Patterico's Pontifications



Filed under: Miscellaneous — Patterico @ 10:35 pm

If you listen to talk radio in Los Angeles, you are no doubt frustrated (as I am) that KRLA cuts away from Hugh Hewitt’s show at 5 p.m. to put on that moron Michael Savage.

I have decided to take Professor Bainbridge’s advice and e-mail KRLA, to tell them to put Hewitt on from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.

If you live in the area, you should write them too. Hell, write ’em even if you don’t live in the area. They’ll never know.


Filed under: Court Decisions — Patterico @ 10:18 pm

Via Dale Franks comes word that three folks in Utah are suing to overturn Utah’s ban on polygamy — citing Lawrence v. Texas.

Justice Scalia was ridiculed for saying this would happen. Now it is.


Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 6:44 pm

Recently, I was one of many bloggers who quoted Wesley Clark’s Congressional testimony supporting the use of force in Iraq — with or without U.N. approval. The portion of that testimony which most clearly contradicted Clark’s current assertion — that he has always opposed the war in Iraq — was this:

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear. . . . This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”

That, to me, sounded like a guy who favored using military force in Iraq. Admittedly, I may have read it that way due to the fact that he said he favored using military force in Iraq.

Alert reader Jason K. points out that a story in our local Dog Trainer, titled Clark Defends His Testimony and Position on the War in Iraq, reports the alleged contradictions (on the back pages) — without printing the damning language I set forth above. Without that language, the reader is left with the impression that there may be no contradiction. The reader might even believe Clark’s spin: that the criticism shows Karl Rove sees Clark as a threat.

Mickey Kaus appears to have been taken in. He thinks Clark’s Congressional testimony was consistent with his current position. Mickey — did you read the testimony itself — or just read the bowdlerized version in the L.A. Times??

Meanwhile, the evidence against Clark continues to build, with the revelation of this Clark op-ed which appeared in the London Times on April 10, 2003. Even Kaus says that it’s “impossible to square this London Times article with Clark’s current antiwar criticism.”

Will the Dog Trainer report anything about the London Times op-ed? I have seen nothing on it yet. If they do, I will be looking to see whether this line from the Clark op-ed makes its way into the Dog Trainer article:

President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Five days later, I see that the Dog Trainer still has not mentioned this damning op-ed. Amazing — but not surprising.


Filed under: Court Decisions — Patterico @ 6:17 pm

Beldar has a good analysis of the meaning of the Supreme Court’s denial of a stay in the Texas redistricting case.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1873 secs.