The continuation of Skiing Uphill and Boregasm, Zug is 'the little blog that could.'

My Photo
Name: Ed Waldo
Location: of The West

I am a fictional construct originally conceived as a pen name for articles in the Los Angeles FREE PRESS at the 2000 Democratic Convention. The plume relating to the nom in question rests in the left hand of Hart Williams, about whom, the less said, the better. Officially "SMEARED" by the Howie Rich Gang. And now, smeared by Fox News and Sean Hannity, as well! Plus, FEARED by Ted Nugent! AND Hated by the Freepers!

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Smokey and the Bandits

Pot 'O Gold!

Well, we're getting ready for the big solar eclipse tomorrow. (You wouldn't believe how difficult it is to find sacrificial virgins 'round these parts.)

So, in the interests of full disclosure, we've spiffed up and added a whole plethora of NEW illustrations to a classic blog posting, our first cartoon investigative report, the secret and untold story of what REALLY happened to Smokey Bear. (Not, as explained, "Smokey THE Bear.") It's a classic blog on a classic piece of Americana, and contains stunning revelations that have not been reported -- to our knowledge -- anywhere else. A MUST read.

... But I grew up in a Forest Service family, and have always known that the cartoon mascot that the War Ad Council dreamed up was called "Smokey Bear." Indeed, from 1960 onward, we -- my brother and I -- probably owned every kind of Smokey swag that the government put out: comics, book covers, pencils, books, pocket protectors, etc. etc. Instead of a teddy bear, I had a Smokey Bear, whose hat mysteriously disappeared years before the plush pseudo-animal ended up at a garage sale....
Consider it a bonus for those who got through all 4,000 words of yesterday's post. For those who didn't, well, keep plugging.

If The Daily Show can do reruns, so can we.

Click. Here. Now: http://www.hartwilliams.com/sb.htm

1:40 AM PDT: WARNING, you will probably have to hold your hand over Bill O'Reilly's face to read the portion in question. You might try using a sheet of paper folded in half.


Friday, March 16, 2007

They Get Their Own Facts

Daniel Patrick Moynahan is credited with the eminently sensible, and, therefore, universally ignored dictum that "You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

["…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." quoted in Timothy J. Penny, Facts Are Facts, National Review September 4, 2003. - via Wikipedia]

Well, it turns out, some people think that they ARE.

Entitled to their own facts, I mean. They call themselves "Conservapedia," and they formed just after the last -- from the internal evidence, disastrous to their political ends -- election.

And they are bat-shit barking moonbat crazy. Don't believe me? Here's Conservapedia's version of the origin of kangaroos:


According to the origins theory model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

[NOTE: "Baraminology" is a 'Creationist' pseudoscience analogous to the non-fundy pseudosciences Numerology or Phrenology. Wikipedia, conveniently, has THIS entry. HW]

Also according to creation science theories, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land -- as Australia was still for a time connected to Europe by a land bridge similar to the one that connected Asia to America -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters. Another theory is that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "Dreamtime" and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived millions of years ago.
Last and least, "the evolutionary view," e.g. "science."

They want their own facts.

Anyone who believes that kangaroos got to Australia by surfing in on giant welcome mats of torn up sod after The Flood is a few wafers short of a communion.

Tellingly, perhaps, the website opens with threats of terrible punishments:

Minors under 16 years use this site.

* Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470.
* Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. We will trace your IP address and give it to authorities if necessary.

Gee, I just wanted to view the website that crows the equivalent of 'We're number one, even BIGGER than Rush Limbaugh!'(to be fair, he's been on a diet).

A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.

Conservapedia has over 4,800 educational, clean, and concise entries, including more than 350 lectures and term lists. There have been over 3,600,000 page views and over 38,300 page edits. This site is growing rapidly.
Conservapedia jumps to Number One!

Traffic ranking among conservative websites as of March 8th [2007](by Alexa):

  • Conservapedia
  • Rush Limbaugh
  • Sean Hannity
  • Bill O'Reilly
Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America. Conservapedia is student-friendly. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise, clean answers free of "political correctness".
Contributions that comply with simple commandments are respected (and improved) to the maximum extent possible. Please improve this website as you use it, and please cite your sources. With your help, Conservapedia will continue to be an online encyclopedia you can trust. This is also a meeting place, and appropriate questions may be posted at Ask questions.

And WHO is behind this moonbattiness?

We turn to their own media for the answer:

Conservapedia Challenges 'Anti-Christian' Wiki
By Linda Zhang
Christian Post Contributor
Tue, Mar. 06 2007 02:44 PM ET

The latest alternative to Wikipedia is putting a conservative Christian spin on the idea of web-based, user-controlled encyclopedias.

Conservapedia, the new online encyclopedia launched last November, has branded itself as "a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American."

"Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America," the front page of its website reads...

The backstory they're not telling you in the "Christian Post" is partially filled in by this entry in the New York Times BLOG:

According to Wired, the Conservapedia project leader, Andrew Schlafly, "started the site in late November 2006 in conjunction with 58 high-school-level, home-schooled students from the New Jersey area" because he was frustrated by what he sees as the liberal bias in Wikipedia.

(Yep, that's right: the NYTimes blog cribbed it from Wired.com, but then, this story has been stumbling forward in its media rollout -- thanks to free publicity, like THIS article, he said self-referentially -- since mid-February.)

And, the blogosphere has been quite hilariously aware of this intellectual abomination. Blogger Mike Dunford writes on 'The Questionable Authority':

... I had originally planned to ask if anyone could find the errors in this little bit of "historiness," but that would be far too easy. So instead, I'm wondering if anyone can find a full sentence in that entry that doesn't contain at least one large error.

I really can't believe that homeschooling standards are so ridiculously lax that this material is allowed to be used.

But, alas, the agenda of the "creationisizer" of "Conservapedia" becomes apparent once one knows the rock from whence he crawled out from under. Neath. Onward. The "Christian Post" writer continues:

Conservapedia's project leader, Andy Schafly, describes the site as "a new way of learning about history and science," according to a reporter from the New Scientist. The website claims to provide "concise answers free of 'political correctness.'"

Schlafly originally created Conservapedia together with 58 high-school-level students and home-schooled children, and he suggests it could ultimately be used by teachers as a reference point.

According to Wired News, Schlafly says "the site is intended as a resource for the general audience, but without the defects of Wikipedia." Schlafly, the son of famous conservative politician and activist Phyllis Schlafly, is a conservative writer and attorney.
(Note: they're cribbing from WIRED, too. Check the followup posting, with "The Seven Drinking Buddies of Cthulu")

Yeah, defects like thought, or facts, or critical thinking. Make no mistake about it: this is about having their own facts, and that has been the basis too many wars and civil wars to feel any comfort about this errant, calculated madness. Unlike much of the press and sane blogosphere, I do not take this vile spawn of Phyllis Schlafly's son as benign or as a joke.

Phyllis, one must recall, is a woman who was instrumental in denying equal rights to a majority of Americans, i.e. Women. The worst Segregationist ever minted never equaled that record. Arguably, the European minority managed a far greater feat by denying personhood to every inhabitant of the continent, the "Native Americans," the "Indians," or, in the coinage of Kiowa author Russell Bates, "Novamundians" (from the Latin for "New Worlders").

Gee, let's see what the "Conservapedia" says about "Injuns":

American Indians
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Collective name for those people living in North and South America before the coming of Europeans. Current anthropological and historical models have the first Native Americans crossing the Bering land bridge between 15,000 and 11,000 years ago. Hunter-gatherers from Asia migrated south to eventually inhabit all of North and South America. Indians in the New World developed complex societies and many were sedentary agriculturalists at the time of contact with Columbus. Unfortunately, contact with Europeans led to a decrease in the Indian population due to lack of immunity to disease, intermarriage, slavery, and massacre. Native populations have been estimated to range from 8 to 18 million before contact. Since 1492, this population was estimated to have fallen by 95% before stabilizing and then reversing direction. (Thornton, 1997)

Thornton, Russell. 1987. Aboriginal North American Population and Rates of Decline, ca. 1500-1900 CE. Current Anthropology 38(2):310 -315.

Well, cribbed, perhaps, but not well cribbed.

And I had never realized that the American indian population decreased because of their lack of immunity to slavery and massacre. I would hope, parenthetically, that we could develop some sort of vaccine to immunize us against massacre. It would be a great boon, given the track record of human history.

What troubles me, though, is how the American Indians were able to walk across the land bridge some 5000 to 9000 years before God created the Earth. It is, as said the King of Siam, a puzzlement.

And how did Russell Thornton write the EXACT same article in both 1987 AND 1997? And isn't "C.E" bad and wrong? Isn't it supposed to be the "un-PC" "A.D" and "B.C."?

I wonder what the "American Indians" think about this post, shorn, as it is, of the "defects" of Wikipedia (and, while there are defects, the Reality Principle DOES, at least, operate on Wikipedia.) Compare the "American Indians" citation above with Wiki's:

American Indian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from American Indians)

American Indian can refer to:

  • Native Americans in the United States;
  • Any of the indigenous peoples of the Americas;
  • Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas
  • The quarterly publication of the National Museum of the American Indian

Also, note that "American Indians" is almost never used to refer to persons with ancestry in India. Americans with ancestry in India are referred to as Indian Americans.

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

OK. Let's look at Wikipedia's

Native Americans in the United States

Native Americans are the indigenous peoples from the regions of North America now encompassed by the continental United States, including parts of Alaska. They comprise a large number of distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of which are still enduring as political communities. There is some controversy surrounding the names used: they are also known as American Indians, Indians, Amerindians, Amerinds, or Indigenous, Aboriginal or Original Americans. In Canada they are known as First Nations.

The U.S. states and several of the inhabited insular areas that are not part of the continental U.S. also contain indigenous groups. Some of these other indigenous peoples in the United States, including the Inuit, Yupik Eskimos, and Aleuts, are not always counted as Native Americans, although Census 2000 demographics ...

Initial impacts

The European colonization of the Americas decimated the populations and cultures of the Native Americans. During the fifteenth through nineteenth centuries, their populations were ravaged by disease, displacement, enslavement, internal warfare, as well as conflicts with European explorers and colonists....

Along with thousands more words, hundreds of citations, links and further avenues for investigation.

And that tells the tale: the Wikipedia is meant as a springboard for inquiry, for thought, for research. Conservapedia is meant to cut off inquiry, stifle thought, and truncate research.

And, as such, one must juxtapose the inhibition of truth (by limiting and creating an alternative semantic universe, simple, and uncomplicated, a la Schlafly's "Conservapedia") with the Christic dictum "Ye Shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free." (The Gospel of John, 8:32 KJV)

And there is a political agenda, as well. Take a look at the astigmatic lens through which THIS Conservapedia entry is refracted:

Michael Moore
From Conservapedia

Michael Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an Academy Award winning filmmaker and bestselling author who presents left wing views in a polemical way.

Before producing "Bowling for Colmubine," (sic) Moore was the producer and host of the television series "The Awful Truth," which was typified by a type of sketch-comedy activism that was often directed against large corporations and government agencies.

He is well-known as a practicing Catholic who tithes 10% of his income to the Church, a socialist and a member of the National Rifle Association (who joined it hoping to eventually dismantle the organization). He has been an outspoken critic of the administration of President George W Bush.

Some of his work includes the documentary films Farenheit 9/11, Roger and Me, and Bowling for Columbine, and the books Dude, Where's my Country, Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American. and Stupid White Men.

And here's the hyperlink to "Left wing" (most of Conservapedia has never heard, evidently, of hypertext, which stands to reason, since the homeskoolerz who put this abomination together are mostly being homeskooled by neanderthal parents who are still wary of the newfangled innovations of the 'wheel,' 'fire,' and 'hygene.'):

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Liberal is a term used in US politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" - at that time the liberal party was the party of individual political freedoms.[1]

The term liberal is used in the United States to characterize the following set of beliefs:
  • support of gun control
  • taxpayer funding of abortion
  • prohibiting prayer in school
  • equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
  • distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
  • government programs to rehabilitate criminals
  • same-sex marriage
  • amnesty for illegal aliens
  • teaching of evolution
  • increased taxpayer funding of public school
  • protection of all of God's creation
  • taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
  • increased power for labor unions
  • disarmament treaties
  • increased taxes
  • support of government programs such as welfare
  • reduction of military expenses
  • support of affirmative action
  • government-sponsored education about human reproduction
Liberals in the US typically align themselves with the Democratic Party. Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.[2] The same holds for many liberal parties throughout the world.[3]. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European socialist or social democratic parties.[4].

An alternative definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":[5]

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...


1. Etymology [1]
2. http://www.alde.eu
3. http://www.liberal-international.org/
4. http://www.pes.org
5. Dictionary.com


Tell me there's not a political agenda here. What we would refer to as "brainwashing" out here in Realityland. Let's just ignore the implicit slurs and convenient mischaracterizations involved.

Michael Moore is a socialist, baby-killing, miscegenation-and-homosexual promoting left-wing liberal (note how "left wing" morphed into "liberal" across the hypertext link), and probably OUGHT to be killed, BUT he goes to Catholic church and tithes, so slaughter him AFTER the Unbelievers, OK, kiddies?

This Schlafly offspring offers a powerful rationale in favor of abortion by his very existence. That may seem harsh, or even cruel. No: this is the kind of madness that leads to every horror that man visits on his fellow man, and we might as well cut to the chase. Schlafly isn't misguided, nor is he merely a buffoon to be laughed out of town. He is a monster-in-training, and if that isn't an argument for the benefits of therapeutic abortion, then I'm the Easter Bunny. (What color would you like your eggs?)

Then again, perhaps I'm overreacting.

Schlafly might just be an asterisk in history, although I'd prefer that we not take the risk on this ass. However, until it becomes legal (via the civil war that a generation of zombies raised on this Krap might start), I think that we should refrain from shooting him.

[At that point, however, I must reiterate that I've got dibs on Rush. Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, et al -- take your pick. But I get Rush.]

Of course, when you consider the truly awesome lameness of this Conservapedia Entry, you can't fully appreciate ... well, I'm getting ahead of the joke. This is the actual text, unintentionally hilarious as it already is:

Spartan Soldiers
From Conservapedia

Spartan Soldiers are considered to be some of the greatest fighters ever. Every Spartan boy was trained in the army. When a Spartan child was born he or she would be examined, and if it was a strong and healthy boy he would grow up to be a soldier, and if it was crippled it would be left on the mountainside to die. A strong girl would grow up to be a good mother and if weak would also be cast onto the mountainside. If a Spartan boy was caught stealing he would be beaten severely, not because he had stolen but because he was caught. The boys started their training at age seven and served in the army most of their life. It was considered an honor to die in battle. It was also a disgrace to lose a battle and come home still alive. You may ask who did all the farm work to feed the city-state? As it turns out, the Spartans conquered many countries and brought the conquered natives back to do their farming.

The Battle of Thermopylae

The most famous battle involving Spartan soliders (sic) was that of Thermopylae where, in 480 BC, a force of 300 hoplites under command of King Leonidas held back a massive Persian army under command of Xerxes.

Jeepers, I'm actually old enough to remember that "Classics Illustrated" comics were a deeper and more scholarly source than this! (And note that Conservapedia has outright stolen Wikipedia's format. How much more plagiarism is contained on the site is anybody's guess.)

You have to appreciate blogger "flickertail"s hilarious little jape (slipping in this editing, since removed. Read the WHOLE post.):

Konservative Knowingness

Flickertail, here at Zug, we salute you! (But beware of Goat-Man.)

The sad fact is that most credulous readers of Conservapedia could easily be persuaded that the Spartans DID battle Orcs with hand grenades.

Well, as I noted there: satire has to be the first response. But make no mistake, these moonbats aren't harmless. These moonbats bite, and when they turn rabid, satire doesn't work. But for the nonce, let's just laugh at the misbegotten son of a Schlafly, and his vile attempt to remove fact from the debate.

After all, everybody knows that Jesus rode a dinosaur* to church, right?

*Oh, all right. Since you have to know, here's "Conservapedia" on dinosaurs:

From Conservapedia
(Redirected from Dinosaurs)

The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth.

Creationist scientists believe that dinosaurs and man coexisted based on a number of pieces of evidence rather than the evolutionary view that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.

Dinosaur Speciation

Dinosaur species were immensely varied, from herbivores to carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast genus that the dinosaurs encompassed.

Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting

There are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur. A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting. The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology." The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting.

An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur (as well as non-dinosaur) fossils to be found in China.

Dinosaurs and Creationism

Some Christians reject the Theory of Evolution and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the Young Earth Creationists believe, based primarily on Biblical sources, but also drawing on archeological and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the Creation Week as a final addendum to the wonders God created, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the Garden of Eden in harmony with other animals, eating only plants; that pairs of various dinosaurs were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today, even though none of the six billion people currently residing on the planet have seen them. It should be noted that none of these claims have been backed by any serious scientific research, and rely almost wholly either on the infallibility of the Bible, or on human speculations based to a greater or lesser degree upon the Biblical account. Ken Ham states the theory that Dinosaurs were killed during the great flood, buried in mud and then fossilized.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the Bible obviously does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs, although some reject this view, saying that behemoth was a hippopotamus and leviathan was a crocodile. There is a problem with this view, however, such as the fact that a hippo doesn't have a "tail like a cedar" and a crocodile does not accurately match the description of leviathan.

References [NB: there are 17 references, mostly to "Creationist" websites].

Just remember: these are the same ignorant assholes who, for a hundred years claimed that the fossils were just misshapen crocodiles and "giants" and other Krazy Stuff from their misreading of mistranslations of the Pentateuch. They may well be the descendents of those brave souls who justified black slavery in America via the Bible. Hell, the Mormons still believe that blackness is the "Mark of Cain," after all. And I believe with all my heart, that Mormon homeschoolers are EXACTLY the target audience for Conservapedia.

Look, if you "True Believers" don't LIKE our science, then don't use it.

You can't hypocritically try to use the same technology and science you imply is "of the Devil" to spread your "Creed." That's like killing in the name of Jesus.

(Oh. Whoops. Sorry. Never mind.)

Call it a spelling flame, if you will, but it is an undeniable statement of fact (as opposed to a huge chunk of "Conservapedia") that Conservapedia is, in part, put together by Fundamentalist dumbasses too dumb to spell "fundamental."

From the conclusion to 1495-word entry on "Genesis":

Importance to Creation Science

Creationists use the first part of Genesis as evidence of the creation of the Earth in seven days. This book is fundemental [sic] to the entire study of Creation Science.

Chapter 1
"1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth..."

[And then, as the majority of their entry ON Genesis, quote all of the first chapter, and a goodly part of the second chapter ... in TOTO, and without commentary, concluding]

2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

References [note: all three of them. Wikipedia: 8982 word entry with 86 references and another thirty books, links, citations, etc.]
[This page was last modified 20:03, 14 March 2007. This page has been accessed 137 times.]

And, lest you think I was being selective, those are just the first several entries I accessed. There are deep veins of unintentional humor left to be mined from Conservapedia, and, I promise, the "mountaintop removal" mining has only just begun. Whether it's a renewable resource or not, Conservapedia can supply nearly all of this blog's humor needs for the foreseeable future, I can assure you. The dread specter of the humor cartel shutting off the laff spigots is a thing of the past. America, we have entered a new and glorious Era of satire.

Conservapedia: The hilarious "encyclopedia" that couldn't afford a spell-checker.

So, Krazy Khristian Konservatives: here's a "tree of knowledge" that you bite into -- as in the first recorded case -- at your peril. You've been warned.


Thursday, March 15, 2007

While You Were Sleeping

Gee. I guess there must be a scandal.

The Pentagon released a "transcript" from an anonymous secret military tribunal in Guantanimo.

The claim is that they have a "confession" for 9/11. Oh, and "dozens and dozens of plots"!

Gosh that's convenient, given the scandals plaguing the "virtue" administration.

Gosh that's convenient.

And it sure it a remarkable coincidence that it's suddenly declassified at this convenient time.


Where have I heard that before? Hmmm.

Golly. What's that over there?

(Look, I know that YOU'RE not an idiot. But have fun today watching the PRESS idiots chasing after the Frisbee like the good lapdogs they are.


Fetch, boy!

Now, where'd those pesky scandals go? (This story got bumped from the Google News Page by the 9-11 "news," so don't doubt that it isn't working. At least for one news cycle.)


Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Alberto's V.O. Jive

Well, all day the sound bites of Alberto Gonzales serving to pleasure the "president" have been running on the radio.

I'm sorry: Serving at the "pleasure" of the "president."

And the CNN radio stooges ("I'm Dick YOO-lee-AH-nee slanting your news to the Right for you") have been falling in line with the talking point.

Only one thing: The Right Wing Echo Machine's talking point that these United States Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president," misses the salient point, by eliding the "rest of the story."

A provision was slithered into the Patriot Act reauthorization (even Arlen Specter, R, Invertibrate, didn't realize it was there) that stripped "advise and consent" from the appointment process. What we used to call a "check" on unlimited and unresponsive power. (It's from that old, unfashionable concept of "checks and balances" so in disfavor these daze.)

The United States Attorneys (essentially federal district attorneys) wield such broad discretionary powers that, while they are appointed by the Administration in power, the Senate must acquiesce in their appointment. Er ... FORMERLY so.

It seems that the scum-bag hacks that Bush, Rove, Gonzales, and, evidently, the Cosa Nostra bosses who run this maladministration want in the US Attorney's office might not be able to pass muster with this Congress. So, as per usual, the Imperial End Run. Bush can brook no questioning of his authority, as we've seen acted out these past six years with discomfiting and predictable frequency.

Bush and Gonzales, et al, seem excruciatingly uncomfortable with the Constitution and its principles, as though it were a giant wedgie in their pantaloons of cronyism.

"Serves at the pleasure of the president" CANNOT be divorced from the second clause, "with the advise and consent of Congress" any more than "poorer," "worse" and "sickness" can be divorced from the marriage vow, just keeping it for "richer, better and in health."

Both coinages are patent absurdities.

As is, come to think of it, Alberto Gonzales.

The man might have been the "first Hispanic" on the Supreme Court (if you conveniently forget Associate Justice Benjamin Cardozo 1932-1938), but he lost that, due to his sycophantic willingness to author the utterly specious "justification of torture" memos for Bush's "War on Terra." And, in the position of chief legal officer of the United States, it looks kind of like he's on that long Nixonian skid into a federal prison, like John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General.

Wow, what a month for the "virtue" gang: the conviction of Scooter Libby, the Walter Reed Hospital scandal, and now the wholesale replacement of US Attorneys for not being political enough (one of whom successfully prosecuted former-Congressman and now jailbird "Duke" Cunningham for the worse bribery scandal in the history of Congress -- at least in terms of sheer $$).

So, where the hell is that "we're going to restore integrity to the White House" bunch that pilloried us in 2000 with their "virtue"?

And who is delusional enough to still believe them?


NOTE: Today, March 14, would have been Albert Einstein's 128th birthday, had he taken his meds. Alas, he did not.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Conclusion: The Principled Protester

I had been put in contact with Dan Borchers through a mutual friend. He was going to CPAC to protest Ann Coulter's plagiarism, her vitriolic hate speak, and the corrosive effect that it has on honest Conservative positions and principles.

Here's a pretty good background blog on it.

Please note: we are, first, citizens, and integrity and honesty are the only guarantees that we have, ultimately, of making this system work. Besides, I was pretty much kicked out of the Democratic party for making the same stand: rules and principles matter, and you can't mouth one thing and do another without paying a price.

Robert Bluey commented:

March 4, 2007
The Ugly Side of CPAC
Filed under: CPAC 2007 - Rob Bluey @ 8:45 pm

Campus Progress actually does a pretty good job covering CPAC - if you're one who enjoys sensationalism and deception.

Meanwhile, The American Mind, Hot Air and Little Green Footballs
have details on Mike Stark's bizarre encounter with Michelle Malkin.

Bluey continues with an oracular (Delphic) parsing:

Stark wasn't the only weirdo at CPAC. Daniel Borchers had to be "wrestled out of CPAC."

BUT, he links to this posting, featuring a delightfully rude depiction of Ann Coulter -- certainly tit for tat.

Which is the same Lydia Cornell as is this (hybrid cross-postings)

... Dan said he was about to interview Mark Smith, an author. Forty-five minutes later, around 12 noon, I got a frantic call from Borchers. He sounded panicked and said, "I've just been assaulted and kicked out of the conference." I said, "What? Why?" He said, "I don't know, they wouldn't say. But I was wrestled out of the hotel by four bodyguards, one I recognized as being Ann Coulter's - and they shoved me and tried to grab my name tag."

I'll be more than happy to wait until you go and read Ms. Cornell and Mr. Borcher's riveting account, and, well, make up your own mind as to the ironies involved. But it is most assuredly the portion of the Ann Coulter "Princess of Hatespeak" media darlinghood that you haven't seen rehashed in The Situation Room. Or read Mother Jones magazine's terse blognote on the affair.

In some ways, Dave Weigel's photo of the "beleaguered ACLU volunteers" says it all. (scroll down past Jeff Gannon stalking the CPAC)

What is truly typically somnambulent is that, for all the ink and phosphors spilled over Coulter's misfiring "faggot" joke (one thinks of the same gibbering chimps screeching about Kerry a couple months ago), Nobody much bothered covering Borchers' ejection by Coulter's thugs!

Go ahead, Google news "borchers coulter" and see what you get. Four hits. Google "coulter faggot" and you get 1,357 hits. Wasn't ANYbody paying attention? Why is Coulter's dumbass and hateful (but covered by the First Amendment) speech worth over a thousand stories, but the CPAC management's collusion with her bodyguards in physically ejecting a perfectly well-behaved CPAC attendee because Ann doesn't like him, WHY is that not worth mention?

And some Coultergeist even FILMED it!

Skydiving or 'Broke-Neck' Sam

click for original

At least progressive talk show host Brian Shaw interviewed Dan on KOPT-AM a day or so later. But generally, well, FOUR hits. And three of them blogs. [Non-news = 22,700 hits for "borchers coulter" and 870,000 hits for "coulter faggot" -- and that doesn't include those publications too squeamish to use the 'f-word.']

There is something deeply insane about the press these days. A word to the wise is sufficient, but any fool gets ten thousand hits.

However, before being ejected, Dan managed to get these two pictures for THIS blog at the event -- making this "virtual" attendance even moreso. And I very much THANK Dan for taking them, and for his permission to use them:

Here is the Sam Adams Alliance booth, with Sam Adams bobbleheads to be given away. Pay special attention to the arrows. They point to the two posters that are also the "wallpapers" released on the Sam Adams website on March 1: Sam's Desktop Wallpapers.

Sam Adams Alliance Booth

And here is the Americans for Limited Government booth, giving away candy and free pens.

Interns for Limited Booth-Time

But, Dan Borchers' experience, and Ann Coulter's slur, Michelle Malkin's ascendance, Newt's rock stardom, Mitt's Gott-Uns and Rudy's surprise manage to put Howard Rich and the Cato gang back into proper perspective: a nasty, perhaps infected zit on the face of the hard-core conservative movement, perhaps, but merely a blemish.

As -- Dan Borchers please note -- Coulter is a blemish on the face of the movement. "Conservatism" is a reasoned philosophy, in its highest manifestation, whose premises I disagree with. But premises are matters of experience and belief, and it needs to be understood that, while we may disagree, two fundamentally differing points of view have ALWAYS been the dipoles within which the United States live, and which WE EMBRACE as healthy and necessary for our democracy to operate.

It is in aberrations, like Coulter, like Howie Rich & Gang and their manipulative, stealth tactics that our democracy is threatened. For too many years, those who would represent themselves as "Liberal" or "Conservative" have, like Ann Coulter, been reflexively coddled by one side or t'other.(I'd come up with a "Liberal" counterpoint, but the vicious snarking of the Right, like Malkin, is SO pervasive and constant that it would be an act of betrayal of moderation to toss even ONE more rock on that unstable cairn.)

And, the grand rollout of "The Sam Adams Alliance" supposedly free of "Americans for Limited Government" was nothing if not a mild aberration, like a zit.

Paul Jacob moved his "Common Sense" radio commentary/two-minute-speech transcript webpage over to SAA a long time ago, merely by changing his logo.

But, as Becky pointed out at Preemptive Karma back in August, Jacob was deeply involved in the failed "Oklahomans in Action"s "Stop OverSpending Oklahoma" initiative (Jacob is president of "Citizens in Charge," headquartered at his house in the Washington, D.C. suburbs). And as confirmed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court's draft opinion of the December 12, 2006 decision denying OIA's last appeal of striking SOS Oklahoma from the ballot -- they literally call it TABOR - Paul Jacob was an active participant in the petitioning process, a petitioning process that the Oklahoma Supreme Court notes was felonious.

... The organization's attitude on residency was that if a circulator came into Oklahoma with the intention of staying only for the duration of the petition drive or could provide some address within the state, the circulator was an Oklahoma resident - a premise not supported by Oklahoma law ...

Just as it is this Court's constitutional duty to determine residency as it relates to elections, the Legislature shoulders the constitutional responsibility to enact laws to prevent corruption in making, procuring, and submitting initiative and referendum petitions. It has done so in three provisions relating to circulators in title 34.

Section 3.153 makes it a crime punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.00 and a year in the county jail for any person other than a qualified elector -- a United States citizen over the age of 18 and a bona fide Oklahoma resident - to circulate an initiative petition.

Section 6 requires circulators to verify every petition by sworn testimony that the circulator is a qualified elector -- a United States citizen over the age of 18 and a bona fide Oklahoma resident -- signing the verification and giving an address.

Pursuant to §23, it is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $500.00, imprisonment up to two years in a state penitentiary, or both to sign or file any certificate or petition knowing the same or any part thereof to be falsely made. Therefore, any circulator signing a verification who is not a qualified elector -- a United States citizen over the age of 18 and a bona fide Oklahoma resident -- or anyone who aides and abets a circulator in doing so commits a felony.

All of which begs the question that has dogged this campaign: in virtually every state in which Rich/Jacob/O'Keefe/Tillman/Wilson operated, clearly definable crimes were observed and reported. But in no state, evidently, has ANYone been willing to prosecute those crimes. And the question has NEVER been asked: if the "Howard Rich gang" was the impetus behind every one of those initiatives, isn't that racketeering? Isn't that an interstate conspiracy to commit election fraud? At least, shouldn't SOMEone be blamed for the "pervasive fraud" -- as the Judge in Montana called it?

But, Paul Jacob, fresh from his testimony in the Oklahoma trial and moving his radio show to the Sam Adams Alliance, participated in the rollout with this lickspittle bit of bland treason on Townhall.com (You know, the sunglasses lady's employer), wherein he emits a relentless string, of absolute thigh-slapping howlers, like this:

Sam Adams, more than any other person, united the 13 colonies into one America, convinced them to battle the biggest empire on the globe, and thus ushered in the greatest period of freedom in the history of mankind.

It's wonderful history. But, of course, Sam Adams is long dead. Now mainly remembered for beer, right?

Wrong . . . or, if correct, not for long.

And this:

"We need a real, grassroots movement across the country, organized locally," says John Tillman, president of The Sam Adams Alliance. "We connect and support citizen leaders who are working to expand liberty and hold the government accountable."

... Tillman believes, much as Adams did, that these local battles are critical, in and of themselves, and also in their ability to impact national politics and policy. The Alliance seeks to be a networking station through which pro-liberty activists can communicate with, learn from and empower one another.

ending with the less-than-resounding:
If you're a modern-day Sam Adams, you should check out this new group.

And join the revolution.

One half expects these geezers to blizzard the campuses of America with Phrygian "Liberty caps" (Which Sam Adams' "Sons of Liberty" wore as "Freedom Caps" and were adopted by the admiring rebels of the French Revolution -- but I doubt that the Sam Adams Alliance, for all their necrophiliac enthusiasm for Sam Adams, would know that).

Remember Howard Rich's statement, "you can be sure that we'll be back, stronger than before"? (See "Unlimited Terms of Endearment" - Epilogue") :

For 2008, they've already started an astroturf organization in North Dakota -- C-RED. And there's one just started up in the last couple weeks of the election in South Carolina: Coalition Against Unlimited Spending (CAUS) . (They LOVE these dopey acronyms: H.O.P.E. in Arizona, P.I.S.T.O.L in Nevada, S.O.S. in Michigan, Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc.)

And add the Sam Adams Alliance, also formed at the end of the campaign, but evidently cooked up or finalized at the ALG action Conference (On November 27, it said: "ARRIVING ON THE WEB IN JANUARY 2007" On November 8, it stated "Arriving on the web in 68 Days")

That would be January 15th.

A mere 45 days later than promised, the Sam Adams website was rolled out, for CPAC. and that's significant: This "new" group is comprised of old operatives with a long history of saying one thing and doing another. It is inauspicious, one would think, to begin one's website with an untruth. Endings are contained within beginnings, after all, and starting with a lie: A lie in the sense of promising something that could not be, in retrospect, delivered -- another term would be 'hubris' -- a quality that Messrs. O'Keefe and Tillman seem to have in abundance.

But, really, what's important here is that the Sam Adams Alliance looks an awful lot like a sexagenarian's idea of what would seem "hip" and "with it" to "young people." No point in pussyfooting around here: the new Sam Adams Alliance is just plain laughably lame.

Once again, here's perhaps the worst wallpaper ever offered on the internet:

Skydiving or 'Broke-Neck' Sam

Good lord: what can these aging proto-libertarians be thinking? These photoshopped monstrousities wouldn't have worked back in the 'sixties, let alone in the 21st Century. I suppose, in a sense, it's a busted metaphor, kind of like "Skydivin' Sam's neck would be, if the cheesy mashup hadn't been done by somebody's grade school kid, who actually knows how to run a computer. Had these people any sense of shame, they'd be mortified, too embarrassed to show their faces.

Are they KIDDING me? Does ANYbody not afflicted with liver spots and palsy think that photoshopping ONE lousy Sam Adams head onto two stock "extreme" sports shots is KEWL?

Seriously, in the midst of the whole CPAC thing, the Sam Adams Alliance was notable for passing out the most expensive freebie (a close second was the stuffed chihuahua from PETA KILLS Animals dot com).

And they were notable herein for reprinting their astonishingly lame poster from the wallpaper selection, but I doubt that anyone at CPAC noticed. They grabbed their bobbleheads, and their free pens, and their candy and stuffed them into their blue "Conservative Political Action Conference" canvas bags, next to their styrofoam Mitt Romney mitts.

(Hyuck, hyuck. Get it? Mitt mitts! Hoo boy. Maybe he's using the same bunch that came up with the "Extreme Sam" wallpaper. Are these people kidding? Or are they playing to their demographic?)

Well, Sam Adams gave away bobbleheads, and Americans for Limited Government gave away candy -- however creepy that implication might be, considering these septagenarians are trying to attract "youthful activists."

Paul Jacob rolled out Sam Adams. The website finally rolled out Sam Adams. The CPAC bobblehead booth and panel rolled out Sam Adams.

But CPAC and its conservative attendees seem to have rolled out a yawn. Alas, if the SAA remain true to their roots, their press releases will trumpet how popular and what a big hit they were, after all. Remember, after losing 34 of 35 initiative campaigns, they blithely lied, claiming "nationwide" victories in 9 states. (See "Unlimited Terms of Endearment, Epilogue")

The truth will never set these people free, although it may well end up incarcerating them.

I, on the other hand, am fascinated by the world that CPAC presented, and more than a little surprised at what a low-rent, cheeseball production the big "Sam Adams Alliance" turned out to be -- even though they obviously spent a lot of cash on this rollout.

Did you know that they discovered a psychedelic octopus in the Antarctic?


8:03 AM
Correction per Dan, who writes:

Thanks for the posting. A correction is, however, necessary. I did NOT go to CPAC to protest against Coulter. I actually went to network, conduct interviews, take photos and evaluate this year's conference. I was politely minding my own business when I was assaulted without cause or justification.
Which only makes the unjustified ejection all the worse. - HW

Monday, March 12, 2007

G.W. Bush v. Hugo Chavez

Were it possible to feel sorry for the Shrub, this might be the time.

As Bush tours Latin America -- where very few people actually speak Latin -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been cheerleading the "Connecticut Yankee Go Home" chorus. This puts Incurious George at a tremendous disadvantage.

Chavez speaks MUCH better Spanish than Bush does.

And Chavez speaks English with greater dexterity and fluency, as well.

Dubya remains hampered by the fact that neither is his first OR second language. And by the fact that, unlike His Malaprop, Chavez was actually elected. Had he any self-awareness, Bush might actually feel humiliated.

As it is, the Shrub merely retains the title "World's Most Dangerous Dumbass."


Sunday, March 11, 2007

The Blogger as Celebrity

We open this reading with a text from CPAC darling Michelle Malkin:

...I said the other day I thought CPAC organizers would be justified in being embarrassed if the rumors about Sanchez's porn star past 15 years ago turned out to be true. Well, the rumors are true. But it is neither CPAC nor Cpl. Sanchez who should feel embarrassed.

It's the nasty, gloating liberals who claim to stand for tolerance, privacy, human rights, and compassion. I predicted the other day that left-wing bigotry would rear its ugly head. I was right. The e-mail I've received is more disgusting than anything Ann Coulter stupidly said at CPAC. And I can imagine the vitriol Cpl. Sanchez is enduring.

We are all fallible people....

Which is, in the History of Specious Sophistry, perhaps a first. We pause a moment to appreciate how cunningly this masterpiece of mendacity was constructed:

Malkin states that WE [CPAC persons] would be hypocrites if event A [one of their speakers was once a gay porn star] and should be embarrassed. (WE, in this case, however, does not include "ME" Ms. Malkin makes implicit.)

YOU [not ME, but the GOOD you, who read ME] should NOT, however be embarrassed.

OK. I'll bite. Why, Michelle?

Because THEY were mean, and THEY [the "liberals"] are in favor of niceness. Therefore, THEY are hypocrites because they're not being nice, and WE are nice* and shouldn't feel embarrassed.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

And we should forgive the speaker, Sanchez, for having been a ex-gay porn star. Why? Because we are all fallible. [*Proving our NICEness -- even though, by implication we're AGAINST niceness, because we oppose EVERYTHING that the Liberals believe in.]

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is an elegance of weaseltry not often seen this side of a sanitarium.

One can only gape in rapt awe. In a culture of mendacity, in an age of mendacity, such a masterwork is tossed off as casually by Ms. Malkin as malapropisms are excreted by Bush.

We leave aside the Bizarro World of dragging up of tokens* a la the 2000 Republican Convention -- in this case, Sanchez, whose Corporeality within the Marine Corps is considered valuable, but whose identity as an ex-gay-porn-star named "Rod Majors" is neatly and schizophrenically consigned to rhetorical non-existence because it's inconvenient to our ends.

[*Again: we're against "quotas" but we play the "look at the minority what we gots here!" game as a matter of realpolitik. It's Looking Glass Logic, and thinking too long on it will make your brain hurt. Trust me.]

In other words: the Liberal hypocrisy of pointing out the Conservative hypocrisy about Rod Majors is hypocritical because Liberals believe in niceness, and therefore, we Conservativesare no longer hypocrites. (Malkin painstakingly details a "Linda Syndrome" moment from Mr. Sanchez/Majors, in her complete blog posting).

The fallability/forgiveness part would be more effective, however, if the mendacious Ms. Malkin would admit the former and not so selectively and selfishly apply the latter: forgiveness when it's convenient for Ms. Malkin (whom, one suspects, has been writing in the author-omniscient voice for so long that it is corrupting her into a grotesque overestimation of her importance in the Grand Scheme of Things. I merely point this out as a friendly warning that the Deity she implicitly importunes vis a vis fallibility and forgiveness might take her presumption with less glee than, say, your humble correspondent).

On a lighter note, the putatively 'reverend' Jerry Falwell has publicly forgiven Newt Gingrich for banging his office manager (probably on his Speaker's office desk) while impeaching Bill Clinton for a blowjob from an intern -- who wouldn't have even BEEN in the White House, had Newt not shut down the government, necessitating the operation of the White House by volunteers, e.g. interns. (BECAUSE it was illegal for the paid White House staff to work at the White House during the government shutdown!)

It's all in World Net Daily, the Right Wing's version of the Weekly World News (The black and white tabloid with alien photos on the cover).

... I was pleased to hear Mr. Gingrich state: "I've gotten on my knees and sought God's forgiveness."

He has admitted his moral shortcomings to me, as well, in private conversations. And he has also told me that he has, in recent years, come to grips with his personal failures and sought God's forgiveness.

I have been very impressed with the spiritual maturity of this man and am convinced that he has been honest and forthright in clarifying his past failings and his quest, as a Christian, for God's forgiveness.

Mr. Gingrich, now 63 and a grandfather, openly discussed his two divorces with Dr. Dobson, including the affair that took place during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. It is a "very painful topic and I confess that to you directly," he stated....

Jerry Falwell and James Dobson (his doctorate is in child development, not theology -- his entrée to "godliness" came via his radio show and media empire) have exonerated Newt Gingrich as neatly as Michelle Malkin exonerated Sanchez.

I am utterly certain that will cut a lot of cheese with the Almighty Most High. James Dobson and Jerry Falwell have forgiven Newt. All's well with the world.

Media rules Reality, and Michelle Malkin, for better or worse, is out on the edge of the new Media -- which is what's causing the conniptions with the Old Media. (Probably why they're sitting on their thumbs, and letting all the good stories get away from them, while they pursue the corpse of Anna Nicole Smith, who was, for a time, outrunning them.)

CPAC seems to have been a strange snapshot of the Conservative movement and the Republican Party at this point in time -- right now most everyone can't quite figure out where the one ends and the other begins. (I predict that will change in the coming years.)

And, we live in an age where one can "virtually" attend such an event. Blogger Joe Magyer writes:

I found Bloggers' Corner, the home of us blogging folk, and pulled up a seat. I've quickly discovered something great about being a credentialed blogger at such an event: everyone wants to meet you. I mean everyone. It is crazy. One lovely lady just introduced herself to me as a rep for Jim Gilmore. Shame such a pretty face is wasted representing a Republican candidate. Another girl, who is a Congressman's new asst. press secretary, just introduced herself, gave me her card, and was very pushy about my following up with her. The P.R. people running Bloggers' Corner just brought me coffee. I've never had anyone bring me coffee before. Amazing. I feel important. If financial journalism doesn't pan out, being a professional conservative blogger sure sounds like a great fall back plan.

The guys in Bloggers' Corner are a motley crew. Most of them are middle aged with a spare tire or two. The rest are mainly youngling such as myself in their mid-20's. This group of bloggers represents most of the best known conservative blogs out there. You may be interested to know that, as if the 25 bloggers here were not providing enough self aggrandizing coverage, there is in fact a blog about the bloggers at CPAC. Believe me, you will never find a group of people more interested in self-branding then we bloggers....

The bloggers at CPAC were treated as celebrities, as the jealous press looked on, that's the unwritten subtext. Understandable, even if a little loony: celebrity is not a meritocracy. It just is. Otherwise, how do you explain Ron Jeremy?

Speaking of hirsute celebrities you've probably never heard of, here's a shot down bloggers' row.

(In the foreground, there's Mary Katharine Ham of Townhall.com, whose sunglasses evidently remained perched above her forehead for the three straight days of CPAC -- at least in every photo by every blogger at every event for every day of CPAC, which might indicate that they're actually some form of prosthesis)

Take a look at the Flick'r photo stream from the CRC Public Relations person, who accredited the bloggers' row.

It is very interesting to see the "cream" of the right wing blog community -- how OLD they look, and how utterly unhip.

It's a cultural disconnect that, translated into '60s terms would be a bunch of crew cuts with nicely pressed straight-leg trousers and white short-sleeve shirts, like, say an aerospace engineer, circa 1969, with electric guitars -- say, Gibson Firebirds, Guild Starfires, and, say, psychedelic Stratocasters. OK, but "Barbie's Dream House" it ain't: The hardware doesn't mesh with the user base.

There's the "Captain" from "Captain's Quarters."

And here is the CPAC "Blogger of the Year" N.Z. -- from Orange County, California, naturally.

And here's the Sunglasses lady's column in pictures: from which the "Captain" photo is herein linked. Linked back to. Screw it. Onward.

As far as the blog photos go, one begins to believe that the whole reason for CPAC is getting your photo taken with Michelle Malkin.

There are still photos from the 2006 CPAC that might as well have been taken in 2005 or even 2004. Future generations will be able to watch the yearly aging of Michelle Malkin from CPAC to CPAC, like the time-lapse film of a mushroom opening.

'Virtually' everyone who attended was either having their picture taken WITH her or were taking a picture OF her -- the most popular shot posted being that of her video interview with Newt Gingrinch (sic). She seems to be starting some kind of podcast TV network called "Hot Air" -- a title brayed, evidently, without any sense of irony.

Seems like an extension of the "Fauz Nooz" concept into the you-tub-o-sphere. Again, probably their big rollout. Some of you might recall that NEWSMAX was rolled out during the contested election of 2000 in Florida, as NEWSMAX people paraded behind the cable TV cameras anytime that they were pointed at a crowd protesting or gathered or having anything to do with what ultimately became the Supreme Court's most disgraceful moment: Bush v. Gore.

(Oh, and Roger Taney, be happy to know that "Wild Bill" Rehnquist has now assumed your mantle as the most horrific Chief Justice in the sometimes disgraceful behavior of the United States Supreme Court.)

The bloggers were "stars," at the convention/conference -- to the extent that Washington, D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people, the bloggers represented hipness for the unhip.

HERE is the "Conservative" idea of what a blogger looks like:

[Bluey is "director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He maintains a blog at RobertBluey.com"

He's also the former editor of the daily online edition of Human Events -- owned by Tom Phillips, see "Objective Journalism" for more on the Phillips publishing empire]

Or, just to wire it all together, Regnery/Eagle publishing to Heritage Foundation:

Mr. Bluey, a contributing editor to Human Events, is director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He is the former editor of HumanEvents.com and managing editor of Human Events. In addition to maintaining his own blog at RobertBluey.com, he also writes for RedState.

And here Bluey is, in a less artificial pose.

But these were the "celebrities" of CPAC 07, which, perhaps, explains the weird love/hate that the 'MSM' ("Main Stream Media") has for the bloggers and the blogosphere.

Oddly, neither the bloggers nor the "media" (mostly partisan press a la Faux Nooz) mentioned the presence of "Jeff Gannon" who was not on bloggers' row, but was caught by the Libertarian Party blogger Joe Magyer here.

See the blog Magyer did for the Libertarian Party for a superb "fly-on-the-wall" view of the foofawraw. And see the related blog by REASON Magazine associate editor David Wiegel. It's well worth the read.

But I don't think they'll get a lot of subscriptions from the Mitt Romney followers.

Luckily for the rest of us, the Libertarian Party sent that blogger, Joe Magyer, who, after being hassled by CPAC security, was seated on bloggers' row (below the salt, one would presume).

Above the Salt "celebrities" of the Conservative Blogosphere included: Mary Katherine Ham of Townhall.com, who posted this photo of Mitt Romney's troops, bused in for the occasion.

And Ed Morrissey of "The Captain's Quarters," one of the first of the hyper-rococco rightie blogs (in ornamentation, not content, necessarily), who noted Mitt's troops' lack of firepower.

And a blogatrix named Fausta Wertz. And the bloggers from RedState.com, the famed rightie blog that basically looks EXACTLY like a red version of DailyKos ... except, of course, that RedState.com proclaims that it's proudly owned by Eagle Publishing, which is, again, an imprint of Tom Phillips' publishing empire -- which includes Human Events Magazine, Regnery Press (Malkin's publisher), American Spectator Magazine, Eagle Publishing, and others.

I'm not certain that I've yet named a blogger who isn't connected in some way through the Tom Phillips publishing operation. I guess he's kind of the Larry Flynt of right wing literature.

To give you a sense of how incestuous this all is, consider this post by RedState's Leon H Wolf:

"Behold, I Shall Weigh in on CPAC"

And then consider that the post immediately prior is by Bluey (Human Events Magazine)

And the post immediately following is "Thanks Captain Ed" by the single-named RedState correspondent "Erick."

And here's a roundup from RedState's Moe Lane.

But, finally, our tween-teen blogger probably sums up best WHY the bloggers' posteriors are being so fervently osculated by the politicos present:

I finally asked the surprised Romney:

Mr. Romney, What should younger bloggers like me be posting on?

Quote: "Get the truth. The mainstream media is biased, so the younger bloggers are depended on to get the whole story out."

My mom and dad were extremely pleased. They were able to whip out the camera and take a shot before Romney was sucked away.

(part iii tomorrow).


NOTE: And here are some more photos from CPAC, at random: