Gates to stay on as SecDef

Unintentional admission: "My one problem with this is that it sends the message that Dems can't do Defense...I have no obvious eligible candidates for the job."

To be fair, he suggests the ineligible Wesley Clark. Still, that's one riot of a turnaround in two sentences.

Treacher is pissed off

Hit his main page for everything, but this one and this one jumped out at me.

And he really goes for the throat here, and in the process, I believe he nails it.

Obama is the victim, no matter what. That really is how he sees himself.

I'd like to think I've been smart enough to sense that all along without expressing it. It sure feels like I have. It would explain a lot of his political, professional, and personal associations: if someone as cool and messiah-like as he is is a victim, then everyone must be.

Civics 101 and democracy

I think we walked away from Civics learning different lessons.

There is no more important aspect of democracy than the minority accepting the will of the majority.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. These are not trivial matters we are discussing. This is not a case of the Philadelphia Phillies potentially losing and saying "Oh well, it wasn't our year. Maybe next year!" Our rights are being put up to a vote. And if the "will of the majority" gets me in its sights, I'll be damned if I'm "accepting" it.

What it means is that where what he proposes to do is reasonable and doesn’t conflict with our principles, he should expect our support.

I can guarantee you that every single action he will take will be in conflict with my principles, with the possible exception of ending the prosecution of terminally ill patients who toke up occasionally. (I realize that there are some who will think this is not enough of an end to the Drug War, and I do agree with their point; I'm being generous here).

Equally laughable from the comments (#3):

Good column Rick. It never ceases to amaze me how the lemmings are so willing to jump off the cliff.

And to think I used to believe that liberals had no sense of irony.

Agreed with Will

Divided government. Hope we get it.

And, oddly, it's the fairest liberal site out there

Jeralyn Merritt briefly discusses the rules at TalkLeft:

There's a limit on those that express opposition to the Democratic ticket and support of the Republican ticket...You are welcome to express your different opinion, up to four times a day. I think that's more than reasonable.

The issue is not whether the policy is reasonable. If you own your own blog, you can allow or disallow whatever you want. It's just a little...pathetic.

Nonetheless, TalkLeft is one of the fairest partisan Democrat sites out there. A lot of partisan Republican sites could learn a lesson from it.

I guess that rules out McCain and Obama

Be a constitution voter!

Jeralyn, in the comments:

[W]hose policies better support it? Who will be worse for the Constitutional rights and values? It's not even close.

This is where I split with liberals. I do not see the right to have an abortion and the right to free health care in the Constitution. Whether or not those things are good ideas are separate issues.

Snark of the week

Billy Beck: "What...was Nuremberg booked that week?"

Fits this blog's theme well.

Whore.

And I sincerely mean that. I hope they take your house first, although I imagine your connections would never allow that to happen. Lucky you.

Favorite Franklin quote

Mine is, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." But I don't see you guys throwing that one around.

Amateur

Susan Sarandon threatens to leave if McCain wins:

“If McCain gets in, it’s going to be very, very dangerous,” she says.

“It’s a critical time, but I have faith in the American people. If they prove me wrong, I’ll be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don’t know. We’re at an abyss.”

Pansy. I can beat that. If McCain, Obama, or Clinton wins, I'll leave the country.

Thanks, Libertas.

More sports investigation

Yes, it's right there in Article I of the Constitution somewhere: Congress shall pester the fuck out of professional sports leagues.

Sure, I'm sick of the Pats too. But this fucking fossil needs a hobby.

Indescribably stupid

This is the dumbest thing I've read in 50 years, and I'm only 37.

For as long as I remember (yes, even before that West Wing episode), I’ve supported abolishing – not lowering – the voting age barrier. Kids should have the vote. I believed so vehemently as a child, of course, but since I’ve had the vote I’ve only grown more adamant in my conviction.

I know it may seem kooky, but it’s not. Hear me out.

By all means, hear him out. It is kooky. It's a long read, mostly because you'll be stopping after every sentence, cocking your head to one side, and asking yourself, "Did he really just fucking say that?" Like this one (coincidentally, the next two sentences).

First, let’s dispatch the most common argument against my little obsession: that kids are not reasonable enough to understand the issues and make an informed vote. I disagree.

He comes close to making a point when he mentions that some stupid jackasses are already voting to control your life. It never occurs to him that perhaps this entire concept is more fucked up than Peter O'Toole on his birthday.

Kooks everywhere love his idea.

Thanks to Joyner, who has a commenter who is on the right track. But I'm thinking more like 130.

Friedman "endorses" Obama

Sort of. I don't agree as I subscribe to the split government theory, but his choice does have some merit. One quibble:

McCain strikes me as a nationalist, likely to be comfortable with retaining and even expanding on the increases in executive authority claimed by Bush. He is also the one pro-war candidate.

(emphasis added)

That sentence alone makes me wonder if he's been watching a different election cycle. OK, maybe that's more than a quibble.

I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting David and Steve's arguments, I just believe (as does Steve) that the difference between Obama and McCain is not nearly as large as people wish it was.

I've tried that argument before, Steve

And the response is typically something like, "Oh, so you're calling me a bigot?"

It's either that, or underinformed. Take your pick. And I'm definitely telling you that it's none of your business.

Repeal the First Amendment?

Would it be easier to repeal the First than to pass it if it was being proposed today? I'm not sure how firmly Eric's tongue was planted in his cheek, but I think the answer is "yes"--although both movements would likely fail.

As far as the main thrust of Eric's post, I don't think Coulter was joking at all. I personally would give up my right to vote in a heartbeat if I knew I would get more liberty. Not that I agree with (or disagree with) Coulter's assertion that Republicans are preferable to Democrats either in general or in regards to liberty.

Of course, I don't participate in my own rape vote anyway, so giving that up would be like giving up my private jet.

Richard Warman is a flaming turd

Classical Values:

Because Canada has hate speech laws, and Human Rights Commissions operating without the restraint of the First Amendment, a man named Richard Warman is able to legally terrorize anyone he wants, and right now, he is suing numerous Canadian bloggers[.]

Five Feet of Fury, whose operator is being sued:

Richard Warman has brought almost half these cases single-handledly, getting websites he doesn’t like shut down, and making tens of thousands of tax free dollars in "compensation" out of web site owners who can’t afford to fight back or don’t even realize they can.

The province of British Columbia had to pass a special law to stop Richard Warman from suing libraries because they carried books he didn't approve of.

Richard Warman also wants to ban international websites he doesn’t like from being seen by Canadians.

Flaming turd insult courtesy of Pierre Robert--a nice guy, and someone you'd really have to annoy to be called a flaming turd.

Disgusting me more every day

I can no longer contain my contempt for Barack Obama. Not that I did such a great job before. The latest:

"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View."

Here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale.

Surber says the AP's headline is inaccurate.

Maguire missed Wright's apology.

Haiku Wednesday

Hillary a liar
Finally she tells the truth
"Oh no, my worldview!"

Beck has Sullivan's number more than anyone.

Hitchens on Obama and Wright

If I had his way with words, I wouldn't be an unpaid, unread blogger. From Slate:

Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he'd one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago "base" in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily.

Some conservatives favor legalization or decriminilization?

Of marijuana only, but it's still amazing. Note that he still wants to chase cocaine and heroin. Legal heroin wouldn't fly in this country at this point in time, so I still have to consider this to be progress.

The decades of prohibition on marijuana have done little to stem its popularity and abuse. In terms of intoxication, it has no worse effects than alcohol, and some argue considerably less impairment.

snip

We know that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked. Is it time to acknowledge a new paradigm on marijuana? Perhaps[.]

He's probably correct about the constitutional interpretation of Frank's bill. Still, the feds have ignored the Constitution on drugs for decades, so why start now?

Also notice the number of commenters that agree. That's a pretty conservative readership over there, so that's a big deal.