AndreasThePimp

I was skimming Oliver Windbag's site today: a theory to try out. And I was right: Smirkiver has has plenty of entries in the last two weeks or so about the blog-geld uproar that has (so far) involved two conservatives taking money from one or another federal gov't agency to promote a viewpoint they already held (and the matter of Maggie Gallagher seems to be at least somewhat less than meets the pinkeye), but NOTHING about the significant voter fraud that seems to have overwhelmingly benefitted the democrats.

He also gives us the 'democratic agenda' - here's one segment:

Democrats are determined to reforming the voting system in this country to create Federal standards for our elections. The bill adds verification, accountability and accuracy to the system. It increases access to the polls with Election Day registration, shorter lines and early voting.

Does that last sentence suggest that discouraging fraud is high on their agenda? Or are they just determined to prove once again that 'winning is everything' doesn't seem to work anymore?

Just a thought for the day: can you imagine the leftwing internet ever having the equivalent of Frank J etc making fun of Glenn Reynolds?

Oliver Witless strikes again - from the Reality-Based Alternate Universe...

According to Superman's Number One Fan , "the Republican party is making out [sic] country a less safe place to live and hobbling the fight against international terrorism'!

The number of Arabic linguists discharged from the military for violating its ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy is higher than previously reported, according to records obtained by a research group. [note: curiously mismatched quote marks are in the original.]
The group contends the records show that the military - at a time when it and U.S. intelligence agencies don't have enough Arabic speakers - is putting its anti-gay stance ahead of national security.

Here's some numbers from Mr Smirky's original source:

Between 1998 and 2004, the military discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi speakers, according to Department of Defense data obtained by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military under a Freedom of Information Act request.

...

In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 543 Arabic linguists and 166 Farsi linguists graduated from their 63-week courses, according to a DLI spokesman. That was up from 377 and 139, respectively, in the previous year.

So, 26 people were discharged over a period of six or seven years because they came out as homosexuals (some when Clinton was still president), 920 Arabic linguists and 305 Farsi (language of Iran) are trained in the past two years (ending Sep 30 2004), and the Gorelick Wall of Separation

we believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations.These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.

becomes moderately well-known, but Oliver wails that it's the Republicans who are making the country less safe... (And I thought I had a great goofy link, but... oh well, who knew how hard it would be to find a link to a picture of Betty Boop's dog!)

Too much work, too little pay, even less appreciation, and alcohol can only add so much when all you want to do is go home and doze off while watching the same episode of Futurama for about the fiftieth time. Not even watching, really - listening to the commentary (DVD), dozing off, and suddenly half-coming to when the guy who does the voice of Bender explodes with laughter.

Even less appreciation... I did a bit of work and sent it to a client the other day and she sent back an email to say that she appreciated it. So I wrote back that 'I appreciate appreciation, especially when it appreciates." And you know that one of my bosses strongly disapproved of my sending such an unprofessional note, since God forbid someone on the other end might not approve of such irreverence.

A curious comment from Atrios today: "I'm not sad to see Crossfire go, but it really was the only TV platform for the Dems." I rarely get past the introductions on Matthews' Hardball and PBS' Washington Week in Review since... well, who wants to see a bunch of phony moderates pretending to analyse an issue that they all pretty much see the same way? At least McLaughlin has people like Eleanor Cliff (or not, I haven't watched lately.) Perhaps the proper way to understand this is by understanding the terminology. If you advocate socialized medicine, you're very liberal; if you advocate socialized medicine for everyone under a given age (say, 5 or 13 or 18) and over a given age (like lowering Medicare's entry age to 60 or 55), you're liberal; if you advocate guaranteed health care for, say, children and older working age adults and everyone else in between who can't afford insurance, you're a moderate; and if you think that we should maybe allow people some sorts of choice and medical savings accounts and maybe put some limits on malpractice lawsuits, you're not just a conservative, you're a right-wing Republican.
So there you go, that's the political spectrum: very liberal, liberal, moderate, and go-grow-a-mustache and learn to love Wagner.
Too late, must run, might proofread tomorry. (That last word is sic.)