During a football game! Money quote:
According to UW Police Officer Gerard Pehler, he was assisting a fan who had fallen due to heat exhaustion when a bystander approached and asked him, "Can you do anything about two having sex in the women’s restroom stall?"
"They’re going at it pretty good," added the fan.
Tippity-tap. (Thanks, Chait.) More straight toilet sex here.
San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair commits a provocation. Utterly unnecessary, I’d say, and counter-productive to ensuring that events like Folsom can continue to thrive. And not even ballsy. Next year, guys: do a similar parody on a sacred Muslim scene, if you have the balls. Easy, cheap blasphemy impresses no one.
Readers may have noticed my refusal to adopt the nomenclature of the hideous generals who renamed Burma in the wake of their 1988 suppression of democracy. It has nothing to do with cultural empathy; and everything to do with resisting totalitarian p.r. Fallows gets it. So should CNN and every MSM outlet. No one quite puts it as succinctly as Derb, though:
Damn whatever committee of the U.N. is foisting this gibberish on us! To hell with them and all their works! GYPSIES! PEKING! LAPPS! BOMBAY! HOTTENTOTS! Come and get me, you bastards!
Most want the US to stay:
While the American public and policy debate revolves largely around exit strategies and “redeployment,” there is apparent consensus among European policy analysts that American troops should remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future. In contrast to both European media opinion and the prevailing views of American liberals, our respondents supported sustained troop levels. Many consider the announcement of a timetable for withdrawal to be counter-productive and even outright dangerous, saying that lack of American involvement would drive Iraq into further chaos.
SCOTUSBlog analyzes the latest detainee ruling:
A special military appeals court ruled on Monday that judges who preside over "military commissions" have the power to decide on their own who is an "unlawful enemy combatant" and thus can be tried on charges of war crimes. Deciding its first case in a way that gives the Pentagon a major — but not a complete — legal victory…
An encouraging sign that the media are waking up to the state of America’s prisons: Ted Koppel will have a Discovery special on the subject October 7. Details and promo here.
Another virus I’ve contracted, apparently:
You are usually an astute observer of the political scene, but this time, I think you’re blinded by HDS (Hillary Derangement Syndrome). You really think the Republican establishment is so publically drooling over the prospect of a Clinton nomination because they think she’ll extend Bush’s Iraq policy into the next presidency? Come on. They’re eager for the Democrats to nominate her because they see her candidacy as their only hope of retaining the GOP grip on the presidency.
Clinton isn’t nearly anti-war enough to suit me, but I give her credit where it is due. She had the huevos to vote to cut off funding for the war and has repeatedly and vociferously denounced Bush’s quagmire — as recently as this Sunday, in fact. Although she believes some troops will be necessary in the Middle East to counter terrorism and prevent genocide, she doesn’t seem at all interested in "legitimating and extending" Bush’s Iraq debacle to rescue his legacy. It’s hard to imagine an honest reading of her words or deeds that would lead to that conclusion.
I’m an Obama supporter, and as much as I disagree with the idea of keeping any troops in Iraq, it seems obvious to me that Clinton’s approach is the moderate anti-war path advocated by many centrists. Obama himself wouldn’t immediately remove every American soldier from the Middle East.
It’s so interesting to observe the extreme responses Ms. Clinton evokes — someone should do a sociological study. She’s a prism through which people see their darkest fears projected. To the wingnut right, she’s a wild-eyed Marxist who will destroy the economy and make abortion mandatory. To the usually sensible Mr. Sullivan, she’s a patrician fellow-traveler with the oligarchic Bush clan.
Another readers writes:
You are missing or overlooking the essential point of Brooks’ column: That Hil’s popularity isn’t just a DC establishment phenomenon, but supported by middle-income and working-class people who are the true base of the Dem Party.
Obama is Dean with charm and charisma: A darling of the educated elites, the Net savvy, the well-heeled who have the time and money to make Internet contributions. Dean got savaged in Iowa when "regular folks" came out to caucus. I suspect a similar fate for Obama.
We’ll see, won’t we?
"If we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will, we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest," – Norman Podhoretz, confidant of the president, close advisor to Rudy Giuliani.
In the interview (YouTube here), NPod countenances that there might be some secret relief around the world for denuking the mullahs (if it’s successful), but doubts it and thinks the bombing is necessary regardless of the consequences. Regardless of the consequences: Bush’s mantra?
Rome, Georgia, 10 am.
Steve Clemons blogs:
This guy is the Dick Cheney of Iran. He wants greater power in Iran’s political system — but he doesn’t have it. In fact, unless we bomb Iran, he’s on the way to being a former President with little power. He has not achieved any serious consolidation of his position in the Iranian political arena…
Ahmadinejad is failing in Iran. But we spend a lot of time fretting over his words and posture. We need to stop letting him define Iran’s character and ultimate direction. But Cheney and Ahmadinejad need each other – they push each other’s buttons.
We need to move beyond both.
