Sunday, January 29, 2006

Just When You Think He Can't Get Any Dumber

Well, Republican Git is all full of smarmy good cheer because Georges Sada, a former top military adviser to Saddam Hussein, has just revealed that a certain infamous, war mongering ideologue made a visit to Baghdad in the mid-1980s.

And although RG is the fastest copy-paster in the west, I have scooped him. It turns out that no less than Saddam Hussein himself met with this nefarious schemer and I have obtained photographic evidence of the visit:

Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddam Hussein Dec. 20, 1983

Oh nuts! He was actually talking about another nefariously scheming, infamous, war mongering ideologue.

"Not [sic] ties with Iraq to bin Laden, right Libertards?"

(I always think of the French Revolution when he uses that made-up word. But in Spanish: Libertad, Igualdad, Fraternidad.)

Aaaaanyhoo, if bin Laden visited Baghdad in the eighties, um, so what? Why does Republican Git attach any significance to it with regard to showing up "libertards"? In the eighties, bin Laden could have been a gold card member of the Baghdad rape-room circuit and the U.S. wouldn't have cared. We were just happy that he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Heck, he probably had fun-money in his pocket from the CIA that came from Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency.

Oh! I know what a "libertard" is! It's a liberated leotard!

Nureyev a la 'libertard'

That it, RG?

"But then again, we all know libertards and the left wing of this country are allergic to what Generals have to say."

No. Just former generals of Saddam Hussein. But if you want to align yourself with that crowd, be my guest. Just allow me to take a few steps back first so's I don't get any of the secondary splash on me from the rancid pig entrails hurled in your direction as you loudly proclaim your loyalty to Saddam Hussein's generals.

"Kind of like how our generals say we need to retain or place more troops in Iraq, yet the libertards blame President Bush for not 'pulling everyone out.'"

(Tard-itty, tardtardtard! I bet RG is one of those blow hards that has to repeat over and over the punchline to a joke he just heard to everyone who was also present. "Only 1500 went down on the Titanic? Hee-haw! Only 1500 went down on the Titanic! Hoo boy that's a gut buster all right! Only 1500 went down on the Titanic!"*)

Actually, RG, I was thinking of "kind of like how" our generals (that's the United States of America's, not Iraq's -- I know you get a little confused about that, your liking Saddam's generals over our own and all) said we needed more troops in Iraq. And as far as blaming Bush for not pulling out . . . I do blame George Bush Sr. for not pulling out. I can't help but imagine this would have been a much better world for it.

*FYI: The set up to that joke is, "What's the difference between Bill Clinton and the Titanic?"

Friday, January 27, 2006

Panic Attacked

Some good news out of California:

The California Assembly late Thursday passed legislation to limit the use of the so-called gay panic defense.

If a defense attorney attempted to use the argument that a client committed a crime out of panic because the victim were gay or trans[gender] a judge would be required to instruct the jury that the use of societal bias, including so-called "panic strategies," to influence the proceedings of a criminal trial is inconsistent with the public policy of the State of California.

The law was enacted in response to the attack and killing of Gwen Araujo by three men who, after having sex with the teen, then discovered that she was transgender. The defense attorneys argued that their clients' charges should be reduced from first- or second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter because they had simply acted out of panic. I guess she was "asking for it", eh boys?

Fortunately, the (second) jury (after a mistrial) saw through this weak ploy and found two of the three men guilty of second-degree murder. The jury deadlocked on the third and he eventually pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter.

I find this to be a lucid indictment of the canard that hate crimes legislation necessarily requires "reading the mind" of defendants, not to mention the contention that such legislation is "not needed". It's hard to make that argument when the accused use their hatred for their victim as their main defense.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Calling Her Bluff

Recently, LaShawn the Barbarian (© Red Tory ) threw down the most odd gauntlet:

I challenge all bloggers (and journalists) who criticized Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell for “divine retribution” statements to jump on New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin for making similar statements.
Okay, Barbi. Here goes. . .

Yup. It sounds just as stupid when Ray Nagin says it as when those other two nuts-of-a-sack say it.

Now I have a question. Why in the world would LaShawn consider this a "challenge"?

In her twisted little world, all liberals hang together and must defend their own no matter what. Logic be damned! We must send the same, consistent message that conservatives are bad no matter what. One is tempted to call this "projection". In her little fantasy, liberals will stand by the message even unto the humiliation of bowing to the superior intellect of the Barbarian. I picture her daydreaming of headlines on Fox News: "Liberals Foiled by LaShawn Barber, the Tom Tancredo of Bloggers!". The poor thing must get tired, knocking down straw men all day. Too bad her wittle bwain got so overheated that she decided it would be a good idea to invite others along to point this fact out to her.

There is a hint in her (rather short) post as to another agenda. She rails against the "leftist media, the godless (and Democrats), and non-Bible-reading Christians (including bloggers)" -- the usual suspects in other words. Except that she tips her hand at he end of the list there. The insinuation being that "non-Bible-reading Christians" is shorthand for "non-interpreting-the-Bible-the-same-as-I Christians", those who do interpret it correctly (according to LaShawn) being the aforementioned gonad brothers. This sort of hubris is nothing new, of course -- our resident "pastor", D.L. Foster, is a prime example -- but what is so funny/frightening (or, "funghtening") is that LaShawn doesn't see how similar she is to the "Islamofascists" she constantly chides on her blog.

Truly the blind leading the blind.