It Was A Dark And Stormy Post

The winner of the annual Bulwer-Lytton literary extravaganza has been announced.

"Detective Bart Lasiter was in his office studying the light from his one small window falling on his super burrito when the door swung open to reveal a woman whose body said you've had your last burrito for a while, whose face said angels did exist, and whose eyes said she could make you dig your own grave and lick the shovel clean."

Proudly written by Jim Guigli of California, this masterful work shows a revolutionizing proactive technique, so to speak, transitioning classical literature and modally lambasting crassness while similarly cultivating turgid communities……. Oh, sorry. The BS generator overloaded.

Seriously, this prize, if that's the right word for it, is given out annually to the worst - or best - written spoofs in the style of Lord Lytton's writings.

Guigli's powers of invention and his determination to succeed — he submitted 60 different entries — also won him a "dishonorable mention" in the historical fiction category.

"My motivation for entering the contest was to find a constructive outlet for my dementia," Guigli quipped. (Ed. Note. He'll be blogging any day now.)

The Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest was started in 1982 by the English Department at San Jose State University to honor the Victorian novelist who opened his 1830 novel "Paul Clifford" with what were to become the immortal words, "It was a dark and stormy night."

It began as a quiet campus affair and now attracts thousands of entries from around the world. But the grand prize winner receives only a pittance and other winners "must content themselves with becoming household names," organizers say.

The 2006 runner-up, Stuart Vasepuru from Scotland, played with one of the most famous pieces of dialogue from the Clint Eastwood movie "Dirty Harry."

"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' — and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' — well do you, punk?"

And oddly, I happen to own the complete collected works of Bulwer's writings. I think there's around 15 or so volumes and they collectively weigh a ton. I'm pretty sure he got paid by the pound, not the word.

The Problem Is Connecticut

According to Harold Meyerson in today's Washington Post.

Well. I don't blog; I columnize. But count me with the bloggers on this one. No great mystery enshrouds the challenge to Lieberman, nor is the campaign of his challenger, Ned Lamont, a jihad of crazed nit-pickers. Lieberman has simply and rightly been caught up in the fundamental dynamics of Politics 2006, in which Democrats are doing their damnedest to unseat all the president's enablers in this year's elections. As well, Lieberman's broader politics are at odds with those of his fellow Northeastern Democrats. He is not being opposed because he doesn't reflect the views of his Democratic constituents 100 percent of the time. He is being opposed because he leads causes many of them find repugnant.

As early as December 2001 Lieberman signed a letter to President Bush asking him to make Saddam Hussein's Iraq our next stop in the war against terrorism. As recently as last month, he opposed two Democratic resolutions to scale back our involvement in the war. And just last week Lieberman characterized the progress of the war as "a lot better" than it was a year ago, adding, "They're on the way to building a free and independent Iraq."

So, why the surprise if Connecticut voters, listening to Lieberman and looking at his record, conclude that they cannot trust his judgment on the single most important issue of the day? That's not mandating purity; it's opting for a senator who pays more attention to the war on the ground than to the war in his head.

Meyerson's point, that supporters of the war in Iraq are in trouble all across the Northeast is really moot. The challenge to Lieberman is being driven primarily by out-of-state interests. A point which Meyerson glosses over and dismisses out of hand. It is highly unlikely that Lamont would have been able to mount anything like a successful challenge to Lieberman without that support, either. Lieberman remains, despite Lamont's best efforts, overwhelmingly popular in the state with the majority of voters.

The real problems will arise if the netroots succeed in knocking Lieberman off in the primary. Who then will be the next target. For there will be a target.

Hey! That’s OUR Schtick!

Reuters is horning in on Blue Crab Boulevard's extensive reporting of the animal uprising! Ok, sort of. Ok, not really. But it gives us a post title, so what the heck. Anyway, they are reporting that scientists have discovered "killer kangaroos and demon ducks of doom" once inhabited Australia.

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Forget cute, cuddly marsupials. A team of Australian palaeontologists say they have found the fossilised remains of a fanged killer kangaroo and what they describe as a "demon duck of doom".

A University of New South Wales team said the fearsome fossils were among 20 previously unknown species uncovered at a site in northwest Queensland state.

Professor Michael Archer said on Wednesday the remains of a meat-eating kangaroo with wolf-like fangs were found as well as a galloping kangaroo with long forearms that could not hop like a modern kangaroo.

"Because they didn't hop, these were galloping kangaroos, with big, powerful forelimbs. Some of them had long canines (fangs) like wolves," Archer told Australian Broadcasting Corp radio.

Vertebrate palaeontologist Sue Hand said modern kangaroos look almost nothing like their ferocious forebears, which lived between 10 million and 20 million years ago.

Aren't you glad the animal uprising doesn't have shock troops like that. Or do they?

Hints And Rumors

Babalu Blog, arguably the best source for all things Cubano, is reporting multiple hints and rumors of the departure of Fidel Castro to the region of Hell specifically designed for such as he. We can but hope. Val is speculating on what the MSM headlines will read. My favorite from his list:

WaPo: "Rove implicated in Castro's death"

I'd presonally go with: Castro dies, Halliburton links probed

Mumbai Train Bombings Update

AP reports that the death toll has reached 200.

BOMBAY, India - At least 200 people were killed in bombings that ripped through packed commuter trains in Bombay, a top Indian state official said Wednesday. "Two hundred bodies have been found," R. Patil, the deputy chief minister of Maharashtra state, told lawmakers in the state assembly. Bombay is the capital of Maharashtra.

Meanwhile, the Times of India is carrying Indian government reaction to the Pakistani Foreign Ministers first statements about the bombings. It is not favorable.

NEW DELHI: India on Wednesday described as "appalling" Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri's statement which sought to link the blatant and inhuman bomb blasts in Mumbai to the so called lack of resolution of disputes between the two countries.

New Delhi asked Islamabad to take urgent steps to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism existing in territories controlled by Pakistan and act in the spirit of the Joint Statement reached between the two countries on January 6, 2004.

External Affairs Ministry Spokesman Navtej Sarna said "no cause" could justify killing of innocent people. Reacting to remarks attributed to Kasuri, who is currently in the US, Sarna said, "We find it appalling that Foreign Minister Kasuri should seek to link the blatant and inhuman act of terrorism against innocent men, women and children to so called lack of resolution of disputes between India and Pakistan".

UPDATE: Sepia Mutiny wonders at the lack of coverage in the blogosphere. Well, speaking only for myself, I covered it yeaterday and first thing this morning. I'm not top 100 (not even close), but I paid attention.

Terror Tactic

Hezbollah terrorists crossed into Israel from Lebanon and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers.

BEIRUT, Lebanon - The Hezbollah militant group captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes along the Lebanese border on Wednesday, triggering an Israeli assault with warplanes, tanks and gunboats as Israeli troops crossed the frontier to hunt for the captives.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the guerrilla attack "an act of war" and warned that Hezbollah would pay a "heavy price" for its actions.

Israeli warplanes struck two bridges over the Litani River deep in southern Lebanon, killing two civilians on the main north-south highway between the port cities of Tyre and Sidon, Lebanese security officials said. The pan-Arab satellite TV al-Arabiya station said that at least seven Israeli soldiers were killed in the fighting, and that several more were wounded.

The Israeli army confirmed casualties among the soldiers, but did not comment on the reports of possible deaths.

Israeli troops crossed into a southwestern sector of Lebanon, near where the soldiers were seized, trying to keep their captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli security officials said. Hezbollah said it destroyed an Israeli tank as it tried to cross the frontier.

This appears to be the new tactic of choice for the terrorists. Kidnap soldiers then gets lots of media attention and mobilize the apologists in the West. I sincerely hope American Leaders in Iraq are warning the troops about this appalling new tactic.

UPDATE: Jerusalem Post has this from Israeli PM Olmert:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared the attack as an "act of war" and not terror. During a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi Wednesday afternoon, he called it an unprovoked assault by a sovereign nation and held Lebanon, where Hizbullah has a minister in the government, fully responsible.

"Israel's response will be restrained but very, very, very painful," Olmert added.

UPDATE: Read Big Pharaoh for his take on this situation.

The Usual Suspects

I have several people who are banned from commenting here for a number of reasons. One of the usual suspects tried again today, with one of the favorite tactics of the left. That is: 'why don't you post about (insert name of right-leaning blogger/person) and condemn (insert alleged outrage raised by left). It's kind of interesting that I only, ever, get these kinds of comments from self-identified lefties. I've never once had the same thing from the right.

Anyway, today's brouhaha is covered extremely well by Sister Toldjah and anything I added to her take would be trying to gild a lily.

It's funny how the left continues to assert that there is a right wing attack machine. We know from Kos himself that the left coordinates using secret mailing lists. I know of no such lists on the right, certainly I'm not on one. I've never been asked to blog something, or had a message or stance on an issue given to me. I've never had coordinated comment efforts from the right like I sometimes get from the left.

Who's projecting on whom?

House Of Cards

No intent, no plot, no reason for the whole Fitzgerald fishing expedition. So says Robert Novak in his column revealing what he told the grand jury. Read the whole thing first. For me, the key paragraphs:

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

No nefarious White House plot, no underlying crime, no reason for the persecution of scooter Libbey other than an overzealous prosecutor attempting to justify the exorbitant waste of money his investigation became. Because it sounds as if Fitzgerald knew all the relevant facts before he interviewed Novak the first time. So can the taxpayers get a refund from Fitzgerald now?

The left can now commence kicking Joe Wilson to the curb.

UPDATE: Don Surber was kind enough to link this post, but the post he linked with is in need of wide reading. It is a masterful smackdown of the New York Times especially and several other newspapers incidentally over their positively destructive handling of the Plame affair. They fashioned their own noose and Don is calling them to account. Great job, Don.