List o' Blogs
- Eschaton
- Daily Kos
- Hullabaloo (Digby)
- Dependable Renegade
- Rising Hegemon
- Whiskey Fire
- Dohiyi Mir
- Whiskey Fire
- Plush Life
- Echidne
- Multi Medium
- John Gorenfeld
- Brad Delong
News 'n Other Links
And one last thing:
contact
- begemot2 (at) gmail (dot) com
begemot archives
- 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003
- 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003
- 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
- 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
"You left poor Behemoth, betraying him for a glass of brandy -- though it was very good brandy!"
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Wonder of Wonders
That is, the frigging UPI posts a piece by Martin Shieff wondering whether Bush's teflon will remain so impenetrable. On l'affaire Paul O'Neill:
And although he notes that the President is weathering all criticism with unbelievable good luck, he concludes that
This is not the kind of Moon-arific news analysis we expect from the UPI.
That is, the frigging UPI posts a piece by Martin Shieff wondering whether Bush's teflon will remain so impenetrable. On l'affaire Paul O'Neill:
Only a day later it called for a probe into how government documents labeled "secret" could be aired on the O'Neill interview on national network TV in prime time.
But this response contrasted strikingly with the far slower response the White House had in approving a probe on who leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak last July.
And although he notes that the President is weathering all criticism with unbelievable good luck, he concludes that
The president's Teflon is still looking good. But it is a long way to November. And political Teflon has been known to peel.
This is not the kind of Moon-arific news analysis we expect from the UPI.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
No One Wants to Get to the Bottom of It
So, as Josh Marshall notes, Scott McClellan declines to say whether Bush wants his aides to sign the forms that would release the "Cold Call Six" from their confidentiality agreements. But, McClellan adds, apparently with a straight face (at least Mike Allen doesn't tell us that he was bustin' out laughing), "The president has always said that leaking classified information is a serious matter, and certainly no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than he does."
Of all the obfuscations during the post-Plame outing coverup, this has always seemed to me the most specious: as the Plame Clock caption indicates, if the President wanted to get to the bottom of this, he could do so in less than five minutes. (Karl, was it you? Scooter, was it you? Of course, this is presuming he doesn't already know.) Why McClellan is allowed to repeat this line without immediately getting called on the spot for it is beyond me ...
So, as Josh Marshall notes, Scott McClellan declines to say whether Bush wants his aides to sign the forms that would release the "Cold Call Six" from their confidentiality agreements. But, McClellan adds, apparently with a straight face (at least Mike Allen doesn't tell us that he was bustin' out laughing), "The president has always said that leaking classified information is a serious matter, and certainly no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than he does."
Of all the obfuscations during the post-Plame outing coverup, this has always seemed to me the most specious: as the Plame Clock caption indicates, if the President wanted to get to the bottom of this, he could do so in less than five minutes. (Karl, was it you? Scooter, was it you? Of course, this is presuming he doesn't already know.) Why McClellan is allowed to repeat this line without immediately getting called on the spot for it is beyond me ...
Monday, January 05, 2004
On the MooniePI
Back from hiatus, at least temporarily ...
[Reposted from my dKos diary]
This came up several months ago, after this excellent piece in Salon, but after Atrios's post today on the latest utterly ridiculous Rachel Marsden UPI-sponsored anti-Dean rant I think it needs to be said again.
Why is anything associated with the Rev. Moon given any brook in any quarter in this country? Why aren't conservative politicians with close ties to this man called to task in the same manner that Jesse Jackson was for his association with Farrakhan?
(While the ADL devotes space on its webpage to well-known anti-Semites such as Farrakhan, David Duke, and Pat Buchanan, they seem utterly unconcerned with the very influential and very wealthy Rev. Moon, and they did not respond to my several email inquiries about this fact.)
Here's a brief sampling from the Salon piece:
One of the most difficult tasks facing those of us who hope to reorient politics in this country is how thoroughly the far Right has been able to define what belongs within the framework of acceptable discourse. It is preposterous that Ann Coulter, who should be far beyond the pale, is ever on Faux News, let alone CNN, and yet there she is, and regularly. Yet the same shows would never dream of inviting on Michael Moore as a commentator, although his bestselling books on American politics, agree or disagree with what he writes, would seem to qualify him to be sitting right there next to her. (At least he doesn't make up footnotes out of thin air.)
The question should be posed to any politician who has ever associated with Rev. Moon: do you share these views? are you willing to publicly renounce all ties to this man? If not, why not? How can this man be getting funded by the US government? (As I noted in my initial reaction to the Salon piece, as of last fall, groups associated with Moon were receiving money via the faith-based initiatives program.)
And all press organs owned by this man (most notably the UPI and Wash. Times) should be once and for all considered beyond the pale. An added bonus if reporters from the Moonie Times who appear as pundocrats (e.g. Fat Tony Blankley) get asked the same questions: do you share your boss's views on Jews and sexual purification? Does it bother you to work for this man?
Back from hiatus, at least temporarily ...
[Reposted from my dKos diary]
This came up several months ago, after this excellent piece in Salon, but after Atrios's post today on the latest utterly ridiculous Rachel Marsden UPI-sponsored anti-Dean rant I think it needs to be said again.
Why is anything associated with the Rev. Moon given any brook in any quarter in this country? Why aren't conservative politicians with close ties to this man called to task in the same manner that Jesse Jackson was for his association with Farrakhan?
(While the ADL devotes space on its webpage to well-known anti-Semites such as Farrakhan, David Duke, and Pat Buchanan, they seem utterly unconcerned with the very influential and very wealthy Rev. Moon, and they did not respond to my several email inquiries about this fact.)
Here's a brief sampling from the Salon piece:
His gospel: Jesus failed because he never attained worldly power. Moon will succeed, he says, by purifying our sex-corrupted culture, and that includes cleaning up gays ("dung-eating dogs," as he calls them) and American women ("a line of prostitutes"). Jews had better repent, too. (Moon claims that the Holocaust was payback for the crucifixion of Christ: "Through the principle of indemnity, Hitler killed 6 million Jews.") His solution is a world theocracy that will enforce proper sexual habits in order to bring about heaven on earth.
One of the most difficult tasks facing those of us who hope to reorient politics in this country is how thoroughly the far Right has been able to define what belongs within the framework of acceptable discourse. It is preposterous that Ann Coulter, who should be far beyond the pale, is ever on Faux News, let alone CNN, and yet there she is, and regularly. Yet the same shows would never dream of inviting on Michael Moore as a commentator, although his bestselling books on American politics, agree or disagree with what he writes, would seem to qualify him to be sitting right there next to her. (At least he doesn't make up footnotes out of thin air.)
The question should be posed to any politician who has ever associated with Rev. Moon: do you share these views? are you willing to publicly renounce all ties to this man? If not, why not? How can this man be getting funded by the US government? (As I noted in my initial reaction to the Salon piece, as of last fall, groups associated with Moon were receiving money via the faith-based initiatives program.)
And all press organs owned by this man (most notably the UPI and Wash. Times) should be once and for all considered beyond the pale. An added bonus if reporters from the Moonie Times who appear as pundocrats (e.g. Fat Tony Blankley) get asked the same questions: do you share your boss's views on Jews and sexual purification? Does it bother you to work for this man?
