Just Sayin’ Stuff with Chuck Grassley

By Dan Brooks in Just Sayin' Stuff 2 Comments

Senator Charles Grassley (R–IA,) who looks like if you aged a high school debate captain by preserving his face and shrinking his skeleton.

Remember back in 2009, when the commentariat explained Chuck Grassley’s virulent attacks on health care reform and the Panel to Evaluate the Life of Grandma by saying that he was going to retire soon? It turns out that, like golf, dicketry is a lifetime hobby. Speaking to Radio Iowa yesterday, Grassley called for a review of the White House investigation of the purchase rental of Colombian prostitutes by the Secret Service. Obviously, prostitutes mean scandal and Secret Service means Obama; therefore, Secret Service prostitues mean Obama scandal. You think that I’m simplifying his reasoning, here, but Grassley’s argument is not measurably more specific. Quote:

The issue here isn’t just people messing around with prostitutes, the issue is the security of the President of the United States and the issue is any national security implications that it might have because of the secrecy and the documents and things of that nature.

Chuck Grassley: just sayin’ stuff.

Continue reading

Board to investigate Nobel Peace Prize

By Dan Brooks in Public Discourse 2 Comments

*cough* blowjob!

Fredrik Heffermehl, a Norwegian activist who has long criticized laureates of the Nobel Peace Prize, has finally convinced someone to investigate how the committee determines its awards. Props to Pete for the link. In an awesome instance of how location still matters in geopolitics, it turns out that the Nobel is supervised by the Stockholm County Administrative Board. Should the SCAB decide that the Peace Prize committee has not carried out the will of Alfred J. Nobel, it will have the legal power to invalidate awards going back three years. Probably that isn’t going to happen. But remember when they gave it to the commander-in-chief of two wars who subsequently used robot planes to incinerate various foreign nationals? It’s possible the Peace Prize has seen some mission creep.

Continue reading

What the Tea Party means: Christine O’Donnell

By Dan Brooks in Tea Party 3 Comments

Everybody loves her: the white, the old, the old and white, the asked to stand there...

Partly because it’s the most vital movement in contemporary politics and partly because they’re hilarious, we’ve spent over a year now trying to figure out what the Tea Party means. While several of the philosophical questions—and even some of the ontological ones—remain unanswered, Tuesday made one practical outcome clear. Christine O’Donnell has defeated heavily-favored Delaware legislator Michael Castle in the Republican senate primary, thanks to the enthusiastic backing of the Tea Party. Where Castle polled favorably against likely Democratic opponents in the general, O’Donnell does not. It might be because she’s crazy. “A lot of people said we can’t win the general election; yes we can!” she told the Times. “It will be hard work, but we can win if those same people who fought against me work just as hard for me.” Two things: 1) Agreed that Christine O’Donnell will win the election if the people who don’t like her start liking her and 2) now she owes Barack Obama a nickel.

Continue reading