Shakesville: 3/27/05 - 4/3/05

Mitch “the Blade” Daniels is Still a Stinky, Cretinous, Disgusting Lout (Part in an Ongoing Series)

Indiana, my home, and home to cultural cavemen who want to protect children from naked statues and super-duper protect hetero marriage by legislating a gay marriage ban even though we’ve already got one on the books, could probably stand to improve its educational system, since the Enlightenment clearly has yet to reach significant parts of our state.

Our state legislature, however, has decided what we need is less education—or less funding for education, anyway—and the #1 wart on this ugly toad of state leadership, former Bush budget guru and current Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, agrees.

Indiana doesn't have a public education advocate in Gov. Mitch Daniels and too few lawmakers are interested in adequately funding the state's 1,909 public schools.

[…]

Lawmakers are struggling to craft a new two-year spending plan. Funding for Indiana's 293 public school districts takes up nearly 40 percent of the state's $24.2 billion two-year budget.

Senate Republicans have shaped a K-12 funding plan that provides 1.2 percent more in 2006 and 1.3 percent more in 2007. Schools are used to increases of at least 2 percent a year.

Even though the plan would provide overall increases in education spending, 129 public school districts would receive less in 2006 than they now receive.

The cuts that are being proposed could result in losing as many as 6,000 teachers statewide.

You’d think that Daniels, who nine years ago referred to Indiana public schools as an "abysmal and atrocious failure," would be interested in changing that reputation. In true GOP social Darwinist fashion, however, Daniels has decided to ignore the public schools in favor of voucher proposals.

Jackson Schlemmer, 12, came to the rally with his 8-year-old brother, Lincoln, and his parents, who are both teachers. The Crawfordsville boy carried a sign that he had hoped would catch the eye of Daniels and lawmakers:

"We are not budget cuts. We are the future."

My parents were both teachers who spent their entire working lives teaching in the Indiana public school system. I was educated in the Indiana public school system. My parents had a good, secure life as teachers, and consequently provided a good, secure life for my sister and me—and we both had damn fine educations. It’s a shame that the Schlemmers, parents and children alike, may not be as lucky.

Freeze, Will Robinson!

Japanese town gets a real Robocop (via Raw Story)

The safety of a Japanese neighbourhood was on Wednesday put in the hands -- briefly -- of a robot, which became police chief for the day in a campaign to promote safe driving.

T63 Artemis, named after the Greek moon goddess Artemis, helped its subordinate human officers distribute fliers on traffic safety at the train station after its appointment as head of Hakata station and surrounding neighbourhood in the southern city of Fukuoka.

The 157-centimeter (five-foot, two-inch) tall Artemis, which has two arms and weighs 100 kilograms, can go on patrol with the help of a battery, police said.

That’s pretty cool and all, but do the Japanese really expect us to be impressed with a robot police chief?! Come on. Talk to us when your nation’s got a robot second-in-command.

C.H.E.N.E.Y.
Cybernetic Humanoid Engineered for Neocon Extremism and Yelling
(By the way, you can find a picture of Cheney's "battery pack" here.)

Question of the Day

Which will we have first:

A. a female president of any ethnicity?
B. a minority male president?
C. a gay president?
D. an atheist president?
E. a non-Christian religious president?
F. a foreign-born president (after requisite changes to the Constitution)?

Regarding your answer, are you choosing it based on a specific person (Hillary, Condi, Obama) that you expect to achieve the presidency?

Memo to Conservative Bloggers: Better Luck Next Time

Ahh, the sweet taste of eat it, suckers!

Remember the GOP talking points memo, about what a political boon the Schiavo case was for the GOP, that the wingnuts were convinced, just totally sure, was a fake created by the Dems?

Well, it turns out that it was written by an aide to Senator Mel Martinez (R-Florida). (AMERICAblog’s got a copy of the memo here.)

The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.

Brian H. Darling, 39, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation and it was immediately accepted, Martinez said.

[…]

The unsigned memo -- which initially misspells Schiavo's first name and gives the wrong number for the pending bill -- includes eight talking points in support of the legislation and calls the controversy "a great political issue."

"This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy," the memo concludes.

It asserts that the case would appeal to the party's core supporters, saying: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue."

To be completely honest, I don’t find the memo itself that outrageous, because all it really did was put on paper that which was already obvious about the Republicans in their current incarnation—they are inveterate political opportunists who seek to exploit and pander to their religious conservative base at every opportunity, in pursuit of ever greater amounts of political capital to spend on behalf of their corporatist base. That the talking points were put into writing doesn’t really matter one way or another to me.

What I found more outrageous was the insistence that it was a creation of the Democrats.

The mystery of the memo's origin had roiled the Capitol, with Republicans accusing Democrats of concocting the document as a dirty trick, and Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to duck responsibility for exploiting the dying days of an incapacitated woman.

Conservative Web logs have challenged the authenticity of the memo, in some cases likening it to the discredited documents about Bush's National Guard service that CBS News reported last fall.

It wasn’t just blogs who challenged the memo’s authenticity, however. Sure, Powerline blog, Michelle Malkin, La Shawn Barber, In the Agora, Newsmax, Accuracy in Media (an Orwellian name if ever there was one), and the other usual suspects chimed in with their charges of forgeries, but professional bloviator Rush Limbaugh, The Washington Times (twice), and bow-tied shill Tucker Carlson, appearing on the Chris Matthews' Show, were also positively certain that it was a Democratic dirty trick. Right, Tucker?

Last week a memo surfaced, reportedly written by the Republican members of Congress explaining how to make hay with the Terri Schiavo case, the Talking Points Memo, Ah, I think within a week or two it will become clear that that memo was a forgery, possibly written by Democrats on the hill in an effort to discredit Republicans.

Oops.

Nowadays, the Dems hardly need to resort to forged memos to discredit the Republicans; they’re doing such a fine job of discrediting themselves.

Secrets

Skippy shares the link to an incredibly cool site, PostSecret, which the Skipster aptly describes thusly:

a weird art project in which the blogger asks people to send him post cards stating their inner most secret. the blogger then posts the cards on this blog. scary, sad, bizarre, all too human.

Viewing the submissions on the site is like wandering through a hall of mirrors which reflect, instead of your own image, a memory of every emotion you have ever experienced—amused, uplifted, heartbroken… It’s totally fascinating. (Make sure to read the comments about PostSecret and how to submit your own secret, should you be so inclined.) Here are some that particularly grabbed my attention for one reason or another:

Should you be so bold, feel free to share one of your secrets in comments—anonymously or otherwise.

Attack on the Judiciary: Others Will Reap What You Sow Edition

Avowed white supremacist Matthew Hale was sentenced to 40 years in prison Wednesday for trying to have a federal judge killed.

Hale, 33, the self-described Pontifex Maximus of a group that preaches racial holy war, showed no emotion and sat staring at the defense table as the sentence was handed down. He earlier delivered a rambling statement in which he insisted that no crime had been committed.

Dear Senators Cornyn, Santorum, Rep. DeLay, and Friends:

We’ll be seeing a lot more of that kind of crap if you don’t shut your fucking mouths.

Love,
Shakespeare’s Sister

LOL

World Bank Warns U.S. to Cut Deficits

Irony Zone: Wolfowitz, one of the primary architects of the Iraq War, which is one of the primary causes of soaring US deficits, has (of course) just been appointed as president of the World Bank. The head spins.

FU FEC

Atrios has some interesting thoughts on singling out bloggers for disclosure requirements. Check it out.

I’m Keeping My Fingers Crossed for the Sequel

Nothing would make me giddier than to find the name of this blog in the background text on a book cover just like this. (Well done, Kos!)

Via the also-ignored AMERICAblog (a truly unjust omission since John Aravosis is a key player in pushing the radical homosexual agenda of the Left, too!).

The Land of the Freaks and the Home of the Deranged

Besides being a nice chap, Jack at CommonSenseDesk is a great finder and aggregator of news, and today he links to this report from Retuers, headlining his post “This Is Just Bizarre,” which is just about all the commentary it needs.

People in Florida will be allowed to kill in self-defense on the street without trying to flee under a new law passed by state politicians on Tuesday that critics say will bring a Wild West mentality and innocent deaths.

The Florida House of Representatives, citing the need to allow people to "stand their ground," voted 94-20 to codify and expand court rulings that already allow people to use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes without first trying to escape.

The new bill goes further by allowing citizens to use deadly force in a public place if they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. It applies to all means of force that may result in death, although the legislative debate focused on guns.

The "Stand Your Ground" bill passed the Senate last week on a 39-0 vote and now goes to Republican Gov. Jeb Bush, who indicated he will sign it.

"This is about meeting force with force," said House sponsor Republican state Rep. Dennis Baxley of Ocala. "If I'm attacked, I should not have to retreat."

Critics have few objections to allowing people to protect themselves from intruders in their homes but said the provision making it easier to use deadly force in public gives gun owners a license to kill.

"For a House that talks about the culture of life it's ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill," said Democratic state Rep. Dan Gelber of Miami Beach. "That's exactly what we're doing."

Like many states, Florida courts have ruled that people have a right to defend themselves in their homes. Florida courts have expanded that "Castle Doctrine" to include employees in their workplaces and drivers who are attacked in their automobiles.

Outside the home, however, courts have ruled that most victims must at least attempt to escape before using deadly force, a provision gun advocates say puts victims at greater risk. The proposal removes that requirement if a person has a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

Critics say the measure could lead to racially motivated killings and promote deadly escalations of arguments.

"All this bill will do is sell more guns and possibly turn Florida into the OK Corral," said Democratic state Rep. Irv Slosberg of Boca Raton.

What the hell is going on in this country?

Allowing citizens to use deadly force in a public place if they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of death or great bodily harm is just beyond nutty. A reasonable belief? How long before this defense is used to justify the killing of a black guy who has the bad luck to reach into his pocket and pull out a cell phone in the vicinity of some jittery white folks who were “reasonably” convinced it was a gun? How long before it’s used to rationalize the killing of a gay man who, his killer will claim, was attempting to “greatly bodily harm” him?

I would say this legislation were a fucking joke, if it weren’t so sickening—and a nightmare waiting to happen for anyone who has the misfortune of creating a visceral reaction in a gun-toting bigot of one flavor or another.

And what is wrong with the dimwits like Dennis Baxley of Ocala who say things like, "If I'm attacked, I should not have to retreat”? Who in his right mind prefers to go on the offensive and take someone else’s life on the chance that the other person means to take his? Getting clocked and having my wallet stolen, and waking up with a headache and the annoyance of canceling my credit cards, doesn’t sound pleasant, but it sounds better than living with the guilt of having taken another human’s life, perhaps unnecessarily. I’m truly and deeply disturbed by people who would rather have a shoot-out in the street, endangering not only the lives of a potential attacker, their own lives, and the lives of innocent bystanders, in some sort of morbid and pathetic cowboy fantasy, than run for it. They scare me way more than any hypothetical crime does.

Honestly! (she sniffed with disgust)

Just when you think you’ve heard it all…

Skippy’s Cookie Jill on one of the sleaziest fundraising scams of which I’ve ever heard. Truly unbelievable.

RIP Saul Bellow

Ugh. Saul Bellow has died—and of the many recent deaths of famous men, this one feels to me like our greatest loss.

A brilliant author, he was raised in and closely associated with Chicago, where he was active in the local academia, attending both Northwestern University and the University of Chicago, for which he served as a member of its Committee on Social Thought in later life. His degrees were in sociology and anthropology, just like mine—which is, unfortunately, where our similarities end, although having studied the same fields in the same city, and having, like him, used the endeavor to inform an interest in writing social commentary, I felt a certain kinship with him, as dreamy hacks are wont to do.

He was 89 and lived a rich life, so we can’t be too sad for him. He wouldn’t have been sad for himself, I imagine.

Asked about his thoughts on what happens after death, Bellow offered two scenarios: oblivion or immortality.

"My intuition is immortality," said Bellow, who was ambivalent about whether he believed in God. "No argument can be made for it, but it's just as likely as oblivion."

RIP Prince Rainier

Prince Rainier III of Monaco has died. He was Europe’s longest-reigning monarch, and he lived to be 81. Good innings.

DeLay’s Going Down

The GOP has officially turned on Tom DeLay. When Dark Lord Cheney signaled his disapproval last week, we were witnessing a fine moment in dog whistle politics; I don’t think that’s appropriate coming from the satanic cyborg’s lips seemed, to be sure, an ominous sign, but little did we know it would send the rightwing media machine into overdrive to take down one of their own.

Drudge is faithfully reporting each devastating new story about the embattled DeLay, which are now coming faster and faster, as fresh charges of ethics violations come tumbling one after another, each given a prominence previous (though equally damning) revelations had not.

Screen grab from the Drudge Report.

Last night, Raw Story leaked the Washington Post’s front page story: DeLay Russian trip paid for by firm lobbying Russian gov't, which can now be read in its entirety here, complete with a flow chart dissecting his trip. (!) And the NY Times reports today that DeLay’s wife and daughter have been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 by his political action and campaign committees.

It looks as though DeLay’s days are numbered.

This is our collective job as I see it:

1. Celebrate.

2. Refuse to allow the GOP to singularly pin DeLay as the face of their radical agenda. They’ve gone too far, and they know it. They need someone to take a fall, and DeLay, the coverage of whose blatant malfeasance was getting ever more difficult to contain, was the best option. If they are successful in sticking him with the sole responsibility for the insidious wingnuttery that has gripped our Congress, they will be able to distance themselves from their agenda as its designated posterboy crumbles and return to promoting the same extremism behind the scenes, as they were before they crossed the line. What we cannot do is allow them to effectively use DeLay to draw a line between them and their abhorrent objectives. He was an operative—a damn successful one, but still just an operative nonetheless. They will want to use him as a scapegoat; it’s up to us to make sure everything they’ve done stays attached to them, and all sense of the need for accountability doesn’t leave with DeLay.

3. Make sure that a DeLay departure does not usurp media attention if Frist goes for the nuclear option. There would undoubtedly be a media frenzy surrounding a DeLay fall from grace; it would be the perfect time for Frist and his minions to surreptitiously pass, as Mr. Shakes calls it, the “this country is now a dictatorship” legislation, rendering filibusters obsolete.

Nothing happens in a vacuum with this administration. DeLay suddenly having lost his protection, finding himself naked, cold, and alone on the front page of the Washington Post, was not inevitable, not in this media climate. This is an orchestrated takedown, and you can bet your boots it’s a red herring for something. We’ve just got to make sure we keep our eyes peeled for exactly what that something is.

(Thanks to Oddjob for providing links.)

Good Stuff

Couple of random funny things to share…

#1: Ralph from Newsfare sent me the following email in response to my post about Title IX (reposted here with his permission):

Dear Shakespeare's Sister:

Several months ago, we tried to contact you by email. Our message was always returned, eg.,

No response from shakespearessis@ter.com

Since you did not respond to those emails, your athletic programs have been cancelled.

Would you and the other girls like to try having a bake sale to get them back? We can probably give you some card tables to put out the brownies and cookies. They are left over from the football team's awards luncheon.

Love,

Your College Administration

#2: Right after arriving home from work, my dear friend in London phoned, and, honestly, every time we speak, we both end up in absolute fits of giggles, which often begins with shooting Woody Allen lines back and forth like dueling machine guns, but tonight began with a discussion of reality shows, which both of us abhor (except for my inexplicable devotion to The Contender, my recommendation of which sparked the topic), during which he said:

“I’ll never understand the people who watch nothing but Big Brother and Survivor and all that. I get that there’s a sociological element to it—something compelling about studying human behavior—but you’ve got 2,000 years of western culture and civilization to choose from, and you decide to watch five baboons sitting on a couch scratching their armpits?! What a bunch of shite!”

Question of the Day (Fun)

After revealing my deep and abiding love for Morrissey, I’d love to hear about your favorites. Who’s the greatest performer ever (in your unhumble opinion)...and why?

When you're dancing and laughing and finally living,
Hear my voice in your head and think of me kindly.

Question of the Day (Practical)

My rank on the Ecosystem, which compiles rankings based on links, but only among other members, has tumbled almost 200 places in the last few days, even though I have more trackbacks than usual. I’ve noticed, however, that many of the people who link to me most often are not members of the Ecosystem. So here’s my question—does the Ecosystem matter?

(That’s not a philosophical question; I’m really curious to know whether people pay a lot of attention to it. I use it mostly to see who’s linked to me so I can thank them, but I don’t put it to much other practical use, perhaps to my detriment.)

Check It at the Door, Please

I’m officially sick of reading about religion in the political news.

This was the straw that broke this camel’s back: New Pope Could Influence Political Life in America. That’s the headline of a column by Adam Nagourney in yesterday’s NY Times, discussing Catholics’ role in American politics, which of course follows dozens? hundreds? of stories—especially when one adds in television coverage—examining the increasing role of religion in American politics and the alleged mandate given the president by religious conservatives. (And now I see the President will be attending the Pope’s funeral, even though he has yet to attend a single funeral of a fallen American soldier.) Although I’m all too aware of the church’s history of interference in political issues, the question is why, in a country that grants and protects freedom of religion, yet makes a provision for the separation of church and state, does the Christian church—in all its forms and denominations—continue to try to stick its big nose into the political sphere, and why do we, as a country, continue to engage the escalating noise coming from the religious? Religion simply shouldn’t play any role in the public discourse.

Despite its dodgy history of political activism, religion is meant only to inform the morality and ethics of its adherents, who can then bring their principles with them into the public (governmental) sphere—while leaving their religion behind. Easier said than done, Shakespeare’s Sister, someone, surely, will tell me, but I’m not entirely convinced that’s true.

You see, one of the things that irks me about the religious is that god-fearing people tend to decide what they believe, then shop around for a religion that suits. It’s rarely, in my experience, that someone tries to discern an objective truth about religious laws and beliefs and then adjusts their behavior accordingly. Rather, behaviors and beliefs are formed, either within or outwith a religious context, and then a denomination is chosen based on its ability to approximate the chooser’s existing beliefs. And even then, passages of the holy text of choice which conflict with personal values are generally ignored, with preference given to teachings that reinforce preexisting opinions. Hence, religion’s all-too-common role as a justification for ingrained beliefs.

I know this isn’t categorically true of all religious people, and I don’t mean to suggest that it is, but it’s true of enough people (and examples of those who can do just as I'm suggesting are plentiful enough) that I find specious the claim that a religious person cannot enter the public sphere and leave one’s religion behind.

The problem, obviously, is that we’ve permitted religion to become untrumpable. No amount of rational or scientific evidence is allowed to supersede faith, and simply by virtue of being “religious” is one assumed, even within the public sphere, to be a good person, even if they are resolutely unethical. There is no regard for a personal moral code derived from earthly sources; an atheist will never be president, in spite of the fact that someone who seeks to be a good person purely out of respect for other people, without promise of eternal reward, is arguably more altruistic.

Though it is not my personal choice, I won’t identify defining one’s sense of right and wrong using religion as intrinsically faulty; I do, however, strongly believe that the belief system one brings into the public sphere, even if molded and informed by religion, should be able to stand on its own without invoking its source. If you have no other justification for your political position than “God says so,” it doesn’t belong in the public sphere. Not in this country.

Just a Minute...

John's got a great post about the MinuteMan Project over at Big Brass Blog. Check it out.

Unpatriotic Act

What a convenient time for this to come up, amidst the continued uninterrupted coverage of Popeapalooza and nonstop attacks on the judiciary by Congress:

The Bush administration's two top law enforcement officials on Tuesday urged Congress to renew every provision of the anti-terror Patriot Act. FBI Director Robert Mueller also asked lawmakers to expand the bureau's ability to obtain records without first asking a judge.

[…]

"Experience has taught the FBI that there are no neat dividing lines that distinguish criminal, terrorist and foreign intelligence activity," Mueller said in his prepared testimony.

He also asked Congress to expand the FBI's administrative subpoena powers, which allow the bureau to obtain records without approval or a judge or grand jury.

The Patriot Act is the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers. Most of the law is permanent, but 15 provisions will expire in December unless renewed by Congress.

Senators Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, plan to reintroduce legislation which would adjust some of the more outrageous provisions of the Patriot Act. (Once again, I wonder if it’s possible to make the amazing Dick Durbin a household name by 2008.)

Among the controversial provisions is a section permitting secret warrants for "books, records, papers, documents and other items" from businesses, hospitals and other organizations.

That section is known as the "library provision" by its critics. While it does not specifically mention bookstores or libraries, critics say the government could use it to subpoena library and bookstore records and snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans.

[…]

Craig and Durbin want Congress to curb both expiring and nonexpiring parts of the Patriot Act, including the expiring "library" provision and "sneak and peek" or delayed notification warrants. Those warrants — which will not expire in December — allow federal officials to search suspects' homes without telling them until later.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that these provisions are integral parts of fighting terrorism and must remain available to authorities. I suppose he finds civil liberties kinda quaint.

I have yet to hear a compelling reason that necessitates granting these powers to the FBI without the involvement of a judge or grand jury. Suffice it to say, this is just another attack on the judiciary…and, insomuch as it is yet another elimination of an important layer in our system of checks and balances, an attack on the American democracy.

Stinks

I was invited (I have no idea how I got on the list!) to listen in on a conference call arranged by the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, regarding their plans for thwarting the threatened “nuclear option.” I was asked to give my real name, which I did, and my home phone number, which I did, and the name of my employer, which I would not, so I was brutally rebuffed. They wouldn’t accept me as an independent interest, even though I clearly got the invite as a blogger, and for no reason having to do with my paying gig. They apparently had no list of invitees to consult to confirm my reason for being there, and the name of blog wasn’t considered sufficient. I suppose I could have made something up, but, well, you know how I feel about liars.

It was truly sucky as I got to hear the first 10 minutes or so, and then they came back on the line to tell me to get lost, since not being affiliated with a particular company wasn’t good enough or something. The same crap credentials managed to get Jeff Gannon into the White House, but couldn’t get me on a conference call.

So I was hoping to have an awesome report for you this afternoon on this exceedingly interesting topic, but instead it’s just a bitch about how the opposition still doesn’t know how to organize things to get as many people involved as possible.

Mr. Popularity

Atrios notes:

According to Gallup, Bush's approval rating is the lowest of any president in March of their 2nd term - 45%.

A big part of the general deference the press gives this administration is based on this false notion that he's a popular president.

[…]

How low does Bush's approval have to go before WE STOP SAYING THAT.

Good question.

Of course, the supposition that the press defers to popular presidents doesn’t quite explain their treatment of Clinton, who was extremely popular yet was shown little but contempt by the press in his second term. There was, clearly, something worth covering, but I would argue there’s plenty more and then some worth covering about Bush and his Congressional minions.

The conventional wisdom about the press laying off Bush because he’s popular may be just as flawed as the underlying notion that Bush is popular. Bush & Co. are ruthless media manipulators and vengeful toward members of the press who write anything unfavorable about them. The press is cowed by the fear of retribution, end of story.

Well, maybe not totally the end of the story. It also has to do with media ownership, and the fact that being kind to Bush is far more likely to result in relaxed rules governing the aforementioned than being kind to Clinton ever would have.

And it might also have the teensiest, tiniest bit to do with the fact that the media is probably none to eager to face their own complicity in concealing the truth about this administration from the American people for the past four+ years.

Best Wishes, Peter Jennings

Peter Jennings, the chief ABC News anchorman for more than 20 years, has been diagnosed with lung cancer and will begin outpatient treatment next week, the network said Tuesday.

Attack on the Judiciary

Well, at least Conyers has some sense.

Tonight, my staff showed me a quote from Senator John Cornyn (found on Americablog) that speaks for itself: "And finally, I – I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news. And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence. Certainly without any justification but a concern that I have that I wanted to share."

This apparent effort to rationalize violence against judges is deplorable. On its face, while it contains doubletalk that simultaneously offers a justification for such violence and then claims not to, the fundamental core of the statement seems to be that judges have somehow brought this violence on themselves. This also carries an implicit threat: that if judges do not do what the far right wants them to do (thus becoming the "judicial activists" the far right claims to deplore), the violence may well continue.

If this is what Senator Cornyn meant to say, it is outrageous, irresponsible and unbecoming of our leaders. To be sure, I have disagreed with many, many court rulings. (For example, Bush v. Gore may well be the single greatest example of judicial activism we have seen in our lifetime.) But there is no excuse, no excuse, for a Member of Congress to take our discourse to this ugly and dangerous extreme.

My message is not subtle today. It is simple. To my Republican colleagues: you are playing with fire, you are playing with lives, and you must stop.

Girls Are Icky

In women’s war against the attempted shove backwards into the days of yore being legislatively coordinated by George Bush and pals, the newest frontier of the battle is Title IX—the landmark 1972 law prohibiting gender discrimination in any education program or school activity that receives federal funds, which led to fuller participation by girls in the classroom and on the playing field. From yesterday’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

One step forward, one step backward. Push and push back. It is ever thus in the struggle for human rights, in which progress, if any, is usually measured in millimeters.

[…]

[T]he Bush administration, without one public hearing, stealthily hacked away at Title IX with new guidelines that say colleges can comply by merely sending out e-mail surveys asking female students if they are interested in playing sports.

If there is little or no response, a school is free not to provide those sports opportunities. This change now trumps the three-way compliance test previously in force.

Under that test, compliance could be achieved by showing the percentage of female athletes was proportionate to female enrollment, the school had a pattern of expanding opportunities for women, or proving that the sports interests of women had been "fully and effectively" accommodated.

E-mail replies, or rather the lack of them, are going to determine whether women are granted access to a team in any given sport! A low response can be interpreted as no interest, and therefore no need, to provide equipment and access to gyms for women.

[…]

It is a pathetic excuse to evade the purpose of the law. The Department of Education has created a new loophole through which schools may return to the bad old days of denying women and girls an equal opportunity to participate in team sports. Decisions about who gets to play what sports are now in the hands of telemarketing techniques.

On a side note, this certainly seems to be a class issue as well; not every student has a personal computer which makes e-mail readily accessible at all times. In other words, the poorer you are, the less likely you are to receive and respond to the e-mail in time.

In what I feel can safely be classified as “not shocking,” Democrats and Republicans have vastly divergent reactions to Title IX.

Former Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., the author of Title IX, was outraged. "Sports is all about advancing the ball, but the Department of Education has thrown women's athletics to the back court," he said.

[…]

Generally, Title IX has worked -- other schools have largely addressed most unfairness issues. Millions of girls not only get the desired exercise but win valuable scholarships too. But conservatives such as House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a former wrestling coach, complained that to make room for women's programs some schools have killed minor male sports.

Two years ago, the Bush administration created a special commission to review the law and its social implications, stacked with Title IX opponents. But the administration underestimated the popularity of Title IX not just with girls but their daddies and mommies and the panel buckled under public pressure to protect the law.

The group could not come up with a consensus, although one recommendation was the one the administration has now sneakily adopted -- that compliance could be met simply by surveying students to determine their interests.

It's no coincidence the administration waited until after the election to pull the plug on women's sports.

It is well documented (plug any combination of girls, sports, and self esteem into your search engine of choice) that girls, on average, suffer greater losses of self esteem during adolescence than boys, but girls who are involved in sports have less trouble struggling with self esteem issues than girls who don’t. (The same is true of boys who are involved in sports.) This makes it imperative to make sports available and accessible to girls—as opposed to attempts to undermine girls’ participation so as to reserve greater funding for boys.

I understand Hastert’s frustration that there are schools who may need to cut a boys’ sport with less interest (say, lacrosse) to make room for a girls’ sport with greater interest (say, basketball), but his ire is misplaced. Neither the boys’ lacrosse team nor the girls’ basketball team should have to suffer. If he’s concerned about school funding, he would do well to look to his party’s continued tax cuts for the wealthy and pork barrel spending during wartime, ballooning state deficits, and his president’s unfunded education mandate, which puts an increased financial burden on schools. Women’s interests have been sacrificed enough in deference to men’s success. If the boys’ lacrosse team is getting left behind, it isn’t up to the girls’ basketball team to save them.

The Beast’s 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2004

Oh my god.

This is so fucking hilarious, I nearly pissed myself laughing. I have no idea whether this has already circulated around the internet three thousand times, but just in case there’s anyone who hasn’t seen it (like I hadn’t), you must go.

I can’t decide which is my favorite, but this has to be up there (it’s the “Punishment” that really got me):

40. Laura Bush

Crimes: Oh the first lady, what an inspiration she must be to android researchers everywhere. Smile, nod, smile, (look interested) nod, put on $50,000 dress, suck off the president and there you have a typical day for the first lady. Corporate yes-wives like her will hasten the coming of mandated burkas for American women. Actually looks related to George, which might explain their mongoloid children.

Smoking Gun: She married George Bush.

Punishment: Chugging a gallon of stem cells on Fear Factor.

Good lord. I’m weeping.

(Hat tip to Mr. Furious' hubby, Mr. Curious.)

Random Bitchin'

Nothing is inspiring me to write this evening, so I’ll share with you a conversation I had with a local police officer, part of whose job is to go undercover to a gay pick-up area near the lake and bust men, usually married ones, who are living on the down low.

“There’s a special place in hell for you, where you’ll be buggered for all eternity by the men you collared.”

“Probably.”

“You know, what difference does it make? These guys aren’t hurting anyone. And if people weren’t so homophobic, they probably wouldn’t be doing that.”

“I know, but it’s against the law.”

“Do you ever get turned on while you’re doing it?”

“Shut the fuck up.”

“Isn’t there any other crime you could be stopping? Maybe they need to fire your asses and fix the potholes.”

This is the kind of shit that drives me fucking bonkers. Far be it from me to defend infidelity; it’s not good for a whole lot of reasons, not the least of which is the potential of a careless cheat to bring home a disease to an unwitting spouse—and in the days of deadly STDs, that’s no small matter. But the cops aren’t out tracking cheating husbands who are running around with other women, or cheating wives who are running around with other men (or other women, for that matter); even when cuckolding couples are caught in public, they’re usually sent home with a stern warning, not taken to jail and thoroughly humiliated by having their names printed in the paper. In fact, I’d wager one or two of the cops involved in such sting operations have dabbled in the adulterous arts, but that, of course, is different.

I’m totally annoyed that my tax dollars are being put to work to harass and embarrass gay men. Does it matter to my life or this community one way or another if a couple of dudes get it on in the woods, miles away from anything? Not a bit.

I would, however, be eminently pleased if the giant pothole in front of my house was fixed.

Dominionism, Part 2

Well, I’d almost forgotten about this, but there’s a fantastic report on the rise of Dominionism in the US here, originally brought to my attention awhile ago by Mr. Furious, to give credit where credit is due. This report was written by Katherine Yurica, an investigative reporter with expertise in the politicization of the religious right, who was also commissioned by the House Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Ways and Means Committee to complete a study as part of their investigation into whether television and radio ministries were violating their tax-exempt status by virtue of their political activities.

Basically, she’s no dummy. And no hyperbolic conspiracy theorist.

“The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State” is a long article, but well worth your time to read—and, clearly, far more comprehensive than I would have been able to put together in short order. I’m interested to hear the thoughts/reactions of anyone who takes the time to check it out.

Congressional Dominionists: The Wingnuttery Escalates

Emboldened, I suppose, by the president’s alleged mandate, the public’s willingness to be increasingly tolerant of extremism as long as its roots are religious, and the media’s new love affair with all things God, some of the wingnuttiest members of the Senate have decided to attempt to turn us into a Christian Reconstructionist theocracy once and for all and have introduced the Constitutional Restoration Act.

Though it is described as a “bill to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism,” reading its actual summary proves enlightening as to its true intent: this legislation seeks to make it possible for Congress to remove any judge who refuses to acknowledge that the basis for all law, liberty, and government is God.

Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution. (Emphasis mine; hat tip Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast.)

(An identical bill has been introduced in the House.)

Okay, the time has come to pull out the tinfoil hats for those who still bother with those things and have a big discussion of the rise of Dominionsism (or Christian Reconstructionsim) in America. But first, I have to finish up my work day, go home, have a Stewart’s Orange Cream soda, and then I will endeavor to bring us all up to speed on how this is not the beginning of a new trend, but the culmination of a long struggle by these nutjobs. Having been particularly interested in this subject for awhile now, let’s just say this doesn’t really surprise me at all—which is not to say that I am still not scared and infuriated by it. (I don't think it has a chance in hell of passing, but it's notable that it's being attempted nonetheless.)

So, more later, as time allows, and I’ll give you this to chew on for the interim…regular Shakers will no doubt have noticed that I tend to harp on a lot about social Darwinism. Well, here’s why: social Darwinism is a political extension of Dominionism, which itself seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite using their interpretation of biblical law as the one true source of law, liberty, and government.

Sound familiar? If not, try rereading paragraph three.

Gunning for Trouble

In a NY Times article which examines the absurdity of our nation’s gun laws, we find out that, in a realization of our worst fears, terrorists are taking advantage of some of the shocking gaps that remain in the legislation, which inarguably has swung too far toward protecting the most expansive interpretation of the second amendment and away from national security concerns:

If a background check shows that you are an undocumented immigrant, federal law bars you from buying a gun. If the same check shows that you have ties to Al Qaeda, you are free to buy an AK-47. That is the absurd state of the nation's gun laws, and a recent government report revealed that terrorist suspects are taking advantage of it…

The Government Accountability Office examined F.B.I. and state background checks for gun sales during a five-month period last year. It found 44 checks in which the prospective buyer turned up on a government terrorist watch list. A few of these prospective buyers were denied guns for other disqualifying factors, like a felony conviction or illegal immigration status. But 35 of the 44 people on the watch lists were able to buy guns.

[…]

Keeping terror suspects from buying guns seems like an issue the entire nation can rally around. But the National Rifle Association is, as usual, fighting even the most reasonable regulation of gun purchases. After the G.A.O. report came out, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s executive vice president, took to the airwaves to reiterate his group's commitment to ensuring that every citizen has access to guns, and to cast doubt on the reliability of terrorist watch lists.

Unfortunately, the N.R.A. - rather than the national interest - is too often the driving force on gun policy in Congress, particularly since last November's election. Even after the G.A.O.'s disturbing revelations, the Senate has continued its work on a dangerous bill to insulate manufacturers and sellers from liability when guns harm people. If it passes, as seems increasingly likely, it will remove any fear a seller might have of being held legally responsible if he provides a gun used in a terrorist attack.

In the interest of full disclosure, I frankly believe the second amendment was written at a time when gun ownership was a necessity in a way it is not today; I don’t believe that owning a gun is warranted, unless for the purposes of hunting, a hobby I personally find distasteful, but would not seek to deny others’ rights to pursue. In any case, I take no political issue with the second amendment in and of itself (its interpretation and application are where my problems lie), and no stand against the existence of a group like the NRA, which seeks to ensure Americans are guaranteed the right extended by said amendment.

I do, however, have a big, fat problem with the NRA's tactics and with the gun laws in this country, for the reasons outlined in the above-cited article, and, as I’ve mentioned in a comments thread here before, my biggest issue with America’s gun laws is this: I could own a gun.

I have no business owning a gun—I would have no idea how to properly use it, load it, clean it, or store it. I have no earthly reason to need a gun, either—I live in a low crime area, I have a secure home (touch wood), I’m not a hunter, I’m not in a job that creates enemies and necessitates extraordinary self-protection, etc. No knowledge of guns, no reason for a gun, and likely one of the poor dopes who, if face to face with an intruder, would end up having my own gun used against me. Yet, I could have a gun in my possession in a matter of days. That’s some faulty legislation.

Now, I know that gun aficionados will tell me that most gun owners are responsible people who do know how to properly use, load, clean, and store their weapons, and that they have a legitimate reason for owning them, whether it’s home security or sport. And I’m sure that’s true. I’m sure that most gun owners are responsible; sheerly by virtue of the number of guns we have in this country, it must be. But why should potential gun owners not be compelled to show such competency before being issued a weapon? Patent lunacy. Bad policy.

Soon after Mr. Shakes moved to the US, he walked down to a local superstore, which he found endlessly fascinating—“You can buy groceries and giant tractor tires in the same place?!” Being from Britain, he was particularly intrigued by the racks of guns for sale, right next to sporting goods, which was right next to toys. When he returned home that day, he said to me, amazed, “I’ve just found out the price of murder in America: $302. Two dollars for a hunting license. Three hundred dollars for a rifle.”

$302 and very little else standing between a person with murder on his mind and the means to do it.

Even, apparently, if he's on a terrorist watch list.

Must-Read

Pam writing at Big Brass Blog on some incredibly scary legislation up for debate in San Francisco that would require all local bloggers to register with the city’s Ethics Commission. (!)

Action information contained within the post.

(Also posted at Pam's House Blend.)

Why I Hate Bill O’Reilly with a Fiery Passion that Burns Brighter than 10,000 Suns: Part 1,452,595

Think Progress (emphasis theirs):

Recently, Bill O’Reilly has heaped praise on Pope John Paul II. Here is O’Reilly on the Factor last Thursday:

But I do know that I’ve studied this pope as well as I’ve studied anybody. And I can’t find anything, anything that this guy didn’t walk the walk. You know, right down the line. Nobody’s perfect, but this guy was close in his personal behavior and the way he conducted himself.

O’Reilly was not so kind, however, when the Pope expressed his opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He launched into this diatribe on the March 12, 2003 edition of the O’Reilly Factor:

But as I’ve said before, I believe also that John Paul is naive and detached from reality. If America does not lead an attack on Iraq, once again, Saddam remains in power and is free to use his anthrax and other terrible weapons as he chooses.

So the pope does not seem to be concerned about that or about Saddam’s behavior in general. Once again, he must know Saddam is a killer. He must know he’s oppressed his own people using murder and torture. He must know that.

[Snip]

Summing up, Jacques Chirac is our enemy, and the pope, well, I don’t know what to think.

Damn, I totally detest that guy.

Meanwhile, if I recall correctly, O’Reilly actually supports civil unions for the LGBT community, which surely means he would have had some issue with a man who called gay marriage “part of a new ideology of evil.” Usually Bill doesn’t take too kindly to people who cast his views in with an ideology of evil.

Ah, well. Dear, dear Bill O’Reilly: whore, liar, and fair-weather friend.

Question of the Day

As we are all painfully aware, the past few weeks, the news has been dominated by the culture of life crowd, first with the Schiavo fiasco, and now with Popeapalooza.

Well, all you news-savvy Shakers, which recent political story has been drowned out by the no-news-but-God-news over the past couple of weeks that you'd like to have seen get more attention?

Help Needed

I’m trying to locate an Abraham Lincoln quote, in which he addressed the desire of the leaders of the confederacy not just to win, but to have the union completely and utterly capitulate philosophically as well, to achieve satisfaction. Is anyone familiar with that quote? My searches have come up empty, because I can’t remember enough exact words to have a proper look for it.

In the meantime, here's another good quote from the man himself for your consideration:

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny.

Once you've managed to rid your mind of all the unavoidable sexual connotations embedded in the language, take a moment to reflect upon the fact that it's the GOP who are ostensibly the party of Lincoln. I'm awaiting the headline from the Hong Kong Times confirming that Lincoln has spun himself straight through the core of the earth.

“I’ve Never Done This Before”

Via CommonSenseDesk, Across the Great Divide’s Charlie Quimby posts an interesting little essay on the slippery slope of lying to oneself. Give it a read, and discuss in comments, should you have any inclination.

It's Fun to Shoot People

One of the biggest private security firms in Iraq has created outrage after a memo to staff claimed it is 'fun' to shoot people.

Emails seen by The Observer reveal that employees of Blackwater Security were recently sent a message stating that 'actually it is "fun" to shoot some people.'

Dated 7 March and bearing the name of Blackwater's president, Gary Jackson, the electronic newsletter adds that terrorists 'need to get creamed, and it's fun, meaning satisfying, to do the shooting of such folk.'

Human rights groups said yesterday that the comments raised fresh questions over the role of civilian contractors operating in Iraq and other world flashpoints.

[…]

The controversial wording of the Blackwater bulletin appears to be an attempt to criticise the 'righteous outcry' that followed a recent statement from a senior US Marine general who, on returning home from Iraq, claimed it was 'fun to shoot some people'. While the views of Lieutenant-General James Mattis drew a frosty response from the Pentagon, others said his observations reflected the harsh realities of war.

Blackwater's entry to the debate appears to suggest that satisfaction can be drawn from combat if 'the bad guys' get what they deserve.

'All of us who have ever waited through an hour and a half movie, or read some 300 pages of a thriller, to the point when the bad guys finally get their comeuppance know this perfectly well,' says the opening address of the six-page bulletin, which The Observer believes to be authentic.

I don’t even know what to say about this. It’s just really too disappointing for words.

DeLaycious

The beginning of the end for Tom DeLay?

Sign #1:

Cheney said he backed efforts to help save Terri Schiavo’s life, but strongly disagreed with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who wants retribution against judges who blocked restoration of her feeding tube.

“I don’t think that’s appropriate . . . There’s a reason why judges get lifetime appointments.”

When the satanic cyborg known as Dick Cheney utters the words “I don’t think that’s appropriate” about the behavior of someone in his own party, you know that particular someone has seriously pushed the envelope further than anyone previously thought it would stretch.

Sign #2:

Even back in Sugarland, Texas, Tom DeLay’s conduct in the Terri Schiavo case isn’t going over well. The Houston Chronicle reports this morning on a poll the paper conducted in DeLay’s congressional district:

[N]early 69 percent of people in the poll, including substantial majorities of Democrats and Republicans, said they opposed the government’s intervention in the longstanding [Schiavo] family battle. Respondents in the Chronicle survey also were critical of DeLay’s individual role. Nearly 58 percent disapproved of his decision to get Congress involved.

Many of DeLay’s constituents believe his involvement in the case was a political ploy:

Republican Barbara Sanderson, 64, of Pecan Grove, said the affair contributed to her opinion of DeLay sinking from “very, very, very favorable” to something considerably less rosy. “I think that it was a high-profile political ploy used by a lot of people, and I hate to see our president get involved,” she said. “It’s embarrassing.” DeLay argued that his morals guided him in the case of Schiavo, who died Thursday. But nearly half of those polled said he intervened in the case for political gain.

Add to Darth Cheney’s reaction the fact that the idiots who voted the sickening heap of human garbage Tom DeLay into office are now souring on him, and what you get (one fervently hopes) is the makings of the end of this bloated scumbag.

The only thing I worry about is whether DeLay’s inevitable implosion will either serve as a red herring to distract from Frist pushing through the nuclear option, or a scapegoat for the radical agenda the entire GOP has been complicit in advancing. Well, we’ll just have to keep our eyes on the ball, as the MSM can, of course, not be trusted to do so anymore.

Come on, Shakers—you know the song by now…sing along!

Oh, how I look forward to the beautiful day,
That marks the end of his powerful sway,
When he’s found guilty as charged and taken away,
And the House can commence without further DeLay…

Seeing the Forest...

...has moved to http://seeingtheforest.com/. Update your blogrolls!

Also, Mother Jones Blog has been added to the blogroll.

The Songs That Saved Your Life

Okay, I know this is a totally wev post for most of the readers who pass this way, but it’s 5:00 in the morning, I’m suffering another bout of insomnia, and so this is the perfect post for me at the moment.

As has been mentioned here before, the name of this blog comes not from the shitty band of the same name, but from a Smiths’ b-side. To say that I am a Smiths/Morrissey fan is to say that there was some vague interest in the Schiavo fiasco. The truth is, my entire life since my early teenage years has been set to a Smiths/Morrissey soundtrack (with occasional interruptions by the likes of Bowie, Suede, Siouxsie, Robert Smith, Pulp, Shudder to Think, Blur, The Flaming Lips, et al). I remember seeing the video for How Soon Is Now on 120 Minutes, and recall the first time I heard Viva Hate in its gorgeous entirety and knew my life would never be the same. I know every lyric, every note, every nuance of Morrissey’s voice and what the differences are between multiple recordings of the same track. I haven’t missed a Morrissey show in Chicago since he went solo, I won tickets to the Chicago release party of Your Arsenal, I attended the video shoot for Glamorous Glue at Kingston Mines, and I’ve stood in line for hours waiting to see him at Tower Records. When asked how I can listen to the same albums over and over and over again without ever remotely tiring of them, I can’t explain. It’s the music, yes, and Morrissey’s breathtakingly beautiful lyrics, yes, and the themes—gender, sexuality, class, politics, history, literature, yes. But it’s more than that, too. These songs are as familiar, as much a part of me, as my own thoughts. I sing Smiths songs in my sleep.

I have a dear friend in London who buys all the British music rags, and cuts out all the articles about the Smiths and Morrissey for me, which periodically arrive in long brown envelopes—my own personal magazine. The other day, he sent me an email that contained a link to the coolest story:

Iconic 1980s indie group The Smiths are to be studied at an academic conference in Manchester, their home town.

The four-piece band, led by famously miserable singer Morrissey, will be analysed by scholars from around the world for two days next week.

The symposium, called Why Pamper Life's Complexities, will aim to assess the band's social, cultural, political and musical impact.

The Smiths are considered one of the most influential bands of the decade.

The academics will reflect on the influence of Morrissey's lyrics on gender and sexuality, race and nationality and the imagination of class.

The band will also be discussed in terms of aesthetics, fan cultures and musical innovation at Manchester Metropolitan University on 8 and 9 April.

What I wouldn’t give to be there!

The funny thing is, my degree is in sociopolitical anthropology, with an emphasis on the marginalization of gender-based political groups, and when I was at university, I was (as I am still) the laziest fucker on the planet. Not intellectually, mind you—I adored going to class and writing papers, but this was in the early 90s, just before the age of finding anything and everything you need on the internet, and the never-ending paper assignments (40 pages on this, 30 pages on that) necessitated scores of research. The university library, however, was a mess, making research tedious, and, more importantly, I had some serious slothfulness with which to contend, so I developed a habit of writing as many papers as possible using resources that could be found on the floor of my dorm room—namely NME, Select, and Rolling Stone. Sometimes, I just couldn’t swing it, but if the topic was gender roles in the workplace, I would write a paper about gender-bending rock stars; if the topic was male applications of feminism, I would write a paper tracing the rise of feminism in male-authored Britpop lyrics. And the great thing was, my professors thought I was a bloody genius. My work was always solid, and I gave them something original and interesting to read, for a change.

I can’t even begin to imagine how many papers I turned in that cited Steven Patrick Morrissey as a source. And now I find out that there’s actually an academic conference being organized to analyze the Smiths. I wasn’t lazy; I was a trailblazer!

Surely I should have been asked to attend. Harrumph!

Andy, Johnny, Mozz, and Mike.

Go Team!

Recently, Shaker Paul of Adventures of the Smart Patrol and I realized that I had seen him in a play years ago, which was quite a surreal experience, and it happened to be a play I really liked (very funny stuff). In honor of this crossing of fates, he posted one of his speeches from the play, which was about the role of women in the future world:

"You see Grody, a long, long time ago, a woman...became President! She fucked it up big time, and the whole world was thrown into chaos!

But! Fortunately, a group of men known only today as...The Elders... assasinated her, and had all the women rounded up into concentration camps! They decided that woman had to be... redefined. So The Elders pondered... brainstormed for woman's ideal societal funtion.. and came up with... CHEERLEADERS!

And, so, all the women were interviewed, and naturally there was a bathing suit competition... and all the aggresive, or ambitions, or ugly women were put to death! And the rest of course has simply been a matter of control, through economics, and breeding, and rabbit punches!"

It got me to thinking, maybe this futuristic Brave New World wasn’t a result of a woman being president, but instead, a cheerleader being president, which over the generations was understandably misinterpreted as a woman having been president.

Just a thought.

An actual photo of George Bush
during his cheerleading days.

Pope Stuff

Today, President Bush called the Pope a “champion of human dignity,” and if you were poor, suffering under Soviet tyranny in Eastern Europe, or facing the death penalty, you’d probably agree. But if you were gay, or a victim of a priest who sexually assaulted you, or a woman who wanted to be a good Catholic and leave an unhappy marriage or have a career that wasn’t interrupted repeatedly by childbirth, or a priest wrestling with celibacy, or a pregnant victim of rape or incest, you’d probably disagree, because the Pope didn’t particularly care about your dignity, your needs, or the realities of your life. The same, of course, can be said for Bush—and then some—so it’s no wonder he views the Pope that way.

However, I believe that to recognized as a champion of human dignity, you’ve got to care equally about the dignity of all humans, and not be selective in your advocacy of equality or your protection of victims, conveniently excluding those who have been victimized by your own hand. So while I acknowledge that Pope John Paul II has indeed done some good things, you will not find me among those who choose to celebrate his legacy.

Consider this my eulogy for whenever he passes on. I only hope the Catholic Church seeks to find in his replacement one who truly earns the accolade unjustly bestowed by our president this morning, although I won’t hold my breath.

[UPDATE: He's gone.]

Government Searches: Be Very Afraid

MSNBC reports that government wiretaps and searches are up 75% (emphasis mine):

Since passage of the Patriot Act, the FBI can use such warrants in investigations that aren’t mostly focused on foreign intelligence.

Operating with permission from a secretive U.S. court that meets regularly at Justice headquarters, the FBI has used such warrants to break into homes, offices, hotel rooms and automobiles, install hidden cameras, search luggage and eavesdrop on telephone conversations. Agents also have pried into safe deposit boxes, watched from afar with video cameras and binoculars and intercepted e-mails.

This is, of course, what happens when an irrational and fearful electorate and a cowed opposition party give the controlling party unlimited powers to enact legislation like the Patriot Act.

As I’ve said before, I find directly equating Bush and Hitler to be unnecessarily inflammatory and, hence, unproductive. However, there is indeed a use for using our knowledge of history to draw comparisons between what happened in Germany in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, as is slipped from a democracy into a dictatorship, and what is happening in America today, because the similarities, unfortunately, warrant it.

Most Americans have forgotten that Hitler came to power legally. He and the Nazi Party were elected democratically in a time of great national turmoil and crisis. They themselves had done much to cause the turmoil, of course, but that's what makes the Bush comparison so compelling.

Similar to the Bush administration, the Nazis were funded and ultimately ushered into power by wealthy industrialists looking for government favors in the form of tax breaks, big subsidies, and laws to weaken the rights of workers. When the Reichstag (Germany's Parliament building) was set ablaze in 1933 (probably by Nazis), the Nazis framed their political rivals for it. In the general panic that followed, the German Parliament was purged of all left-wing representatives who might be soft on communists and foreigners, and the few who remained then VOTED to grant Chancellor Hitler dictatorial powers. A long, hideous nightmare had begun.

History teaches us that it is shockingly easy to separate reasonable and intelligent people from their rights. A legally elected leader and party can easily manipulate national events to whip up fear, crucify scapegoats, gag dissenters, and convince the masses that their liberties must be suspended (temporarily, of course) in the name of restoring order.

The reaction to the burning of the Reichstag was the Ermächtigungsgesetz, or the Enabling Act, which was officially called the “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.” It, too, permitted the encroachment upon the people’s civil liberties in the name of national security.

At the time of the passage of the Patriot Act, opponents claimed it would be used for ulterior means than protecting national security, under a cloak of secrecy. The ACLU noted:

Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.

Compare with this from MSNBC’s report:

Details about some FBI surveillance efforts last year emerge from court records spread across different cases. But only a fraction of such warrants each year result in any kind of public disclosure, so little is known outside classified circles about how they work.

Scary stuff.

(Of course, as noted by John at Big Brass Blog, in another useful look at what the past can tell us about the present, Germany's leader served his country's working class well and actually did support his troops, giving them more than lip service, so, in a great irony, treating his own people worse than Hitler did may serve to keep Bush from ever being as bad for the rest of the world as Hitler was.)

Economic Wonkery: Do Not Be Afraid

John and the Dark Wraith have an excellent discussion going on at Big Brass Blog about oil prices. I highly recommend it, including the exchanges in the comments threads.

For those who aren’t regular readers of the Dark Wraith, aside from his superb contributions in the comments threads here at Shakespeare’s Sister, he provides an invaluable service at Big Brass Blog and especially his own blog (linked above and on my blogroll), which is making economic issues understandable—and not intimidating—even for the least economically wonky among us.

My education and experience lend themselves primarily to being a competent commenter on social issues, but I rely heavily on to Dark Wraith (and Mr. Shakes, who tends to contribute more there than here, being an economics wonk) to inform myself about economic issues. I encourage you to give some of your time (if you’re not already) to the Dark Wraith each day, because you won’t find a better place to learn about the fiscal issues we face.

Riddler

In the previous thread about coming up with a nickname for me, Elayne Riggs suggested that I should just use my real name. Truthfully, I have no real desire for people to not know my real name; when I started this blog, choosing the moniker Shakespeare’s Sister was about branding. I thought it would help when I left comments elsewhere to reinforce the blog name.

But instead of just revealing my secret identity, I thought I’d turn it into a little game. (Pam, Ms. Julien, Dark Wraith – no fair just giving up the goods!)

Here are your clues:

1. I can sting.

2. I grow green.

3. I’m an ace news slam.

Have fun!

RIP Mitch Hedberg

I’m so sad. I really liked Mitch Hedberg a lot.

Mitch Hedberg, a Minnesota-born comedian who worked in nightclubs, television and film in a wide-ranging career, died in New Jersey, his family said. He was 37.

Hedberg, who struggled with drugs and alcohol, died Wednesday in a hotel room in Livingston, N.J.

Pending the medical examiner's report, the cause of death appears to be heart failure, said his mother, Mary Hedberg. She said her son was born with a heart defect and frequently felt anxious about his condition.

Mary Hedberg said speculation that her son's death was drug-related was gossip.

"We don't know that for a fact," she said, but added, "it's not a secret Mitch used drugs. Whether that played a role in his death or not, we don't know."

Goodbye, Mitch.

Question of the Day (Extremely Slow News Day Edition)

Mr. Shakes feels weird calling me “Sis,” since I’m his wife and all. I feel weird when I’m called “SS,” because it makes me feel like a Nazi. So Paul suggests we have a contest to come up with an agreed-upon nickname.

I usually refer to myself as Shakes; sometimes people go with Sister (although that does feel a little “get thee to a nunnery” to me). So, what do you think? What should the official nickname of your resident bloggrrl be?

Oh Manchester, So Much to Answer For

Organizers of a major erotic festival are closing for business in Manchester due to a lack of interest, which they blame on recalcitrant northern English men.
Erotica Manchester opened on Friday, selling a range of sex aids, clothing and footwear, but ticket sales have been poor and organizers say they will not be coming back.

"We've tried to warm this city up for more than two years but northerners just haven't responded in sufficient numbers," said event director Savvas Christodoulou.

"They are happy enough to come to our London event in the autumn but they seem embarrassed about being seen at Erotica Manchester."

Organizers said their research shows northern women wanted to attend the three-day adult show but were "under the thumb of their other halves."

"We thought Manchester was an open minded city but maybe we were wrong," a spokesman for the event told Reuters. "People flock to our show in London but it seems that up here, the traditional northern male still calls the shots."

Maybe it’s because belligerent ghouls run Manchester schools. In any case, I’m sure it’s somehow Morrissey’s doing. Because the world revolves around Mozz.

Hello, darling. My, what a big gun you have.

Touché

Is there any other news going on in the world besides the Pope death watch?! Fuck!

In other non-news, I just did something incredibly satisfying over at Big Brass Blog, at which I had crossposted my rant about the GOP having declared war on the judiciary. Some douche left the following in the comments thread:

Hi guys,

Can someone explain to me why the status of the judiciary is under threat? I don't get it. As far as I can tell the debate will focus on clarifying the laws which the judiciary is there to interpret. Sure, there's some emotive talk, but essentially it'll all be about the laws and perhaps senate going through the judicial nominees. All stuff that is perfectly legal and correct under our separation of powers.

ON another note, I also don't understand why prohibiting gay and lesbian marriage is unconstitutional. Please explain. Any help in understanding these issues greatly appreciated.

So I left a response, in which I (foolishly) tried to explain both issues, to which the douche replied, in part:

Gay marriage - wow! Why should someone who makes a sexual choice that excludes the possibility of getting married be granted the rights and priviledges of a married person? Why should the long standing tradition of marriage (which is not unfair or prejudicial in itself - it merely is), be changed to accomodate the sexual preferences of a minority? Why don't we change the law so that polygamous groups are entitled to be married - surely the discrimination against polygamy must end!

Homosexuality is a minority sexual preference / choice - just like polygamy and even beastiality. Marriage is an institution celebrating the union of a man and a woman. The majority sexual choice. It is the building block of a society, giving stability to a relationship by the legal recognition of it as an entity...

On and on and on the douche went, spelling errors and all, raving like a lunatic. I should have realized that the original question was a set-up, but eager to be informative, I walked right into the douche’s trap. Still, I gave it one more go, to which I received, again, in part:

You guys are real ignorant.

And you really do twist reality to your way of thinking. I see that there's no discussion on the matter with you, SS.

You have beliefs which you can't back up. You don't answer criticism - you just ignore it or talk around issues raised.

Polygamy - should we allow polygamist marriages??

Et cetera. So I just replied:

See, the thing is—I'm just so tired of having this conversation. And no matter how thoughtful and well-explained and reasonable my position is, you don't really want to understand it. You just want to tell me that I'm wrong and you're right. So consider it done. I understand that you want me to know that you think I'm wrong and you're right.

There. I'm officially told off that I'm an idiot, and you're still a fucking bigot, and I just saved both of us three hours. Ta.

And it felt really good.

It's a Man's Man's Man's Man's World

You’ve got to read this.

Pam always manages to find the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts hiding in their dark little corners of the virtual world.

The Political Food Fight Continues (Literally)

This is, of course, not an endorsement of such antics, but nonetheless, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!

Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad dressing.

“Stop the bigotry!" the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid Thursday night during the program at Western Michigan University. The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana.

After he was hit, Buchanan cut short his question-and-answer session with the audience, saying, "Thank you all for coming, but I'm going to have to get my hair washed."

[…]

Kristol, editor of the influential conservative magazine The Weekly Standard and former chief of staff to Vice President Quayle, was splattered by a student during a speech Tuesday at Earlham College in Richmond, Ind.

Members of the audience at the Quaker college jeered the student, then applauded as Kristol wiped the pie from his face and said, "Just let me finish this point." Kristol then completed his speech and took questions from the audience.

The only question I have is, whatever happened to rotten tomatoes?

[Apologies for the wanton slap-happiness today.]

Yeah, Yeah, I Know; I’m Going to Hell

Pope Is Ready to Die

Well, whaddaya know? The Pope and I actually agree on something. I’m ready for him to die, too.

Is it too much to hope that with the religious right's holy woman-child icon Terri Schiavo having died, and Falwell and Popesy looking ready to keel at any moment, that this is finally evidence that there is no God, or that if there is, he's not taking calls from the wingnuts anymore?

Meanwhile, Pam reports that Rotting CryptkeeperTM Fred Phelps is already planning to picket Jerry Falwell’s funeral. I guess no matter how hard he tried, Falwell just couldn’t hate fags as much as Phelps does.

Is It Just Me...

...or do you get the feeling that Big Brother is watching you over at Big Brass Blog today?

Friday Limerick

Santorum, Bush, Rove, and DeLay
Endeavor to have their own way,
To rule the whole land
With vile sleight of hand
And make every day a Fools Day.

Friday Blogrollin’

I’m doing something new this week. I’m dividing blogrolling into two categories—those blogs that may be familiar names already, and those whose blogs are perhaps not part of your daily travels, who have caught my eye for one reason or another and I want to recommend. I’d also like to say, once again, that sometimes it takes me awhile to get blogs I like on the blogroll, and sometimes I just plain old forget. (A brain like a steel sieve, mine.) So it never hurts to email me if you’ve got something you think I would like.

The Big Guns:

Billmon’s Whiskey Bar
Liberal Oasis
Norbizness
Sadly, No!
Think Progress
War and Piece (Laura Rozen)

Deserving of Wider Recognition:

The Adventures of the Smart Patrol
Lab Kat
True Blue Liberal

[UPDATE: Fixed to give Lab Kat the right link. Sorry, Kat!]