Pro-drug smuggler Democrats!!!

Briefly: two border patrolmen take shots at a fleeing drug smuggler -- they weren't truthful about it -- now they're serving over 10 years in prison. There are two issue going on here: 1) patrolmen protecting the country from drug smugglers and 2) lying about what they did. When comparing those two things, which would you say is more important? Most would say #1, but some Democratic/Liberal blogs seem to be rooting for the drug smuggler:

Some members of the public rail that the brave agents are in prison while the drug dealer they shot goes free. As Sutton noted, the reason the suspected dealer is free is because the agents shot at him 15 times, wounded him, then tried to cover up the incident and lied.

Yes, but remember, Republicans have no problem about lying about a crime in an effort to cover it up.

If there were a gameshow called "Let's Totally Miss the Point!", this guy would be the Ken Jennings of that show. There's a HUGE, HUUUGGGE difference between the corrupt Republicans who cheat and lie for their own benefit, and these two guys who were providing a needed service. Should they be punished for lying? Absolutely. Fire them from their jobs, put them on probation for 5 years, and make them pay a hefty fine.

While my common sense says it's wrong for the smuggler to go free, I realize that for our justice system to fully work, there has to be the utmost faith in our police force. They need to know that if they lie, justice won't be served. But there's no need to "take it out" on these guys.

The Sensuous Michelle Malkin

I'm amused by this:



From Michelle Malkin's Defeatocrats cheer.

BREAKING NEWS: Repubs grasp at straws, Kos may be a hypocrite.

And when I say "BREAKING NEWS" that actually means "the same ol' s**t as always".

First off, the Michelle Malkin's of the world have a huge hard-on (or female equivalent) for Daily Kos and all their related activities. They have a burning desire to find ANYTHING that they can criticize. It's really a mark of insanity if you ask me. Take for example, this years YearlyKos. In a desperate grasp, they focus on a video of a serviceman in uniform, trying to play politics [via American Prospect]:

As the Military and Progressives panel came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they “stand down.” He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit.

Here's the video. And the geniuses at Little Green Footballs had this to say:

I’m not familiar with the exact regulations on this, but for the sake of argument let’s say that it was against the rules for a uniformed soldier to ask a question.

When did it become the duty of a YearlyKos panel moderator to enforce Army regulations?

So the grasping idiot spoke too soon, because apparently is WAS the moderators duty. Since he's still a Captain in the Reserves, he has the obligation to uphold military regulations... even at the Yearly Kos.

So, now, I await Mr. Kos's response to the whole situation. Because, in order to be consistent, he'll need to call the moderator an "idiot" and "un-American":

So they'll prosecute me if I wear my Army uniforms to an anti-war protest? Really?
[...]

He has every right enshrined under the Constitution, including those of free speech and peaceful assembly.

And anyone that thinks otherwise, quite frankly, is legitimately and objectively un-American.

How much you wanna bet that Kos either doesn't say ANYTHING about the incident, or tries to parse it in a way that justifies his hypocrisy?

HELLO (Hello, hello)! I'm in a echo CHAMBER (Chamber, chamber)

Hey, look at this.... I got my first ever inbound link! I guess this was the guy that made the John Roberts is dead "joke", to which I replied. Sure, I'm relegated to the "lots of little ones" category, but whatever:

The other day, I made a little joke over at Wonkette about John Roberts being dead that raised some ire among some self-righteous conservative folks. They took a break from pretending not to get erect from hate speech long enough to produce pages and pages of Technorati listings. All the big names are there (Malkin, LGF, Althouse) and lots of little ones, in no particular order, after the jump.
[...]
From all of this outrage, you would think I actually took a shot at the guy.

First of all, I wasn't outraged. Yes, there was some fake outrage, but I wear my fake outrage on my sleeve as a badge of honor. The others folks (Malkin,etc) were really, really fake outraged.

Picking on Liberal blogs: a task too easy

It seems like I've been criticizing Conservative/Republican blogs more often recently. Obviously, it's because of my pinko, Liberal bias. So I thought I'd target a popular Liberal blog, like the Eschaton blog from Atrios (Duncan Black).

After reading about four or five posts in, I realized that I had spontaneously developed cancer on my eyeballs. When I stopped reading, I went into remission. Weird. Then I started giving myself paper cuts and pouring vinegar into them, because it was a lot nicer feeling than reading pointless crap like this.

Oh, and I thought I'd gleam some insight from his commenters. But apparently they're all just simians pounding on a keyboard with their fists. Here's an exchange I read... loosely translated:

Commenter 1: sjhv@!f8hjvj^T
Commenter 2: eep oop ork ahh ahh
Commenter 3: &&&fgk69#### -- $#ry^^5+ sfkfjfn4%esj494
Commenter 4: first!
Commenter 5: `4yhmb35b5tgb8995rgobkw djk5 eyhnuidf56 -=]['`86yik
Commenter 6: *throws feces*

So, yeah, it's kinda difficult to criticize a blog or blogger when the intellectual discourse is about as deep as the puddle in my backyard. Republicans may be total idiots, but at least their delusional writing is put together well.

Republicans don't want bin Laden to be captured!

After reading this Captain's Quarters post (I've been picking on him a lot recently), see if you draw the only logical conclusion that I drew:

[here's what Sen. Obama said]
There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

[here's Morrissey's response]
Frankly, the only idea worse than invading Iran is invading Pakistan. One might expect a serious presidential candidate to avoid looking like an idiot while provoking an ally that still helps more than he hurts in that region. Obama seems determined to prove himself unserious.

Can there be any other conclusion than he doesn't want the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 to be brought to justice? Obama says "find bin Laden" and Morrissey says "that's a bad idea"... it doesn't get any more straightforward.

Except for one thing: I'd be a complete dumbass for making that conclusion, since Morrissey's criticisms run deeper than that. Actually, I'm doing the exact same thing that Morrissey is doing with Obama. Morrissey is making the argument that Obama wants to "invade Pakistan", similarly to the way we invaded Iraq, except that it's NOT what Obama is saying at all. Obama is saying that we should send troops into the mountains where bin Laden and his crew are holed-up, and bring them in. It's a point Morrissey is either willfully or stupidly missing.

Now that THAT'S cleared up: Obama's idea is horrible.

[update]: Another Republican wants bin Laden to be free.

A classic game: Making stupid assumptions from meaningless data!

Oh boy, the GOP sure has a feather in its hat over this one: The Democrats are more partisan than the Republicans. At least that's the assertion Ed Morrissey makes:

Both parties like to blame the other for failing to exercise independence in Congress. Their supporters blame the members of the opposite side for excessive partisanship which keeps Washington DC from accomplishing anything for the people. The Washington Post decided to take a look at the 110th Congress to see which party exercises the most partisanship -- and the Democrats win the prize.

In fact, the Democrats take nine of the top ten partisan spots, as well as scoring 8 points higher in partisanship as a party.

So here's where he got that damning evidence. But all is not what it seems. The chart doesn't actually show "partisanship" at all. Here's the co-creator of the chart in the first comment:

I'd like to point out that the party voting scores are not indicative of partisanship per se but of voting behavior, which can have a number of factors.

Of course that doesn't stop the idiots in the rest of the comments to proceed with their "yee haws" and "git 'er dones". But when I read the chart, my first thought was -- "Well, they're in the majority. It seems logical that they would vote more similarly, since the Democrats are setting the agenda". Morrissey obviously doesn't have my sophisticated thinking skills.

So I went back a few Congresses to check my theory. Here goes (House only):

109th - top 20: 18 Repubs/ 2 Dems
108th - top 20: 20 Repubs/ 0 Dems
107th - top 20: 20 Repubs/ 0 Dems (the first Dem is 66 places down)
106th - top 20: 12 Repubs/ 8 Dems
105th - top 20: 18 Repubs/ 1 Dem/ 1 Ind
104th - top 20: 20 Repubs/ 0 Dems

Of course you know what that means! Nothing! Or more precisely that when a certain party is in power, they vote for issues they support. *gasp*