In what was quite clearly a pre-generated headline - “COLBERT BOMBS, BUSH ROCKS.” - Michelle once again proves herself the arbiter of humor. Allahpundit “defends” Stephen:

In Colbert’s defense, he might not have been playing for laughs. The dissident posture is very important to our friends on the left; if SC had kept things light and wasted his opportunity to speak “truth” to power, they’d have crucified him for it. As it is, the moonbats will be building statues of him tomorrow.

Let me see if I can remember the last time a correspondent’s dinner speaker kept things light. Or refused to speak truth to power.

I don’t remember conservatives excoriating Don Imus:

Thank you very much …um… this is kind of interesting, these don’t appear to be my notes….(you still have the folder I gave you? where did this come from? Well, nobody just leaves stuff like this just layin’ around…

Heh, heh, heh .. let me see if I can see what it says: “S. McDougall called again …says bank needs check and statement; told her both were in mail, ha ha ha. Jesus, she looks stupid in those tank tops. ” I think I’ll just hang on to these.

…[W]hen Cal Ripken broke Lou Gherig’s consecutive game record, the President was at Camden Yards doin’ play by play in the radio with John Miller. Bobby Bonilla hit a double, we all heard the President in his obvious excitement holler “Go Baby!” I remember commenting at the time, I bet that’s not the first time he’s said that. Remember the Astroturf in the pickup?

Ah, but surely Al Franken, to whom I think at least four moonbat statues have been built already, would never question a Democratic president.

But the White House Correspondent’s Association was afraid of a repeat of the whole [Don] Imus debacle. So the board of governors had a meeting and drew up some groundrules for tonight’s talk. For example, there are a number of subjects I’ve been instructed to avoid.

- Whitewater
- specifically Web Hubbell
- Susan Thomases
- either of the McDougals
- I am not to do jokes about any aspect of the President’s personal life.
Except his eating habits. Evidently, sir, you eat quite a lot. And the Correspondents Association seems to think we could have quite of bit of harmless fun with that.

But at least those were funny. Colbert, apparently, wasn’t going for funny. Case in point:

And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq. I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible — I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical. And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe our infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

Nope, not funny! Impersonators? FUNNY!

With no ado, let’s get straight to the results - and because this is a feminism-supporting blog, we’ll do it Miss America style with four runners-up. And early, so the old people can go to bed.

Fourth runner-up - Everybody. This had a better turnout than I could have possibly expected. Thanks a million!

Third runner-up - James:

I just think that we’ve let the Spanish language invade English too much already. Now if you excuse me, I have to put on my ten *gallon* hat and drive my *El Camino* by the *canyon* to look for poachers of *coyotes*. If I catch any with my *lasso*, they’ll be put in the *hoosegow*. After that, I have to go by the market and buy some *salsa*, *chocolate*, and *tomatoes* for a *fiesta* we’re having on my *patio* later, *buckeroo*.

And co-runners-up - DaveOinSF:

I’m appalled that there’s a Spanish language version of the SSB. It’s bad enough that we have to hit that high-G on the “Free” of “land of the free”. In order to sing “tierra de libres”, you’ve got to hit that G on the _first_ syllable of “libres” and then keep it on that note while then closing your mouth to make the B sound, roll the tounge for the R, and then opening your mouth for a new vowel sound. Try it, you won’t like it.

and McBoing:

No cowbell?

And now the winner.

With a last-minute entry which caught the judges’ eye due to its succinctness, humor, and adeptness at mocking actual winger thought processes, Tony:

The only people who don’t object to a Spanish Star Spangled Banner are those who have never been mugged by a Spanish translation of the Star Spangled Banner.

Thanks for playing everybody! And Tony, watch your e-mail, because in three to six weeks you’ll be receiving your fabulous prize - and a bonus prize:

In today’s Vent, Malkin is upset about the marketing of “United Flight 93″, which is getting rave reviews from wingers - but Malkin has some reservations.

Head over to the official discussion site for United 93, which is sponsored by Universal Studios. You will be disturbed. In a section called (whining) “Why Do They Hate America?” There’s not a single mention of Osama bin Laden. Instead, you get a Catholic-bashing history lesson about the Crusades, an obligatory sentence blaming the founding of Israel for jihad, and an effort to cast Muslims as perpetual victims of Western oppressors. No mention of the fact that Islamic imperialism began some 450 years before the start of the Crusades.

Anyway, why is the Flight 93 movie site invoking this biased history lesson? (”Dhimmitude” graphic appears onscreen) Do the movie promoters mean to endorse al Qaeda’s terrorist leaders? Because the rationalizations look and sound sickeningly familiar…

Universal Studios has some explaining to do.

How about LA and I give it a shot?

This sounded suspiciously like Malkin’s M.O. of using messages which appear on a discussion board to represent Official Liberal Positions, so I headed over to united93movie.com (Ed.: Corrected. Sorry about that, boys’ soccer team from Oklahoma), which is listed on IMDB as the official site for the movie. Nothing - not even on the message boards - which would qualify as what Malkin is worried about. (There is a section for alternative theories of 9/11, which is unhinged enough for five episodes of Vent, but nothing like what Malkin was referring to.)

LA, meanwhile, followed the link on HotAir (a daring move, I know) to find u93.org, also apparently sponsored by Universal Studios and which contained the link to “Why Do They Hate America” as described by Malkin. He also passed along this:

u93.org is a Christian site. I don’t think it’s official:

United 93 raises some of the most compelling questions of our day including:

* Why do some Muslim groups hate the West?
* What can we do about it?
* How do we effectively discuss these things in our communities?
* What do Muslims really believe?
* What does Jesus say?

These kinds of questions are not easily answered. Since 9/11 affected all of us, United 93 gives another opportunity to work out the love of God and love of neighbor within our communities. This website gives you several resources, tools, and active steps to take when looking at these issues.

It certainly seemed offical, what with the prominent Universal Studios copyright and all. WHOIS shed some more light. The IP is owned by Motive Entertainment, with a registrant named Paul Lauer. From Motive’s website:

Lauer is…one of the most well connected entrepreneurs in the Faith and Family Market, having most recently designed and executed the highly-successful marketing campaign for Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” for Icon Productions.

Lauer has gone on to manage grass roots outreach campaigns for the Tom Hanks/Robert Zemeckis film, “The Polar Express,” as well as the record breaking Walden Media/Disney epic series, “The Chronicles of Narnia.” In addition, Lauer has assisted with the marketing and distribution of numerous independent film projects.

In 2002, having experienced first-hand the challenges of bringing independent faith-based and family-friendly films to market, Lauer conceived Motive Entertainment as the missing link to solve this “distribution dilemma”.

So u93.org - the film site which offends Malkin so deeply, which is practicing dhimmitude and selling out the West - is…a site specifically set up to market to Christians. The rest of the site contains sermon outlines, materials for group discussions, and articles with titles like “Faith Matters, but…What do you do when G_d disappears?”

Fear not, though. Malkin’s hordes have already begun to descend on the discussion boards. Things won’t stay on the level of Christian Love for very long.

Update: Winner will be announced at 1700 PDT, so get those entries in!

Update 2: 1700 PDT tomorrow! Sorry about that.

The person who comes up with the most satisfactory non-racist explanation for being upset that there’s a version of the Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish will receive this:

Further rules after the jump.

(more…)

Tip 1: When working with a green screen, don’t use a prop which has green elements.

Tip 2: Tagline selection is very important. “Keep fishing for the truth” is not very good. Since fishing is generally speaking a hit-and-miss affair, it implies that the truth is very hard to find when one is watching Vent.

On second thought, I guess it’s a really good analogy after all.

(It’s almost - almost, mind you - worth watching the actual video just for the fishing pole scene. Greater production values have not been seen since my third grade project “The Haunted Kitchen” pioneered the “stop-motion-animation-with-occasionally-appearing-hand” technique.)

The IP for Malkin’s new videoblog project is registered to Jesse Malkin.

AssParrot is serious.

Not very surprisingly, the “organized campaign” which is forcing Malkin to “remove one of [her] children from school and move [her] family” was instigated by just one person.

Now, I said that one printing, one threat, was too many, and I absolutely meant it. However, that also goes for the persecution complex on display here.

Go read it.

Why? Cause I’m going to Wordstock, baby!

Revenge of Wrong - Edward de Vere

Fain would I sing, but fury makes me fret,
And Rage hath sworn to seek revenge of wrong;
My mazed mind in malice so is set,
As Death shall daunt my deadly dolours long;
Patience perforce is such a pinching pain,
As die I will, or suffer wrong again.

I am no sot, to suffer such abuse
As doth bereave my heart of his delight;
Nor will I frame myself to such as use,
With calm consent, to suffer such despite;
No quiet sleep shall once possess mine eye
Till Wit have wrought his will on Injury.

My heart shall fail, and hand shall lose his force,
But some device shall pay Despite his due;
And Fury shall consume my careful corse,
Or raze the ground whereon my sorrow grew.
Lo, thus in rage of ruthful mind refus’d,
I rest reveng’d on whom I am abus’d.

Malkin’s column:

…Dr. Xavier Amador told the jury Monday that Little Orphan Moussaoui “suffered from schizophrenia of the paranoid variety.”

Let me throw away the medical dictionary and give my diagnosis of the defense team’s diagnosis: Bull.

Wingnuts love to practice lay medicine, don’t they? First Terri Schiavo, now Zacarias Moussaoui. I’m surprised Malkin didn’t say something like “Schizophrenia? Now they’re claiming multiple personalities made him do it!”

The fact is, mental status doesn’t excuse terrorism. Only Moussaoui’s defense lawyers claim it does - and that’s what they’re required by oath to do, and thank god they do it, because otherwise our legal system would devolve into a Malkin utopia kangaroo court. But mental status and everything that goes into it - nature, nurture, aspartame - might help explain terrorism.

“But Auguste,” you might be saying, “doesn’t explaining terrorism equal excusing terrorism?” If you are saying this, you are stupid.

I’m sorry, that was a little too strong. You are ignorant, intellectually lazy, and quite possibly suicidal. You probably also want to nuke Iran.

Malkin is your prophet:

On Monday, while Moussaoui’s defense team played their violins in court, apologists across Europe and the Muslim world played the same song for the suicide bomber who murdered 9 innocent civilians and wounded scores more at a Tel Aviv restaurant. The bomber packed his explosives with nails and shrapnel soaked in rat poison to increase the suffering of the victims.

Police had to pick bits of flesh off the blood-drenched streets and parked car windshields.

But it’s not the fault of terrorist Sami Salim Mohammed Hammed and his sponsors at Islamic Jihad. Blame “Israeli aggression” and “anti-Arab racism!”

The dry-eyed know there is one Root Cause for this carnage. It’s not America, Israel, racism, or psychological imbalances. It’s evil. Just evil.

Mary Wollstonecraft wrote, “No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.”

And no, wingers, liberals aren’t asking you to avoid harshing the mistaken man’s buzz. The pursuit of happiness is subjugated to life and liberty - no one disputes that except the strawliberals you keep creating. To a liberal, when someone’s happiness lies behind other peoples’ life and liberty, it becomes the evil Wollstonecraft references.

In fact, it’s Malkin and her cronies who have no absolute definition of evil - who “know it when they see it.” Oh, most of them claim it’s biblically based, but it’s been well documented that to the wingers, evil is that which is done by other people. (In Malkin’s case, it seems to be that which is done by liberals.) It’s based on that - the fact that the Other is responsible - that Malkin states “It’s not America, Israel, racism, or psychological imbalances. It’s evil. Just evil.”

I recently saw a winger argue that because Timothy McVeigh was not aiming to kill innocents, that he thought he would only be killing FBI agents, that his act was not terrorism. Bad, but not terrorism. Is this a mainstream view among the right? I doubt it. But there are echoes of that sort of American exceptionalism all over Malkin’s work. She has her own version of la raza - “By Americans, no excuse is irrelevant; by non - Americans, no excuse is relevant.”

So yes, 9/11 was evil. Obviously, because it involved death and destruction, and those practiced against civilians. But evil is not spontaneously generated. And that, my friends, is a value-neutral statement.

The 9/11 hijackers were pursuing their happiness, and so they did evil. So the question is, what made them think that the destruction that took place on 9/11 was their happiness? Malkin is right, the madrassas and imams were involved. But those seeds needed soil. And as for the kind of thing which prepared that soil - put Moussaoui and the 19 hijackers in the frame of mind to embrace jihad - we don’t need racism, or anti-Islamism, or any other long-disproven ism. We just need to look at history.

As for our current strategy and its potential for decreasing the number of “Just evil” people in the world, let’s look to an author whom the wingnuts claim as their own:

“Conquest is an evil productive of almost every other evil both to those who commit and to those who suffer it.” — C.S. Lewis

Malkin’s latest wackiness (While I have no love for the Chinese government, can you imagine her reaction if a heckler told President Bush his “days were numbered” is just the least of my thoughts) couldn’t have come at a worse time, as I have spent the last few days preparing for today’s vitally important professional exam. Everyone think good thoughts at 12:30 PDT, wouldja?

I have a huge-by-my-usual-standards post in the works about her latest column but it’s going to have to take a back seat. I’m sure you understand.

Update: Passed. Thanks for the good wishes.

I know Michelle and Jesse Malkin’s home address. I didn’t seek it out. I didn’t lift one finger to find it. It was inadvertantly included in a mailing sent out to the Malkins’ e-mail list.

But I know it. And I’m not going to publish it. Not a chance. Why? Because we are better than them. They know their audience. They knew what the consequences of publishing addresses on their blog would be.

Now, I’m off to the post office - happy tax day, everyone. I will definitely be posting more later. But I just wanted to point out that for people as paranoid about “unhinged moonbats” as they are they don’t seem to feel the slightest compunction about unleashing the wingnut hordes on a group of college students.

They were busy over Easter weekend, weren’t they?

Update: Apparently the Malkins’ address has already been published. I’m actually worried about this development - I really don’t want anything untoward to happen. No one deserves physical harm or fear of same due to political speech.

Which is what makes me different from wingnuts. I don’t say things like:

If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language. As for SAW, my message is this: You are responsible for your individual actions. Other individuals are responsible for theirs. Grow up and take responsibility.

Wow. The wingnut blame-the-victim mentality really pervades every issue under the sun, doesn’t it? “Death threats are never justified, but they were sure asking for them.”

Update 2: Thanks for your enthusiasm, but I would have thought that this post would also imply that I’d prefer you not post their address in comments, either.

Update 3: Emboldened by the success of the rabble-rousing, Malkin posts more e-mail addresses with the now-chilling postscript:

Forewarned is forearmed.

Update 4: I don’t know how much Malkin is or isn’t being harassed. A little bit is too much. But according to Technorati, exactly one blogger (and no one of significant readership) has posted the home address in the body of a post. Eh, this doesn’t really mean anything. Commisar in comments claims that TBogg has the address posted, although I certainly couldn’t find it.

It doesn’t matter, anyway. It’s not appropriate no matter how few have done it.

Update 5: Due to wingnut plants and other silliness, I’ve gone ahead and closed comments on this thread. Never done that before. I’ve also been fairly liberal, so to speak, with the delete button. Some deleted comments may not have deserved it. But considering the lengths and depths to which some commenters are going (some of whom are absolutely winger plants) I want to keep the whole thing as aboveboard as possible.

Lion and Lioness - Edwin Markham, United States Poet Laureate and born 1.6 miles from where I currently reside.

One night we were together, you and I,
And had unsown Assyria for a lair,
Before the walls of Babylon rose in air.
How languid hills were heaped along the sky,
And white bones marked the wells of alkali,
When suddenly down the lion-path a sound . . .
The wild man-odor . . . then a crouch, a bound,
And the frail Thing fell quivering with a cry!

Your yellow eyes burned beautiful with light:
The dead man lying there quieted and white:
I roared my triumph over the desert wide,
Then stretched out, glad for the sands and satisfied;
And through the long, star-stilled Assyrian night,
I felt your body breathing by my side.

The right-wing blogosphere, once so triumphant in their typographical analysis, is reduced to obsessing over South Park screenshots.

Update: Thersites is not quite as polite as I am. And apparently Malkin enabled comments, and I missed it again.

What Malkin hates the most about the mainstream media, apparently, is that damned objectivity.

See, it seems a photojournalist (Bilal Hussein - he’s an Iraqi and therefore suspect already) who doesn’t use his or her status to infiltrate and destroy the very terror cells they’re trying to document is a de facto member, engaged in propaganda. Photographs of cold-blood executions, apparently, amount to promotion of the insurgents’ cause. (Let’s try to imagine what we’d hear from the righties if a photojournalist took a picture of American soldiers committing atrocities. Oh, wait. We don’t have to imagine. “I wish he would have a fatal accident” was restrained.)

Malkin and friends also say that because Hussein may or may not be tolerated - or, pushing the bounds of speculation, even tipped off - by the insurgents, he has a responsibility to take steps to stop the events he’s documenting. This argument seems to me to ignore completely the very nature of war journalism.

The kind of work war photographers do makes the kind of work Michelle, Jesse, and I do look like sitting behind a keyboard spouting off opinions. Wait, that is the kind of work we do.

Take a look at the splash screen at this site, just for an example.

James Nachtwey, the photographer in the photo, said:

In a way, if an individual assumes the risk of placing himself in the middle of a war in order to communicate to the rest of the world what is happening, he is trying to negotiate for peace. Perhaps that is the reason why those in charge of perpetuating a war do not like to have photographers around.

It has occurred to me that if everyone could be there just once to see for themselves what white phosphorous does to the face of a child or what unspeakable pain is caused by the impact of a single bullet or how a jagged piece of shrapnel can rip someone’s leg off - if everyone could be there to see for themselves the fear and the grief, just one time, then they would understand that nothing is worth letting things get to the point where that happens to even one person, let alone thousands.

Exactly what the wingnuts are afraid of.

Remember when Malkin was so very excited about the Bush administration’s release of documents supposedly tying Saddam to terror?

Surprise!

The first surprising thing we find in the documents, which are available here through the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office’s Joint Reserve Intelligence Center, is that they are not necessarily from, or even about, Iraq…

Whether intentional or not, the conflation and confusion of materials has been more than sufficient to convince bloggers on the political right that there were, as Bush officials insisted, operational links between Saddam’s Iraq and al-Qaida.

IS IT SINKING IN YET, WINGNUTS?