LOL. Just watch.
(Via The Daily Background.)
Dem Nominating Calendar to Change
Democrats shook up tradition on Saturday by vaulting Nevada and South Carolina into the first wave of 2008 presidential contests along with Iowa and New Hampshire — a move intended to add racial and geographic diversity to the early voting.The DNC also “adopted sanctions to punish presidential candidates by penalizing who campaign in states that cut in line.” The candidates who campaign in line-jumping states would then “not get any delegates from those contests.” Which, of course, doesn’t mean much for a small state like New Hampshire, with few delegates to offer in the first place.
…Party officials embraced the change, though New Hampshire Democrats joined several likely presidential candidates and former President Clinton in opposing the move.
…New Hampshire objected loudly to the lineup and has threatened to leapfrog over the other contests to retain its pre-eminent role.
"The DNC did not give New Hampshire its primary, and it is not taking away," New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch said. Secretary of State William Gardner has said he will decide next year whether to move the New Hampshire primary earlier.
…Other Democrats agreed the schedule needed change, but argued the selection of Nevada and South Carolina ignored the populous and union heavy industrial rust belt.
What a mess. That’s really all I can say.
What’s Bush smoking?
And who in his right mind is listening to this dogwank and nodding in grave agreement?
Freedom has brought hope to millions, and it's helped foster the development of young democracies from Baghdad to Beirut.He then wrapped up his weekly radio address with “Doubleplusgood, bitchez! Bush: Out.”
Yet these young democracies are still fragile, and the forces of terror are seeking to stop liberty's advance and steer newly free nations to the path of radicalism. The terrorists fear the rise of democracy because they know what it means for the future of their hateful ideology.
(Via Blah3.)
“My kidney belongs to Christ.”
Aleta Smith, who donated her kidney to a 20-year-old college student last year, wants it back now that the student has changed religions.Then everything went pear-shaped. Felks went on a “spiritual journey” which took her to three continents, and eventually settled on “a blend of Pagan and Hindu beliefs.” Shortly thereafter, she received a letter from Smith, who is now “on fire” for a different reason—because part of her body is “stuck inside a person who’s going to hell.” She’s plagued with nightmares of her former kidney having to filter “strange Asian teas, pig blood and witch doctor brews in Africa.” And then there are the niggling questions of whether she confused the Lord’s will for what was maybe just a “triple-espresso high” she had on the morning she decided to donate the kidney, and whether her body will now be incomplete when resurrected.
Smith, a self-described "on-fire Christian," gave her kidney to Hannah Felks, a Lutheran and regular Christian camp counselor, last year after seeing Felks on the local news.
"She was going to die unless she got a kidney," Smith says, sitting on the porch at her home. "They portrayed her as this nice Christian girl who works with kids. I saw it as a great opportunity to help a sister in the Lord."
The surgery grabbed headlines and Smith was lauded for her selflessness.
"I'm all for spiritual curiosity," [Smith] says, "but you've got to settle these things beforehand. My kidney belongs to Christ. It will never be Pagan."Something tells me that the meaning of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is lost on Ms. Smith. Basic understandings of either Paganism or Hinduism seem lost to the same void. Then again, maybe she just needs to cut back on the caffeine.
(Hat tip Main and Central, via Fixer. And, btw, I guess I should make clear for those who aren't clicking through to the site, this is satire. A dodgy prospect, I guess, to introduce a funny site this way, since the line between satire and reality is so thin these days.)
Recruiting Victims
US military recruiters have come under fire for dodgy recruitment tactics before, like the recent case in which an autistic teen was enlisted as a cavalry scout (he was later released), but a six-month Associated Press investigation has uncovered something well beyond questionably ethical tactics: “More than 100 young women who expressed interest in joining the military in the past year were preyed upon sexually by their recruiters. Women were raped on recruiting office couches, assaulted in government cars and groped en route to entrance exams.”
Via Freedom of Information Act requests, the AP learned that at least 35 Army recruiters, 18 Marine Corps recruiters, 18 Navy recruiters, and 12 Air Force recruiters “were disciplined for sexual misconduct or other inappropriate behavior with potential enlistees in 2005,” with most of the victims being between 16 and 18 years old, usually recruited at their high schools.
Frustratingly, most of the recruiters found guilty of sexual misconduct “are disciplined administratively, facing a reduction in rank or forfeiture of pay; military and civilian prosecutions are rare.” Although, in what’s undoubtedly indicative of the military’s continued hostility toward gay servicemembers, a former Navy recruiter who molested three male recruits is serving a 12-year sentence. Meanwhile, male recruiters who have raped females are more likely to face only administrative discipline; an Army recruiter who raped a 20-year-old female recruit is still working as a clerk in a recruiting office.
Additionally, because the Uniform Code of Military Justice lists the age of consent at 16, “if a recruiter is caught having sex with a 16-year-old, and he can prove it was consensual, he will likely only face an administrative reprimand.” Proof of consent is always a dubious proposition (in absence of confirmation from a consenting party), but it must certainly become a whole lot easier when, instead of a judge and jury, once must only convince superiors disposed against treating sexual assault seriously. To wit: A Defense Department report from its Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response in March detailing a 40% increase in alleged sexual assaults in a single year, and female soldiers in military academies and war zones are at risk of being sexually assaulted and revictimized by inattention, yet the Pentagon just a month ago rejected a proposal for the “creation of an Office of Victim Advocate within Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office.”
I don’t often have reason to congratulate my state on doing something wise, but Indiana is the first state to treat this issue with the gravity it deserves.
But not under new rules set by the Indiana Army National Guard.
It’s not “almost like” that—it’s exactly that. Clearly, for a myriad of reasons, there is a culture in the military that, at minimum, excuses and, at worst, facilitates sexual assault, and nothing short of addressing head-on the policies and procedures in which that culture has bloomed will curb the problem. The military’s primary solution has been to close its eyes, stick its fingers in its ears, and say, “Nah nah nah nah, I can’t hear you!” and, if forcibly made to deal with the ugly truth, it shrugs and says, “Boys will be boys.” The lack of serious attention has only made the problem increasingly worse. From recruiting stations to the front lines, it’s time to get serious.
There, a much stricter policy, apparently the first of its kind in the country, was instituted last year after seven victims came forward to charge National Guard recruiter Sgt. Eric Vetesy with rape and assault.
"We didn't just sit on our hands and say, 'Well, these things happen, they're wrong, and we'll try to prevent it.' That's a bunch of bull," said Lt. Col. Ivan Denton, commander of the Indiana Guard's recruiting battalion.
Now, the 164 Army National Guard recruiters in Indiana follow a "No One Alone" policy. Male recruiters cannot be alone in offices, cars, or anywhere else with a female enlistee. If they are, they risk immediate disciplinary action. Recruiters also face discipline if they hear of another recruiter's misconduct and don't report it.
At their first meeting, National Guard applicants, their parents and school officials are given wallet-sized "Guard Cards" advising them of the rules. It includes a telephone number to call if they experience anything unsafe or improper.
Denton said the policy does more than protect enlistees.
"It's protecting our recruiters as well," he said.
The result?
"We've had a lot fewer problems," said Denton. "It's almost like we're changing the culture in our recruiting."
(Crossposted at Ezra’s place.)
The Virtual Bar Is Open
Come on in and belly up to the bar.
Have a drink; leave a link; tell us what you think.
What's your soundtrack for the evening?
Holy Moly!
The Virgin makes another appearance:
Workers at a chocolate company have discovered a five-centimetre-all column of chocolate drippings they believe bears a striking resemblance to the Virgin Mary.As you wish, Ms. Angiano.
Since the discovery of the drippings under a vat Monday, employees of Bodega Chocolates have spent much of their time hovering over the tiny figure, praying and placing rose petals and candles around it. "I was raised to believe in the Virgin Mary but this still gives me the chills," company co-owner Martucci Angiano said as she balanced the dark brown figure in her hand during an interview Thursday.
"Everyone should see this."
Thanks to Misty for passing that along, and to Pam for the picture.
Holy folks Gone Wild on dying plants, sheet metal, trees, more trees, wardrobes, water stains, grilled cheese sandwiches, potato chips, plates of pasta, drywall, fish, and more fish.
Come Kill Us, Terrorist Comrades!
Because Friday is the day for Teh Funny!
How a wingnut sees the New York Times.
(Tip of the Energy Dome to my friend Grendel.)
Sigh
Creature says everything I'd say about the German suitcase bombs, primarily in regard to this:
The terror threat in Germany isn't considered to be as high as in the U.K. or U.S. because the country didn't take part in the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the government has said....to which Creature replies, "Call me crazy, but wasn't the Iraq war supposed to make us safer."
How Immature Am I?
So immature that I started giggling in the midst of a very serious article about trials into the effectiveness of male circumcision as a way to limit the spread of HIV because the World Health Organization's HIV director is named Kevin De Cock.
"V" is for very disappointing
So M picks me up from work yesterday, and we drive home. We pull up in the driveway. M puts the car in park, looks over at me and says, "You know, V could have been a whole lot better."
"I've been thinking about that all day," I replied.
There are pros and cons to seeing movies late, well after their theatrical releases. You miss the communal effect that adds a lot to the filmwatching experience, and you miss riding the whole zeitgeist wave of a flick like V is for Vendetta - and it was a pretty big wave. On the other hand, there's something to viewing a film as just a film, apart from the attendant hoopla. None of that worked in favor of V, which M and I finally saw on DVD this week.
Neither of us had read the Alan Moore comic on this the movie was based, which is just fine. Adaptation or no, a film should be judged on what actually makes it onto the screen. We are fans of all of the notable actors in the movie, especially Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman, and thought they did fairly well with the material they were given. We don't fault the players for what turned out to be an empty, disappointing film.
So who gets the blame? This falls on the shoulders of the entity that calls itself The Wachowski Brothers (and also director James McTeigue). They managed some interesting visuals and a great deal of hyperbole, but might as well have populated the set with store mannequins. Imagery has its place, but sooner or later you have to use words when you talk to people, and the script for V is just uninspired. Andy and Larry W. delivered flat, lifeless dialogue that gasps for literary CPR and saddles decent actors with a heavy burden. But even that isn't the crime here, bad as it is.
The theme of a society freighted with the crushing gray mantle of totalitarianism is only toyed with in this movie. It's suggested but hardly explored, and seems to be given less thought than the musical score (which I can't remember now, not any of it). This is a Britain in which art has been outlawed, joy has been made a crime, privacy and personal liberty made sneering jokes - except that little of that actually made it to the screen! We see glimpses of people in pubs, families at home, but spend no time with them to get the evidence of everyday lives trodden down by a repressive government. Where's the fear? Where's the frustrated rage? What the hell kind of dystopia is this, anyway?
If you're going to make a movie about changing society, you have to show us the society. In real time, preferably.
We don't spend time on that with V. Instead, we spend a lot of time watching whatever kind of relationship exists between the titular character and Evey - a deliberate choice made by the filmmakers, and a bad one because it's made at the expense at everything else there is to see. In the end, you have a second-rate love story, a population whose collective mind was somehow changed while standing off in the wings somewhere, and an Parliament whose destruction seems at once both melodramatic (that is, unearned drama) and anticlimactic.
I read a critical comment on this movie that paraphrased Gertrude Stein's slam of Oakland: There's no "there" there. Something else came to my mind as V came to an end: Revolution is no business for dilettantes. The makers of V wanted to change the world, but changing the world is dirty work. I guess the Wachowskis preferred playing with marketing to soiling their hands.
(Apologies for rant. I will purge myself by seeing Snakes on a Plane. Cross-posted.)
Caption This Photo
Conservatives have begun petitioning Bush to include provisions
for gnome containment in any future immigration legislation.
(Btw, the actual caption for this photo was itself quite strange: “Garden gnomes relax in a garden. A Philippine judge who allegedly claimed to have psychic powers and communicate with imaginary 'dwarf friends' has lost his appeal to keep his job. AFP/File/Joel Saget”)
Sleepytime
I’m not going to question Montana GOP Senator Conrad Burns’ commitment to his plethora of odious pet issues just because he got the sleepy head-bobs on the job, because that would be like my throwing stones from my glass house, right after my nap. But I will post the video so we can all laugh at it, because he’s an asshole. (Hat tip Gideon.)
The mea culpa season
What airborne agent or waterborne pathogen or conjunction of celestial objects is responsible for this rash of public figures saying remarkably stupid things which they have to disavow ten seconds later?
Mel "Fucking Jews" Gibson. George Felix "Macaca" Allen. Tramm "Blacks are not the greatest swimmers" Hudson. And now Andrew Young:
The civil rights leader Andrew Young, who was hired by Wal-Mart to improve its public image, resigned from that post last night after telling an African-American newspaper that Jewish, Arab and Korean shop owners had “ripped off” urban communities for years, “selling us stale bread, and bad meat and wilted vegetables.”
Hired by Wal-Mart to improve its public image. Hey, guys, how's that working out for you? CEO Lee Scott must have choked on his Cutty Sark when he heard the news.
Mr. Young, 74, a former mayor of Atlanta and a former United States representative to the United Nations, apologized for the comments and retracted them in an interview last night. Less than an hour later, he resigned as chairman of Working Families for Wal-Mart, a group created and financed by the company to trumpet its accomplishments.“It’s against everything I ever thought in my life,” Mr. Young said. “It never should have been said. I was speaking in the context of Atlanta, and that does not work in New York or Los Angeles.”
I cannot imagine a city in the world in which the "context" would have made his remarks any less outrageous. It's a strange and pathetic turn for a public career like Young's; I can't wait to hear what his former boss has to say about it.
Seriously, though: what's up with people's mouths these days?
(Cross-posted.)
Hear Them Roar
"This year, more than 200 women began bids for Congress," reports USA Today. "Of those still in the race, 163 are vying for seats in the House and 18 for the Senate. Most are Democrats with 113 running in House races and 13 in Senate contests."Good stuff.
It shouldn’t matter, in terms of having women’s issues addressed—from reproductive rights to securing funding for female-specific health issues—what the percentage of progressive women in Congress is, but it does. (It even makes a difference whether male representatives have daughters.) It always matters, for every minority demographic.
Unfortunately, we live in a very lopsided and still largely segregated culture, where a white person, for example, can go their entire lives never having to know blacks on a personal level. That situation inevitably begets ignorance, which can manifest in overtly malicious expressions of racism or unintentional (but not innocuous) offense.
As I’ve said before, multiculturalism—including a deeper integration of the sexes in positions of influence—benefits not just minorities or the marginalized, but those of privilege, by providing them with opportunities to expand their understanding of others. When considering legislation to fund research, a Congressman who sits beside a colleague who is a breast cancer survivor every day, and has heard her firsthand accounts of her treatment options (and, perhaps, lack of options), is more likely to have a personal investment in pushing through the bill than a Congressman who only regards breast cancer as “bad” in an abstract way. That’s just the way humans work. It’s the same principle behind the studies showing that straight people who know openly gay people are less likely to be homophobic, and people who have active friendships with people of other races are less likely to hold racist attitudes toward any race.
There is an understandable knee-jerk negative reaction among some straight, white men to the complaint about national leadership (or party leadership, or corporate leadership, blogosphere leadership, et. al.) being primarily straight, white, and male. I’ve known men who were bitter about what they perceived as the “guilt” they were expected to feel, or were angry that such complaints (or celebrations of increased participation of women, minorities, gays) somehow assailed their intrinsic characteristics. And I get that—I really do. But that’s not the point. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being white, or straight, or male. What’s wrong is the cultural preference that has conferred privilege upon those characteristics—a privilege from which anyone who falls into any of those categories benefits.
Though I myself, if charged with hiring employees, would never discriminate on the basis of race, when I apply for a job, I might benefit, even unbeknownst to me, from being white. That’s what privilege is really about—not just what you choose to do with it, but what others choose to do with it, and how their decisions might work in your favor. Of course it’s not something over which I have control in any one specific circumstance, but that’s why it’s important for me, as part of my rejection of racism, to advocate for more opportunities for minorities. It’s not enough for me to just “not be racist” myself, because I may still benefit from the racism of others so long as it’s endemic in our society. So, when I argue for the breaking of a straight, white male tradition in any venue, it’s not because I am hostile to straight people, or whites, or males. I’m not self-loathing or wracked with “liberal guilt.” Instead, I am aware that people are naturally self-interested, often unless they are forcibly exposed to people who are different than they are, and I am aware that as long as people of my race (or sexuality) dominate, I am likely to be the beneficiary of undeserved privilege.
Saying there’s a problem with disproportionately male representation doesn’t mean that you’re a man-hater (if you’re a woman) or that you’re self-loathing (if you’re a man). It’s simply a recognition that most men, because of our culture, aren’t compelled to familiarize themselves with women’s issues. Being a white person who says there’s a problem with disproportionately white representation doesn’t mean that you’re self-loathing. It’s simply a recognition that most white people aren’t compelled to familiarize themselves with the issues of other races. I’ve never had a black boss (or a Hispanic boss, or an Asian boss); how many people of color who have worked in corporate America in a major city could say they’ve never had a white boss? How many women could say they’ve never had a male boss, versus how many men who could say they’ve never had a female boss? Privilege is, in its rawest form, the ability to live one’s life without ever having to interact in a myriad of meaningful ways with The Other.
Losing my privilege as a white person or as a straight person doesn’t worry me. Benefiting unfairly because I’m white or straight does. Not having my concerns as a woman addressed satisfactorily by legislators does. So I celebrate diversity, not because I resent any gender, or race, or sexual orientation, but because, given time, it will mean that irrespective of the gender, race, or sexual orientation of the person representing me, s/he will understand my issues—no matter how different we may seem.
I Know I’m Getting Old
Because last night, I actually muttered, “Gor blimey! Once upon a time, you actually played music videos, MTV.”
Deliberate Failure v. Spectacular Incompetence
Kathy Kattenburg’s got an interesting post responding to the theory that Iraq was a deliberate failure. It’s a good read. And I generally agree with her conclusions, btw.
He Who Ha-Ha's Last, Ha-Ha's Best
See what happens when you don't read the fine print, Dubya? (bolds mine)
PENSION LAW INCLUDES IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES UNDER FEDERAL LAWOh, the base is not going to like this...
Human Rights Campaign Helps Secure Key Provisions to Assist GLBT and Other Americans
WASHINGTON — The Federal Pension Protection Act passed by Congress and signed into law today by President George W. Bush contains two key provisions that will extend important financial protections to same-sex couples and other Americans who leave their retirement savings to non-spouse beneficiaries. The bipartisan provisions in the bill are a step forward in equality and stem from a continuous effort led by the Human Rights Campaign.
“There is a large group of Americans that are left behind in traditional pension benefit models. We need to do better to keep these groups from falling through the cracks,” said Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore. “I am pleased that the pension reform legislation takes an important step to fill this gap by equalizing treatment in retirement savings vehicles for non-spouse beneficiaries.”
“We need to address the economic and legal barriers that affect many American families — from providing equal access to family law, to equal opportunities in the workplace. All families need to be able to plan and save for their future,” said Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md.
“For gay couples and all Americans with non-spouse beneficiaries, death and taxes weren’t only certain, but also times of great and unequal financial difficulty. Today marks an important day for fairness under the law in America,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “For four years, the Human Rights Campaign worked closely with members of Congress to secure these provisions and carefully guide them through the political process. In a challenging political climate, we persevered and helped to secure critical federal protections that will make difficult times for domestic partners a little easier.”
(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to Pam. If there's a smile on my cross-post, it's only there trying to fool the public...)
Insecurity Moms
“Married women with children, the ‘security moms’ whose concerns about terrorism made them an essential part of Republican victories in 2002 and 2004, are taking flight from GOP politicians this year in ways that appear likely to provide a major boost for Democrats in the midterm elections, according to polls and interviews.”
Weirdly, many of them apparently still consider terrorism their primary daily fear, which goes to show you: A) how effective the GOP’s fearmongering has been; and B) how poorly their strategy to combat terrorism is actually regarded.
Honestly, I think if I were a mother, I’d be a lot more concerned about protecting my children from global warming and crushing national debt than worrying about terrorists. In fact, I’d be more worried about their getting hit by a car than hit by a dirty bomb. But that’s just me.
Kerplunk
So much for that little bounce. Glub...glub...glub...
The conventional wisdom was so widely believed, there hardly seemed any point to questioning it. The alleged terrorist plot would be a political boon for the Bush White House, the timing would hurt Democrats, and the story had the ability to completely reshape the last 12 weeks of the campaign cycle.The saturation point has been reached; people simply aren't falling for the hysteria anymore. Sure, people are still worried about terrorists and terrorist attacks (including us folks on the Left, although several pants-wetters insist it isn't so), apparently more than the Bush Administration (who, true to form, are more interested in protecting themselves than protecting Americans). But at this point, the only people that are in hysterics over "terrorist plots" are Conservatives that are panicking as their house of cards tumbles. And I see Michelle Malkin has groomed some guest bloggers and is keeping the Fear of Brown People fires burning:
Since the story captured the nation's attention, however, seven national polls have been conducted. If there was a bump for Bush, it's hiding well.
* Zogby: the president's job approval rating dropped from 36% to 34%.
* Gallup: his approval rating fell from 40% to 37%.
* CBS News: the president's support remained flat at 36%.
* Newsweek: Bush's approval rating improved to 38% from 35%.
* Fox News: the president's support remained flat at 36%.
* AP/Ipsos: his approval rating fell from 36% to 33%.
* Harris: the president's support remained flat at 34%.
In six of the seven national polls, the president's support dropped or remained the same since Americans heard about the alleged terrorist plot. In other words, the story that would obviously help Bush's standing isn't helping him at all.
The woman that disrupted the London-NY flight on Wednesday appeared in federal court yesterday.
The word is that she's simply crazy, and not a terrorist, although her circumstances are more than a little suspicious:Ms. Mayo'’s 31-year-old son, Josh, told reporters in Vermont that his mother was a peace activist who had been visiting a Pakistani pen pal and that she had just had a "“bad time" on the flight. It is unclear how long she had been in Pakistan, but she worked as a journalist there, writing columns for the Daily Times of Pakistan, assailing the war and American political policy.
Visiting a Pakistani pen pal? That's sure odd.
Yeah, what's up with that? No real American could possibly have a friend in Pakistan! She must be a terrorist!
Also, the woman had a screwdriver in her carry-on bag.Of course, mental illness, panic or simple paranoia couldn't explain the screwdriver. It had to be a terrorist plot!
The story seems to be that she was feeling claustrophobic and went into some sort of panic attack. But then, why did she have the screwdriver? That implies some level of thought before boarding this flight. Stay tuned for developments....
Really, this is just getting embarrassing.
(My cross-post and your grandma... sittin' by the fire...)
Friday Blogrollin'
The Wonderful Wacky World of Wil
Nihilix
One Big JackGoff
Ersatz Express
Ex-Lion Tamer
Alfred Glenstein
As always, if I ought to be reading you and adding you to Ye Olde Massive Blogroll, drop your link in comments. Never be shy to toot your own horn!
Add Kurds, Turks, and Iranians; bring to boil
Back in May, I remarked that the White House didn't seem to have any strategy regarding the Kurds in Iraq except to hand off that whole sticky autonomy thing to the next administration. Unfortunately - and fittingly - it looks like George Bush may have to deal with that explosive situation on his watch. Iran and Turkey, tired of living next door to a haven for Kurdish rebels, are now lobbing shells into northern Iraq and massing troops.
Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory.
Some displaced families have pitched tents in the valleys behind Qandil Mountain, which straddles Iraq's rugged borders with Turkey and Iran. They told the Guardian yesterday that at least six villages had been abandoned and one person had died following a sustained artillery barrage by Iranian forces that appeared designed to flush out guerrillas linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who have hideouts in Iraq.
Turkey - an American ally, a member of NATO, and wannabe European Union member - has long awaited the help of the United States on the matter of the PPK hiding out in Iraq, but to no avail. Now Iran - which cares little for the US or its concerns - is demonstrating to Turkey that waiting on America is a fool's game. The threat that both countries see in an independent Kurdistan can only further destabilize an already tumultous Iraq. What Bush plans to do in answer to their concerns is anybody's guess. As Josh Marshall says, "things can always get worse."
(Cross-posted from Greater St. Louistan...)
Question of the Day
The logical follow-up to yesterday's question is: What turns you off?
Physically: Beady eyes, especially if they're really close together. (See: Bush, George.) No teeth. Raggedy fingernails. (Raggedy toenails are even worse.) Comb-overs. Hair sprouting out of ears. Radically disproportinately-sized foreheads and chins. I'm sure there are other things that just aren't coming to mind at the moment. And even these things aren't deal-breakers. Mr. Shakes' nails forever look as though he trimmed them with a cheese grater.
I don't think there's anything I dislike of a personality nature that would be of any surprise.
Dig it, Diggs
Ezra: “US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has declared Bush's wiretapping program illegal and unconstitutional, a clear violation of FISA. What 'Judge Diggs' clearly forgets is that FISA was an unconstitutional abrogation of President Bush's right to do whatever the fuck he wants. Can't argue with that reasoning, Judge. It's science.”
*snort*
I’m not sure it’s science, though. You know how President Garden O’Eden doesn’t like the science. His right to do whatever the fuck he wants when it comes to smokin’ out the terrorists is probably best filed under “Intelligence” Design.
WTF?
No, no, surely not, no. The Republican Party is not a party of racists. It’s just coincidence that yet another douchebag has said something completely ridiculous about people of color and he, too, happens to be a member of the Grand Old Party. Meet Tramm Hudson, currently the frontrunner for the Congressional seat vacated by Katherine Harris:
I grew up In Alabama, and I understand, and I know this from my experience, but blacks are not the greatest swimmers or may not even know to swim.(Watch the video here.)
Tell that to Enith Brigitha.
Hudson later made a statement of apology:
I said something stupid. I apologize for it and would apologize in person to anyone hurt by my comments. To those who are understandably offended, you have my deepest apologies and I want you to know that it was out of character for me and those who know me know that to be a fact. This was a thoughtless remark that does not reflect my lifetime commitment to treating everyone fairly and without bias. I apologize to everyone who is offended by this comment.Isn’t is always just totally out of character? Don’t people who know these pricks always vouch for what splendid egalitarians they are? Yeesh.
How We Should Be Feeling Today According to Tony Snow
Scared of dying at the hands of terrorists: “Last week America and the world received a stark reminder that terrorists are still plotting to attack our country and kill innocent people.”
Angry that a judge would undercut an important tool in combating terrorism: “Today a federal judge in Michigan has ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program ordered by the President to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the American people is unconstitutional and otherwise illegal. …The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out. That’s what the American people expect from their government, and it is the President’s most solemn duty to ensure their protection.”
Grateful that the Bush administration has a way to ignore the ruling and keep on protecting us from terrorists and activist judges: “We couldn’t disagree more with this ruling, and the Justice Department will seek an immediate stay of the opinion and appeal. Until the Court has the opportunity to rule on a stay of the Court's ruling in a hearing now set for September 7, 2006, the parties have agreed that enforcement of the ruling will be stayed.”
Sympathetic for our president who has to look at the ugly results of the war he launched: “’The president thinks about these things every day,’ Snow said. ‘Look… he sees stuff far more horrifying than you and I see, because he gets the briefings every day. And it is impossible to be a president in a time of war without being reminded of the nature of the threat and also the costs of fighting it.’”
Awed by our president’s soul-searching: “’Without having cleared this with the president, I think it's safe to say that any president in a time of war does constant soul-searching,’ said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, in response to a query about Bush’s soul-searching, ‘because he understands the human toll of sending people into harm's way. And any president who has held the office will tell you the same thing. It is a deeply personal and very difficult thing to do.’”
Impressed by the burden the president has to carry, like his administration being called crap: “’So the president's been called a lot worse, and I suspect will be,' he added. ‘There will be piquant names sort of hurled his way from time to time, but, you know, that's part of the burden of leadership.’”
Amused by the thought of anyone deigning to question the administration’s unyielding resolve against terrorists: “The president will not ‘walk away’ from Iraq, Snow insisted. So, he was asked, when will the mission in Iraq be accomplished. ‘You tell me,’ he replied. ‘You don't do this by a clock. The president has to practice strategic patience. The term, ‘the long war,’ has been used. If you can tell me when terrorists are suddenly going to turn their swords into plowshares, we will settle upon that as the date.’”
Quite the emotional roller coaster, feeling what the Bush administration wants us to feel at any given moment. I’m scared! I’m proud! I’m pissed! I’m patriotic! The terrorists will kill us! Bush will save us! I’m awed! I’m amused! I’m pissing my pants! I’m waving a flag!
It’s no wonder conservatives are crackpots.
(Thanks to The Swamp, here and here.)
Now that I know…
…how easy it is to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale” using TATP, I’m totally shaking in my boots.
Wuh?
"Terrorists are waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again." — Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), quoted by the Salt Lake Tribune. (Via Political Wire.)
Someone remind me…who was president on September 11, 2001?
Caption This Photo
U.S. President George W. Bush looks out from Marine One as he prepares to depart the White House in Washington August 16, 2006. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES)
Separate but Equal
USA Today features dueling commentaries on the Department of Education’s imminent release of regulations on single-sex classes for public schools. The new regulations will eradicate the threat of discrimination lawsuits should public school systems institute single-sex classes or entire single-sex schools.
The change in regulations is the result of the much-hyped “Boy Crisis,” which is, in fact, largely overstated and most affects schoolchildren in poverty—a problem not solved by segregating sexes.
The dueling opinion pieces, though one purports to support sex segregation, both arrive at the same point (if one does so unintentionally)—that single-sex classes are a convenient excuse to ignore the real problems with the American educational system and the design of people who want to reinforce traditional gender roles. You know, like back in the Good Old Days.
From the piece against single-sex education:Advocates of sex-segregated schools offer pseudo-scientific workshops where educators learn about alleged brain differences between boys and girls. According to some advocates: When establishing authority, teachers should not smile at boys because they're biologically programmed to read this as a sign of weakness; they should only look boys in the eyes when disciplining them; girls should not have time limits on tests or be put under stress because unlike boys, girls' brains cannot function well under these conditions; and girls don't understand mathematical theory very well except for a few days a month when their estrogen is surging.
Anyone who advocates any blanket learning style based on gender is an idiot, right out of the starting blocks. My best work was always done under pressure. If I were given three months to do a paper, I wouldn’t start it until the night before; stress is my most effective motivator. And no matter how much I loved reading and writing, I always scored higher on standardized tests in math. Perhaps I’m secretly a boy. Dumping me into some lollygag class where I was coddled and my math competency ignored would have left me bored and angry, with a lot of unfulfilled potential. And I know plenty of men who buck the stereotype of being most productive under some sort of authoritarian education style, too. Generalizations are not a great basis for educational theory.
Although these ideas are hyped as "new discoveries" about brain differences, they are, in fact, only dressed up versions of old stereotypes — that boys must be bullied and girls must be coddled.
From the piece for single-sex education:Boys, in particular, suffer from a one-size-fits-all approach. And as students reach middle school, they are increasingly distracted by members of the opposite sex.
Once again, we hear that boys just can’t control themselves, so we’d better get them away from the sirens.
The thing that kills me about this tired refrain is that men are distracted by members of the opposite sex (or the same sex, depending on their sexuality, which shows you what a superb rationale this is for single-sex education) for most of their lives. Men and women are generally wired differently that way, and I’m not sure how segregating a boy, as opposed to letting him learn how to reconcile hormones with obligations from an early age, will actually make him better prepared for adulthood, when he’ll still have to choose between ogling a coworker’s legs and finishing his TPS report on time.There is some reason for caution, but experiments should be encouraged with careful limitations. Parents should be allowed to choose whether they want their kids in single-sex or mixed-gender classes. And lesson plans mustn't play into sexist stereotypes. (Joe Cook, executive director of the Louisiana ACLU, says Livingston educators were following "unfounded notions like 'boys need to practice pursuing and killing prey, while girls need to practice taking care of babies.' ")
Remember that.
Districts inept enough to see single-sex education that way deserve lawsuits.Drop by the fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms at Woodward and you'll find very different books lying around. In the girls' class there's The Great Gilly Hopkins and The Chocolate Touch. In the boys' class there's Stealing Home: The Story Of Jackie Robinson and Dragons of Deltora. Giving boys books they prefer to read gets them more excited about reading.
Might I suggest that districts inept enough to not include all those books in one classroom in the first fucking place, so that boys and girls can choose whatever reading material most appeals to them, were failing to meet their students’ needs in ways that aren’t solved by gender segregation? If a school can’t be clever enough to put all those books in one mixed-sex classroom, then the problem of students falling behind probably has very little to do with the genitals of their classmates.
And, once again, I’ve got to call bullshit on the gender assumptions. I’m going to guess that Stealing Home would not have been Paul the Spud’s first choice of reading material when he was a kid. On the other hand, since my dad was a baseball fanatic and I always enjoyed talking baseball with him, it might very well have been mine.Tessa Michaelos' all-boys kindergarten features a pile of Legos, hard hats and a balance beam used for a vocabulary contest. Michaelos' boys soar academically. Many of the all-boys classes in other grades out-perform both the girls-only and mixed-sex classes.
So, the boys are benefiting from single-sex education, but the girls aren’t. Hmm. Is it possible that it’s not the gender segregation that’s helping out the boys so much, but the revamped classroom with Legos and a balance beam? What are they giving the girls—dolls and an Easy-Bake Oven? Perhaps it’s that the toys boys get are learning toys. Without controlling for gender by providing both groups with the same materials, it’s impossible to know what’s really creating the disparity in achievement.
There are just endless problems with this whole situation, the primary issue being that all its so-called solutions are predicated on a false premise. Boys aren’t in crisis. And the more we look to gender for answers to solve an imaginary crisis, we ignore the real crisis of poverty creating unequal educational opportunities. That’s the real scandal of the American education system, and while we wring our hands over boys v. girls, we leave poor kids of both genders to wallow in shitty schools.
And, as a final aside, I am deeply resentful of gender-drawn lines in educational theory, because I have never followed the stereotypical path of girls. As I mentioned above, I work better under pressure, my competencies in math and science exceed my language abilities, and I was always a more visual than aural learner. And I know I’m not alone. When educators attempt to model programs based on gendered brain differences, they are creating a terrible dynamic for anyone who diverges from the standard gender expectations of learning processes, including the not insignificant portion of the population who are gay, bisexual, and transgendered, most of whom, like myself and many other straight men and women, deviate from the expected learning style based on their genders. Unless they are truly dedicated to identifying each child’s specific needs, it’s pointless to advocate gender segregation, and providing classes for each of those specific needs would be nutty—boys who do best in single-sex classes, girls who do best in single-sex classes, boys who do best in mixed-sex classes taught to boys’ expected learning style, girls who do best in mixed-sex classes taught to girls’ expected learning style, boys who do best in mixed-sex classes taught to girls’ expected learning style, and girls who do best in mixed-sex classes taught to girls’ expected learning style. That’s six different possibilities for every cohort, which most schools can’t accommodate. (Especially schools in poverty-stricken districts.)
And, ultimately, there’s one control factor that no one likes to talk about—the competency of the teachers. Maybe the success of Tessa Michaelos' all-boys kindergarten class is down to Tessa Michaelos being an awesome teacher. Perhaps a room filled with Legos and a balancing beam wouldn’t lead to the boys’ academic achievement if it were in the hands of a less dedicated, less skilled teacher.
My parents were both teachers, and, for years, I couldn’t go to the grocery store, or the library, or the movie theater, without someone working there telling me how my mom or dad was “their favorite teacher!” They were great teachers who inspired students because they genuinely cared about them and tried to give them what they needed, which was often a kind word, an interest in their lives, a moment to look at pictures of their cousin’s new baby, a hug. I’ve been given free drinks by a bartender who told me my mom changed his life by making him realize he was smart. “She just kept telling me until I believed it.” He went from regular English to honors’ English and was attending college, something he’d never considered. Do you think he would have benefited more had she never looked in his eyes unless disciplining him? Harrumph.
Why?
"Hollywood Wackos"
So, did you ever wonder what the 100 Most Liberal Movies of ALL TIME are? Well, we have a site that can tell you that and more. Over at CelebPolitics they will let you know just what movies to avoid so that you can:
Exercise your right to be informed! Stop going to movies starring liberal actors, so that your money stops going into their liberal pockets.
Oh yes, that's right. They call them "Hollywood Wackos" and:
Hollywood wackos drive expensive cars, live in huge mansions, and work about two months per year. And yet they believe their "real world" perspective qualifies them to tell the American public how to vote come election time. Help stop these idiots from spouting off by boycotting their movies!
Ben Stein, btw, is their #1 guy.
Here is a list of the Top Ten Evil Liberal Movies (called "toxic liberal waste", btw):
1. The American President
2. The Princess Bride
3. Meet the Fockers
4. The War of the Roses
5. Wall Street
6. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
7. Romancing the Stone
8. Tell Them Who You Are
9. The Jewel of the Nile
10. The Game
Here are the top 100. What are their Top Ten Lovable, Huggable Conservative Movies? Why:
1. It's A Wonderful Life
2. Dave
3. Dodgeball
4. Tango and Cash
5. The Greatest Story Ever Told
6. A Smile Like Yours
7. Casper
8. Casper: A Spirited Begining
9. Dennis the Menace
10. Easy Wheels
Top 100 here.
The best thing about this site though is their ratings explanation (emphasis theirs):
We do not rate movies based on content, as that would require actually seeing movies that we suggest people boycott.
Operation Iraqi Liberation
Project OIL just got a little honester care of the Honesterator:
"Leaving before we complete our mission would create a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, a country with huge oil reserves that the terrorist network would be willing to use to extract economic pain from those of us who believe in freedom," Bush said.Now, if he’d just said “from those of us who need to drive Hummers to compensate for our small penises,” we’d really be getting somewhere.
(Hat tip Konagod.)
I promise not to keep blogging about the Ramsey case…
…but I thought this was worth mentioning. Via Article of Faith, the Times mentions that the ex-wife of the guy who confessed says that “she and Mr. Karr had been together in Alabama when JonBenet was murdered.” She also says that he spent a lot of time researching the case (eww), and, apparently, the way the cops zeroed in on him was that he contacted a journalism professor who made several documentaries about the case. Karr’s dad also says the guy has never been to Colorado.
The guy’s a frigging lunatic, obviously, but it looks like there’s a possibility he’s the kind of lunatic who might also soon claim to have abducted Amelia Earhart from the cockpit of her aeroplane, if you know what I mean.
My point in mentioning this is not to try to draw any conclusions about the veracity of his confession, but just to point out that the immediate descent of the media vultures on this as if it’s definitely the end-all be-all is completely fucking ridiculous. As usual.
The Report First Ask Questions Later paradigm of the modern media is dreadful, simply dreadful. They've evidently learned nothing from their shameful complicity in taking a nation to war under the same flawed premises.
BREAKING: Unconstitutional, Bitchez!
A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.Ka-POW.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
Spreading Democracy Something
Right at the tail end of a truly depressing NY Times piece headlined Bombs Aimed at G.I.’s in Iraq Are Increasing, we get this little update on how all that democracy-spreading is going:
Bush administration officials now admit that Iraqi government’s original plan to rein in the violence in Baghdad, announced in June, has failed. The Pentagon has decided to rush more American troops into the capital, and the new military operation to restore security there is expected to begin in earnest next month.Looks like we’ve hit a stop sign on that Road Map to a Democratic Middle East.
Yet some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq’s democratically elected government might not survive.
“Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,” said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.
“Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect,” the expert said, “but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”
What I find most distressing is that this is reported as part of an article focusing on the increasing number of soldiers being killed or injured by bombs. The Bush administration keeps telling us their sacrifice has a purpose, and that that purpose is a free and democratic Iraq, that we’ve got to stay the course or their lives will have been given in vain. Well, okay, Bullshit Brigade—what say you now? They’re dying for…an alternative to democracy? Sounds awesome.
Bliss
Depp to Star in Burton's "Sweeny Todd"
LOS ANGELES - Johnny Depp is going from woozy buccaneer to murderous barber.Somewhere, Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have an amazing dream-viewing machine, used solely for picking through my subconscious brain to find out what new project they could create to bring me joy.
Depp is reuniting with director Tim Burton ("Charlie and the Chocolate Factory") to play the title role in a film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's musical "Sweeney Todd," about a 19th-century barber seeking bloody revenge over his wrongful imprisonment.
That's got to be the explanation... right? They're batting 100 so far...
McCain Monkeys Around
Maybe somebody should have clued in Sen. John McCain.McCain followed his joke with some screeching and chest-beating, then flung his own shit at Allen.
First, Sen. George Allen, R-Va., wound up a few dozen veterans with a "we win, they lose, there's no substitute victory" strategy for Iraq, then McCain followed with a joke about a monkey flying an airplane.
McCain, R-Ariz., was in town Wednesday night to lure some votes for his Republican colleague, Allen, who has heard enough monkey jokes lately. … Macaca is a genus of monkey.
Anyone who believes that John McCain just made a spectacular gaffe by telling that joke doesn’t know the first thing about John McCain. He can be a real nasty piece of work, and he’s extremely competitive. (“You lose battles in politics. I do get good and angry. Really angry! By God, I'm not going to let them beat me again. I don't like to lose.”) He’s got his gaze fixed on the White House, and, after losing in 2000, he’s not about to lose again—and he doesn’t have the slightest qualm about throwing his every last shred of integrity out the window to win, because he knows how the GOP rolls these days.
Allen is his most likely competition for the Republican nomination. You do the math.
McCain is a lot of things, but not clued in ain’t one of them.
(Hat tip to Brendan Nyhan.)
Bush is Crap
My only question is why anyone would be hesitant to say this kind of thing anymore. The Bush administration clearly is crap!
[Deputy British Prime Minister] John Prescott has given vent to his private feelings about the Bush presidency, summing up George Bush's administration in a single word: crap.I actually find it sort of pathetic that calling Bush a crap cowboy is controversial.
…"He was talking in the context of the 'road map' in the Middle East. He said he only gave support to the war on Iraq because they were promised the road map. But he said the Bush administration had been crap on that. We all laughed and he said to an official, 'Don't minute that'." [MP Harry Cohen] added: "We also had a laugh when he said old Bush is just a cowboy with his Stetson on. But then he said, 'I can hardly talk about that can I?'”
…And today Mr Prescott issued a statement in which he said: "This is an inaccurate report of a private conversation and it is not my view. "
Told that others at the meeting could not recall the words, Mr Cohen said: "He did. I stand by that."
Question of the Day
As the comments thread here has delved a bit into issues of attraction, specifically regarding weight, I thought this might make for an interesting QotD: Do you have a very rigid physical type to which you are attracted?
The men to whom I’ve found myself attracted are of all races, tall and short, fat and thin, able-bodied and disabled. If there’s any discernible physical attribute they all share, it’s having faces with character—wrinkles, scars, dimples, deep creases when they smile. So I guess that’s my type, although its consistency is perhaps only discernible by me.
I’m more picky about personality, but that’s a whole other QotD.
Oh My
Man arrested for murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Tune into your favorite cable news channel for 24/7 wall-to-wall coverage of this decade-old murder case. Coverage will continue indefinitely, or until Bush requests interruption to deliver a stirring address on staying the course in Iraq.
Sure, Any Deity Can Appear in a Pancake or in a Stain on the Wall...
True Supreme Beings are use a little more showmanship.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is tired of being ignored.
(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to BoingBoing.)
Caption This Photo
U.S. President George W. Bush looks up after starting the engine on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle while touring Harley Davidson Vehicle Operations in York, Pennsylvania, August 16, 2006. At right applauding Bush is Harley-Davidson President and CEO Jim Ziemer. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES)
Journalists' abduction continues
The kidnapping in Gaza of FOX News reporter and cameraman team Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig enters its third day. Anita McNaught, a BBC World television presenter and wife to Wiig, made a televised appeal for their release:
"The bottom line is, there is no good reason for these two men to be held," said McNaught, a freelance television journalist. "They are friends of the Palestinians. They are here telling the Palestinian story for weeks now, when the rest of the world's media has not been here."Directing her words to her husband in the on-camera interview and choking back tears, McNaught said: "It's going to be all right. You are going to come home to me."
Wiig is a citizen of New Zealand; that nation has engaged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in discussions over the welfare of the journalists. While the kidnapping bears similarities to past abductions committed by the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, no group has yet stepped forward to claim responsibility - not an encouraging sign.
Steve Centanni is a national correspondent for FOX News and has been with the network since its launch in 1996. Olaf Wiig is a freelance camera operator who has worked on documentaries in Britain and New Zealand.
(Cross-posted.)
Quote of the Day
“People think he looks so normal, and he’s so sweet and he’s so earnest, but he can’t carry a tune in a bucket.” — Justin Timberlake on American Idol winner (and my arch nemesis) Taylor Hicks. When Justin Timberlake is maligning your talent, you know you suck.
The only thing Hicks needs to worry about carrying in a bucket is some water and bleach, because, in about two years, the only job that bitch will be doing onstage is cleaning up after the midnight show at the Déjà Vu Lounge.
RIP Bruno Kirby
He was best known for roles in City Slickers and When Harry Met Sally, but he’ll always be Marty Lewis to me.
Somebody wants to be just like Ricky Santorum when she’s all growed up.
Just a day after Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez announced his running mate would be Mesa County commissioner Janet Rowland the ticket is in "deep damage control" after Democrats released a transcript of a March TV interview in which Rowland compared same-sex marriage to bestiality.Some people get clocked for saying stupid shit. Should I be allowed to beat the stuffing out of Janet Rowland?
Appearing March 17 on the PBS program ''Colorado State of Mind,'' Rowland said homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle. ''For some people, the alternative lifestyle is bestiality," she went on to say. "Do we allow a man to marry a sheep?''
…''Some people have group sex," she said on the program. "Should we allow two men and three women to marry? Should we allow polygamy, with one man and five wives?''
Gee, I know—let’s put it to a vote. I’m going to draw up a referendum for all the LGBT people in Colorado, and if they vote “yes,” then I get to wail on her. Considering Rowland feels that she ought to get to vote on the basic rights of gay people, I’m sure she won’t object.
What say you, Punching Nun?
“I say we take her down!”
(Shakes the collegian, pre-chub and clearly
majoring in drinking and fucking around.)
Heee Yuck Yuck Yuck
Okay, first of all, I freely admit that this is a really cheap shot.
Here's a list of current Bush Presidential pardons. (Bolds mine.) A few highlights:
-- James Leon Adams, Simpsonville, S.C.Booze, guns, coke, pot and moonshine. (Moonshine! Good lord.) These are the pardons our president hands out.
Offense: Selling firearms to out of state residents and falsifying firearms records; 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(b) (3), 922(m) and 924(a)
-- Tony Dale Ashworth, Winnsboro, S.C.
Offense: Unlawful transfer of a firearm; 26 U.S.C. Sections 5861(e) and 5871
-- Randall Leece Deal, Clayton, Ga.
Offense:
1. Liquor law violation; Title 26, U.S.C.
2. Liquor law violation; Title 26, U.S.C.
3. Conspiracy to violate the liquor laws, Title 26, U.S.C.
-- William Henry Eagle, Wenatchee, Wash.
Offense: Possessing an unregistered still, carrying on the business of a distiller without giving the required bond and manufacturing mash on other than lawfully qualified premises; 26 U.S.C. Sections 5601(a)(1), 5601(a)(4) and 5601(a)(7)
-- James Ernest Kinard Jr., Stuart, Fla.
Offense: Failure by a licensed firearms dealer to make appropriate entries in firearms records required to be kept by law (four counts); making false entries by a licensed firearms dealer in firearms records required to be kept by law; 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(m) and 2
-- John Louis Ribando, Le Mars, Iowa
Offense:
1. Possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (marijuana); 21 U.S.C. Section 841(a) (1)
2. Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance (marijuana); importing a controlled substance (marijuana); 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a) (1), 846, 952(a), 960(a) (1) and 963
-- Jerry Dean Walker, Newark, Del.
Offense: Possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. Section 841(a) (1)
Welcome to Hillbilly Nation, folks!
(I should point out that these aren't the only pardons that were handed out at this particular time. Bush also seemed keen to pardon a few people that were AWOL, and an embezzler or two. Hmm.)
(Didn't get a lot of sleep, but we had a lot of fun on grandma's cross-post...)
Where are all the female bloggers flacks?
In his sorta defense of In Defense of Ann Coulter, Ezra says:
That the response to Coulter so often focuses on her looks also deserves some examination. It's not clear why the venom from a blond, leggy snake should be treated any different than the bile Hugh Hewitt spits out, yet rare is the soliloquy on how desperate the writer would have to become to hit the Hewitt. It's a fair point, and I'd extend it by wondering why liberals seem to have so few aggressive female flacks.You want an aggressive liberal female flack? Just give me the microphone! (I sure could use the job.)
In all seriousness, there are still a lot of liberals who are generally uncomfortable with aggressive punditry, who prefer measured debate conducted in “inside voices,” with which I am sympathetic; I’d prefer that, too. But it ignores the fact that our president and vice-president equate Democratic voters with terrorist-sympathizers and GOP senators like to compare gay relationships with bestiality, which is to say nothing of the diarrheic vitriol spewed by their party hacks in the media. We waved bye-bye to reasoned discourse awhile ago, because bullies can’t be persuaded from bullying by dulcet tones.
Liberals who live in this fantasyland where civil discourse is still the norm seem particularly discomfited by aggressive women, as if the last bastion of decency has fallen when a Breasted One utters “the f-word,” which is why I get emails inquiring why a smart girl like me feels the need to “curse,” and why another blogger has been asked why he links to me, since I’m so potty-mouthed and aggressive. You’ve still, in some quarters, got to actually have balls to “have balls.”
The lack of aggressive female flacks on the Left also certainly has something to do with the subjects about which female flacks are aggressive. Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, for examples, are aggressive in their perpetuation of conservative ideals, including no small amount of anti-feminist rhetoric. Not only is a woman who aggressively refutes issues like gender equality and reproductive rights less threatening to retrofuck men than a woman who aggressively advocates them, but she also serves to deflect particular kinds of criticism, like charges of sexism. Male conservatives can then quote female operatives, using the sex of the original messenger as a buttress against similar complaints. (Malkin’s ethnicity works to their benefit in a similar way when she leads the charge against Muslims.) One can’t be sexist (or racist) when one is quoting a woman or a minority, after all. (Not true, of course, but that is the claim.) It is useful to conservatives to have a female face on their sexist positions—and, having turned the culture war into a lynchpin of their political strategy, they need the buffer of female representation more than ever.
Conversely, aggressive liberal women who endeavor to combat sexism as part of their overall politics are just as likely to call attention to the sexism among their own ranks as those of their opponents (and I daresay I don’t need to provide evidence that there is still sexism on the Left). The possibility of a “circular firing squad” created by liberal women who have the temerity to expect better of their brethren leaves them regarded as “loose cannons,” not nearly as reliable as someone like Coulter, who will never accuse a fellow conservative of betraying tenets of equality—since ignoring, unless to ridicule or subvert, said tenets is their stock in trade.
Frustratingly, because liberal women are feminists, it leaves them open to a criticism, when discussing any issue, that conservative women are not. If Coulter is undesirably aggressive, it’s because she’s just “gone too far,” but if I am, it’s because I’m a liberal feminist. There is a stereotype built in to my politics waiting to be played against me, that discredits not only me, but the politics I represent. That the Left shies away from promoting aggressive women for fear of having The Shrill Card played against all of us is indicative of the milquetoast timidity played out in liberal politics again and again. It’s easier to avoid a pitfall which might require some solidarity (and a solid spine) in defense of female flacks by not using them in the first place. The Left’s cautiousness is endemic to all its strategy, and this issue is no different.
I'm Sure it Was Just a "Joke."
Expanding on the Tbogg post that I pointed out yesterday, James Wolcott says:
No matter what height of prominence a black person reaches, conservatives will always find a way to reduce him or her to low-paid, low-status, low-skilled caricatured servitude. That's their idea of cutting black personalities down to size and putting them in their place. Whatever uniform they wear, it's still a monkey suit in the eyes and mouths of the white-makes-right contingent, which should make it no surprise that Senator George Allen, adopted son of the Confederacy, would reach back for a race-baiting jibe as his beanball pitch. It's also no surprise that George Allen would be Fred Barnes's kinda guy.
As the kids are saying these days, read the whole thing.
What goes best with a pig in lipstick?
A pig in heels.
This is the picture that accompanies Details’ feature story, Why Fat Is Back in Hollywood. Who’s “fat,” according to the article? Catherine Zeta-Jones, Drew Barrymore, Rachel Weisz, Kate Winslet, Scarlett Johansson, Liv Tyler, and “an increasingly curvy Mandy Moore.” Yeah, real heifers, those gals. Now, I’ve got no problem with a story that celebrates women who don’t starve themselves into a skeletal form devoid of feminine curves (and naturally thin women, please don’t think I’m hatin’ on ya—I’m referring to the women we can all name who have, before our eyes, replaced an already slim form with a gaunt hollowness reminiscent of Holocaust victims). But likening Liv Tyler to a pig in heels to claim that “fat is back,” when fat was never “in” in the first place, is utterly asinine. “Boobs are back,” maybe.
Just last night I mentioned the lack of actresses who could truly be described as fat. Dawn French, Kathy Bates, Queen Latifah, Camryn Manheim, Marisa Winoker, Della Reese, Dianne Wiest—these are fat girls, but the closest you’ll get to an A-list fat girl is Gwyneth Paltrow in a fat suit. And it irritates me that I’m expected to pretend otherwise.
Now, I’m not going to get into some big discussion of gender disparity—how Alec Baldwin can increasingly thicken and still get a lead role on a new network sitcom, while the brilliant Kathleen Turner is forgotten, for example—but I’d just like a modicum of perspective on what “fat” really means.
Not everyone has to find her beautiful, or any other fat girl for that matter, any more than everyone has to find any thin girl beautiful, or anyone in between. Taste is taste, and a preference for thinness is as viable as a preference for a big round ass and boobs. But let’s not call women fat who aren’t, which does a disservice to them and to real fat girls, by ignoring their existence. Fat is not "back in,"and by substituting as evidence that is someone like Liv Tyler for a true fat girl, it only perpetuates the invisibility of genuinely fat women.
And, for the record, this pig wears sneakers.
I claim victory in the Israel-Hezbollah war
I didn't lose a single soldier or civilian. I lost no property. My infrastructure is sound. I fear neither rocket attack nor ground invasion. I have no need for international troops, nor can I be made to disarm. My capacity to inflict harm is the same as before the war. And my defiance is undiminished.
I win!
I think it's entirely proper and permissible that I claim victory. Everybody else seems to be doing so, and they can't all be right.
(Cross-posted.)
Plame Civil Suit Update
They’re not through with you yet, Bushies:
[California attorney Joseph Cotchett] plans to use a legal precedent that allowed President Bill Clinton to be sued while in office to force Vice President Dick Cheney and presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify in a lawsuit brought by former CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband.Ooh, tricky. Since outing a covert agent is a federal crime, it’s going to be tough to claim inherent official capacity. Sounds like, if Cotchett’s right, they’d have to argue instead that they were acting on the orders of higher-ups. If Libby finally sells out Cheney, the only place Cheney has to go is Bush. Failing ratting out up the chain of command, these blokes are going to have to testify.
…Cotchett, who took over as trial counsel in Plame's case on Tuesday, said legal precedent for whether Cheney and the others could claim legal immunity in the case comes, in part, from Paula Jones' sexual harassment case against Clinton.
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling that neither Clinton "or any other official has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity."
In order to be dismissed from the case or avoid testifying, Cotchett said, lawyers for Cheney and the other men would have to argue that they were acting on government business if they are found to have leaked Plame's name to the media.
Unless, of course, the current SCOTUS steps in to undermine the ’97 decision, which wouldn’t exactly be surprising.
Question of the Day
We’ve done this one before, but it was fun the last time around and there are always new faces to consider. Are there any celebrities whom you are often told you resemble?
I’m too fat, quite honestly, to be told I resemble any celebrities very often. There just aren’t that many overweight actresses. But those who fancy British comedy often tell me I resemble Dawn French, who is living, sexy, voluptuous proof that big can be beautiful, and I consider the comparison blushingly flattering.
Dawn on the left; Shakes on the right.
Mr. Shakes is a dead ringer for Louis CK., except that Mr. S. still has a full head of curls.
Mr. S. on the left; Louie on the right.
(As an aside, I had to argue endlessly with Mr. Shakes to allow me to post that picture of him. He claims he looks “like a bucket of monkey-spunk.” Wev. I love that picture of him.)
Snort
The Abstinence Clearinghouse is selling a Purity Ball Planner. Because no little girl should go without the pseudo-incestuous joy of promising her virginity to daddy.They’re selling their Purity Ball Planner for $25.00, but I’ve decided to undercut them with my own competing product…
The planner includes everything you need to have a successful event and encourage "purity in a way that will be remembered forever." Most notably in therapy.
That shit’s gonna sell like hotcakes, bitchez.
This One’s for You, Maurinsky
Blondes may have more fun but redheads have more sex, according to new research in Germany.No word on male redheads, although I remember Mr. Shakes grousing not so long ago about some article out of Britain that said redheaded men are the least laid.
The study by Hamburg Sex Researcher Professor Dr Werner Habermehl looked at the sex lives of hundreds of German women and compared them with their hair colour.
He said: "The sex lives of women with red hair were clearly more active than those with other hair colour, with more partners and having sex more often than the average. The research shows that the fiery redhead certainly lives up to her reputation."
“Everyoone thinks blookes tarred with the ginger gene are oogly,” he moaned.
“No, they don’t,” I assured him.
“Ooh, really?” He gave me The Eyebrow. “Then why aren’t there any redheaded male sex symbools?”
“Robert Redford,” I said.
“He’s bloond,” Mr. Shakes countered.
“Strawberry blond,” I replied.
“Harrumph.”
“Boris Becker,” I suggested.
“Booris Becker is a wanker,” Mr. Shakes complained.
“David Caruso.”
“He really is an oogly bastard.”
My suggestions of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Conan O’Brien, and Eric Stoltz were also summarily dismissed.
“What about Carrot Top?” I said, trying not to laugh. “He’s a hottie.”
“Fooking boollshit,” muttered Mr. Shakes. “The cloosest we ginger-haired blookes have goot is Roonald bloody McDoonald.”
“Sixty gazillion served!” I enthused.
“Get stooffed,” he told me.
Well, I'll be Hornswoggled
Looks like a good old-fashioned media spanking still works. Chuck Roberts has swallowed his pride and apologized for his "Al-Qaeda Candidate" comment.
I could indulge in a little schadenfreude, but Roberts did the right thing, and I've got to give him kudos for that. There are others that have never apologized for anything they've done.
C&L hands out the hat tips, but forgot skippy, who had a hand (paw?) in this as well. Nice work, folks.
Quote of the Day
“America is safer than it has been, yet it is not yet safe.” — President Poppycock McFlapdoodle, speaking to reporters at the National Counterterrorism Center just outside Washington today.
I love how he tries to have it both ways. He still wants Americans to be shit-in-yer-breeks-terrified that the terrorists will git us any moment, but, at the same time, he wants credit for leading the only party capable of protecting them. America’s more safe (because of me), but not totally safe (so keep on sitting in that puddle of piss in front of Fox News until it’s time to cast your next vote).
Connect the Dots... La, La, La, La
In the future, our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will look back on all of this, and wonder how we could have possibly been so stupid.
Olbermann runs down the list of fearmongering by the Bush Administration. I think it's very interesting to see how quickly the UK arrests have disappeared from the news (although they're still red, red meat for the bobbleheads), and watching the reactions of people in the airports. The news reporters were all over the airports recently, and I don't know about you, but the only reaction I heard was: "No, I'm not scared. It's annoying, but what can you do?"
It looks like we've finally reached a saturation point with Terrorist Fearmongering, and it's about time. The UK arrests resulted in a minor hiccup in Bush's approval ratings; not the several points we would usually see in this case. Cheney's usual boogeyman warnings seem to have backfired on him. And fortunately, people don't seem to be paying the slightest bit of attention to this nonsense idea that the Lieberman loss and "aiding the enemy" are connected in any way, shape or form.
While Bush continues to flap his arms and insist that we should all be scared shitless, and no doubt pissing off Scotland Yard with flapdoodle like this:
"We disrupted a terror plot, a plot where people were willing to kill innocent life to achieve political objectives," Bush said.(Ahem. We?)
... it would appear that finally, people are beginning to wake up and realize that the people "plotting" to "achieve political objectives" are the lying bastards in the Bush Administration.
Keep circulating the truth.
(There's a crazy rhythm comin' from cross-post land...)
