that well-worn trope to its logical conclusion. So why are the networks refusing to run it?


(I confess, I laughed.)

Oh, Boy, More Sopranos

Assuming you're not already sick of the speculation, he's another take on the "Tony Got Whacked" theory from Hollywood.com:

HOLLYWOOD - Rocker Steve Perry refused to let The Sopranos creator David Chase use his classic song “Don't Stop Believin'” in the Mob show's final scene until he knew the fate of the drama's leading characters.

The ex-Journey frontman kept Chase waiting until three days before the long-awaited finale aired on Sunday.

Perry is a huge Sopranos fan and feared his 1981 rock anthem would be remembered as the soundtrack to the death of James Gandolfini's character Tony Soprano--until Chase assured him that wouldn't be the case.

Court Rules Against Presidents Making People Disappear

Latest Newspaper Column:

When are they going to learn?

Once again, the Bush administration has been handed a stinging defeat in its quest to establish the president's power to lock people up indefinitely without trial or even without charging them with anything.

In a 2-1 vote, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari residing in the U.S. when arrested, could not be detained indefinitely by the military without charges. "The president," Judge Diana Gibbon Motz wrote, "lacks power to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain al-Marri. Duh."

OK, she didn't actually say "Duh." But she should have.

Of course, the so-called "liberal" media had to announce the decision with moronic headlines like this one over an Associated Press story: "Court Rules in Favor of Enemy Combatant."

How about something more accurate, like "Court Rules Against Unlimited Presidential Power?" Which is pretty much what it's about.

Al-Marri was awaiting trial for multiple crimes, including credit card fraud and lying to the FBI, when Bush signed an order, on his sole authority, that he'd "determined for the United States of America that Al-Marri is an enemy combatant," among other things.

The wheels of justice came to a screeching halt as Al-Marri was suddenly placed under the jurisdiction not of the Justice Department, but of the Pentagon, and whisked off to a Naval brig in Charleston, S.C., where he sat for four years without trial and without being charged with anything.

It wasn't until a year later that he was even accused of any specific act in aid of any enemy. And even then, all that was filed was a "declaration" by the "director of a Joint Terrorism Task Force" that claimed, without providing any backup or sources whatsoever, that Al-Marri had met Osama bin Ladin, had trained in Afghanistan, had "saved information about jihad" on his laptop computer, and committed other acts.

"Sez who?" Al-Marri asked. "Mind your own beeswax," said the government. Again, I'm paraphrasing here.

Sorry, the court said. Not good enough. "We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our republic," the majority opinion reads. "Military control cannot subsume the rights of civilians."

And before the usual flock starts bleating in panic about "turning terrorists loose," they should read this portion of the opinion: "This does not mean that al-Marri must be set free. Like others accused of terrorist acts in this country, from the Oklahoma City bombers to the surviving conspirator of the Sept. 11 attacks, Al-Marri can be returned to civilian prosecutors, tried on criminal charges, and if convicted, punished severely."

Doggone right. Hey, if the guy's been doing what he's accused of, namely working for al-Qaeda, I don't want him turned loose, either. I want him tried, convicted and socked into jail.

But what I really don't want is for the president -- any president -- to have the power to just wave his magic pen, chant the words "enemy combatant," and make someone disappear. As the opinion says, "to sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the president calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution -- and the country."

Let me be crystal clear here. I'm not against the idea of seizing enemy combatants. I just don't want the sole power to decide who's to be seized to be vested in one person, Republican, Democrat, or whatever.

The American system of checks and balances has worked pretty well throughout this country's long history. It's gotten us through worse wars than this one, including the Cold War, where we knew the people who hated our guts had more nukes than any bunch of raggedy terrorists could dream of having. The rule of law has experienced some hiccups and needed some corrections along the way, but there's no need to chuck it all and go running to embrace Big Brother.

Remember, Dubbya insists that the unchecked and unreviewable power to order the military to seize and detain civilians is an inherent power of the presidency. If it becomes accepted law, we're stuck with it, whoever is in the White House.

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: Would you give the power that President Bush claims to Hillary Clinton? Oh, you think that President Clinton, or President Obama, can't happen? Two years ago, you never dreamed the Republicans would be the minority party in Congress again.

You give the power to make people disappear to King George, you give it to his successors, for as long as they want it. And they'll always want it.