BDS is alive in Olympia as protesters once again try to play the impeachment game.

Protest du Jour: Move the impeachment bill, already

Super Fat Tuesday seems as good a day as any for supporters  of Washington’s impeachment bill to rally at the state capital.

They’ll meet at the sundial on the capitol campus at noon, but will be canvassing both houses and legislative offices all day.

Impeachment advocates want SJM 8016, a bill “requesting an impeachment investigation into actions by President Bush and Vice President Cheney,” to be pulled out of the rules committee and sent to the floor for a vote. The legislation was recommended for passage by the Senate Committee on Government Operations & Elections on Jan. 22.

The protest today will encompass physically addressing state senators on the rules committee, as well as inundating their offices with calls, e-mails, etc.

Not that our lawmakers need their help to waste time.

But you know, her title is accurate in ways she likely did not consider.

Protest Du Jour is exactly what this is, because they seem to have a compulsive or pathological need to be unhappy with something.

I hope a Democrat wins the election.  It would be worth it to see the frustration of all those liberals with nothing left to bitch about.

Rosie O’Donnell brings us our second moment of levity as she blames Bush for a Staph infection she got 7 years ago.

Rosie O’Donnell Blames Bush for Staph Infection 

President Bush almost killed me. It’s true, and I have the scars to prove it — multiple scars that are part of the public record — you saw them in magazines and on my show, and you can see them on my blog frequently — no twelve year wait required.

After the infamous fight with Elisabeth Hasselbeck a few days ago, rumour circulated that she trashed her dressing room and bailed.  Taking a day off for her partner’s birthday was prearranged, but now the report is she won’t be back.

On the heels of that was another report that her chief writer was escorted from the studio, for defacing Elisabeth’s pictures in the hall.

Both of these events, though by separate individuals, illustrates the same attitude which has seemed to permeate O’Donnell’s character:  Childishness.

Her mockery and resulting feud with Trump, her condescending attitude toward Elisabeth, her blind belief in ridiculous theories (and refusal to recant in the face of solidly rebutting evidence), her racists remarks and resulting denial and her piteous gay baiting tactics to avoid debate, all speak to the behavior of a child.

Her comments about the troops are a classic example.  Her denials to the contrary, she actually did call the troops terrorists.  Oh she didn’t say it directly, she merely suggested it as a faux hypothetical question with only one possible answer.  The effective result is the same, it is a difference that makes no difference.

But rather then either confront it as her belief and defend it, or retreat from it and apologize, she engaged in a childish debate, calling on Elisabeth as her friend to defend her, and then shifting the focus of the debate to Elisabeth’s shortcomings as a friend finally calling Elisabeth the coward though she was the one who could not face the consequences of her actions.

And her comments on her blog support her belief in that theory, so why not defend it?

This is not about free speech.  She has the right to have that belief and to state it if she chooses.  And if others disagree, they have a similar right to express that.

The reality is that this is about maturity and intellectual honesty.

Put short, I have no respect for a person who cannot engage honestly in a debate.

I saw this at Hot Air.  I am so glad to see Elisabeth Hasselbeck finally stand up to Rosie and refuse to be cowed by her tantrums.:

With Rosie on her way out I guess there’s no reason for them to pretend they’re friends anymore. Here she is at her disingenuous worst, playing the “big, fat, lesbian” victim while deliberately twisting Hasselbeck’s point about the enemy in Iraq — namely, Al Qaeda — to accuse her of treating Iraqi civilians as the enemy.

I am getting more and more sick of O’Donnell, with her childish tantrums, her disingenuous refusal to address her own outrageous statements, with her gay baiting and most of all with her complete lack of common sense.

Good for Elisabeth.  Rather then let Rosie dominate the conversation, she refused to back down.

Someone needs to out shout Rosie and force her to deal with the simple facts and her own statements. 

You can’t make this stuff up folks.

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix/pagesix_u.htm

DONALD Trump has unleashed a secret weapon in his feud with Rosie O’Donnell - a gigantic black undergarment she wore in the movie “Exit to Eden,” which Trump sent to Barbara Walters on Monday to hang on the office wall at “The View.”

The girdle-like outfit - variously described as “a bustier” and “a giant pair of panties” - was bought at a charity auction by a fan, who then had the relic framed under glass and delivered to Trump.

“I sent it to Barbara to hang in her office because I didn’t want it in mine. It was funny, except that it was really gross. It’s disgusting,” Trump told Page Six. “I feel sorry for [Rosie's] wife. It can’t be pleasant.”

O’Donnell played the police detective partner of Dan Aykroyd in the 1994 comedy described by Leonard Maltin as a “strange cinematic catastrophe.” The two cops go undercover at a sado-masochistic fantasy camp, which required O’Donnell to wear the bustier with garters and stockings while brandishing a whip.

The movie was actually pretty funny.  It is one of the ones she did that really worked with her dry and sarcastic style.  And the garment is as described.  I guess it was just too easy of a target.

On “The View” on Monday, O’Donnell asked Walters, Joy Behar and Elizabeth Haselbeck: “You want to hear what a 61-year-old businessman did today? He sent Barbara . . .”

Walters interrupted: “But this is for me to say. This was sent for me, it was not sent to you.” O’Donnell: “Go ahead, you say it.” Walters: “No, I don’t want to.” O’Donnell: “You don’t want to?”

Walters ended the conversation, “I really do not want to stir up the whole Donald Trump thing again” - leaving viewers wondering what they were talking about.

This is what they were talking about:

The answer is yes and no.  There are some interesting similarities and parallels and yet there are some interesting contradictions and differences.

Obviously they both are media celebrities who have spoken some offensive things on their respective shows.  But that is where the similarities end.

Imus was an old white guy who made a stupid joke about some black women athletes, and he has a reputation for making some harsh and offensive remarks.  But his previous indiscretions have all been passed over, only after the Nappy remark did any organized effort to punish him emerge, from the liberals.  A campaign to have him fired was launched by Sharpton and Jackson.  And they succeeded.  Despite his apology to the women in question, he has been sacked.

Rosie is a white lesbian woman who has mocked the Chinese, slandered our leaders, offered support to the terrorists, espoused loony conspiracy theories, called people homophobes and far too many other little indiscretions all on her show, and has rarely offered anything remotely like an apology.  She for her part has not suffered any measurable chastisement, nor has The View, ABC, Disney or anyone else directly addressed her remarks.

What bothers me is how many liberals defend her, and accuse me of trying to suppress her free speech, yet those same liberals cheerfully called for Imus to be fired.  That is the core of the hypocrisy.  Both of them have offended people but Imus offended someone with a higher victim rating.  Rosie offended some nameless Chinese people and some white people.  Who cares?

What the people calling for Imus’s head do not realize is that they have opened a Pandora’s box.  The message is clear that you can be “Imus-ed” if you offend too many people.  By their very actions they have energized the StopRosie.com campaign and others of similar design.  All those who defend Rosie do so now at the risk of being seen as a hypocrite if they in turn defend their attack on Imus.

In my StopRosie.com post I have been accused of being a paid shill for the mystical O’Reilly faction that is using Nazi tactics to destroy free speech.

I first laughed at the accusation of being paid.  Honest, of all the reasons I do this, money is far from my thoughts.  I pay my own hosting, I am my own webmaster, I sucker my daughter into a little free graphic design, and to date I have easily invested 2000+ hours of unpaid time in writing, reading, research and all the sundry time wasters that blogs require.  I am nowhere close to making any manner of profit.  Period.

I am unaffiliated with any party, and only loosely affiliated with most other bloggers.  I do not operate in lockstep with the neocons, or even the mild conservatives.  My views are frequently not in the majority and I like it that way.

I wish I was a sellout, I could use the cash.

As to the accusations about working with O’Reilly to destroy free speech, where this intersects with Rosie O’Donnel, the accusation falls empty, because at its core, the flap over Rosie has nothing to do with free speech, at least not in the way most people are addressing it.

 Let me repeat that.  The StopRosie.com issue is not a free speech issue.

I will preface that outrageous proclamation by saying that I take free speech seriously.  My blog is a representation of free speech and if anyone were to interfere I would react harshly.

I have written numerous blogs on free speech issues, and if anyone has read them they will know two things:

• I value free speech as one the essential core values that makes America unique, and great.
• Free speech is the most over used, abused and misunderstood freedoms we own.

The two statements are not in conflict.  Any manner of goofiness gets attributed to free speech, and even in the wider interpretation of free speech as meaning the freedom of ideas, or even the freedom of expression, as it so often is now, there are a lot of things that are either restricted or were never really intended to be covered.