Word has reached Spot out here in the provinces that Joe the Turd Herder has turned in his plunger and taken up the pen of journalism. Apparently, his goal of becoming King of the Turd Herders will have to wait while Joe reports the news from Israel.
Actually, Joe is a reporter for the respected video website Pajamas Television. That way, he doesn't have to write.
The state of Israel was born of terrorism. And expansionism. Here's Avi Shlaim again:
The only way to make sense of Israel's senseless war in Gaza is through understanding the historical context. Establishing the state of Israel in May 1948 involved a monumental injustice to the Palestinians. British officials bitterly resented American partisanship on behalf of the infant state. On 2 June 1948, Sir John Troutbeck wrote to the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". I used to think that this judgment was too harsh but Israel's vicious assault on the people of Gaza, and the Bush administration's complicity in this assault, have reopened the question.
During the first half of the twentieth century, Zionism was a gathering force for the creation of a Jewish homeland. The movement only achieved its goal, however, after the Holocaust. But the Palestinians have paid for the sins of Nazi Germany, and they are continuing to pay.
Defenders of Israel say,"The Palestinians don't recognize the existence of Israel." Well, as a matter of fact, Israel doesn't recognize any state for the Palestinians, either, and has continued to assert its sovereignty over Gaza and the West Bank without making or considering the Palestinians as citizens. They are truly stateless. The Palestinian Authority is plainly not a national government.
The principal reason that Hamas - and Hizbullah - are successful insurgencies, and they are successful, is because they have a lot of indigenous support. And bombing the bejeezus out of Gaza is not well calculated to reduce that support. In the article by Avi Shlaim quoted by Spot yesterday, and linked above, too, he said that eighty percent of Gazans subsist on less than $2 a day. The Palestinians don't have much to lose, but a more dreadful and counterproductive "hearts and minds" campaign could scarcely be imagined.
When you add it all up, Israel has proven a lot more enthusiastic and successful at eradicating Palestinians than the Palestinians have been at eradicating Israelis.
One of the great ironies in all of this is that Israel gave early support to Hamas in an effort to weaken Arafat's PLO. And it worked! In 2006, Hamas won a landslide victory over Fatah for control of the Palestinian Authority. Now, this was kind of a student council election, in view of the limited powers of the Palestinian Authority, but it does show the indigenous support that Spot was talking about.
Israel has spent forty years backing itself into the current corner, and it will probably take at least that long to get out of it. The only way to get rid of the insurgencies is to get rid of the aggrieved population that supports them. That is, pacify them, or kill them. Israel seems to have chosen the latter course.
That's the defense you always hear of Israel's [insert latest military operation here].
Here's a shocker: so do the Palestinians.
This post has been rattling around in Spot's head for a few days now, but a quote for its opening presented itself this morning while reading Mercury Rising:
This brief review [contained in the article] of Israel’s record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with “an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders”. A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. [quoting Avi Shlaim in the U.K. Guardian]
Actually, it's Professor Shlaim of Oxford University and former member of the Israeli army. And please read the whole article; it's sobering, to say the least.
Professor Shlaim recounts the expansionist intentions of the Israelis virtually from the founding of the country, and especially since its occupation, or perhaps colonization is a better word, of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967.
Gaza and the West Bank, the so-called "Occupied Territories" are the most familiar ones, but they aren't the only ones. This is from a recent post by Juan Cole, the professor of middle eastern history at the University of Michigan:
Israel's policies were not merely defensive, contrary to the propaganda one constantly hears from New York. Moshe Sharrett's diaries demonstrate conclusively the expansionist character of the regime. Israel's leaders badly wanted the Sinai Peninsula and therefore a commanding position over the trade of the Red Sea and the Suez Canal in the 1950s and 1960s. There was also some petroleum there. Israel used superiority in armor and air power in 1956 to take the Sinai, in conjunction with an orchestrated Anglo-French attack on Egypt's position in the Suez Canal (which Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized that summer). President Dwight D. Eisenhower, afraid that vestiges of Old World colonial thinking would push the Arabs into the arms of the Soviets, made Israel relinquish its prize. But hawks in Israel took the Sinai from Egypt again in the 1967 war, in which Israel again demonstrated that armor plus air superiority always defeats armor that lacks air cover (Israel managed to destroy the Egyptian air force early in the war).
Professor Cole goes on to tell how Egypt in effect won back the Sinai in the 1973 war, which was a prelude to the peace treaty concluded between Israel and Egypt. Israel has also occupied land belonging to its northern neighbors, until recently the Shebaa Farms area in southern Lebanon, from which it withdrew under pressure from Hizbullah, and the Golan Heights, which it annexed - and has since populated with Israelis - in 1981.
But the subject of this post is Gaza, and to some extent the West Bank, so let's return there. Here's more from Professor Shlaim:
Gaza is a classic case of colonial exploitation in the post-colonial era. Jewish settlements in occupied territories are immoral, illegal and an insurmountable obstacle to peace. They are at once the instrument of exploitation and the symbol of the hated occupation. In Gaza, the Jewish settlers numbered only 8,000 in 2005 compared with 1.4 million local residents. Yet the settlers controlled 25% of the territory, 40% of the arable land and the lion's share of the scarce water resources. Cheek by jowl with these foreign intruders, the majority of the local population lived in abject poverty and unimaginable misery. Eighty per cent of them still subsist on less than $2 a day. The living conditions in the strip remain an affront to civilised values, a powerful precipitant to resistance and a fertile breeding ground for political extremism.
In August 2005 a Likud government headed by Ariel Sharon staged a unilateral Israeli pullout from Gaza, withdrawing all 8,000 settlers and destroying the houses and farms they had left behind. Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement, conducted an effective campaign to drive the Israelis out of Gaza. The withdrawal was a humiliation for the Israeli Defence Forces. To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peace-making are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace.
The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of Greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel. Withdrawal from Gaza was thus not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but a prelude to further Zionist expansion on the West Bank. It was a unilateral Israeli move undertaken in what was seen, mistakenly in my view, as an Israeli national interest. Anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, the withdrawal from Gaza was part of a long-term effort to deny the Palestinian people any independent political existence on their land.
And again from Professor Cole, here's what Gaza and the West Bank look like today:
And Avi Shlaim tells us what it was like in Gaza after Israel "withdrew":
Israel's settlers were withdrawn but Israeli soldiers continued to control all access to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air. Gaza was converted overnight into an open-air prison. From this point on, the Israeli air force enjoyed unrestricted freedom to drop bombs, to make sonic booms by flying low and breaking the sound barrier, and to terrorise the hapless inhabitants of this prison.
And this is what Israel left behind:
Four decades of Israeli control did incalculable damage to the economy of the Gaza Strip. With a large population of 1948 refugees crammed into a tiny strip of land, with no infrastructure or natural resources, Gaza's prospects were never bright. Gaza, however, is not simply a case of economic under-development but a uniquely cruel case of deliberate de-development. To use the Biblical phrase, Israel turned the people of Gaza into the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, into a source of cheap labour and a captive market for Israeli goods. The development of local industry was actively impeded so as to make it impossible for the Palestinians to end their subordination to Israel and to establish the economic underpinnings essential for real political independence.
Golly, Spotty, that sounds kind of like Apartheid in South Africa, doesn't it?
That's what Jimmy Carter called it.
And yet, when Hizbullah or Hamas try to do anything about it, Israel goes ape shit and bombs 1.5 million people in a cage.
More to follow.
January 8th - John Lesch, a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives from St. Paul, will be our guest. Rep. Lesch is scheduled to arrive around eight. There will probably some toasts to our new Senator, Al Franken, too.
January 15th - Sandy Pappas, a member of the Minnesota Senate from St. Paul, will be our guest. Sen. Pappas is scheduled to arrive around seven thirty.
Both of these legislators will talk a little about the upcoming session at the Legislature and especially the looming budget deficit.
January 22nd - It will be two days after the Inauguration, but we're going to have a party to celebrate the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency. There will be stirring patriotic speeches - well, maybe - and Spot will see if someone in that night's band can do a guitar riff on Hail to the Chief. The winning entry in the Drinking Liberally unofficial Official Drink of the Obama Administration will be determined by then, too, so perhaps you'll be able to buy a specimen of the winner and toast our new President.
See you there!
He was there, all right, periodically addressing the audience from the podium. But he was not wearing a nametag and never said his name. Bill Richardson, the group's spokesman, told Isthmus the chair's name, but asked that it not be used. Other media were asked not to photograph or quote anyone without permission, expressly to prevent the negative consequences that could ensue from being exposed as a Republican.Right. Actually, I think that the group's spokesman actually came closer to the mark in making the request when he blurted out:
* * *
Other Dane County Republicans, avers Richardson, live in near-constant fear. "Their cars get keyed, all the time," he says. "Their homes are painted with obscenities. Things are burned into their lawns. Their kids are scared half to death."
....[H]e doesn't like dealing with the press: "He gets so passionate and so upset he's afraid he'll say something stupid."
Is this a trend we can look forward to seeing in Minnesota?
One of Katie's most charming features is that she is entirely dead to irony.
Aw, Spotty, there are plenty of other conservatives out there with the same problem, er, feature.
Do you really think so, grasshopper?
Yes, for example take the op-ed piece in the NYT today by John "Thar She Blows" Bolton and John "More Water; He Can Still Breathe" Yoo. It is titled "Restore the Senate's Treaty Power" and here's the lede:
THE Constitution’s Treaty Clause has long been seen, rightly, as a bulwark against presidential inclinations to lock the United States into unwise foreign commitments. The clause will likely be tested by Barack Obama’s administration, as the new president and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, led by the legal academics in whose circles they have long traveled, contemplate binding down American power and interests in a dense web of treaties and international bureaucracies. [italics are the grasshopper's]
That's a good catch, grasshopper. Scott Horton, who writes the No Comment blog at Harper's was suitably aghast:
In a Republican administration, per Yoo and Bolton, the Senate’s proper role is to shut up and allow the imperial executive to run the foreign affairs show. Moreover, the president is free to go out and negotiate treaties in the form of executive agreements (as Bush did with Iraq and, apparently, Georgia) and conclude them without Senate review or approval. However, in a Democratic administration, the Senate is supposed to regain its voice and use it aggressively to obstruct the foreign policy initiatives of the administration, particularly by voting down any treaties he concludes. “A foolish consistency,” said Emerson, “is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
John Yoo, it must be remembered, was a big proponent of the so-called unitary executive. Horton continues:
Note the authors' mortal fear of international law, especially international criminal law. The Founding Fathers placed their confidence in a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" and made the "law of nations" a cornerstone of our legal order. But the radical agenda of the neoconservatives would be impeded by all the constraints of law.
In this case, is that because Yoo feels that a lawless world is in the nation's best interests? There are particular rules of international law with which John Yoo has personal problems. The prohibition on torture and the cruel treatment of prisoners, for instance. John Yoo is a principal author of the Bush Administration's torture policies, and as such, if the United States were to take its responsibilities under international law seriously, he faces the near certainty of a criminal investigation and the likelihood of prosecution for his role in the war crimes that flowed from the implementation of his opinions. He has a special agenda, and the readers of his column should keep this in mind.
Spot, do you think that John Yoo should be water boarded?
Of course not, grasshopper. That would be torture and contrary to international law.
This time, it's not Fritz Knaak, but Tom Trimble:
All they're left with is attacking the process.
There will be football on the big screen early and a DJ later in the evening. For those of you who celebrated a little too much the previous evening, Bloody Marys and perhaps some other soothing drinks will be for sale.
Drinking Liberally has also announced a competition to name the unofficial Official Drink of the Obama Administration. Perhaps we'll have a chance to do a little "drink engineering."
And mark your calendars for DL next week, January 8th too, boys and girls. John Lesch, a Minnesota House member from St. Paul, will be a guest at Drinking Liberally to talk about the upcoming legislative session. It promises to be a doozy! The session will probably be exciting, too.
Update: Well, ixnay on the ootballfay probably.
When we last left Fritz Knaak - or Spot did, anyway - he was fulminating about and against the consideration of initially rejected absentee ballots in the recount:
Minnesotans should not just be concerned about this potential – they should be almost fearful of the Franken Campaign's unprecedented efforts to get across to their private data to influence this recount – and equally fearful of the Franken Campaign's efforts to force rejected and spoiled ballots into a recount for the first time ever in the 150 year history of our state.
Of course, Fritz was really the one who was fearful; Sigmund Spot would probably theorize that Fritz was projecting.
How did that work out for him, Spotty?
Not well, grasshopper. You see, starting tomorrow, there will be a series of meeting around the state to consider improperly rejected absentee ballots. The counties identified a total of 1,346 ballots that fall into the improperly rejected category, and the Franken camp says just count them all, but not so fast says the Coleman campaign:
The campaigns of Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken disagree over the number of absentee ballots that were improperly rejected and should now be counted.
While Franken wants to count 1,346 ballots that county officials say were mistakenly rejected, Coleman for now is agreeing to count only 136 of them. Campaign spokesman Cullen Sheehan said the campaign may agree to counting more of the county-identified ballots this afternoon and also is likely to seek to add several hundred more that the counties have not identified as having been rejected in error.
The dispute sets up the potential for a contentious series of meetings around the state Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday between county officials and the two campaigns over which absentee ballots should be counted or remain excluded.
In its recent order on the subject, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the two campaigns had to agree on which absentee ballots should be counted.
Boy, that sounds for a recipe for disaster, doesn't it Spotty?
Yes it does. This is from a letter from Robert Frame in today's Star Tribune:
I am flummoxed by the decision by the bare majority of those Minnesota Supreme Court justices who heard the case about counting the incorrectly rejected absentee ballots. It not only defies logic that they would insert the partisan campaigns into deciding whether to count all validly cast votes; it defies our democracy. I am not surprised that their reasoning is unconvincing, since I can't imagine how to justify their choice. I hope they feel the appropriate amount of shame in their decision.
Putting the campaigns in any measure of control of the decision about which ballots to count is, as Mr. Frame suggests, and abdication of the responsibilities of the election officials and the courts. And, as the linked article demonstrates, it isn't going to work. Thinking that Fritz & Co. would agree to include voters was an act of judicial fantasy.
But it does look like we're coming to the end of the line, and it is looking more and more like Al Franken will be the winner. Parenthetically, as the last senator elected, boys and girls, can you imagine the office that Al will get? Maybe a double wide in the Dirksen Office Building parking lot. If Al does get the nod, what will be the mood of Minnesotans?
Brian Lambert ruminated about that in a blog post just before Christmas:
To this point, most Minnesotans, and avid recount watchers around the country, have been entirely patient with the process. Mainly because it has been so thoroughly anti-Floridian, which is to say transparent and free of any discernible political big-footing. Both sides have spun their spins, challenged the unchallengeable, and countered the other's silly legal gambits. But as long as that has been peripheral noise to a process that counted every vote, the public has put up with it. Good for us.
But we are now fast approaching the moment when all the votes--challenged, absentee, what have you--will have been counted as best and as transparently as humanly possible. Once that point is reached and the canvassing board can certify a winner, I know my patience will have expired, and I don't think I'm alone.
I called Hamline School of Business professor Dave Schultz, an oft-quoted "expert source" on political matters (he also teaches election law the the U of M's law school). My curiosity was how he thought the "court of public opinion " might react to whoever refuses to accept the verdict of the actual ballot-counting? My sense is that Minnesotans have no appetite for legal gaming that would attempt to invalidate all the open, earnest work that has been going on. We've been nice about it up until now. We won't be if it looks like this thing is going to get re-fried with legal smoke and mirrors.
Here's more from the telephone conversation with Professor Schultz:
In general, Schultz--like many others--sees Coleman in a difficult situation, if only that as the recount exercises due diligence with every credible aspect of ballot-counting. Coleman's legal challenges to date have been directed toward vote suppression while Franken's strategy has been the opposite, counting everything.
Point being, Coleman is at--or very close to--the point where the only way he wins is by suppressing votes, which is not something that will go unnoticed--or play too well with the public--after all the attention this thing has received.
"Exactly," Schultz says. "That's the way he has to play it and the way that he has. He's gone to Ramsey County Court once and the Supreme Court twice in essence attempting to suppress votes, and he's lost each time."
Isn't that what Republicans do, Spotty?
Now it is Spot's turn to say exactly, grasshopper.
The editorial writers at the New York Times have a blog, and here's what they said about the Minnesota recount a few days ago:
It’s too early to say whether Mr. Franken or incumbent Senator Norm Coleman will win, but one thing is becoming clear. Minnesota is pretty good at running elections. [italics are Spot's]
The post continues:
The most important thing about this recount is that all votes in Minnesota are cast on paper — mainly on optical scan forms, that get read by computer. That means that when the votes have to be recounted, there are paper ballots that can be inspected. In states that have paperless electronic voting, this cannot be done.
The state Canvassing Board also seems — at least on the information that has emerged so far — to be performing its duties responsibly, and trying its best to figure out the intent of the voters.
Spot watched some of the Canvassing Board proceedings and was impressed by the diligence and the uniformity the Board's approach to each of the ballots.
But that surely is not the impression you would get if you read the right wing blogosphere. John Lott, already a winger favorite because of his defense of pacifiers with triggers, seems especially inflamed. At the link, boys and girls, you will find a long screed about what an "x" means, and he shows some ballots with the circle filled in for Norm Coleman and then an "x" crossed through it. These are clearly Coleman ballots, says Lott, even though because of Canvassing Board mischief, they are found to be votes for no one.
But in an article that Spot cannot find at the moment, the logic of dealing with the "x" was described by Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, a member of the Canvassing Board, and a Pawlenty appointee: when an "x" is put through a darkened circle in just the Senate race, it is considered as a "no, I changed my mind" indication; if the "x" is found across the ballot, it is considered a vote for a candidate. The voter appears to have marked candidates for a later return to the task - arduous for some - of filling in the circles.
Spot supposes you can quarrel with the rule, but it is sensible and logical and comes closer to determining the intent of the voter than any other rule you might come up with. It is hardly "mischief."
Ironically, the Coleman camp, who has told Franken early and often to give it up, now believes that election contest litigation is inevitable:
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against Senator Norm Coleman’s effort to keep dozens of possible double votes from Democratic-heavy precincts out of the long-running Senate recount, but left the door open for a lawsuit. Lawyers for Mr. Coleman, a Republican, said the decision virtually guaranteed that the recount would end in litigation, delaying the seating of a Minnesota senator well past when the next Congress convenes.
Spot reiterates that Norm Coleman should just concede and let the healing begin.
Santa also, um, collected a little over $100 for donation to the Toys for Tots Drive, some of which came from 331 Club patrons who happened to be there but who were not part of Drinking Liberally.
Spot thanks everyone for participating. It was the best Holiday Party yet.
And a year-end thanks to the people at the 331 Club for their support - and occasionally their indulgence - throughout the year. So, especially, Alisha, John, Jason, Jarret, and Jon: you're the best.
Spot also wants to wish all of you, boys and girls, a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays and maybe most important of all: Peace.
From the Onion this summer: Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble To Invest In:
WASHINGTON—A panel of top business leaders testified before Congress about the worsening recession Monday, demanding the government provide Americans with a new irresponsible and largely illusory economic bubble in which to invest.
"What America needs right now is not more talk and long-term strategy, but a concrete way to create more imaginary wealth in the very immediate future," said Thomas Jenkins, CFO of the Boston-area Jenkins Financial Group, a bubble-based investment firm. "We are in a crisis, and that crisis demands an unviable short-term solution."
The current economic woes, brought on by the collapse of the so-called "housing bubble," are considered the worst to hit investors since the equally untenable dot-com bubble burst in 2001. According to investment experts, now that the option of making millions of dollars in a short time with imaginary profits from bad real-estate deals has disappeared, the need for another spontaneous make-believe source of wealth has never been more urgent.
And then, in a case of life imitating art satirizing life, here's Steve Chapman in the Star Tribune today:
. . . Most of our problems stem from the bursting of the housing bubble. That sent home prices plunging, which reduced the value of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, which caused losses at banks, which forced a cutback in lending, which squelched consumer spending, which brought the economy to a halt. Which started the whole miserable cycle over again.
But if the crisis stems from declining real estate values, why not stop them from declining? A spell of inflation would arrest the slide by pushing up the price of everything. As home prices stabilize, mortgage-backed securities would regain value, banks would get financially stronger, and loan officers would stop hiding in the vault.
Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it, Steve?
Is he out of his freakin' mind, Spotty?
Watch your tongue, grasshopper, but a pretty good case can be made. Oh, sure, Steve says we have to be careful, but we're good at that:
Once inflation has performed its useful role, it will have to be tamed. But the Fed has a lot of experience doing that. What it doesn't have is experience bringing the economy out of a deep recession or a depression.
Steve wants to get back to where we were! Wouldn't that be nice. But here's James Kunstler, cheerful fellow that he is, suggesting another tack:
We have to, so to speak, get to place mentally where we can face the kinds of change that are now necessary and unavoidable. We're not there yet. It's not clear whether the elected new national leadership knows just how severe the required changes will really be. Surely the public would be shocked to grasp what's in store. Probably the worst thing we can do now would be to mount a campaign to stay where we are, lost in raptures of happy motoring and blue-light-special shopping.
Steve isn't there, is he Spotty?
Spot is afraid not, grasshopper.
According to John LePlante, deep thinker at the Minnesota Free Market Institute:
In this Christmas season, it's important to remember just what "charity" is.
Charity is when you see somebody in need--let's call him Doug--and you, on your own volition, give him cash, groceries, a trip to the doctor's office, a shoveled-out driveway, or what have you.
Mr. LePlante's view of the term is conveniently limited. Spot just put "charity" into a search in the Free Dictionary, and this is what came up:
char·i·ty (ch
r
-t)
n. pl. char·i·ties
1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See Synonyms at mercy.
6. often Charity Christianity The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love.
LaPlante thinks that if a government institution assists the poor, it does not count:
The self-interest of the bureaucrat and the politician is no more virtuous than the self-interest of the taxpayer. Unfortunately, each time the bureaucrat and the politician levy a dollar of taxes--cheered on by activist groups--the rest of us lose an opportunity to offer charity to those we see in need.
He's just so mad at the government for squelching his chances to be charitable.
Do you really think that's it, Spotty?
Do you, grasshopper?
Well, no.
The argument does seem a little strained, doesn't it? Here's how LaPlante winds up:
So where's the charity in [government efforts to help the poor]? Where's the altruism? Nowhere to be seen. Everything that happened resulted from self-interest.
In LaPlante's world, not a single "bureaucrat" or "politician" does anything for an altruistic reason, but he does.
Where do we find men like these, Spotty?
Spot doesn't know, grasshopper, he just doesn't know.
Please make them lend the money!
That's Henry Paulson surveying the results - or the lack of them - from the billions paid out so far in the financial bailout. And what pray tell, did we require of financial institutions receiving bailout money? Nothing. Here's Frank Rich:
In its own independent attempt to penetrate the bailout, the Government Accountability Office learned that “the standard agreement between Treasury and the participating institutions does not require that these institutions track or report how they plan to use, or do use, their capital investments.” Executives at all but two of the bailed-out banks told the G.A.O. that the “money is fungible,” so they “did not intend to track or report” specifically what happens to the taxpayers’ cash.
Spot and many others have been saying for a long time that it would be foolish to just "inject" all that cash without condition and hope for the best. And that's exactly what we did. We turned to some of the biggest looters and said, "Oh, here, can you hold our wallet for a while?"
Welcome to a new and improved Cucking Stool!
It looks pretty much the same to me, Spotty.
Maybe it does to the casual observer such as yourself, grasshopper, but trust Spot when he says that it's much better: easier to navigate archives, easier to find permalinks, and that's just the beginning.
It will be easier to load and change items in the sidebar: badges, polls, photos and videos, and promotions for Drinking Liberally.
It's a brave new world, grasshopper.
Okay, that was a cheap trick. But there are going to be some changes to the blog format at the Cucking Stool; there may not be any new posts for a couple of days. Depends.
You may also see odd things if you come back before the changes are complete. You've been warned.
If you never hear from Spot again, it is because he is the victim of the Techno-Rapture.
Update: Well, that was actually pretty easy. A few more edits to make, but the posts are all here, and the comment system (Haloscan) works, too.
The Star Tribune website reports this morning that Al Franken has taken a 70 vote lead over Norm Coleman.
On behalf of the beleaguered citizens of the State of Minnesota, Spot calls on Norm Coleman to concede the election and let the healing begin.
We've heard that somewhere before, haven't we Spotty?
Yes, grasshopper, that's what Norm and his coterie told Al to do right after the election.
Coleman lawyer: May it please the Court. Boo! Florida! Florida! Florida! Ha, skeered ya!
Court: Settle down, counsel. Take a pill. This isn't Florida, and it's annoying when you suggest it is. Now, what's on your mind?
Coleman lawyer: Well I never! Anyway, we know there are a lot of wrongfully-rejected absentee ballots out there in the counties, maybe a whole lot of them. But, we don't want them counted because, well, we just don't. These voters do have a remedy: they can sue in each of the 87 counties in Minnesota to have their votes counted. Of course, most of them won't, and the Canvassing Board is probably going to certify a winner long before any of the suits could be heard, but hey, that's not our problem!
Court: That's cold, counsel.
Coleman lawyer: What do you want from us? Equal protection?
* * *
That's about how it went yesterday at the Supreme Court of Minnesota yesterday. From the linked Strib article:
The hearing in a packed room began with Justice Paul Anderson testily responding to Roger Magnuson, the lead attorney for Coleman, who compared Minnesota's recount to the 2000 presidential election dispute that focused on the counting of ballots in Florida. "This is not Florida," said Anderson.
Coleman's campaign does not want the Canvassing Board to count any improperly rejected absentee ballots, saying it is not the proper body to settle that issue. Instead, it wants those ballots set aside and preserved in the event either campaign goes to court after the recount to try to get a judge to include them in the tally. The Franken campaign wants the recount before the Canvassing Board to include the ballots.
You know how history museums have dioramas depicting different epochs: Stone Age Man, Bronze Age Man, etc.? Some day, there will be a diorama at the Minnesota History Center of someone looking remarkably like Roger Magnuson, shown standing in an ancient courtroom. The diorama narration will explain that the figure is Republican Age Man, a sub-species now extinct, who tried to maintain himself with increasingly bizarre and self-isolating rituals like the one depicted.
Regardless of how the election comes out, yesterday's court hearing represents the nadir of the story arc.
