The Fixer and Gordon of the Alternate Brain also author another blog called, imaginatively enough, The Fixer and Gordon, which is less politics and more auto repair. It’s celebrating its one year blogiversary in May. Congrats, guys!
Felch You
Okay, this is really beyond the pale.
Pam reports on a North Carolina County Commissioner, Bill James, whose hatred for homosexuals is only matched by his apparent obsession with their sexual behavior. She posts an entire email he sent on the subject, in response to some of his fellow commissioners’ advocacy of extending domestic partner benefits. Here’s an excerpt from that email:
You really think that a pool of people (homosexuals) where 45% of them eat feces from the rear end of another male is "normal"? If you do, you are frankly nuts.Okay, aside from his vitroilic attitude, I’d like to point out that the correct spelling is felching, and the definition which he attributes to it is not its common usage. (I’m very impressed, by the way, that Wikipedia has an article on felching! Who knew? I thought I might have to send you to some weird site, but nope!) And I’d love to know what schools his kids are going to that they’re being taught about felching. I had to learn about it the old-fashioned way—from John Waters’ films and gay porn.
A lifestyle where one of their past times is buying gerbils and hamsters from the pet store and cramming them up their rears in an activity called feltching? A group of people who like to urinate on their partners and call them "golden showers"? Where one of the honored members of the Gay Alliance is an organization called the "Man-Boy Love Association" that promotes sex with underage boys?
That behavior is worthy of protection? That behavior is worthy to be taught in our schools? to our children? You are one sick "Independent, white, married-heterosexual, presbyterian" if you do.
In one study, two homosexual researchers found that 73% of adult male homosexuals had had sex with boys age 19 or younger.Oh, heavens to Betsy! You mean adult male homosexuals were actually having sex with other adult male homosexuals???!!! The horror!
Somebody please inform Mr. James that once you reach 18, you’re not “a boy” anymore. And while you’re at it, let him know that any study of adult male hetersexuals having sex with “girls” age 19 or younger would probably produce similar results. In fact, I would imagine that most people having sex at, say, age 20, are having sex with people in that same age range, give or take a couple of years, so I can’t for the life of me figure out what’s shocking about this statistic.
Anyway, read the rest. It’s really appalling to think this is what we’re dealing with. Pam notes:
This redneck bumf*ck is in desperate need of therapy, and I would add, a bit more literacy, sex ed and access to factual information. His obsession with real or perceived sex acts is, well, insane.So true. If you’d like to help Mr. James by offering him some help in the literacy, sex ed, and/or factual information departments, his email is Wjames@carolina.rr.com.
Gannguckerton on Real Time
Crooks and Liars has the video up of Jeff Gannon on Real Time with Bill Maher.
They note, “Pretty tame questioning for Bill after he has lambasted Jimmy/Jeff in the past.,” and I agree. It was pretty tame. Better than most, though. Still, I’d love it if one single stinking interviewer would respond to Gannon’s boilerplate reply about his past as a rentboy—“Those allegations aren’t relevant”—with the obvious follow-up question, “But aren’t they true?” It’s not like his reply is unexpected; he answers the same way every time. Ditto to the follow-up to his assertion that this whole thing started because he asked a question “liberals didn’t like.” When will someone call his ass out on the fact that his question was not objectionable because of its blatant conservatism, but because it contained a blatant lie, attributing a quote to Harry Reid that was not accurate, but instead an imaginary concoction conjured by Rush Limbaugh? Given the opportunity, wouldn’t any of us be willing to ask the tough questions no interview will? Why are they so pathetic?
But he only wants good schools, and fuzzy puppies for all
And yet another slug oozes out of the woodwork. Well, at least they didn't say "Alleged White Supremacist" in the headline.
McGuire, who calls himself a "European American activist" and rejects the label of white supremacist, says he believes he has more support in the community than many think. And he says he is committed to reforming Bozeman schools.
He says the schools promote homosexuality, strip parents of control over their children, ignore white students and promote other cultures at the expense of figures like George Washington and other founding fathers.
"White children are often installed with guilt and a feeling of being ashamed because of the way that whites have dealt with minorities in the past, such as black slavery and the killing of Indians," McGuire said in a telephone interview. "Past discrimination should not result in present-day reverse discrimination against white kids."
Ah, reverse discrimination. The bigot's favorite excuse. It's those dirty dark skinned folk that make us look bad! We didn't do nothin'!
Human rights advocates say McGuire is running only to promote National Alliance beliefs and attract new members.
"What he wants here is to stir up the pot and get some visibility," said Ken Toole, director of the Montana Human Rights Network. "The political arena presents a chance for him to get out and present his views as he wants."
Nationally, the National Alliance is "really on the ropes" since the 2002 death of leader William Pierce, said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. Pierce's novel "The Turner Diaries" is believed to have inspired Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
And yet, the Bush Administration doesn't label them as a Terrorist Organization. Wonderful.
I'm sure this sparkling example of humanity will never get on the school board, but then again, I never thought Bush could get re-elected, either. Look how easily he duped people into signing his petition.
How many of these maniacs are in that woodwork, anyway?
(All emphasis mine, cross-posted from my blog)
Last Chance Saloon Update
G.C. has been banned.
As I stated when I made the decision:
My policy is the same across the board: your rights here will be terminated as soon as you start infringing on the rights of others. I believe G.C. has crossed that threshold with his continued insistence on making the same inflammatory comments over and over that serve no other purpose other than to harass and annoy.Some people took issue with my decision and have threatened to leave this site because I chose to ban someone. Some people think it’s censorship. Some people will continue to complain about how unfair I am, and repeatedly assert that I try to squash dissent...
Well, today's your lucky day, kiddies! I’ve made a place for just such criticisms: Shakes Sis Sucks, a brand new blog for anyone who has a grievance against the big, mean, horrible, poopyhead that is me—including G.C. And the best part is, it's yours to run however you want.
The username is poutypuss and the password is bigbaby. Feel free to do whatever you like with it. Turn it into Blog of the Flies for all I care.
Just don’t say I never gave ya nuttin’.
Ciao.
[UPDATE: Mike from Running Scared has taken advantage of my offer. I have been deemed the Ann Coulter of the Left.]
[UPDATE AGAIN: Shakes Sis Sucks has now turned into a blog titled “Tax and Business Law Commentary,” authored by someone called Stuart Levine. I read it; it’s pretty interesting. If Stuart happens to drop by, he ought to introduce himself.]
President George Allen?
Link:
A National Journal poll to be released tomorrow of "congressional and political insiders" finds Sen. George Allen (R-VA) ranked first among 2008 GOP presidential candidates and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) ranked first among Democrats. Each of 215 insiders were asked to rank their top five choices.George Allen?! Well, I had to do some research on this guy. (Does anyone know anything about him? Is he a former professional athlete or something?) We’ll get back to that in a moment.
On the Republican side, Allen finished with 229 combined points, while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) finished second with 217, Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) third with 184, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani fourth with 129 and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney fifth with 109 points.
On the Democratic side, Clinton led all Democrats with 388 points, followed by former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) with 192, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner with 166, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) with 125 and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) with 90.
A couple interesting points to note. The GOP top 5 slots eluded both Santorum and Jeb Bush, but not Frist. Huh. Also interesting is that Clinton is the first choice for Dems by a much larger margin, considering she’s actually a rather divisive figure among rank-and-file Dems. No real conclusions to be drawn, considering the results are from a fairly vaguely-defined source, but still worth noting. Make of it what you will.
Now, back to this George Allen character. He’s pretty much our basic nightmare.
He’s rated 20% by the ACLU, likely because of voting NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes (Jun 2002), YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping (Oct 2001), and supporting an anti-flag desecration amendment (Mar 2001). On the upside (if you’re a wealthy Republican fucknut), he’s got a 100% approval rating from the US Chamber of Commerce and he supported the bankruptcy bill.
He supports trying juvenile felons as adults, tougher sentencing for drug crimes, allowing the FCC to approve larger media conglomerates, and requiring minor mothers to live at home and forcing them to identify their children’s fathers. He’s rated 100% by the Christian Coalition, but 0% by NARAL (abortion rights), APHA (public health advocacy), ARA (rights of seniors), and SANE (anti-war advocacy).
And those are pretty much his good attributes.
I haven’t even covered his stances on tax reform, energy and oil, free trade, government reform, healthcare, or poverty. If you’re interested, go here.
And I think you should be. George Allen: All of the wingnuttiness of Frist and Santorum, but none of the well-known baggage. Watch out.
Sic ’Em!
Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) is my new hero.
[Bush] wants to dismantle a program [Social Security] that defines what the Democrats are proudest of. That’s what this is about. The Republicans—almost all of them—opposed Social Security when it was proposed by Franklin Roosevelt. Almost all of them opposed Medicaid. They voted against Medicare in 1965. So these are programs that provide a safety net for the poor and I think the Republicans basically resent the poor and they figure if we can get the poor investing in the stock market, maybe they’ll start thinking like Republicans. God help us.Yowza! You tell ’em, Jimmy-boy! But here is the best part:
Except for the religious fundamentalists, most of the hardcore Republicans have incomes over $90,000. I don’t think it’s the taxation system that bothers them, it’s the safety net. They believe in survival of the fullest. The people who are best off in this society are the ones who have been the beneficiaries of all of their policies. And now if they can get people to invest in—the more money you put into the stock market, the higher the average value, [the more] it accrues to the owners of our society. The people who have enough means to own stock, to own the means of production.
I think the Social Security thing is all about ideology. It’s certainly not about fiscal responsibility. If he wanted to get us excited about a crisis, he’d talk about healthcare, and how Medicare is actually going bankrupt, and how 45 million people don’t have health insurance.
Raw Story: Do you really think the president is sheltered from those he’s pitching his plan to?Slam!
Moran: The only actual news that he reads is the sports section. All the national news, all the opinions that he gets have been filtered, and it goes to his daily briefing that has already been pre-screened to give him what he wants to read. He doesn’t read any books, and he doesn’t talk with people that don’t already agree with him. He’s surrounded himself with ideological sycophants. And the biggest ass-kisser of all is Dick Cheney.
Awesome. Well done, Mr. Moran. Big Brass Balls of the Day Award to you, my good fellow.
I'm shocked. No, really!
I have to admit, this takes balls. Jimmy/Jeff/Gannon/Guckert/Jacob/Jingleheimerschmidt is making an appearance on Bill Maher's show Friday night.
Man, I wish I had cable. Will anyone be liveblogging this?
(Insert "taking balls" joke here.)
(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to AmericaBlog)
Spidey Sense
Donald Rumsfeld certainly seems rather enamored with Spidey’s plonker.
“Does looking longingly at Spidey’s webspinner make me gay? Perhaps. Would I look that good in tights? Sure.”
(Hat tip to Paul for this one.)
Meet the Press
Last night’s press conference was, to be kind, a disaster. The press actually asked some questions vaguely resembling hardballs (although I dearly wanted someone to take the opportunity to ask Bush about Tom DeLay after he asserted he is “proud of [his] party,” but perhaps that’s expecting too much of sleepy bears coming out of their cozy hibernation). The president dodged the toughies, although not terribly adeptly, and was clearly agitated, even as he repeatedly said he “appreciated” various questions. (I began to wonder if “I appreciate that question” was some sort of codespeak for “Karl Rove, please have this reporter killed.”)
Perhaps my favorite part of the entire thing was Bush’s patent refusal to endorse the “judicial filibusters are an attack against people of faith” storyline.
I think people are opposing my nominees because they don't like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated.Got that, Bill First? Got that, Dobson? Got that, Freepers?
[…]
I view religion as a personal matter. I think a person ought to be judged on how he or she lives his life, or lives her life. And that's how I've tried to live my life, through example. Faith-based is an important part of my life, individually, but I don't -- I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith.
[…]
The great thing about America, David, is that you should be allowed to worship any way you want, and if you choose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship. And if you choose to worship, you're equally American if you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim. That's the wonderful thing about our country, and that's the way it should be.
That last paragraph sounds like something I’d say. I question whether the president believes in the sentiment quite as passionately as I do, but I’m sure glad he said it nonetheless. The dominionists must be stewing in their own juices at that one—hoo boy!
Salon’s War Room also reports today that the mainstream press seems to finally be catching on that this guy isn’t real popular anymore:
Forget the analysis pieces, almost all of which focus on the sorry shape of the president's second-term agenda; notice the hostile tone in the straight news stories today.Ouch. I gotta tell ya, Bush looked like a half-cooked goose last night. When the only major policy that is regarded as even remotely successful (No Child Left Behind) is brought up in a question about a teachers’ union filing a lawsuit against it because of its massive funding problems, you know he’s a done tom turkey. (Forgive the mixed fowl metaphors.)
Under a front-page headline that reads, "Bush Cites Plan That Would Cut Social Security Benefits," the Times says Bush's press conference "represented an effort to regain control of the national dialogue at a time when Mr. Bush is struggling to push his Social Security plan ahead on Capitol Hill, his approval ratings are falling, the economy is showing signs of slowing and Democrats have become more combative."
The Washington Post leads with the headline, "Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits," and its main news story describes a president clamoring for relevance. The press conference "came at a time of uncertainty for a president facing sagging poll numbers, a slowing economy and general unease about his domestic agenda," the Post says, citing White House aides who say Bush is "concerned his agenda is being eclipsed by congressional bickering."
The Boston Globe says Bush met the press "amid an array of problems, including the stalled nomination of some of his judicial nominees, and of John Bolton to become US ambassador to the United Nations, ethics questions surrounding a key ally, House majority leader Tom DeLay, a sliding stock market, continuing violence in Iraq, and record energy prices."
And the Los Angeles Times headlines its coverage, "Bush Recasts Message on Social Security," then ticks off a litany of problems for which the president apparently has no plan: "The nation's economic growth has slowed. . . . The price of gasoline has soared. . . . Bush's overall popularity has sagged in public opinion polls. . . . The president acknowledged no anxiety over those trends, beyond his concern over gas prices and the economy. 'I'm an optimistic fellow,' he said."
If Bush continues to get coverage like this, he'd better be.
As a side note, the lively discussion in the Big Brass Blog chat room last night was fun. Thanks to Pam for moderating throughout the press conference, and for everyone who joined in. We’ll have to do that more often.
The Realm of the Clueless
I heard a promo for "American Dad," the new show by the creator of "Family Guy" on the radio this morning. We've been anticipating it in Spudville, as the husband is a rabid "Family Guy" fan. A quick blurb from the show was played (I may have the dialogue wrong; doing this from memory):
Dad: "Eat your peas."
Daugher: "Why?"
Dad: "So you'll be big and strong enough to fight off Bill Clinton's sexual advances!"
I'm sure I'm wording it incorrectly, but that was the joke. Hearing it made me think of "All in the Family," and the country's reaction to Archie Bunker.
Carol O'Connor was an excellent actor, and a very good man. He was a staunch liberal in real life; I remember reading how distressed he was that this bigoted character was becoming so popular with real bigots! A testament to his acting ability, I suppose, that the character they were mocking became a hero to so many.
Anyway, the father in "American Dad" is a caricature of an ultra right-wing conservative. But with jokes like the one above, I wonder if he'll become a hero to the right? Will we start seeing "American Dad" shirts sold on Little Green Hateballs?
Will they "get it?"
Somehow, I doubt it. As we've said before, subtlety ain't their strong suit.
(Cross-posted from my blog.)
Friday Limerick
Last night the pres took to the stage,
Which he hasn’t done in an age,
To answer the press;
His responses? A mess!
He came off as both lost and enraged.
(And for another great limerick, see this comment thread for a Dark Wraith original, which depends on the context of the whole thread for maximum appreciation.)
Friday Blogrollin’
Not only are all of the following Shakers, whose contributions regularly grace the comments threads around here, but they are also each great bloggers in their own right. Check ’em out!
Daily Mendacity
Frogs and Ravens
WordWhammy
Shades of Gray
The Evil Petting Zoo
Local Tint
Pandora’s Blog
A Little Leeway
(By the way, I know my toggling menus aren't working for FireFox users. It's beyond my ability to sort out, so the Dark Wraith and Rook have both generously offered to take a look and see if they can figure it out. Hopefully, they'll be working soon. I apologize for the inconvenience. And thanks to everyone who's let me know.)
Friday Blogwhorin'
Your chance to promote your blog, other blogs, and various things of interest.
What's going on?
Question of the Day
[UPDATE: I'm moving this back closer to the top for a bit, because there have been some really lovely contributions in the comments that deserve more attention, and to encourage others to contribute their stories, too.]
In his acceptance speech for the 1993 Best Actor Oscar for Philadelphia, Tom Hanks noted:
I would not be standing here if it weren't for two very important men in my life. Two that I haven't spoken with in a while but I had the pleasure of the other night: Mr. Rawley Farnsworth, who was my high school drama teacher, who taught me to act well the part, there all the glory lies. And one of my classmates under Mr. Farnsworth, Mr. John Gilkerson. I mention their names because they are two of the finest gay Americans, two wonderful men that I had the good fortune to be associated with, to fall under their inspiration at such a young age. I wish my babies could have the same sort of teacher, the same sort of friends.And the movie In and Out was born. But that’s not the point of this post.
It’s easy to forget that it was still fairly spectacular in 1993 to hear someone like Tom Hanks warmly acknowledge and express gratitude to gay mentors so effusively, although that it is still stuck in my memory is some indication of its import at the time.
When considering the legislation being presented in Alabama to ban gay-authored books (and those with even the remotest gay content), I was thinking about the priceless and unquantifiable contributions made to the arts by the LGBT community, and I was reminded of Tom Hanks’ speech, which celebrated the influence of two gay men on his life. I've had the fortune of being positively affected by a number of people, many of whom were gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered—teachers, friends, coworkers, mentors, artists in various disciplines, all of whom have inimitably enriched my life, though perhaps none quite so markedly and lastingly as Mr. Furious.
My friendship with Mr. Furious, which began half my life ago, has taught me about love, loyalty, pride, self-worth, self-expression, and communication, just for a start. He is a true soul mate, who knows me and understands me wholly—and generously accepts my flaws, even as he has seen me at my very shameful worst. We’ve studied, worked, written, made films, published underground newspapers, set poetry to music, laughed, cried, struggled, and succeeded together; I have few brilliant memories that don't include him. One of the best gifts I have ever received was a CD he burned for me on my 30th birthday last year, featuring a compilation of songs that evoked shared memories and accompanied by his written recollections of what each song evoked. They are songs that I love, because they remind me of him, but also because we love the same music, like we love the same movies and books. We have in-jokes that are almost old enough to drive.
I really can’t imagine what my life would have been like without him.
So, today’s question, as a counterpunch to the attempts to silence the voices of gays and lesbians, is this: how has a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person touched your life? Whether it’s someone famous, perhaps one of the writers whose work was mentioned in the post below, or someone you know, what has that person meant to you?
(I love ya, Mr. F.)
Chat Invitation
As Paul noted earlier today, President Bush is doing a news conference tonight, his first in a long time. (8:30 EST)
During the news conference, Pam will be moderating a chat in the Big Brass Blog chat room, the link to which can be found in the far right sidebar. Since my television is upstairs and my computer is downstairs, I will be joining in after the broadcast (or perhaps during, depending on how long I can stomach it). I hope you’ll join us!
Last Chance Saloon
As many regular Shakers know, we have a troll in our midst by the name of G.C. who likes to antagonize by saying things like, When was the last "straight pride parade"? Yesterday, I challenged G.C. to do the right thing and leave this site of his own volition, because he has repeatedly proven himself disrespectful (which he admits purposely being), ill-informed (the latest admittance of which can be found here), and deceitful (proof of which can be found here where he claims that I believe “other opinions must be stopped,” in spite of my having allowed everyone (including him) to express whatever they want and having never banned a single commenter from this site). In the past, it should be noted, I had to force G.C. to apologize to Ms. Julien after he had been so thoroughly rude and insensitive that I was prepared to ban him should an apology not have been forthcoming.
Instead of being a stand-up guy, and recognizing that his contributions here are unwelcome, because of both their tenor and lack of factual basis, G.C. has chosen instead to accuse me of shutting him down because of his dissenting political views.
Most recently, G.C. has asserted in his defense:
The "straight pride parades" comment was meant to make a point. I (and many other citizens of this great country) find "gay pride parades" very inflammatory and offensive, but that's life. Get over it.Here is my response:
Yes, I admit that I did not know of any such "straight" parades. I stand corrected.
Why is it that if any counterpoint to a "gay" topic comes up people shout "you are out of line. I find "gay marriage" equally lambasting the straight community. I think that is out of line. The argument can go both ways. I'm sorry for the ill-informed comment, but the point still stands.
A) How is a gay pride parade inflammatory and offensive?
B) Why do you repeatedly accuse me and my readers of being ill-informed when you have yet to catch me reporting any unverifiable information, and yet I have on many occasions forced you to admit you "didn't know about" something?
C) Gay marriage cannot "lambaste" the straight community. (Do you even know what lambaste means?) Here, let me help you out:
lam·baste
1. To give a thrashing to; beat.
2. To scold sharply; berate.
To say a straight pride parade is about lambasting the LGBT community is to suggest that it is organized with the express purpose of berating gays and lesbians. The parade itself does not lambaste; the people involved do. Concepts and institutions, like gay marriage, cannot lambaste anything.
D) You seem to be resolutely confused about the concept of open debate, complaining about having people respond to your “counterpoints” with counterpoints of their own. You have expressed on a gay-friendly blog that you are against gay marriage and, in fact, any expression of gay pride and solidarity. What do you expect? That people return with an argument to your beliefs is not an attempt to squelch dissent, but a key component of debate. If you want to be able to express your views without anyone expressing an alternative opinion, then you need to start your own blog and disallow comments.
----------------
There are two reasons I am posting all this on the main page. First, because I want it clearly noted that I do not resent G.C. sharing alternative political views; it is the means by which he expresses them that I find objectionable. Secondly, I want G.C. to take this opportunity to mount his defense in this comment thread, because it is his last chance to convince me and everyone else at this blog that I should continue to allow him to be here.
I have been asked to ban him, and until this point I have not, because I do believe in free speech and because I pity him; he’s obviously a very lonely and unhappy person, and I’m not sure he has much meaningful connection with other people. But in addition to my belief in free speech, and despite my feelings of sympathy, I also believe strongly that this blog is a community, and when there is a disruptive element in any community, it is the job of the community leader to take action to protect it. Opposing political views are welcome; people who intentionally hurt feelings and act in a manner contrary to the goals of the community are not. So we have reached the Last Chance Saloon.
G.C., this is it, buddy. Give me a reason to let you stay, or you’re gone.
The Disappointment to My Parents Meme
Ahh! I’ve been tagged!
Before I plow onward, I have to admit, that I don’t really “get” this meme, which is admittedly probably quite stupid of me, so I tried to trace it backwards the source. After awhile, though, I got distracted or bored or something, so I don’t know who wrote it originally, and I don’t know why they “couldn’t” be these things. I’d prefer to be saying, “If I were a doctor…” etc., since I could have been one, but I prefer to examine weird body growths from a safe distance—approximately the distance between my couch and the television, with an added layer of protection from too much horror provided by the Discovery Health Channel editors.
Anyway, in the spirit of fun and trying to ignore my penchant for pedantry, here are my responses:
If I could be a scientist... Well, I am a social scientist—does that count? I apply all my learnin’ in the field of sociopolitical anthropology to this here blog, instead of getting a doctorate and going to live among and study the Kayapo Indians of Brazil. And good thing, too, or else I’d never have the time to write piercing political commentary about overzealous trouser designs.
If I could be a musician... I’d do whatever it takes to be controversial enough to irritate Bill O’Reilly, so that when Pepsi offered me a contract, he’d declare a pox on my family, which might be the only thing to convince my dad to stop watching his show.
If I could be a doctor... I’d be Dr. Dre. See previous answer.
If I could be a painter... I would be an antisocial graffiti artist, get terminally addicted to drugs and booze, never make a penny while I was alive, and make sure that the millions my work garnered after my untimely demise would be left to radical lefty causes. Believe me, that would be a big disappointment to my parents.
If I could be an innkeeper... I would certainly keep my eyes on any pregnant women and their damn husbands who show up at my door on donkeys.
Tag, you’re it:
Pam, because she shares my strange addiction to the Discovery Health Channel, Ms. Julien, and Waveflux. Off you go!
Holy CRAP!
Bubble boy is temporarily leaving his bubble.
WASHINGTON -
President Bush is ready to begin talking with Congress and the public about specific steps he supports to ensure the future of
Social Security and will announce his ideas during a prime-time news conference Thursday.
Bush was also using the formal question-and-answer session with reporters — his first in the evening in over a year — to talk about skyrocketing gas prices. The White House asked television networks to broadcast the news conference, scheduled for 8:30 p.m. EDT in the East Room of the White House.
Took him long enough. Gee, do you think reporters will take this opportunity to ask him real questions? Or are they just going to Gannon it, and let him slide by?
Chimpy hasn't spoken to a real audience in so long; if the questions get difficult, he's sure to get spooked. I haven't seen that since the first debate, and THAT'S entertainment, folks...
Time Really Sucks
Skippy writes another letter.
Last time on this issue, I noted:
This is the problem with a media that refuses to do its most basic homework—the damage gets done, and unless all (three) of the Left’s media personalities collectively scream about how the mistake is part of a vast rightwing conspiracy, no one will be the wiser.Well, I stand corrected. The cropping in their print version seems pretty darned deliberate. Looks like in addition to being lazy, complacent, imprecise, conscienceless, bottom-line driven, easily intimidated and manipulated, they’re also crooked. Nice going, Time. Your determination to create a photo finish in the race to bottom is really paying off.
The thing is, I don’t think Time really is part of a conspiracy. I think this mistake is just typical of the assortment of lazy, complacent, imprecise, conscienceless, bottom-line driven, easily intimidated and manipulated twats that are collectively known as our mainstream media. Which, frankly, isn’t really any better.
Also in Texas…
Houston has banned people with offensive odors from public libraries.
On Wednesday, the City Council passed a series of library regulations that some say are an attempt to discourage homeless people from visiting the public buildings.Right. I’m sure it has absolutely nothing to do with preventing recent history in Austin from repeating itself in Houston.
[…]
"I understand what they're trying to do, but when you start targeting a community like the homeless, I think that's poor policy," council member Ada Edwards said.
Mayor Bill White said there have been several complaints from the public about abuse of the city's libraries.
A Must-Read
In posting about another discrimination lawsuit brought against Denny’s, this time because one of their franchises refused to serve a group of men of Middle Eastern descent, who were also called “bin Ladens” by the manager, Pam includes some Freeper quotes regarding the story. They are truly sickening.
"We fear your kind...car bombs, hijacked airplanes, bulking belts, beheadings, honor killings, all are associated with Islam and Muslims....so yeah...I'm gonna look twice and the second look ain't love."That isn’t even the worst of it. I really can’t even begin to imagine how to combat such visceral, vengeful racism.
The Sistine Chapel is Totally Gay
Mr. Shakes has an interesting question for Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen: Should the Sistine Chapel be burned to the ground since it’s graced with over 300 figures painted by raging homosexual Michelangelo?
Meanwhile, in Texas…
While Alabamans argue over banning books authored by gays or featuring gay characters, the school board in Odessa, Texas (the town featured in the book and film Friday Night Lights, the town that values football over book-learnin’) has voted unanimously to add a Bible class to its high school curriculum.
Barring any hurdles, the class should be added to the curriculum in fall 2006 and taught as a history or literature course. The school board still must develop a curriculum, which board member Floy Hinson said should be open for public review.Of course, a look at their website reveals some interesting assertions, the first being, “The program is concerned with education rather than indoctrination of students,” which is immediately followed by, “The central approach of the class is simply to study the Bible as a foundation document of society, and that approach is altogether appropriate in a comprehensive program of secular education. The world is watching to see if we will be motivated to impact our culture, to deal with the moral crises in our society, and reclaim our families and children. Please help us to restore our religious and civil liberties in this nation.” (Emphasis mine.)
The board had heard a presentation in March from Mike Johnson, a representative of the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, who said that coursework designed by that organization is not about proselytizing or preaching.
Okay. So if it’s not meant to indoctrinate students into a particular belief system, then why on earth does bringing Bible classes to high schools have anything to do with moral crises, not to mention the nebulous concept of “reclaiming children”? I think their goal is perhaps better stated as being “concerned with the covert indoctrination of students, rather than anything too obvious that will immediately get our asses taken to court by the ACLU.”
Whatever.
Oh, and by the way, my favorite rationale for this decision?
"How can students understand Leonardo da Vinci's 'Last Supper' … if they don't understand the reference from which they came?" Johnson said.Uh, you know, Mike—I’m not so sure it’s a good idea for students to be studying that faggot anyway. You have a thing or two to learn from Alabama, it seems.
Oh my god, this is awesome
Whoops. Should have secured that domain name.
Nothing combats bigotry and hatred like subtle humor.
(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to The Liberal Avenger. Cross-posted from my blog.)
Unmitigated Bigotry in Alabama
Oh, this really takes the fucking cake:
Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.Who does this motherfucker think he is?! Censorship isn’t healthy for America. Bigotry isn’t healthy for America. Small-minded, sanctimonious, ignorant, prejudiced, witch-hunting, piece-of-shit dirtbags who bloviate about a fictitious “homosexual agenda” while simultaneously managing to find homosexual undertones in everything he reads aren’t healthy for America.
"I don't look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."
Books by any gay author would have to go: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal. Alice Walker's novel "The Color Purple" has lesbian characters.
Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare. After criticism, he narrowed his bill to exempt the classics, although he still can't define what a classic is. Also exempted now Alabama's public and college libraries.
Librarian Donna Schremser fears the "thought police," would be patrolling her shelves.
"And so the idea that we would have a pristine collection that represents one political view, one religioius view, that's not a library,'' says Schremser.
"I think it's an absolutely absurd bill," says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
First Amendment advocates say the ban clearly does amount to censorship.
"It's a Nazi book burning," says Potok. "You know, it's a remarkable piece of work."
But in book after book, Allen reads what he calls the "homosexual agenda," and he's alarmed.
"It's not healthy for America, it doesn't fit what we stand for," says Allen. "And they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal."
I love these fucking cretins who go on about how gays will do “whatever it takes to reach their goal” without the slightest trace of irony or the merest glimmer of recognition that the goal is simply to have the same goddamn rights as everyone else. How shockingly radical!
And who is it really that’s willing to do “whatever it takes” to reach their goal? When was the last time, in the name of pursuing equality, the LGBT community and their supporters asked that any piece of literature be banned? In other words, when have the LGBT community and their supporters ever championed ignorance? And that’s really what Allen is doing—he’s fighting for ignorance. He’s arguing to take some of the most amazing literature ever written in the English language—Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote, Alice Walker—and make it unavailable to children because he’s afraid they might learn to be tolerant, instead of a hateful, piggish malcontent just like him. He’s arguing to hide the timeless, breathtaking beauty of works like The Glass Menagerie, A Streetcar Named Desire, Sweet Bird of Youth, The Grass Harp, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, The Color Purple, and You Can’t Keep a Good Woman Down because they may open the minds of their readers to the idea that gays are people, too. And those are just works from the three authors mentioned. Look at who else’s work Mr. Allen would be willing to get rid of, all in the name of preventing literature from doing what it does best—teaching its readers about how wonderful the world is, and the people in it:
Plato
Oscar Wilde
Alice B. Toklas
Gertrude Stein
Henry David Thoreau
Virginia Woolf
Hans Christian Anderson
Walt Whitman
Proust
Willa Cather
Somerset Maugham
W. H. Auden
Lord Byron
And that’s just off the top of my head.
At least this explains their aversion to the Socratic method.
I wonder that Mr. Allen would have to say about this book I read once. It was about a dude who traveled around with 12 other guys and a prostitute, and they ate together, and slept together, and washed each other’s feet, and the main dude was always talking about how you’re supposed to treat other people like you want to be treated and all kinds of other liberal hippy shit. I dunno. It seemed pretty gay to me. We’d better ban that book, too.
I Love Al Gore
I don’t know if I’ve ever really mentioned that, but I do. I love him with all my heart. When Bill Clinton got the democratic nomination in ’91, I said at dinner one night, “I hope he picks Al Gore as his running mate.” I was 17 at the time, and I think my dad was seriously concerned for my social future that I was focusing my energies on knowing the politics of Tennessee Senators. But I knew about Al Gore, and I wanted Clinton to pick him more than I can describe, because I wanted Al Gore to be my president someday. I still do.
Our founders understood that there is in all human beings a natural instinct for power. The Revolution they led was precisely to defeat the all-encompassing power of a tyrant thousands of miles away.Go read the rest of this speech. Lament the leadership we have lost.
They knew then what Lord Acton summarized so eloquently a hundred years later: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." They knew that when the role of deliberative democracy is diminished, passions are less contained, less channeled within the carefully balanced and separated powers of our Constitution, less checked by the safeguards inherent in our founders' design, and the vacuum left is immediately filled by new forms of power more arbitrary in their exercise and derived less from the consent of the governed than from the unbridled passions of ideology, ultra-nationalist sentiments, racist, tribal and sectarian fervor -- and most of all, by those who claim a unique authority granted directly to them by the Almighty.
Freedom, Freedom, Freedom- OY! Freedom, Freedom, Freedom- OY!
This is just incredibly appalling. When the headline is "Abu Ghraib was just the "tip of the iceberg"," my stomach sinks.
It's driving me absolutely insane that this is being ignored by the MSM. This is one of the biggest, if not *the* biggest story to come from this war. For all of our flag waving, for all of the overuse of the words "freedom" and "liberty," this is the actual face we're showing to the rest of the world.
Thugs. Criminals. Torturers. Sadistic, evil monsters.
Terrorist attacks are at a record high, and we're lucky we know this, since Condi tried so hard to stop the whole thing. The report, not terrorism. Our actions are creating more terrorists daily; and daily we are losing support from the rest of the world. Who can support our actions when it's painfully obvious that these horrible actions are not the work of "a few bad apples?" (And can we please stop using that phrase? No one believed it when these stories first came out.)
I don't want to hear one more word about "Saddam gassing his own people" while we STILL haven't released detainees that have been held because of their knowledge of WMD's that have been proven not to exist, and when we have engaged (and probably still are engaging) in horrific torture of innocents.
And what, you ask, was the lead story on the news last night?
"Watching T.V. on your cell phone! Is it worth the high cost for such a little picture? Or is this the new 'Must Have Gadget? (tm)' "
What was ABC's special report last night? An hour long show?
"Demonic Possession: Some people say they're possessed by Satan. Is it real? How do they expel their demons?" With charming footage of people vomiting into buckets and dancing around with snakes.
I'm ashamed, and I have nothing to do with any of this. Seriously, how do these people live with themselves?
(Cross posted from my blog)
Recommended Reading
Pam has posted a really excellent piece on eugenics that I highly recommend. It’s unbelievable how recently this kind of shit has gone on, which gives one pause in considering how readily that means some people would be willing to return to such an idea.
And Ms. Julien says:
STILL Not Concerned??Follow the link. Grim stuff.
Three words:
K. Street. Project.
Sigh
Dear Mainstream Media,
This is a significant contributing factor as to why we have an ill-informed and ignorant electorate.
Your inability to get even the most basic facts right is both responsible for and indicative of your continued descent into irrelevancy.
Dumbos. Get it together.
Love,
Shakespeare’s Sister
Mike Rogers of blogActive:
From today's Washington Post website...
Please, goddess, send me a sign that is is not some advance plan accidentally leaked by the Washington Post or the AP (the caption's author).
UPDATE: Oh AP, please stop this...it looks like it's your captioning problem. Do you want me to have a heart attack? Here's another sighting of "Speaker" Delay:
Damn, that’s scary!
Let’s just hope the AP isn’t privy to some news that none of us want to hear.
Bitchin'
What has happened to women’s trousers? Was there some epidemic of random pants-falling of which I was never aware? I really don’t need a button, a hook, a zipper, and a drawstring on one pair of khakis.
Yeesh.
Question of the Day: Averting Doomsday Edition
In one of his comments threads, our favorite specter, the Dark Wraith, noted the seeming impossibility of deterring the neocons from their current path of tyranny and destruction (which I’m not going to blockquote, since it’s longish, but please note it was authored by the Wraith):
The Rove & Co. strategy is winner-take-all, scorch-the-Earth, and leave the remains for the buzzards. Look at the descriptions of the behavior of men like Bolton, who has been described by multiple, first-hand witnesses as literally violent when things don't go his way. That's not leadership; and it's not really madness, either. It is, instead, a style of control that has no use for consensus, pooling of knowledge, and reason among the reasonable.
I speak as one of the most independent and least team-oriented folks around, and this is not some shade of strong, independent-minded vision. What these neo-cons do is world-class tyranny. Although every fiber of my being wants to say that the solution lies in a good round of old-fashioned ass-beating for these kinds, that would do no good. No matter how hard they are knocked back, they'll keep coming at you.
They are, in that regard, relentless; and finding a strategy that is successful against them is really, really difficult. Just about everyone reading this comment knows just how hard it is to permanently ignore a relentless, whiney person. Sooner or later, that person gets his or her way, if for no other reason than that people just want peace, and they'll eventually do just about anything to shut the whiner up.
We've all seen it; and many of us—whether or not we want to admit it—have accommodated the pestilent little people who hound us to death.
Rove, Bolton, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, and scores more of their ilk are of this breed, except that they can turn vicious on those rare occasions when things don't go their way. The damage they do in that regard is not worth it for most people. I am not certain that there are many who would be willing to risk the damage the neo-cons could cause if they were to be refused for very long.
In that regard, I cannot be too harsh on the Democrats who seem to appease them. Neither can I be too harsh on the moderate Republicans who, despite their much better judgments to the contrary, are going along with this awful, spiraling descent into tyranny.
How do you stop men like Rove, Frist, Bolton, and the others? Perhaps shine a bright light on them? Ask Joseph Wilson or Sibel Edmunds about that plan.
Be just as nasty and mean to people around you as they are? Ask Howard Dean about that plan.
Be optimistic, hopeful, and darned-near visionary in the good way you see America, its people, and its future? Ask John Edwards about that plan.
The rhetorical attack above certainly doesn't mean they cannot be stopped. What it means is that we need to go beyond seeing them for what they are. And we need to see them not as ignorant beasts, even if that really is their nature.
One solution is rather obvious... Unfortunately, it is a self-administering solution, the one used by any organism when an aggressive, destructive, and unrelenting cancer has metastasized within it.
May God help us if we can't think of something before the organic being called the United States solves the problem that way.
The Dark Wraith reaches deep for an alternative.
-----------------
Sadly, my best notion is this blog, into which I pour my heart and soul and hope it makes a difference even as fear it never will. I described the concurrence of these notions to Mr. Shakes recently as feeling like a hobbit tasked with saving Middle Earth, but I haven’t even got the ring.
So, ye wise and astute Shakers…got any ideas?
Interesting
Ariana Huffington is starting a blog. Kind of a "celebrity voices" thing, but still. I'm excited to read it, once it launches.
(Registration required, but you can always skip it with Bug Me Not.)
The Value of Choice
Abortion itself is a difficult subject. Parental notification for minors seeking abortions can add another layer of difficulty, even for the most strident pro-choice advocates. In a perfect world, teens wrestling with an unwanted pregnancy would be able to discuss the situation with their parents, who would have their child’s best interests (whatever decision that means) at heart. But, of course, we don’t live in a perfect world, and so we need to deal with the messiness that accompanies imperfection.
Unfortunately, the new legislation which is to be taken up today in the House of Representatives, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would impose new restrictions on minors’ access to abortion including requiring doctors to notify a minor’s parent before performing and abortion and making it a federal offense to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion to circumvent parental notification laws, doesn’t do very well in taking reality into consideration. Parental notification could be avoided in some cases with a judicial waiver. (As a side note: the legislation is likely to pass both the House and the Senate.)
"[T]his is tough legislation to argue against on its face," says Helena Silverstein, a political scientist at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., and author of a forthcoming book on judicial bypasses. "The appeal of parental-involvement mandates is so strong, and this legislation appears to bolster that."Judges who are unwilling to grant waivers, or in some cases get involved at all, and minors who are having abortions later than they might otherwise as a direct result of parental notification—that’s the messiness of imperfection.
What troubles Ms. Silverstein about the legislation is that it rests on the presumption that the judicial-bypass process works.
"The world is not anywhere close to ideal," she says. "There are instances where minors try to secure the right to a judicial bypass and fail. Some judges are not willing to grant a bypass, some refuse to preside. Sometimes court personnel are not aware there's a process and will turn a young woman away."
In all, 32 states require some form of parental involvement in a minor's abortion, with most defining "minor" as someone under age 18. (In a few states, 17 is the age.) Abortion-clinic operators have noted that since the advent of parental-involvement laws in the late 1980s, minors are often having abortions later in pregnancy than they used to, though statistics are difficult to come by. For some teens, the delays have pushed them beyond 14 weeks of pregnancy, the point at which some states require a hospital abortion and other restrictions.
Lawmaking on this issue should wait until legislation can be proposed which effectively (and compassionately) addresses the abovementioned realities, but it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. Instead, this legislation will create further pain, anxiety, and hardship for minors already in a dreadful situation—girls who are elsewhere concurrently being defined as woman when it’s convenient, though being treated as children without rights over their own bodies for this legislation. The inconsistency is illustrative of the unifying theme of all the abortion-related legislation currently being undertaken in Congress: controlling pregnant bodies.
That reality is not always easy, or tidy, should inform a desire in our legislators to be more sensitive, but instead, they are becoming less so, to our collective detriment. When women are allowed to make their own choices, they choose wisely.
To wit, I recently read an incredibly interesting book called Freakonomics, in which an economist by the name of Steven Levitt examines an array of unconnected topics, often unearthing hidden correlations and causations using economic principles. When he set to figuring out why crime rates had fallen so dramatically in the 1990s, even though the horrific crime wave of the ’80s was almost unanimously predicted by criminologists to worsen, he discovered that
crime began falling nationwide just 18 years after the Supreme Court effectively legalized abortion. He was struck harder by the fact that in five states crime began falling three years earlier than it did everywhere else. These were exactly the five states that had legalized abortion three years before Roe v. Wade.(Please note, the book goes into far greater detail in support of this conclusion than do I or does the review from which I quoted. In fact, it was my dubiousness at the claim in that very review that caused me to buy the book. That I now excerpt it should assure you of my belief in Levitt’s exploration after reading it in its entirety.)
[…]
The bottom line? Legalized abortion was the single biggest factor in bringing the crime wave of the 1980s to a screeching halt.
Criminals aren’t born, but created by circumstance—lack of opportunity, lack of resources, lack of stability, and a myriad of other issues. Children born into poverty, to young, single mothers, are at greater risk to become criminals than their cohorts. So, at the heart of Levitt’s revelation of the connection between legalized abortion and decreasing crime is this: women who choose abortion make the right decision. They assess, perhaps, their ability to provide, the father’s ability to provide, the child’s chance for a good life, and they make their decision accordingly. It turns out, as Levitt has discerned, those decisions may well benefit us all.
Just another reason, messy and uncomfortable as it may be, that leaving such decisions to women, even (and perhaps especially) young women, is in our collective best interest. And, most importantly, theirs.
Unbelievable
Ballooning deficits…the war in Iraq…unsecure borders…the ever-weakening separation between church and state…rampant ethics violations by congresscritters…the attack on civil rights…struggling social programs…Social Security…the healthcare crisis…unemployment…environmental concerns…dependency on foreign oil…
The list goes on and on.
And on what is Congress choosing to focus?
Steroid use in the NFL.
If McCain, Davis and the Government Reform Committee's ranking Democrat -- Henry Waxman of California -- do produce a bill, it wouldn't be the first on the topic. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., introduced the Drug Free Sports Act on Tuesday, and his House Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection subcommittee scheduled a May 5 hearing.Get with the program, you plonkers. We’ve got bigger fish to fry at the moment.
''There is every reason to believe that most major sports have athletes using illegal steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs,'' Stearns said.
Hey Gays - Wake Up!
Activist Wayne Besen has a few sobering thoughts we ought to ponder.
According to him, "If you are gay, now is time to waltz into your walk-in closet and make a choice. You can dust off your boxing gloves and prepare to fight for your rights or, you can stay silent and redecorate your closet because this is the lonely, miserable space you may inhabit in the near future. I've been fighting for equality since 1988, and this is the first time I believe we are going backwards and actually losing the battle."
Whether you are in the doom and gloom camp of people like Besen and Larry Kramer, it's important to look at the facts surrounding us right now. And they ain't pretty.
Question of the Day (Fun)
Because we all need a little fun...
This morning on the way to work, I was listening to the guys at WGN making fun of the names of the bands performing at Lollapalooza this year. (I happen to think Death Cab for Cutie is a great name--and a kickass band--but what the hell do I know?)
So here's the fun question of the day: when you become the lead singer (or guitarist, or keyboardist, or drummer, or whatever your fancy) of the greatest band that's ever lived, what will its name be?
Not a Laughing Matter, Never Was
The search for WMDs in Iraq is over…um, again.
Am I the only person who thinks of this every time yet another report is released with the exact same conclusion?
While millions of people marked the first anniversary of the invasion of Iraq this week by protesting against war on Saturday, President Bush marked the event in a different way: joking about how no weapons of mass destruction were found.Fucking hilarious, eh? Now that half of Americans polled think the president lied about WMDs, as Paul pointed out below, I think it would be a good idea for some savvy techie to stream the video from that Correspondents’ Dinner (it exists; I remember seeing it...and throwing my shoe at the TV), so we can turn it into the most popular yet stomach-turning viral video since the hot naked guy who fills transparent rubber pants with a dose of the shits.
At a black-tie dinner for Radio and Television Correspondents' Association on Wednesday, Bush poked fun at himself and his administration for among other things not finding weapons in Iraq.
At one point Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in the Oval Office. He said: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."
After a few more slides, there was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. Bush said "Nope. No weapons over there." Then another picture of Bush searching in his office. He said "Maybe under here."
According to the Nation's David Corn many of the journalists at the dinner laughed throughout the skit.
But the Daily News is reporting that the families of soldiers killed in Iraq are not laughing.
George Medina who lost his son in Iraq said, "This is disgraceful. He doesn't think of all the families that are suffering. It's unbelievable, how this guy runs the country."
Medina's son, Special Irving Medina died at the age of 22 in Baghdad on November 14.
(Don’t act you like never saw it. Everyone saw that stinkin’ video!)
Buyer's Remorse
NEW YORK Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.
"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."
Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.
Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "not worth it." But Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, recalled today that although a majority of the public began to think the Vietnam war was a mistake in the summer of 1968, the United States did not pull out of Vietnam for more than five years, after thousands of more American lives were lost.
Apparently, some people just have a very difficult time grasping the obvious.
Too bad they couldn't have figured this out, oh, before election day.
Remember those cool java "countdown to a Bush-free white house" clocks? I wonder how difficult it would be to create one that keeps track of how low Bush's approval rate is dropping.
Especially when news like this keeps cropping up.
UPDATE: The Green Knight has more.
(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to Oliver.)
The Countdown Continues
Rove has rejected the Dems’ deal:
Karl Rove rejected a compromise with Senate Democrats Monday on long-stalled nominations for the federal judiciary…Always a nice reminder that a diabolical political strategist, who can’t be contained by term limits, is running the country.
In an hour-long interview with USA TODAY and Gannett News Service reporters and editors, Rove, deputy White House chief of staff, dismissed suggestions from Democrats that they might drop threats to use filibusters to prevent votes on Bush's judicial nominees if the president would withdraw a few of the most controversial names.
As an added bonus, here’s an oldie but a goodie from Trent Lott on the nuclear option:
“I'm for the nuclear option, absolutely," Lott has said. "The filibuster of federal district and circuit judges cannot stand. ... It's bad for the institution. It's wrong. It's not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up. No problem."Charming.
You may also have heard that since the phrase “nuclear option” isn’t polling well (shocking, that), the GOP is now referring to it as the “Constitutional option.” In a lovely fit of snark, Harry Reid said yesterday:
They’re great with names… On Social Security, they’ve been trying to call private accounts “personal accounts.” They can talk about the constitutional option all they want. It’s privatization, and it’s the nuclear option. They created those terms, and they’re going to wear them around their necks from now till Doomsday.Heh.
“The Disappearing Wall”
From a NY Times editorial on the ever-weakening separation between church and state in America:
Apart from confirming an unwholesome disrespect for traditional American values like checks and balances, the assault on judges is part of a wide-ranging and successful Republican campaign to breach the wall between church and state to advance a particular brand of religion. No theoretical exercise, the program is having a corrosive effect on policymaking and the lives of Americans.Read the rest. It’s good.
Hooray for the Bankruptcy Bill. Here come the credit card companies!
RULE #1. Never wake up thinking "What am I going to write in my blog today?"
So I received a letter from a collection agency yesterday. Apparently, I owe $191.42 that is "delinquent," and they wanted to be paid (although, interestingly enough, they're willing to let me just pay $155). Now, the husband and I are buying a condo, and we've both been working very hard to fix our credit reports and get everything nice and sunny bright. I just paid off a credit card and my computer loan payment last month. So needless to say, I was concerned. I called the agency.
I supposedly owed the money to Gap, Inc. "The Gap?" I thought, "I don't shop at the Gap!"
Well, here's how these wonderful things work.
I had a Banana Republic credit card; like Old Navy, they're owned by the Gap. Thirteen months ago, I made my last payment, called the BR credit card company (they still didn't have online payment, address change, or anything internet-related at that time... welcome to the year 2004!), and closed the account.
Well, apparently one of their employees didn't cross a "t" or dot an "i," because it looks like that payment was never registered.
And over the last 13 months, I've accumulated $165 in late fees. My account has been "delinquent" for just over a year.
I never got a phone call. I never received a letter.
Of course, the collection agency can't help you with that. You have to call the credit card company. *BIG SIGH* (I will say that, for the record, the woman I spoke to at the collection agency [I was given a REAL NAME and a DIRECT LINE for her in the letter. amazing] was very nice and helpful. I wish I could say the same for BR.) So, I call BR.
Well, they still have my New York address in their files. I haven't lived there since 2003.
The phone number they had for me was my parent's number. I haven't had that number since I left for COLLEGE.
In fact, BR didn't have my account listed in their computers anymore. I had to call their "financial agency." *BIGGER SIGH* "Can I get your name?" "Dolores." "Last name and direct line?" "We can't give that out, but anyone here can help you."
Yeah, I'm sure they can.
Now we call the financial agency. Okay, they see that I owed $30, and that I have $165 in fees and late charges. But we can't fix this over the phone, oh no. I can't SPEAK to anyone. I have to WRITE A LETTER and dispute this. "Is there anyone I can speak to about this?" "No." "Can I get your name?" "Miss Smith." "First name? Employee number?" "I'm the only Miss Smith here, sir."
Suuuuure you are.
Jesus Fucking Christ. So I call the collection agency back, speak to the very nice lady, and tell her what's going on. I have to send them a copy of the letter so they have proof that I'm doing something about this, and not just ignoring them.
I am trying to BUY A HOME. I've been frantically trying to make my credit perfect for years now, and although I didn't know it, this charge has been fucking me up every step of the way. And since it shows on my credit report that I've been "delinquent," anyone else that I'm in debt to can raise my interest rates sky high.
For thirty dollars.
Folks, get your ducks in a line. Now that these companies have nothing holding them back, they can go completely crazy. If you have any hopes of home ownership in the future, don't let them do anything like this to you. No matter how small the amount, they *will* find it, and they *will* come after you. Of course, they might not have any of your correct information... apparently, no one ever thought to get on fucking google and check my current address. My mail must have been bouncing back to them... wouldn't they CHECK? Oh no, they'll just send you to a collection agency, fuck your credit, and let them do the work.
Don't let them do these things to you. If you have credit cards, pay them off and get rid of them.
And never shop at Banana Republic, The Gap, or Old Navy.
Jesus, I have a major headache now.
(Cross posted from my blog)
Let’s Make a Deal
Senate Minority Leader Monty Hall Harry Reid is meeting with Bill Frist to try to hammer out a compromise over Bush’s judicial nominees, thereby avoiding the nuclear option:
Reid is quietly talking to the Senate's chief Republican about confirming at least two of President Bush's blocked judicial nominees but only as part of a compromise that would require the GOP to end its threat to eliminate judicial filibusters, officials say.Pardon me, but after confirming 95% of Bush’s nominees, why should the Democrats even be considering a compromise with an abusive group of bullies who are creating this entire debacle out of a ridiculous notion that they somehow deserve 100% complicity on anything and everything they want? I’m extremely disappointed with the suggestion that the Dems would even entertain the notion of compromise at this point; such capitulation will not be remembered as a gallant move to the moral high ground as potential disaster was thwarted, but instead will likely not be remembered at all by the people who count—the American voters—even as the GOP will continue to push around their impotent opposition, emboldened with the knowledge that lunatic and shrill threats get them what they want.
Reid also wants a concession from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, officials said speaking on condition of anonymity: the replacement of a third Michigan nominee with one approved by that state's two Democratic senators.
[…]
Senators would not confirm details Monday, but Reid said that he has had had numerous conversations with senators in both parties in hopes of avoiding a showdown. "As part of any resolution, the nuclear option must be off the table," Reid said in a statement referring to the GOP threat to change filibuster rules.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if, in the end, the conventional wisdom ends up being that it was the GOP’s decision to not invoke the nuclear option which really won the day. The GOP will walk out of this as gracious heroes, and the Dems will carry the blame for forcing it to the brink in the first place.
Ezra also notes:
So why compromise? … Neither the principled Republicans nor the opportunists are going to feel safe on the nuclear option bandwagon. So let him go ahead and try to force the issue. Let's say, hypothetically, he got the votes. Is this a fight he can win? The Senate comes to a screeching halt, the talk shows focus on the protection/dissolution of minority rights, and folks don't understand why Republicans have broken with years of tradition over 10 nutball judges. Public opinion, already against the GOP solidifies, and Senate Republicans begin to defect, handing the right a HUGE loss and effectively ending Frist's presidential aspirations.I think it’s worth the risk, too. It’s really too bad the Dems don’t feel the same way. It's not just that they don't know how to play hardball...they don't even know how to get in the game.
Now, it's certainly true that the outcome isn't as preordained as all that, nothing's ever immutable in politics. But it seems that Reid and Co. could gamble, with reasonable certainty, on killing the nuclear option. And serving Republicans with a defeat on that, right after Social Security and Schiavo, would really solidify perceptions -- and thus the media storyline -- of the right as disorganized and on a downward trajectory, while adding significantly to Democratic momentum. So while I recognize that there's more risk in pushing forward, it seems that the potential rewards are much greater. It codifies GOP overreach, it'll empower Republican moderates, and it'll solidify the power and unity of the Democratic caucus. And I think that's worth the risk.
Ralph Reed on Microsoft's Payroll
John Aravosis (aka Woodward and Bernstein) is reporting that Microsoft is currently paying a $20,000 a month retainer to former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed's consulting firm Century Strategies.
Interestingly, Microsoft had Reed on retainer during the presidential election of 2000 to apparently help lobby then-candidate Bush on their anti-trust suit (he was actually first hired in the fall of 1998). The contract was terminated after Reed was criticized for a conflict of interest - Reed was working on Bush's campaign. The question arises when Microsoft and Reed revived their work relationship (most observers I've spoken to thought the contract ended five years ago), and what exactly Reed is working on now that the anti-trust issue is over.John lists some pretty piercing questions that Microsoft ought to be answering. (Check out his post, linked above.) I personally think it’s unconscionable that a company purporting to be socially progressive, and using its support of the LGBT community as a marketing platform, was concurrently paying $20k a month to the consulting firm of one of the most prominent faces of the dominionist movement, and has rehired him for unexplained reasons. Truly appalling.
Nomination Abomination
John Howard tells it like it is:
Outlook for Bolton nomination grimSo funny. So true. So sad.
Well, I would hope so. It's about time that someone realized that George Bush's nominations for just about any position that opens up are done just to amuse himself and see if he can actually get people who are ridiculously unqualified confirmed to positions of power. He seems to carefully pick the person least qualified for a particular position from his loyal followers. Need a new Secretary of State? Here's someone who helped us to alienate all our allies while lying us into a war. Attorney General? How about one that considers laws quaint and is concerned with how the President can find ways around them. Ambassador to the UN? Oh look, here's a guy who thinks the UN is useless, he'd be a good choice.
The sad part of this Bolton story is that it took this long for people to wake up to this nonsense. How many incompetent people do we need in positions of power? It's nice that Bolton probably won't get the job, but most of Bush's appointees shouldn't have been confirmed. I think the whole Kerik fiasco should have made people look at these guys a little closer, but it seems like it had the opposite effect. Like someone told them that there would be one guy who didn't belong, and once they flushed him out, then everyone else would be fine. The other ridiculous thing is that if Bolton doesn't get confirmed, the next guy won't be much better, but even if he's a serial killer, no one will have the balls to vote against two nominations for the same office.
I wonder what BTK is up to these days. I remember reading that he was a good Christian.
Dems Speak
Via Harry Reid’s war room:
As a matter of comity, the Minority in the Senate traditionally defer to the Majority in the setting of the agenda. If Bill Frist pulls the nuclear trigger, Democrats will show deference no longer.
Invoking a little-known Senate procedure called Rule XIV, last week Democrats put nine bills on the Senate calendar that seek to help America fulfill its promise.
If Republican's break the rules Democrats will use the rule to bring to the Senate floor an agenda that meets the needs of average Americans, such as lowering gas prices, reducing the cost of health care and helping veterans.
“Across the country, people are worried about things that matter to their families the health of their loved ones, their child’s performance in schools, and those sky high gas prices,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. “But what is the number one priority for Senate Republicans? Doing away with the last check on one-party rule in Washington to allow President Bush, Senator Frist and Tom Delay to stack the courts with radical judges. If Republicans proceed to pull the trigger on the nuclear option, Democrats will respond by employing existing Senate rules to push forward our agenda for America.”
Democrats have introduced bills that address America’s real challenges.
1. Women’s Health Care (S. 844). “The Prevention First Act of 2005” will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by increasing funding for family planning and ending health insurance discrimination against women.
2. Veterans’ Benefits (S. 845). “The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2005” will assist disabled veterans who, under current law, must choose to either receive their retirement pay or disability compensation.
3. Fiscal Responsibility (S. 851). Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement.
4. Relief at the Pump (S. 847). Democrats plan to halt the diversion of oil from the markets to the strategic petroleum reserve. By releasing oil from the reserve through a swap program, the plan will bring down prices at the pump.
5. Education (S. 848). Democrats have a bill that will: strengthen head start and child care programs, improve elementary and secondary education, provide a roadmap for first generation and low-income college students, provide college tuition relief for students and their families, address the need for math, science and special education teachers, and make college affordable for all students.
6. Jobs (S. 846). Democrats will work in support of legislation that guarantees overtime pay for workers and sets a fair minimum wage.
7. Energy Markets (S. 870). Democrats work to prevent Enron-style market manipulation of electricity.
8. Corporate Taxation (S. 872). Democrats make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes to the U.S. government instead of keeping profits overseas.
9. Standing with our troops (S. 11). Democrats believe that putting America’s security first means standing up for our troops and their families
“Abusing power is not what the American people sent us to Washington to do. We need to address real priorities instead -- fight for relief at the gas pump, stronger schools and lower health care costs for America’s families,” said Senator Reid.
Question of the Day (Semi-Rhetorical)
Can someone explain to me why on earth churches who hosted viewings of Justice Sunday should continue to receive tax exempt status?
Monday Blogwhorin’
Your chance to promote your blog, other blogs, and things of interest.
What’s going on?
Caution: Eyes may bug out of head
Okay, it's humorous, but it's still very creepy.
(via Tbogg who asks what I'm thinking, "I wonder how many people have ordered this because it accurately reflected their views?")
Justice Sunday Wrap-ups
The Green Knight, ever the go-to guy, has tons of good stuff. Just head over and start reading.
Shaker Idyllopus did some great paraphrase blogging during the event last night, which can be found here, and notes, “They're out for blood and will get it one way or another.”
United Church of Christ Seminarian Chuck Currie’s wrap-up, which looks at the event through the eyes of a liberal Christian opposed to the dominionist movement, is here.
A truly chilling account from a liberal who attended a viewing at a local church is here, which I highly recommend. A brief excerpt:
Anyway, after watching the show on the church's big screen, and seeing with my own eyes the reactions of the forty or so people I sat with in the church, I felt the need to yell out this word, very loudly and very clearly:Really—read the rest.
***DANGER!!!***
The Christian fundamentalists are at the gate. They are organized and on the march for change – the sort of change that is very bad if you’re not one of them. The hour and a half show was filled with inflammatory, impassioned rhetoric against all non-evangelical Christians, and especially against “liberal secularists,” as they called Democrats. "Be afraid" laughed several of the evenings' featured speakers, confident in the pending doom of their political opponents.
How far would one have to push these emboldened zealots before they start burning piles of Harpers, or coming after you or me with baseball bats in the street? Not very far at all, was the impression I got watching Justice Sunday.
If you spy any other good reviews of the event, please add links in comments.
Well, that's appropriate....
This is from Bob Harris' blog. As it's a short entry, I'm going to cut & paste the whole thing.
From Rolling Stone (with thanks to alert reader Mark):
The proposal, spelled out in three short sentences, would give the president the power to appoint an eight-member panel called the "Sunset Commission," which would systematically review federal programs every ten years and decide whether they should be eliminated. Any programs that are not "producing results," in the eyes of the commission, would "automatically terminate unless the Congress took action to continue them."
... the commission would enable the Bush administration to achieve what Ronald Reagan only dreamed of: the end of government regulation as we know it. With a simple vote of five commissioners -- many of them likely to be lobbyists and executives from major corporations currently subject to federal oversight -- the president could terminate any program or agency he dislikes. No more Environmental Protection Agency. No more Food and Drug Administration. No more Securities and Exchange Commission.
This should be no surprise to anyone paying attention. The Chimpsters long ago sniffed out the Social Contract as a communist plot. They've been trying to stamp out every vestige ever since.
Really scary stuff (particularly for someone that works for a non-profit organization that will probably be one of the first to get the boot), but I had to shake my head in disbelief at the title...
The Sunset Commission?
So... Bush commissions, policies, what have you are leading us basically into the pitch-blackness of night. And they're openly admitting it with the ridiculous names that they're giving to these things.
Every time he appears on television, Bush should just stand there, giving us the finger, as he speaks. Because that's basically what he does with even the smallest details of every goddamned thing he does.
(cross posted from my blog)
Serial for Breakfast
Over the past month (or so), the Dark Wraith has written a four-part opus analyzing our probable future in the 21st century. The final installation has been posted this morning. It’s grim reading; standing on the edge of the end of Enlightenment, looking out at a tide one cannot hold, is not easy, but it’s important.
If you haven’t been following the series, start with Part One, Part Two, and Part Three, and wrap up with Part Four.
In the end, the Dark Wraith notes:
It remains for the reader, then, to decide which way to believe the future will turn and in so deciding, find comfort or fear in contemplating what lies ahead.I believe it is likely long past the time when any homegrown twilight scenarios would be anything more than the distant twinkling of a fading star, but one must carry on trying nonetheless. Or maybe that's just my Baggins complex talking.
Your thoughts as you contemplate our collective future are, as always, most welcome.
Freedom of Information, Baby!
Just in case anyone’s forgotten who Jeff Gannon / James Guckert is, he’s the dubiously-credentialed journalist / gay male hooker who was not only given access to White House Press Briefings, but also somehow came to be in possession of an internal CIA memo and miraculously preordained shock and awe four hours before it happened. The story broke back in February, when Gannguckerton asked a fishy question at a White House Press Briefing (quoting Rush Limbaugh misquoting Harry Reid), which prompted a bunch of Lefty supersleuths to uncover his dodgy past.
Well, the Freedom of Information Act requests that were filed at the time are starting to produce some interesting information. RawStory reports:
In what is unlikely to stem the controversy surrounding disgraced White House correspondent James Guckert, the Secret Service has furnished logs of the writer’s access to the White House after requests by two Democratic congressmembers.The only question I have is: who the hell was he fucking?
The documents, obtained by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal Guckert had remarkable access to the White House. Though he wrote under the name Jeff Gannon, the records show that he applied with his real name.
[…]
Guckert made more than three dozen excursions to the White House when there were no scheduled briefings. On many of these days, the Press Office held press gaggles aboard Air Force One—which raises questions about what Guckert was doing at the White House.
On at least fourteen occasions, Secret Service records show either the entry or exit time missing. Generally, the existing entry or exit times correlate with press conferences; on most of these days, the records show that Guckert checked in but was never processed out.
In March, 2003, Guckert left the White House twice on days he had never checked in with the Secret Service. Over the next 22 months, Guckert failed to check out with the Service on thirteen days. On several of these visits, Guckert either entered or exited by a different entry/exit point than his usual one. On one of these days, no briefing was held.
[…]
Guckert sometimes stayed for an extended period of time before and after press conferences, particularly early in his tenure. This was especially common during his first few months, when he might be in the White House for as long as six hours.
[…]
Occasionally, the former Talon News reporter visited the White House twice on the same day. This was also most common in the early months.
I cannot put together the facts of this case—a paid escort with the most lackluster journalism credentials this side of Ali G, an unusual (mis)use of day passes, and extended periods of lounging around the White House without reason, often without checking in or out—and not come to the obvious conclusion. I would have to extricate all traces of common sense and logic from my brain to find any other reasonable explanation for all of this other than Gannguckerton being somebody’s rentboy.
If he were a woman, no one would doubt it. If he were a woman, no one would question the explanation that’s staring us in the face. If he were a woman, every reporter in the western hemisphere would be chasing the two-bit hussy down the street, demanding an explanation.
But because he’s a man, for some reason, people are reluctant to speculate about such things.
I, however, cannot indefinitely suppress my ability to reason.
As it turns out, I can neither restrain myself from suggesting a prime suspect.
Georgie likes to give head.
I’m just saying…sometimes repression of an urge compels a bizarre expression of that smothered desire.
