Powered by TypePad

« An Outrage If Bush Had Proposed It | Main | Training Day »

June 07, 2009



Me too, then.


Its news...isn't it?

 I'm not me, too, then.

Privacy will become an expensive and unusual luxury.


Yes, that did seem a bit juvenile when I read it yesterday, including the parts about the corrected oh-so-imprecise sentence. I guess he felt it was worth pointing out that the guy's a law professor and doesn't know what the term "common law" means, although he never mentioned the background on that.


I say if Michelle Obama or Rahm Emmanuel or Rod Blogoyavich want to come in here and post under pseudonyms, leave 'em be. It's the penetrating commentary that counts, after all.

BB Key

Michelle could post here and tell everyone about how they " only recently paid off our 'college' loans."


I hope I'm not being presumptuous (it's Tom's blog after all; we're just the houseguests who eat all the good snacks, leave the beds unmade, drink all the beer, and refuse to leave) but I just want to take this opportunity to welcome Karl Rove to post here under any level of anonymity he wishes.


At least it gave AJ another chance to rant about the "far right".

Melinda Romanoff

For purely selfish reasons, I am so onboard with this "policy"/

Rahm and Rod wouldn't make it past the first post without getting "Thwacked". Michelle? Maybe three.

Jack is Back!

This is nothing. Anyone beside me reading "The Scarecrow" by Michael Connelly? Talk about a privacy invasion.

Original MikeS

Whelan has moved NRO to a whole 'nuther level.

Soylent Red

We folks, I guess we can all stop worrying...

In a single speech, Obamessiah negates 80 years of Muslim antipathy.

Also, why would Rove need to post here? Our Master already controls our thoughts and directs our actions with his mind rays, broadcast through AM radio and Fox News (just go to any coffee house and ask a moonbat if I'm telling the truth). Seems like posting here would be kind of redundant.

But if he chooses to post here, to co-opt a well worn phrase, "I, for one, welcome our Dark Overlord."

Danube of Thought

"At least it gave AJ another chance..."

Who is AJ?

Danube of Thought

Oh, I get it--AJ Strata.


Soylent: How right you are and perfect timing, too. Jonah Goldberg posted this morning:

A Democratic Underground dweller buys a doohickey so he can turn off Fox News in any public place he finds it. So courageous.

"...it's time to get aggressive when it comes to people playing FOX News in businesses, doctor's offices and other public places."

DoT: I think AJ is AJStrata.

Danube of Thought

Great that they're fulminating about Fox News in public.

Remember Sartre's play called "No Exit?" That's what I always think of when I'm in an airport with a two-hour wait, and right in front of me a tv is tuned to CNN. There is no volume control and no channel control. It is simply a monitor, and if you're going to sit where you are you are going to get CNN for as long as you're there.

Throwing a shoe through the thing has crossed my mind more than once.


I can't get Bench Memos to open. NRO's other sites are working for me.


Interesting, cc.

Imagine the feeling of wanting to silence the opposition after you've won it all and have total control. Rather than smirk and let the pissants whine on Fox while you remake the country, you worry about them instead, and even stick your fingers in your ears. You spend your time working to destroy insignificant lightweights like Sarah Palin, and people with approval numbers in the 20s like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. (Well, not anymore, in Cheney's case. :-))

It must be a blend of totalitarian instinct and a pretty serious insecurity. Imagine what they'd do with even more power?

Cecil Turner

Not cool at all.

I'm less than totally convinced. I think there are two issues here:

  1. What responsibility does a pseudonymous blogger have to avoid sniping, and did Publius cross that line?
  2. Whose responsibility is it to safeguard a pen name?
Seems to me on point one that the pseudonymous blogger has a significant advantage in an ad hominem fracas, maligning someone's good name, whilst the person writing under their own name can only target a puppet. This post is self-contradictory sniping (accusing Whelan of already knowing what he was supposedly being educated on), ascribing bad faith to Whelan. Over the top? At least arguably, yes.
On point two, I can't see any reasonable argument that it is other than Blevins's responsibility to ensure his pen name remains confidential. If Whelan were conducting some sort of cyber-Black Hat op to get his name, that'd be a different story. But in this case it was a third party whose knowledge presumably traces back to Blevins himself. And if someone informs Whelan, it's hard to see why he has a responsibility to protect Publius's secrets . . . and particularly that one. Publishing sexual preference would be a far more egregious (and senseless) confidentiality breach, and I've seen little remorse on the left for those.


Imagine the feeling of wanting to silence the opposition after you've won it all and have total control.

Imagine you are in Venzuela and your name is Hugo. Not hard to imagine what the goal is here.

Danube of Thought

Federer has taken the first two sets in the French Open final. I hope he wins--that guy he's playing seems like a real asshole.

(This is an open thread...isn't it?)


If anything's worse than that, DoT, it's sitting in a foreign airport and having to listen to CNN International trash the country while you're on your way back. Man, that's painful.


The important thing is that Ed felt *really* *really* good about himself when he posted that item about publius.

... and that's usually the first sign that you're about to be a stone-cold jackass.


Hey, DoT, just buy your own "doohickey" and zap CNN where and when you are forced to be indoctrinated by it.

I can envision it now - The War of the Doohickeys.


It would be a better class of troll, than the ones we usually get around here. Actually the targets are quite durable that PPP poll who got the numbers wrong last time, even with the fraud, has her at 46%, I defy anyone to hold out against such an attack, and fair so well, including strong support from independents. Cheney's up to 37%, but he seems to have swayed some on a series of vital issues, he's not running for anything accept his reputation in history. Rush seems to be holding his own.

Whalen, certainly screwed up, here, and I say that as someone who admires his analysis. I find the protestations about his methodology rich from the likes of those who dinged Bork about American Cynamid and sterilization, to use one oft cited slander.


Don't you imagine Whelan wishes he had do-over? I know I would if I were in his shoes. He could have let publius know he knew who he was without revealing his identity. Something like he was surprised to find the person he thought wasn't steeped in law was in fact a professor at a law school in Texas. The point would have been made without revealing the identity of the person. I can't get to Bench Memos to see what Whelan/publius argued regarding common law, but it should come as no surprise that liberals don't understand the law as it is written. They find things that aren't there and totally miss what is spelled out for them.

Rick Ballard

It's just a darn shame that Blevin's lacked the intelligence to protect his pseudonym. If he had given some thought about the probability of exposure when he bragged to "friends" about how clever he was in "hiding" his identity he might have remained eternally anonymous in his sniping - just another monkey flinging feces in obscurity, like the trolls who infest every site which does not require registration.

I have to stop now - the tears are starting to warp my violin.


I am rather ambivalent about "outing" anonymous bloggers. There is always the chance that someone will know or find out who you are. I would love to know who Allahpundit really is, for instance.

And, yes, I comment with a nom-de-plume - but out of no desire to hide or deceive. Would have used my name (Jan) long ago except we already have a very prominent commenter named Jane and there has been a Jean frequent here. Having gone through life being called Jane, Jean, Joan, June (well, you get the picture) instead of Jan, (3 letters - who knew that would be so hard), I decided to stick with Centralcal, since it also indicated where it is I am coming from.

I can't tell you how confusing it was in my first forays reading here when there was a Syl, a sylvia (lower case) and a Sylvia (upper case).

Plus, some comment names are just fun. Danube of Thought. Ignatz. Melinda Romanoff. Bumperstickerist. And my most favorite of all - Hit & Run.


Well, since I post under a pseudonym for the primary reason that I am still stuck in court with a psycopathic relative I have to admit I'm a little torn on this issue, but it seems a little more complicated to me than just tut tutting in Whelan's direction.

First, it seems to me Publius is hardly without blame here. If one wishes to remain anonymous it seems to me that person has a bit of the onus of ensuring that anonymity. And if it comes to the point that "reliable sources" are able to pass the information on to your antagonists perhaps you should have been more circumspect in who you revealed it to if you have professional, legal and personal concerns.

Second, anonymity confers certain advantages (and no doubt some disadvantages as well). Is it a level playing field for two people to engage in a heated debate, one fully exposed with his identity known and the other behind the cloak of anonymity? In some ways it is not, especially when personal insults and questioning of a person's competence are involved.

And the third is related to the second. Anonymity allows a person to say things they wouldn't otherwise say. In some cases that is a good no doubt, but in a lot of cases it leads to all of the things that are so wrong with the internet. A person using their real name doesn't have that freedom.

To apply it personally, which is a real stretch considering my profession,if I found out an anonymous person had been criticizing my competence and, based on his statements, I questioned his as well, and then found out he was actually engaged in the business at which he was demonstrating incompetence, I'm not sure I wouldn't do what Whelan did. In my case lives and property damage would be at stake. But the stakes in public policy debates ultimately are quite high as well, if usually not so personal or immediate.

All I can say is if I went after someone anonymously and repeatedly and especially if I ridiculed them in public and I was so careless as to let my identity be revealed to that person I wouldn't then whine about how my cover was blown.
What Whelan did was no doubt rude but I'm not sure I'd jump to the conclusion it was categorically wrong.

Cecil Turner

Whalen, certainly screwed up, here, and I say that as someone who admires his analysis.

If that's the consensus, then I feel compelled to note that Whelan is correct on his basic point that policy-making judges (or, more particularly, on judges who feel their main role is policy-making) are a perfectly legitimate point of contention, especially when considering a SCOTUS nomination. And that Blevins and A.L. were both making fallacious ad hominem arguments in a policy dispute. I think they ought not do that, and that if they feel compelled to do so, then they at least ought to sign their names to the bottom of the post. So if Whelan's offense is more egregious, at least it's not unprovoked.


Well, I read the 'offending' post, now and I don't see the big deal about it. It seems more like the Plame kerfluffle, it's almost an oversight, "I'm reliably informed" unlike
the question should be better be, who was the Armitage in this deal; who gave up the detail to Whalen. I guess I was relying on the 'people who live in glass houses
standard' and and you know those glass shards are pretty sharp out there. So I didn't want to be a hypocrite about this.


Sue: I am able to get into Bench Memos. Was just there, in fact.


"Blevins and A.L. were both making fallacious ad hominem arguments"

A.L. seems generally a decent sort but having been in at least one knock down drag out here (and PW) over FISA I would say A.L. is definately prone to a number of dirty tricks that I wouldn't even try against trolls.

Maguire's style seems much more immune to that sort of provocation but I well understand Ed's reaction.

Danube of Thought

Ah, what the hell. I like to see the people I disagree with get outed; I don't like it when someone outs a person I agree with.

There--I've said it. And I already feel better about myself.


I still can't get into Bench Memos.

Uncle BigBad


I deleted AJ Strata from my bookmarks some time ago.

Cecil Turner

I would say A.L. is definately prone to a number of dirty tricks that I wouldn't even try against trolls.

It seems to me the main point here is whether the tone/content of the posts would change significantly if the poster were posting under their own name. Just noting three of his/her recent headlines, I'd say they cross the line:

Ed Whelan Completes His Descent into Hackery

Newt Gingrich is a Sad, Pathetic Man

Cheney's Cowardly, Self-Serving Speech

Moreover, they appear to take advantage of precisely the cover that anonymity provides, and in precisely the most offensive way. So if A.L.'s identity were to be provided to any one of the above named persons, I'd have a hard time getting excited about it if they decided to share.


Personally I support the right of anyone from either the left or the right politically to blog/write anonymously if they so desire.
If you have an argument to make then make it, present it and if it's good it will stand. No need to act like a petulant teenager if you don't like something. sheezzz


"whether the tone/content of the posts would change significantly if the poster were posting under their own name"

If A.L. were to retire from litigation and go full time blogger under the real name my guess is the tone would not change.

But you're right. Going out of the way to be nasty provocative while ananymous is to put anonymity at legitimate risk.


"present it and if it's good it will stand"

Ah yes the dunking chair theory of determining credibility.

Bloggers that make themselves public figures by defamation don't qualify for much in the way of sympathy if their anonymity gets busted.

Fresh Air

The blogger himself should refrain from libelous statements, anonymous or not. We commenters, however, are like the Greek chorus; we can say whatever we want in a I'm-on-the-floor-of-the-House sort of protected way. It's better that way, in that the ideas can flow rough and rapid, and the Left's favorite tactic of destroying the messenger cannot operate. I for one hope the ad hominem goes the way of the dodo soon...taking every newspaper writer with it.


Bill BombardiAyers on CSPAN2 at the moment.


Whelan could easily have said that he does not respond to ad hominem arguments from known or unknown bloggers. He could have taken the high road.

Whelan chose to air out personal information instead of responding with a legitimate argument. That says a lot about the man.

Personally - I'd rather all blogging be anonymous. I think we have witnessed how extremists will use public information to indulge personal vendettas. Whelan should be ashamed of himself - but I suspect that he is feeling extremely smug and satisfied. Again - that says a lot about the man.


Is anyone else having a problem with posting? I don't have the option to hit post or preview. I can see them, but they are a light shade of gray that won't allow either option. Is there a trick when this happens?

Rick Ballard

VDH provides a moral tale regarding dealing with the wholly amoral. It fits nicely with Whelan's reaction to the monkeys hiding in their cloaks of pseudo-invisibility.


If bloggers proudly proclaimed that they are gay, then they wouldn't have to worry about being outed.


--Whelan could easily have said that he does not respond to ad hominem arguments from known or unknown bloggers. He could have taken the high road.--

That is the argument perpetually trotted out to shield agressive creeps, and when the creep is anonymous it's doubly dubious.

--Whelan chose to air out personal information instead of responding with a legitimate argument. That says a lot about the man.--

Whelan cose to identify the hominem behind the ad. Tough nuts.

And let me disagree a bit with DOT's confession.
IMO, if an anonymous righty is being an ass and is identified, tough nuts again.

Charlie (Colorado)

I agree, I deplore Whelan's outing of Publius, and plan to exhibit my outrage right after Publius finishes pushing the outing in all available fora.

I've got it penciled in for 2011.

Charlie (Colorado)

Is anyone else having a problem with posting? I don't have the option to hit post or preview. I can see them, but they are a light shade of gray that won't allow either option. Is there a trick when this happens?

Sue, there's a bit of code in the page that disables those buttons until it detects you've typed something in the box. Unfortunately, it's sometimes less observant than one would hope.

Copy all the code to your clipboard with control-C and refresh the page, then re-enter your comment with control-V. That seems to fix it.


Here is Whelan's response to Publius's complaint.



I've tried that. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Old Lurker



http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/>Check out this lovely picture of our first lady.


http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/197847.php>It is actually a caption this post. Come one JOMers, help them out over there.


Sue: I think Michelle is ticked because Carla's belted white dress showed what a nice figure she as, whereas M's belted white dress showed just the opposite.

First Ladies Wear White

JM Hanes

My irony meter is working overtime here:

Blevins expects Whelan to respect his right to be disrespectful anonymously.

Teh Lefty Rulz: Outing people in order to expose them to harassment is a legitimate exercise in honesty and accountability. Outing someone in response to harassment is indefensible.

Whelan has breached an ostensible online honor code which obliges him to protect bloggers who attack him personally and then brag far and wide about their exploits offline.

JM Hanes

Well shoot, Sue, I was going to post "Who does she think she is with her chin in the air like that?" -- but you beat me to it! It would be a lot more fun if caption contests attracted less sophomoric smut and more wit, though, wouldn't it?

To activate the post/preview buttons: All I usually have to do is add a space, or type & delete a letter after I've pasted a comment into the box.

The only time I refresh the page is when Typepad refuses to post comment, which generally only happens I've corrected and then previewed again a few times. That's when you need to remember to copy your post first, because refreshing wipes the comment box clean.


I agree JMH about the irony.

The anonymous bloggers who wish to have a large forum to express their views and critiques, remind me in a way of all those "anonymice" who are quoted and cited ad nauseum in the liberal press.

Ed Morrissey is having a slow Sunday and has posted a poll on this at HotAir.

When is it okay to out anonymous bloggers?

Danube of Thought

I kind of side with those who say it's OK to be anonymous provided you don't attack others personally by name; at that point all bets are off.

Let us pause to celebrate the decided turn to the Right by our European brethren. And do not lose sight of the very forceful anti-tax votes in California and Illinois.

JM Hanes

It's interesting that this the only time I can remember trackbacks appearing on one of Tom's posts.


In the days of the Founding writing under a Pseudonym was done by many. The original Publius was: Hamilton, Madison and Jay, and we still can't tell who wrote what for some pieces. Luther Martin was open, relatively vicious, and didn't give a damn. Federal Farmer, Cato, Brutus... all unknown and yet each taking up reasoning and reviewing the proposed Constitution on various grounds that were generally moderate and even suggesting enhancements to strengthen federalism within it... strange we call them 'anti-federalists' when they do that.

In those days, however, 'calling some out' (outing them) was done for a reason... and you just gave up your choice of weapons when you did so. That meant that those presenting ideas via pseudonym or anonymously understood their position, as those who were attacked did. But what about those who did not attack by personality, did not demean character and otherwise sought to open up a discussion that was NOT centered around personality? That was why they wrote as they did, or that is the effect of writing that way, at any rate.

To attack from the shadows and be called out meant: put up or shut up. If you did not put up, did not come out to lay your life on the line, your line of attack was called.

We are too civilized by eliminating that remedy, thus baseless attacks stand from the shadows. We only have legal remedy, and that does not address honor or character when it is attacked.

That means that those who try to open a discussion so as to not have it center around a person now have their views thrown in with the attackers as we cannot discriminate between these venues. By becoming 'nice' we lose that as a vital part of public discourse. When those venues are put together as one, when they should stand separately, we impugn all for a few.

My writings would be just as dull under my own name, which any can get. It is the only spice to my writing and blogging, without it there would be only blandness as I do my best to not attack baselessly and present ideas. Instead we concentrate on personalities... and shift from being a nation that cares about laws to one that is ruled by men. That is what we get about being 'nice' about this.


Uh Oh. Fitzgerald is threatening Harper Collins over a book to be published about him (pre-9/11).

Triple Cross


It would be a lot more fun if caption contests attracted less sophomoric smut and more wit, though, wouldn't it?

Yeah, but it is mostly men that caption the pictures so what do you expect? ::ducking and running::


but I suspect that he is feeling extremely smug and satisfied. Again - that says a lot about the man.


You "guess" how Ed Whalen is feeling (no indication that you have met the man or would recognize him if you fell over him) and follow that up by saying your guess "says a lot about the man".

If you are "the man" I'm willing to agree. Otherwise that's one hell of a projection.


Why didn't Whelan just block the posts if they were so wrong and annoying? He could have informed the law professor privately exactly why he was being blocked. Easy fix.

Rick Ballard

"I kind of side with those who say it's OK to be anonymous provided you don't attack others personally by name"

Sure it is. It's up to the person adopting the pseudonym to protect the cloak of anonymity though. Dropping it in the mud by telling "just a few your very bestest friends" about your secret life as an anonymous feces flinger indicates a lack of seriousness wrt the matter.


Sue: I think Michelle is ticked because Carla's belted white dress showed what a nice figure she as, whereas M's belted white dress showed just the opposite.

Got it in one, centralcal. Carla looks like a million bucks.

It's curious that they both wore belted white dresses though.




Apparently being a fellow traveler and Dictator bootlicker does not put you under scrutiny in Washington DC. Perhaps its too hard to distinguish from the democrat wing of the Democrat Party?

Anyway here is a cut and paste from a news article on this piece of trash:

Myers, arrested Thusday, appears to be a true believer. He praised Castro in a personal journal he wrote in 1978 as a ''brilliant and charismatic leader'' who is ''one of the great political leaders of our time.'' And he called the United States government ''exploiters'' who regularly murdered Cuban revolutionary leaders. The indictment against the couple shows he may have received a number of medals from the Cuban government but little money.

Politically motivated spies don't leave a money trail or engage in conspicuous consumption that might attract attention, a common way spies are first identified. The former officials said the Cuban intelligence service is willing to wait years, even decades, for a recruit to work him or herself into a useful position. Cuba is content to have mid-level officials who have access to information but no policy-making power.

According to court documents, Myers had been put on a watch list by his State Department boss in 1995, meaning he was under suspicion. The FBI investigation didn't start until 2006, after his boss raised fresh suspicions when he returned from a trip to China.


We see here the character of Fizgerald, the reason why I rooted for Blago, after what happened to Libby vs. Armitage, and Black vs. Radler, He's going to go after someone for a book that's been out for three years, because it details some negligence in some of his action. Lance, has been hit or miss, his speculation that Ali Mohammed, the AQ figure, was the source for the first PDB, revelations about Egyptian nationals at the FDNY and at the WTC, with a set of blueprints, that was in his previous book. He does go on 'the Iraq is a distraction' meme, but that's like water, falling down
in the publishing industry. That's not a reason for post-prior restraint? Contrast that with Ken Starr, who argued before the courts, for his friend Dan Moldea'sexplosive
tome on mob corruption "Interference" The book was published, and not long after Moldea went to work for Flynt and Salon; to try to destroy Ken Starr; the same dynamic
applies to Libby and Armitage.

I should have resubmitted my application to the DIA, because I figured out the big get in the Myers case, the FSI being the source
for all foreign language training, including
CIA and DIA. Hence dossiers on operatives from the 1978-1988 period at least.Chris Simmons, likewise teased out this fact in the Herald. I included that in mysubmission to the American Thinker.


Was anyone having trouble posting here awhile ago?

BB Key

Jack is Back!
I finished The Scarecrow last week.

The isolation by hacking cell phone, credit cards, e-mail, etc. was sobering.
The jerks in the newspaper business (MSM) were accurate.




When I post the previous post, I got some gibberish that included MySQL, server failure, and false post; anyone know what that's about:


Does anyone know if Whalen threatened Blevins before outing him? Seems more honorable, kind of along the lines ajacksonian was describing.

"You've impugned me from behind the cloak of anonymity. Now I'm calling you out. Out yourself now or I will."

Much more sporting than "Nyah nyah, I found you out and I'm tellin'."


Whelan could easily have said that he does not respond to ad hominem arguments from known or unknown bloggers. He could have taken the high road.

Whelan chose to air out personal information instead of responding with a legitimate argument. That says a lot about the man.

If you call ad hom a legitimate argument. So often the left does NOT ague in good faith. If fact it's virtually never.

And I say this as a person targeted by the LEFT to try uncover and try and out.


Want a sense on what the Euro elections are showing? Hot from the AP no less, I note this:

The leader of the Socialist grouping in the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, told party faithful in Brussels via video link from Berlin that "tonight is a very difficult evening for Socialists in many nations in Europe."

Schulz said the party would "continue to fight for social democracy in Europe."

Many Socialists across Europe ran campaigns that slammed center-right leaders for failing to rein in financial markets and spend enough to stimulate the economy.

Graham Watson, leader of the center-right Liberal Democrat grouping, said early results suggested a rejection of the Socialist approach.

"People don't want a return to socialism and that's why the majority here will be a center-right majority," he said.




Is this thing working?


There is some sort of SQL Server message box that takes over periodically. I like the last few words in it: comments = junk.


I can see mine and Gmax's. Haven't gotten the comment=junk message yet;)


There is some sort of SQL Server message box

That would be a back-end problem with typhuspad. It seems they store their messages in a MySQL database for retrieval purposes. When you see these sorts of messages, it means they are upgrading or something got Borked (computer term of art -- wonder where that come from?) in their setup.

Usually these sorts of issues are resolved in an hour or two, if the organization is any good.


Test? Did you say test?

President Obama's French food tested by 'taster'

Rick Ballard

"Is this thing working?"

About as well as any SixApart product can be expected to work.

BTW - I continued to read up on what is being said in the Italian press wrt to Fiat/Chrysler. I hadn't realized that Fiat had put its plants on half time some time ago. The Italian commies are postulating that Marchione intends to shutter Italian plants because of his promises to Harper and Merkel plus the fact that UAW thugs will have the controlling interest in Chrysler US.

Fiat is marginally healthier than Chrysler or Opel. In this instance "marginally" should be construed as "capable of disguising the fact that it died some time ago but doesn't stink quite as badly as does Chrysler or Opel". IOW - just one more zombie staggering around with parts falling off.

Team TurboZero need to get Citigroup and Bank of America involved in this. Then everyone could sit around and compare rates of decomposition.


You know, I had forgotten a the lefty bloggers going after Seixon calling his family and publishing his personal information online and I do NOT recall Anonymous Liberal or Publius getting very upset by it.

Or any lefty really.


Interesting catch narciso.
I, too, have a piece running in AT tomorrow--it'll be all Myers all the time--to find out what i caught you'll have to read it.

BTW I realize that TM started this to give me a last chance to come in from the cold before he reveals my true identity.
I am, as you probably already guessed, Angelina Jolie.

And PUK of course is Karl.
Carry on.


Oh now, do you expect me to believe that PUK is Karl?? PUK is waaay to funny to be Karl.


I always thought it was Julia Roberts or failing that Kate Beckinsale (before she made a fool of her self with the Plame
film)Who's Karl,



Maybe the Obama Administration can arrange some special financing through ZombieofAmerica and ZombieGroup? I was probably overthinking the deal at first thinking that Fiat would be able to get access to TLGP (the FDIC insured commercial paper program which is slated to run through 2012, but I've heard that they were considering running it out to 10 years). Can't really see much upside for Fiat at this point and if the deal gets stalled in court, I don't think they would have to pay any penalties to walk away.

The Obama Administration I think will come to regret not reading The Prince. If unpleasentness is necessary get it over with quickly and all at once. Had they taken Chrysler into Ch 7 and taken the hit now they might have had some credibility built up for the GM bankruptcy and the IMF bailout. Wasting his political capital on a minor US auto manufacturer seems worse than a crime, but a blunder.

Karl Rove


We don't talk about those things in public. My evil plan is almost complete.


Hellooooo, Sarah!

Wow, just wow.


lol, Karl! Love the link in your name.

Rick Ballard


I find it entertaining, as the web of deceit spun by Meyers in his decades long work for Castro unravels, to consider that Gramsci had used his sottocapo, Parodi, to go as far as to occupy the Turin office of Giovanni Agnelli in 1920. Agnelli came to terms with Mussolini a few years later as the schism between international socialism and national socialism continued to develop. Agnelli chose national socialism (named fascism by Mussolini) as much the lesser of two evils. The Fondazione Gramsci Torino limps along a few kilometers from the offices of Fabbrica Italiana AutomobiliTorino.

It sure is good to know that the supposed nexus of communist infiltration of institutions is just a right wing fantasy. Otherwise, the "Why Fiat?" question would take on a slightly different aspect.


Anyone else see the Tiger coup?




Last week some local Media babe was being interviewed on local Anchorage Talk Radio and hammered Sarah for wearing what she (the Media babe) considered was a skirt too short for a Governmental function. I don't recall any males calling in and agreeing with the Media babe, and the topic was rapidly forgotten upon her exit.

Thanks for that picture reminding me why that criticism didn't resonate with the audience.


Where did you find that book, Rick, it's not on Amazon, or in the local public library, or even in Mack Smith's wikipedia
page. I did see on Bookfinder or some such thing. Haven't tried Google Books. I thought
that the Nazi/I'G. Farben tie was the signal occurrence, but I was wrong,



Never thought of it in those terms-some Chicago commies giving a tummy scratch to Italian commies.

The Myers story is stunning.


Gateway Pundit is reporting that Hezbolla has been defeated in Lebanon.


WOW--Creeps are getting clobbered all over the world these days--can we be far behind in ousting ours?



The Fondazione Gramsci Torino is the Gramsci Institute Foundation in Turin Italy. They publish his works and whitewash his life like the Che cult here does.

Danube of Thought

I'm in the middle of The Scarecrow right now. Wonderful.

The comments to this entry are closed.