drat fink

curb your bush

first chapter of The Book on Bush by mark green and larry davids new best friend.

cheney gang

"As Defense Secretary, Cheney developed a contempt for Congress, which, a friend said, he came to regard as “a bunch of annoying gnats.” Meanwhile, his affinity for business deepened. “The meetings with businessmen were the ones that really got him pumped,” a former aide said. One company that did exceedingly well was Halliburton. Toward the end of Cheney’s tenure, the Pentagon decided to turn over to a single company the bulk of the business of planning and providing support for military operations abroad—tasks such as preparing food, doing the laundry, and cleaning the latrines. As Singer writes in “Corporate Warriors,” the Pentagon commissioned Halliburton to do a classified study of how this might work. In effect, the company was being asked to create its own market."

talking pointed

funny fake SOTU

lying down

"Only weeks after 9/11, the Bush administration set up a secret Pentagon unit to create the case for invading Iraq. Here is the inside story of how they pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and led the nation to war."

why did i eat that?

dont forget to watch timmy and the prez tomorrow morning on meet the dent.

epistles of st paul

krugman reviews suskind and phillips in the nyrb.

on the jon

mag wheelies

left guard

"A number of posts in various places lately have raised the question "Who are the Left?". The ambiguity on this point goes all the way back to the origin of the term, when the Jacobins and their allies were seated to the left of the chair in the National Assembly while the conservatives sat on the right. From this beginning the term "Left" has been used to refer both to the more radical half of any political spectrum (arguably the natural interpretation, if the symmetry between left and right is to taken seriously) and to the conscious or unconscious heirs of Jacobinism, that is to revolutionary vanguard groups."

get canuckted

so theres no way to pin this on canada.

anonymosity

whoopsy. salon has a ridiculous article about anonymous blogging in which their idiot reporter who is parody impaired mischaracterizes a post from eschaton and then excises the questionable statement without giving notice. i guess salon wanted to exemplify shoddy reporting so as to prove accountability is a boon.

also, brad delong has an exchange with a washington post reporter that one would think is less than professional. but he can call him a fuck to his (virtual) face so its ok.

personally i dont understand what the problem is. didnt the effete french theorists manage to dissociate authorial intent and textual meaning? (some help here, please.) ones words are only credible if the author is opened up to personal scrutiny?

i suppose if you are maliciously attacking people its seems only fair that you should face up to the accused and that your motives are rendered transparent. but, if that fails to materialize, there is always libel. take them to court if theyre lying. remember how well it worked for richard perle and donald luskin? otherwise, credibility is in the eye of the beholder.