Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't watch much TV -- I get my pop culture from the FB.

Serbian is the new Brazilian.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is watching the E Channel that saves you from the fate I am experiencing. My twenty something employees make me feel like I live in a different country. I think I have gotten so far behind I will just never catch up.

IN your ignorance you are probably spared a lot of the worst part of Clinton's social legacy. Like rainbow parties.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
IN your ignorance you are probably spared a lot of the worst part of Clinton's social legacy. Like rainbow parties.

Board killer.

[Shape Shifter]

See, Spanky, these are the scum you're in bed with (figuratively, not the Serbian):

Some stories may not be that consequential in the grand scheme of things. But they win out on sheer comedic value.

As an example, take this article from today's

Advertisement
Independent Record, of Helena Montana. The article is about one Shawn Vasell. We discussed Mr. Vasell in a post a few days ago over at TPMCafe.

He was a staffer passed back and forth between Jack Abramoff and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) during the period in which the two were deep into the pay-for-play game. As the Post described Vasell's job history in those years, Vasell "served as client manager on the Mississippi Choctaw account, and shuttled between jobs in Burns's Montana office and Abramoff's shop. Vasell was registered as a lobbyist for the Choctaw and Coushatta tribes in 2001, joined Burns's staff in 2002, then rejoined Abramoff's team as a lobbyist for the tribes in 2003."

Well, the Independent Record reports that Vasell is now in trouble with the law, if of a rather less serious type than that currently bubbling up around his former colleague, Mr. Abramoff.

According to the paper ...

Vasell, 32, of Arlington, Va., was charged in June with four counts of breaking state big game laws: illegally possessing big game, hunting on private property without permission, hunting with someone else's license and hunting without a license, better known as poaching.

The alleged crimes were committed on Nov. 26, 2004, Stillwater County records show. The incident was the subject of a lengthy essay and photo display on the now-defunct personal Web site of Billings resident J.R. Reger. Vasell is accused of illegally using Reger's hunting license when he shot a mule deer buck around 3 p.m. the day after Thanksgiving last year.

According to the Web site, Vasell committed the alleged crimes with Reger and his brother, Mike. All three were photographed posing with the allegedly poached buck. In one photo, Vasell poses alone holding up the head of his trophy with the hunting rifle leaned against the animal's body.

I must confess that I've fished once or twice with an out-of-date license. So, I guess, he who is without sin, and so forth ... But if you go down further into the article you'll see that Vasell's lawyer is suggesting that his client may himself have become the victim of liberal Montana game wardens who've been spending too much time in the left blogosphere.

Speaking of Vasell's lawyer, Mark Parker of Billings, the paper reports ...

He also implied that the wildlife investigators were tipped off to the alleged crimes "because people like to make a mountain out of molehill with Mr. Vasell" for political reasons.

"If you blog around the Internet, you'll find that this has been the matter of some political quibbling,'' he said. "There seems to be a political component of this that we haven't quite fleshed out."

Reminds me to nail down that story about Abramoff and the poached elk ...

Late Update: A pdf copy of the website that brought Vasell to grief. Apparently part of the problem was that Vasell shot the deer from the window of a pick-up truck.
-- Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._14.php#006313

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
IN your ignorance you are probably spared a lot of the worst part of Clinton's social legacy. Like rainbow parties.

This reminds me, I was at a party last night and someone said he heard a rumor that Hillary had a trusted aide killed while they were in DC. He said the Clintons killed afew dozen people while in Arkansas.

Anyone else hear anything on this?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Aha! I knew you thought I was a dummy. It is from reality tv. Oh, I kid. It's a book. John Irving. Main character is a little guy who talks funny and shouts things in capital letters all the time. I hear his voice (or what I suppose to be his voice, based on Irving's description) everytime the Spankster shouts at someone. Which, as you've seen, is quite frequently.

Oh cool one, who doesn't shout*, how many of your friends own private vineyards? Spank has turned my old motto, "if you want friends, be friendly," on it's head.

* Maybe this is a whiff, but you do realize the irony in talking to fringey about how wrong it is to yell at people when you argue?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
* Maybe this is a whiff, but you do realize the irony in talking to fringey about how wrong it is to yell at people when you argue?

ncs is a normal rational person so there is no reason to yell.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This reminds me, I was at a party last night and someone said he heard a rumor that Hillary had a trusted aide killed while they were in DC. He said the Clintons killed afew dozen people while in Arkansas.

Anyone else hear anything on this?

I called an old acquaintance in DC, Mary Mahoney, to ask her about the DC rumour but apparently her number is disconnected and Starbucks says she is no longer employed there and they cannot make any other comment.

Your guess is as good as mine.

[SlaveNoMore]

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, feeling the need to disparage to a book review/essay from Judge Posner in his own damn paper, makes the funniest comment that's fit to print:

...First, and weirdly, he makes almost no distinctions within the vast category of American media, between those that are aggressively partisan and those that strive to keep opinion sequestered from news, between outlets that invest in serious reporting and those that simply riff on the reporting of others, between the sensational and the more high-minded, between organizations that hasten to correct errors and those that could not care less, between the cartoonish shout shows on cable TV and the more ambitious journalism of, say, the paper you are holding in your hands.

[Penske_Account]

Looks like those of you who support the Palestians should be celebrating, you are one step close to the destruction of Israel.

At the same time, a few miles away in the Jabaliya refugee camp, hundreds of men and boys, unable to crowd into the Caliph Mosque, sat on nearby sidewalks and in alleyways. In a humid stench of sewage and fried fish, with expressions alert and thoughtful, they listened as their imam called the Israeli withdrawal an "achievement of resistance," celebrated prominent "martyrs of Hamas" and declared, "Allah knows that when we offer up our children, it is much better than choosing the road of humiliation and negotiation."

While crediting all Palestinian groups with the withdrawal, Hamas is taking pains to keep itself front and center. It is stringing banners throughout Gaza and organizing rallies; in advance of the withdrawal, it e-mailed a three-page list of spokesmen in Gaza to Arabic-speaking reporters. "This victory is the fruit of the people's efforts, and of the factions - and in the first place, Hamas," said Ismail Haniya, another leader of the group. Hamas has even begun putting up English-language banners, clearly aimed at the foreign media. "Gaza is the start," one of them proclaims.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Looks like those of you who support the Palestians should be celebrating, you are one step close to the destruction of Israel.

At the same time, a few miles away in the Jabaliya refugee camp, hundreds of men and boys, unable to crowd into the Caliph Mosque, sat on nearby sidewalks and in alleyways. In a humid stench of sewage and fried fish, with expressions alert and thoughtful, they listened as their imam called the Israeli withdrawal an "achievement of resistance," celebrated prominent "martyrs of Hamas" and declared, "Allah knows that when we offer up our children, it is much better than choosing the road of humiliation and negotiation."

While crediting all Palestinian groups with the withdrawal, Hamas is taking pains to keep itself front and center. It is stringing banners throughout Gaza and organizing rallies; in advance of the withdrawal, it e-mailed a three-page list of spokesmen in Gaza to Arabic-speaking reporters. "This victory is the fruit of the people's efforts, and of the factions - and in the first place, Hamas," said Ismail Haniya, another leader of the group. Hamas has even begun putting up English-language banners, clearly aimed at the foreign media. "Gaza is the start," one of them proclaims.

Should the US invade the Gaza strip?

Discuss.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
See, Spanky, these are the scum you're in bed with (figuratively, not the Serbian):

Some stories may not be that consequential in the grand scheme of things. But they win out on sheer comedic value.

As an example, take this article from today's

Advertisement
Independent Record, of Helena Montana. The article is about one Shawn Vasell. We discussed Mr. Vasell in a post a few days ago over at TPMCafe.

He was a staffer passed back and forth between Jack Abramoff and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) during the period in which the two were deep into the pay-for-play game. As the Post described Vasell's job history in those years, Vasell "served as client manager on the Mississippi Choctaw account, and shuttled between jobs in Burns's Montana office and Abramoff's shop. Vasell was registered as a lobbyist for the Choctaw and Coushatta tribes in 2001, joined Burns's staff in 2002, then rejoined Abramoff's team as a lobbyist for the tribes in 2003."

Well, the Independent Record reports that Vasell is now in trouble with the law, if of a rather less serious type than that currently bubbling up around his former colleague, Mr. Abramoff.

According to the paper ...

Vasell, 32, of Arlington, Va., was charged in June with four counts of breaking state big game laws: illegally possessing big game, hunting on private property without permission, hunting with someone else's license and hunting without a license, better known as poaching.

The alleged crimes were committed on Nov. 26, 2004, Stillwater County records show. The incident was the subject of a lengthy essay and photo display on the now-defunct personal Web site of Billings resident J.R. Reger. Vasell is accused of illegally using Reger's hunting license when he shot a mule deer buck around 3 p.m. the day after Thanksgiving last year.

According to the Web site, Vasell committed the alleged crimes with Reger and his brother, Mike. All three were photographed posing with the allegedly poached buck. In one photo, Vasell poses alone holding up the head of his trophy with the hunting rifle leaned against the animal's body.

I must confess that I've fished once or twice with an out-of-date license. So, I guess, he who is without sin, and so forth ... But if you go down further into the article you'll see that Vasell's lawyer is suggesting that his client may himself have become the victim of liberal Montana game wardens who've been spending too much time in the left blogosphere.

Speaking of Vasell's lawyer, Mark Parker of Billings, the paper reports ...

He also implied that the wildlife investigators were tipped off to the alleged crimes "because people like to make a mountain out of molehill with Mr. Vasell" for political reasons.

"If you blog around the Internet, you'll find that this has been the matter of some political quibbling,'' he said. "There seems to be a political component of this that we haven't quite fleshed out."

Reminds me to nail down that story about Abramoff and the poached elk ...

Late Update: A pdf copy of the website that brought Vasell to grief. Apparently part of the problem was that Vasell shot the deer from the window of a pick-up truck.
-- Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._14.php#006313

not to be mean, but the way one cannot tell what parts of this you quote from the article, and what parts are your "commentary" makes this read like an nfh Britney post.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Should the US invade the Gaza strip?

Discuss.

No, there is no oil of any significance in the Gaza. Better to just let Israel defend itself in an unfettered manner.

[Gattigap]

From today's WaPo:

• Any day now the Justice Department will render judgment on one of the single most discriminatory pieces of voting legislation of recent years: a Georgia state law requiring voters to present one of only six forms of photo identification before they can exercise their right to vote. Before enforcing this statute, Georgia must get Justice Department approval by proving that the law will not put minority voters in a worse position than they were in before the requirement was instituted.
  
  The facts surrounding Georgia's voter identification requirement cannot be disputed. Virtually every black legislator opposes the legislation, and most black lawmakers staged a walkout to protest its passage. Every major civil rights and minority advocacy group, including the NAACP, and many legal scholars, oppose the restriction; several have submitted comments to the Justice Department for consideration.
  
  Additionally, it is surprisingly difficult to obtain a photo ID in Georgia. Though the state has 159 counties, there are only 56 places in which residents can obtain a driver's license, and not one is within the city limits of Atlanta or within the six counties that have the highest percentage of blacks.
  
  There is also considerable evidence that photo ID requirements have a disproportionately negative impact on blacks and other minorities. The Justice Department found as recently as a decade ago that blacks in Louisiana were four to five times less likely than whites to have photo IDs.
  
  Studies in other states indicate similar disparities. Consequently, the Michigan attorney general deemed a less restrictive voter identification bill unconstitutional, and the Federal Election Commission reported that photo identification requirements impose an undue and potentially discriminatory burden on citizens exercising their right to vote. Indeed, the Justice Department rejected a less restrictive Louisiana law in 1994 and 1995.
  
  The law's proponents claim that it will help protect against voter fraud, but there appears to be no evidence to support this claim. Georgians already have to show one of 17 forms of ID to prove that they are who they say they are when they vote. Georgia's chief elections official, Secretary of State Cathy Cox, has said that not one instance of voter fraud relating to impersonation at the polls has been documented during her tenure.
  
  Furthermore, while purporting to combat fraud, the Georgia law expressly excludes absentee ballots from the ID requirement. While all the evidence indicates that minorities are far less likely to vote absentee than whites, absentee balloting is the only form of voting in which there is documented fraud in Georgia. The exclusion of absentee ballots from the identification requirement raises serious questions about whether the anti-fraud justification for the law is purely pretextual.

Personally I am unfamiliar with both the vagaries of voting law and this particular GA statute, but am troubled by the above recitation. If there's not been an instance of voter fraud during the SecState's tenure (whatever that was), then what in the world inspired GA legislators to try to "improve" on something that ain't broke? Is anyone else more familiar with what's going on here?

Gattigap

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
From today's WaPo:

• Any day now the Justice Department will render judgment on one of the single most discriminatory pieces of voting legislation of recent years: a Georgia state law requiring voters to present one of only six forms of photo identification before they can exercise their right to vote. Before enforcing this statute, Georgia must get Justice Department approval by proving that the law will not put minority voters in a worse position than they were in before the requirement was instituted.
  
  The facts surrounding Georgia's voter identification requirement cannot be disputed. Virtually every black legislator opposes the legislation, and most black lawmakers staged a walkout to protest its passage. Every major civil rights and minority advocacy group, including the NAACP, and many legal scholars, oppose the restriction; several have submitted comments to the Justice Department for consideration.
  
  Additionally, it is surprisingly difficult to obtain a photo ID in Georgia. Though the state has 159 counties, there are only 56 places in which residents can obtain a driver's license, and not one is within the city limits of Atlanta or within the six counties that have the highest percentage of blacks.
  
  There is also considerable evidence that photo ID requirements have a disproportionately negative impact on blacks and other minorities. The Justice Department found as recently as a decade ago that blacks in Louisiana were four to five times less likely than whites to have photo IDs.
  
  Studies in other states indicate similar disparities. Consequently, the Michigan attorney general deemed a less restrictive voter identification bill unconstitutional, and the Federal Election Commission reported that photo identification requirements impose an undue and potentially discriminatory burden on citizens exercising their right to vote. Indeed, the Justice Department rejected a less restrictive Louisiana law in 1994 and 1995.
  
  The law's proponents claim that it will help protect against voter fraud, but there appears to be no evidence to support this claim. Georgians already have to show one of 17 forms of ID to prove that they are who they say they are when they vote. Georgia's chief elections official, Secretary of State Cathy Cox, has said that not one instance of voter fraud relating to impersonation at the polls has been documented during her tenure.
  
  Furthermore, while purporting to combat fraud, the Georgia law expressly excludes absentee ballots from the ID requirement. While all the evidence indicates that minorities are far less likely to vote absentee than whites, absentee balloting is the only form of voting in which there is documented fraud in Georgia. The exclusion of absentee ballots from the identification requirement raises serious questions about whether the anti-fraud justification for the law is purely pretextual.

Personally I am unfamiliar with both the vagaries of voting law and this particular GA statute, but am troubled by the above recitation. If there's not been an instance of voter fraud during the SecState's tenure (whatever that was), then what in the world inspired GA legislators to try to "improve" on something that ain't broke? Is anyone else more familiar with what's going on here?

Gattigap

I have no comment on GA, but there was lots of voter fraud in WA last year (amongst other years) to the extent that there is no question that the fraud impacted on the governors election. There was no ID requirement here and I don't see why there shouldn't be one. In GA as part of the process they should make state photo ID places more accessible, although I find it shocking that there is not a DMV facility in Atlanta where one can get a photo license. Huh?!?!??!

No offence, but I am glad I am yankee.