Robert Gibbs is an Immature, Cartoonish Buffoon
— Slublog

So this is what professionalism looks like at the Obama White House?

Mary Katharine Ham calls Gibbs the "Dane Cook of political humor." Sarah Palin may be a public figure, but she is technically a private citizen. It doesn't matter who is being targeted, this sort of mocking is unbecoming and displays a juvenile mindset on the part of the press secretary that does not reflect well on the president.

Posted by: Slublog at 11:11 AM | Comments (371)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Deputy NSA John Brennan: It Is Now Officially Pro-Terrorist to Criticize Barack Hussein Obama
— Ace

I never saw this one coming.

In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- responds to critics of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies by saying "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

Really. Really. Really.

Yeah, I know, supposedly this is limited to "politically motivated criticism" and "unfounded fear-mongering," but I have this sneaky little hunch that that that includes all criticism of Dear Incompetent Leader.

Whoops: Slublog already covered this, much better.

The really sad thing here is that I read Slublog's piece.

I'm... uhhhh... a dummy.

See, I read it, and then promptly forgot who had written it and where I'd read it, and then this guy gave me a tip, so I thought... okay, I'll post it. Late, I guess, and without any commentary, but I'll have it up.

A lot of times I'll remember something having been covered but I'll think, "Oh, must have been on Hot Air or Gateway Pundit or something."

Thanks to Murph.

Posted by: Ace at 08:33 AM | Comments (323)
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

Wes Anderson Directs the Spider-Man Reboot
— Ace

They're rebooting, or at least thinking about rebooting, the franchise, re-telling the origin story and setting it all back in high school again. (After three movies? After seven years?)

Wes Anderson, the clever but increasingly precious director of Rushmore, The Royal Tannenbaums, and The Life Aquatic, was rumored to be on the short list for directors of the reboot. (So this clip claims, at least.)

Here's a damned funny look at what Wes Anderson's Spider-Man would look like.

I loves me some Owen Wilson impressions. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:22 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

That scorching GNP? It hit a brick wall in December
— Purple Avenger

Wholesale inventories were down in December after going up the previous months.

Businesses slashed wholesale inventories sharply in December, a much weaker showing than expected and a troubling sign that companies are still too pessimistic about the economy to begin restocking shelves on a sustained basis...

It was a big slowdown in the pace of inventory reductions that contributed nearly two-thirds of the growth in the overall economy in the fourth quarter as measured by the gross domestic product.

The GDP shot up at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the October-December period, the strongest showing in six years but the concern is that this boost from inventories will be temporary and GDP will slow significantly in coming quarters.

The good news is that your regularly scheduled recession/slowdowns will be back to normal by the end of this quarter, with a chance of depression by the new fall series pilots. Until then, continue your funemployment and dancing with the stars as usual. The sage wisdom and steady hand of Obama and Congress have everything under control. more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:01 AM | Comments (78)
Post contains 194 words, total size 2 kb.

Something Wicked This Way Emotes: Andrew Sullivan Bashed as Anti-Semite By... Magazine He Formerly Edited, TNR
Bonus: Sullivan Gives Up Vagina-Blogging to Start... Breast-Blogging!
— Ace

If you read, you can safely skip the overly-padded part I, which is a long bit that attempts to establish Sullivan intended to bait Jewish readers by asserting that the Trinity was unexplainable... at least to Them.

Past that, the writer (Leon Weiseltier) gets on to less metaphysical ground.

Consider some squibs that Sullivan recently posted on his blog. “Most American Jews, of course, retain a respect for learning, compassion for the other, and support for minorities (Jews, for example, are the ethnic group most sympathetic to gay rights),” he declared on January 13. “But the Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing–that celebrates and believes in government torture, endorses the pulverization of Gazans with glee, and wants to attack Iran–is something else. Something much darker.” Michael Goldfarb is the former online editor of The Weekly Standard, about whom the less said, the better. Charles Krauthammer is Charles Krauthammer. I was not aware that they comprise a “wing” of American Jewry, or that American Jewry has “wings.” What sets them apart from their more enlightened brethren is the unacceptability of their politics to Sullivan. That is his criterion for dividing the American Jewish community into good Jews and bad Jews–a practice with a sordid history.

As far as I can tell, Krauthammer’s position on torture is owed to a deep and sometimes frantic concern for American security, and his position on the war in Gaza to a deep and sometimes frantic concern for Israeli security, and his position on Iran to a deep and sometime frantic concern for American and Israeli security. Whatever the merits of his views, I do not see that his motives are despicable. Moreover, Krauthammer argues for his views; the premises of his analysis are coldly clear, and may be engaged analytically, and when necessary refuted. Unlike Sullivan, he does not present feelings as ideas. Most important, the grounds of Krauthammer’s opinions are no more to be found in, or reduced to, his Jewishness than the grounds of the contrary opinions–the contentions of dovish Jews who denounce torture, and oppose Israeli abuses in the Gaza war, and insist upon a diplomatic solution to the threat of an Iranian nuclear capability–are to be found in, or reduced to, their Jewishness. All these “wings” are fervent Jews and friends of Israel. There are many “Jewish” answers to these questions. We all want the Torah on our side. And the truth is that the Torah has almost nothing to do with it.

Sullivan is hunting for motives, not reasons; for conspiracies, which is the surest sign of a mind’s bankruptcy. These days the self-congratulatory motto above his blog is “Of No Party or Clique,” but in fact Sullivan belongs to the party of Mearsheimer and the clique of Walt (whom he cites frequently and deferentially), to the herd of fearless dissidents who proclaim in all seriousness, without in any way being haunted by the history of such an idea, that Jews control Washington.

Discussing Sullivan's daily cri de coeurs about "Jewish fundamentalism" in Israel...

Obama may have been right about Netanyahu–the skepticism about the latter’s willingness to surrender land for a peace that will bring Palestine into being is not exactly fanciful–but Obama failed miserably, and set everything back. Sullivan’s characterization of the recent history is dishonest. On the other hand, there is no suggestion that Netanyahu is Trig’s dad.

Heh.

Oh: The other day Sullivan crept out of Palin's womb to study another part of her anatomy. Safe link to Commentary. Rubin quotes Sullivan, first, who watched her Tea Party address, and gleaned from it that... she has big tits.

It was the most electrifying speech I have heard from a leader of the GOP since Reagan.

She can electrify a crowd. She has the kind of charisma that appeals to the sub-rational. and she has crafted a Peronist identity – utterly fraudulent, of course – that is political dynamite in a recession with populism roiling everyone and everything. She is Coughlin with boobs – except with a foreign policy agenda to expand Israel and unite with it in a war against Islam.

Do not under-estimate the appeal of a beautiful, big breasted, divinely chosen warrior-mother as a military leader in a global religious war.

Clearly he is a man obsessed with Palin and her physique and who cannot resist the urge to degrade and reduce her to a sexual object. For those who portend to offer serious criticism of Palin, and there is legitimate criticism to be had, this should serve as a blinking red light: Go Back! DonÂ’t do it! DonÂ’t humilate yourself in the process, nor reveal yourself to be in the grip of some misogynistic thrall. Stick to what she says and how she says it, not the size of her breasts. For the sane and serious commentator, that should be easy enough advice to follow. But then not all bloggers fit that description.

Some time ago a lefty observed, incorrectly, that America didn't know how to handle a powerful woman with sex appeal.

That's incorrect because it's too broad a statement. It's that the American left doesn't know how to handle a powerful woman with sex appeal.

There is no doubt that Sarah Palin benefits from her attractiveness. There is no doubt, I say, because every other attractive person on the planet similarly benefits. An attractive person is perceived to be, studies tell us, smarter, more competent, more authoritative, more charming, funnier, and... taller, too.

Every good-looking person on the planet has this advantage. Scott Brown had it too, of course. So, too, did Barack Hussein Obama, at least before people began suspecting he was a Mimbo.

Did the right freak out like this over the fact that Barack Obama is a good-looking guy? No. We made fun of the left for praising him as a male model, of course. Who wouldn't? How many time can the left write about Obama's pecs (moobs, really) and how much he curls before it becomes risible? (Two times is the answer, buy the way.)

The left continues freaking out over this -- over Brown's attractiveness, but particularly Palin's -- for several reasons. First of all, they are more superficial than most people, so they have a strong natural inclination to support whoever seems best-looking and coolest and etc., and so they find themselves with a bit of psychic discomfort as their (very shallow) political leanings take them in the opposite direction of their (even more shallow) personal inclination, and react violently to that disconnect.

Related to this -- call this Reason 1 Sub A -- is that liberals believe that simply being liberal makes them more intelligent, and more attractive, and cooler, and hipper, and generally just better people, and they get very resentful indeed to have an attractive person on the other side of things, undermining their belief that being liberal makes them, by simple political affirmation, more desirable people.

The second reason is that left enjoys the unfair advantages it has and gets very angry indeed when the right seems to be cutting into their unfair advantage allotment. By "unfair advantage" I mean all that stuff that shouldn't be part of political decisionmaking -- a politician's charisma, affability, articulateness, "the common touch," "coolness," etc.

You saw the same violent reaction -- though much less of it -- with Scott Brown, again. It wasn't fair! that we had this good-looking squeaky-clean family man with gorgeous daughters out pressing flesh at Fenway and they had the stick in the mud prig they had.

And you see it, much more pronounced, with FoxNews, and Limbaugh, and Drudge, and Breitbart, and alternate media generally. The left is used to controlling the media. They enjoy the unfair advantage of having their message endlessly regurgitated by a monolithically liberal media, and being able to bury any story they found too difficult to spin. They freak out on a daily basis over the temerity of we conservatives thinking we ought to have a voice in the national discourse.

Finally, their is brutal condescension. Sullivan's lament, after all, is that a sizable fraction of this nation is bewitched by this woman's juggs. And that's all that's going on here. Because we're too stupid to evaluate ideas and weigh policies on the merits, so all we conservatives do is say, as Steve Martin did, "Wow! Look at the tits!"

He's angry at Sarah Palin's tits because he thinks those tits have been pressed into service for Pure Evil. Conservatives are so ineffably stupid, and we are so incapable of "thinking" with anything except our "lizard brains" (google conservatives and "limbic system" to see how often it is claimed we react out of literally nothing but the 20 million year old primitive semi-brain inherited from crocodiles), that we are simply like Sarah Palin's policies because we see her breasts and only know "Breasts good. She good. Drill baby drill good, then, I think."

Why, if only Dr. Andrew Sullivan, Freelance Gynecologist, could take that rack away from her, and then, our bewitchment ended, we'd suddenly all see her for the fool she is....!

What was the Washington Post's charming statement on the religious right, reported as straight, objective, factual news? Ah yes: That they are "weak, uneducated, and easily led." And sometimes easily led just by a really kickin' rack.

It seems to escape Sullivan's attention that Palin came to prominence because the entire right was agitating for domestic exploration and then this attractive governor from Alaska spoke the magic words, which even our more conservative leaders shied away from: "Drill, baby, drill." Yes, including in the pristine wonders of the desolate wasteland known as ANWR.

Sullivan would posit that things happened in the opposite order. Here we all were celebrating the untainted and quite godforsaken barren tundra known as ANWR, but suddenly a woman who could rock a D cup came on the scene, and then we were sold.

And finally -- this applies not to the whole left, but to a bizarre, twisted homosexual like Sullivan -- Sullivan really, really hates women, and really, really resents their power and really, really resents that they might possess a degree of sexual attractiveness for the majority of the male population that he can't compete with, no matter how much he squat-thrusts.

What can I say? It is true that attractive people are, what's the word?, attractive. They attract.

This doesn't seem to be a reason for a freak-out by liberals when they are benefiting from this rather well-known phenomenon. It surely hasn't escaped liberals' notice that Mary Landrieu is, or rather was, sort of dishy. And I don't think Norah O'Donnell managed to become a fixture on MSNBC purely on the strength of her reportage.

So, you know, Deal with it. Grow the hell up, and stop whining about it all the time.

And seriously, Sullivan? Please stop talking about Girl Parts. It's really ridiculous.

Thanks to DanF.

Posted by: Ace at 07:09 AM | Comments (175)
Post contains 1867 words, total size 12 kb.

Brennan's Op-Ed: An AOSHQ Response
— Slublog

John Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, recently said the following:

Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community. And the notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd.

Now, there are some who say that our president has managed to create the atmosphere of political civility he promised during the campaign, and that he is working diligently to change the tone in Washington. Let me be clear: I reject that view. Today I say to you that there is no meaningful difference between a president who directly attacks his critics and a president who unleashes his attack dogs upon the same. We must reject as false the distinction our president is trying to make, and hold him to the promises he once made.

Mr President, if you are now against politically motivated criticism, does this mean that you recant or regret the words you spoke in 2002?

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

It is gratifying to see your administration realize that we should not allow reflexive partisanship to threaten national unity in the face of a common enemy, and it is unfortunate that you did not always speak with that goal in mind:

In other words -- What kind of debate are we willing to have?

Last week, the White House showed exactly what kind of debate it wants on future of Iraq - none.

We watched the shameful attempt to paint John Murtha - a Marine Corp recipient of two-purple hearts and a Bronze Star - into a coward of questionable patriotism. We saw the Administration tell people of both parties - people who asked legitimate questions about the intelligence that led us to war and the Administration's plan for Iraq - that they should keep quiet, end the complaining, and stop rewriting history.

This political war - a war of talking points and Sunday news shows and spin - is not one I'm interested in joining. It's a divisive approach that only pushes us further from what the American people actually want - a pragmatic solution to the real war we're facing in Iraq.

On August 28, 2008 you stood before a crowd in Mile High Stadium in Denver and made a number of promises to the American people. Among those promises was this:

But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party.

That is a promise you reiterated after taking the oath of office. In your first remarks as our newest president, you promised "an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." The question we ask ourselves today is whether you have forgotten those promises, or if you ever believed them at all. Let me be clear, Mr. President. We agree that national security should not be a partisan issue, and that the most important function of government is to keep its people safe. But make no mistake - a party that spent eight years sowing the wind should not be surprised when the whirlwind of recriminations and partisanship overtakes them. The current political atmosphere is regrettable, but it was also preventable.

With very few exceptions, Republicans have refrained from engaging in the small-minded politics of reflexive partisanship when it comes to national security. We have criticized your policies, but we have not, and will not, engage in the shrill auto-contrarian hatred that the left marinated in during the previous administration. We applaud your willingness to maintain Bush-era policies that keep America safe, but in doing so, will you now recognize that your previous opposition seems now to be little more than the knee-jerk response of a partisan?

Now, I don't mean to suggest that the divisions between us are too vast to bridge. To paraphrase the words of the prophet Isaiah, I believe it's still possible for us to reason together. If we are to have that conversation, this administration must be willing to acknowledge that it has not lived up to the promises of the past and find a new way forward. A way that rejects the disingenuous and bad-faith arguments your advisers are currently making. If you believe the words you once spoke, now is the time to put them into action.

In the end, Mr. President, it comes down to a single question. Is dissent still patriotic?

Posted by: Slublog at 05:14 AM | Comments (159)
Post contains 953 words, total size 6 kb.

Top Headline Comments 2-9-10
— Gabriel Malor

[OregonMuse] More on the eeevil Tim Tebow ad from the Washington Post. The author has clearly strayed off the reservation and the thought police will be around shortly for a readjustment.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:03 AM | Comments (274)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Overnight Open Thread
— Maetenloch

Tonight is the first night of the rest of your week so let's get the ONT rolling.

FYI today is National PC Cleanup Day so maybe it's time to cleanup your system or at least organize your pron.

The Crying Wife
The Crying Wife is a husband's attempt to record his wife's crying sessions after nearly any movie they watch whether happy or sad. Here you can see her crying after watching Star Wars Ep. VI. Of course when I first saw it I just wanted to go kick things. And here she is after watching AI.

Anyway according to the FAQ his wife, Hollie, is a good sport about the whole thing and thinks the crying videos are funny too. And he says that other than crying over movies she's a happy, well-adjusted person. So I guess that's fine if it's her only quirk. Also if you're into crying women, then check out this DVD of nothing but crying women from - where else - Japan.

more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:35 PM | Comments (922)
Post contains 611 words, total size 6 kb.

Hoo Boy: Red Eye, at 3AM, Tops CNN's Primetime Lineup
— Ace

That's got to sting.

Posted by: Ace at 01:15 PM | Comments (582)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Audi's Very Mixed-Message "Green" Ad
— Ace

Is this pro-green or anti-? Well, it seems pro-green, since it's selling a a "Green" car, and the Green Hero gets to skate past the authoritarian and effeminate Green Police at the end. So... I guess that's supposed to be a good thing, right?

But... so... why is it lampooning green fever?

Posted by: Ace at 11:58 AM | Comments (344)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.