TFIF, Shakers! What's your poison?
Gawd damn, I'm glad it's Friday!
Place Your Bets
Sen. Larry Craig is going to make an announcement tomorrow (Saturday).
"We haven't quite scheduled anything, but we're looking at doing something tomorrow," said Craig's spokesman Sid Smith. "We haven't set a time or place yet."Okay, Shakers, time to place your bets and quote the odds on who he'll blame for the end of his senate career...assuming that he does as expected and resigns.
The clamor for Craig to step down intensified today, with the news that the Republican Party had been prepared to issue a statement calling for his resignation, a GOP source said today.
But they didn’t put it out because “party leaders had received an indication that Craig was going to step down,” on his own, the source told McClatchy Newspapers.
Here are mine:
* The liberal media, including the Idaho Statesman: 1 to 2.Any takers?
* The Radical Homosexual Agenda, including that big hunky guy that's always checking him out in the Senate dining room: 2 to 1.
* The Minneapolis Airport Police, because you know how vengeful those big Scandinavian numbers can be when you reject them: 5 to 1.
* The hypocrisy of the Republican Party that allows Senator David Vitter (R-LA) to pay for a hooker and gives him a round of applause when he apologizes, but boots Craig out 'cause he's Teh Gay: 50 to 1.
* Himself. "I have been lying to you and to my friends. I'm a Gay American and I'm finally free and brave enough to admit it. (Clicks heels three times.) There's no place like homo!" 1,000 to 1.
Slimed in the Green Zone
by The Poseidon Presidency
and The Bonnet That Ate My Brain!
You clung to the edge of your seat
during Attack of the Two-Headed Bloggrrl
and The Bullshit That Won't Die!
You gasped at the very sight of The Gas Goblin!
And now you will scream with horror at The Green Slime!
Lawmakers Describe 'Being Slimed in the Green Zone'. With extra helpings of the Green Zone Fog.
More from Drum, Josh Marshall, Steve M., Steve B., Attaturk, and Blue Girl (a different one from this Blue Girl, who, btw, sent me the most awesomest gift which will soon feature in a post…).
White Flour!
Hello, all. SAP here ...
OK, settle down, stop screaming, and get away from that ledge. This is only a guest post. Sheesh.
For the uninitiated, I am a frequent commenter (and frequent troll-hater, though I'm trying to cut back to one troll a month) here at Shakesville, and Melissa has graciously allowed me to cross-post this little gem here at my second home. (Note to Liss: the check is in the mail.)
Occasionally, just to scare the ever-living daylights out of me, Paul and Melissa will blog about clowns, knowing full well that I hate clowns; ever since I was a young lad, I have held a deep-abiding hatred for two nominally-cherished icons of childhood: puppets (thanks a lot, Rod Serling) and clowns.
While I may never rescind my fear and loathing of puppets, I believe I have overcome my disgust of all things clown, thanks to the 100th Anti-Racist Action Clown Block. Because, really, who better to counter a KKK recruitment rally than 100 clowns?
The KKK meet their match.Saturday May 26th the VNN Vanguard Nazi/KKK group attempted to host a hate rally to try to take advantage of the brutal murder of a white couple for media and recruitment purposes. http://www.volunteertv.com/special
Out. Standing. Anyone who would dress up like a clown and counter-rally the Klan is OK with me.
Unfortunately for them the 100th ARA (Anti Racist Action) clown block came and handed them their asses by making them appear like the asses they were.
Alex Linder the founder of VNN and the lead organizer of the rally kicked off events by rushing the clowns in a fit of rage, and was promptly arrested by 4 Knoxville police officers who dropped him to the ground when he resisted and dragged him off past the red shiny shoes of the clowns. http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/7704982.html
“White Power!” the Nazi’s shouted, “White Flour?” the clowns yelled back running in circles throwing flour in the air and raising separate letters which spelt “White Flour”.
“White Power!” the Nazi’s angrily shouted once more, “White flowers?” the clowns cheers and threw white flowers in the air and danced about merrily.
“White Power!” the Nazi’s tried once again in a doomed and somewhat funny attempt to clarify their message, “ohhhhhh!” the clowns yelled “Tight Shower!” and held a solar shower in the air and all tried to crowd under to get clean as per the Klan’s directions.
At this point several of the Nazi’s and Klan members began clutching their hearts as if they were about to have a heart attack. Their beady eyes bulged, and the veins in their tiny narrow foreheads beat in rage. One last time they screamed “White Power!”
The clown women thought they finally understood what the Klan was trying to say. “Ohhhhh…” the women clowns said. “Now we understand…”, “WIFE POWER!” they lifted the letters up in the air, grabbed the nearest male clowns and lifted them in their arms and ran about merrily chanting “WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER!”
It was at this point that several observers reported seeing several Klan members heads exploding in rage and they stopped trying to explain to the clowns what they wanted.
Apparently the clowns fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the rally, they believed it was a clown rally and came in force to support their pointy hated brethren. To their dismay, despite their best jokes and stunts and pratfalls the Nazis and Klan refused to laugh, and indeed became enraged at the clowns misunderstanding and constant attempts to interpret the clowns instruction.
The clowns on the other hand had a great time and thought the Nazis were the funniest thing they had ever seen and the loud laughter of over 100 counter protesters greeted every attempt of the Nazis and Klan to get their message out, whatever that was.
So, no more dissing clowns for me. Let all children rejoice in the hallowed traditions of face paint and whoopie cushions! Let all rejoice in the freedom-loving ways of our freaky big shoe'd brothers and sisters!
Unless they're Nazi clowns. Then all bets are off.
Via Metafilter.
Iowa Marriage Update
One couple managed to get married before the judge stayed his ruling, which will put the decision on hold while it is appealed.
Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan were among the lucky few to get their application through.It's really hard to believe that we can't stop fighting about that, that there's even a fight to be had.
The marriage license approval process normally takes three business days, but Fritz and McQuillan took advantage of a loophole that allows couples to skip the waiting period if they pay a $5 fee and get a judge to sign a waiver.
Friday morning, the Rev. Mark Stringer declared the two legally married in a wedding on Unitarian minister's front lawn in Des Moines.
"This is it. We're married. I love you," Fritz told McQuillan after the ceremony.
[Thanks to Oddjob for the heads-up.]
Must Be Doing Something Right
The US Military network in Baghdad has shut down access to ThinkProgress:
Recently, an avid ThinkProgress reader — a U.S. soldier serving his second tour in Iraq — wrote to us and said that he can no longer access ThinkProgress.org.If you can't figure out the irony, what the hell are you doing at this blog?
The ban began sometime shortly after Aug. 22, when Ret. Maj. Gen. John Batiste was our guest blogger on ThinkProgress. He posted an op-ed that was strongly critical of the President’s policies and advocated a “responsible and deliberate redeployment from Iraq.”
Friday Blogwhoring
Sock it to me, Shakers.
Minstel Boy, who's otherwise engaged at the moment, asked me to blogwhore this one for him: Just when I Was About to do a Random Ten...
And this is Your Moment of Zen, care of Deeky:
...with Heikki Laurila on guitar!
[No really.]
No Country Left Behind
At some point George Bush will demand a No Country Left Behind Act for Iraq. Or maybe The Decider already did when he asked Congress for fifty billion more for the war.
Nobody should notice the flunking grades Iraq has already gotten from the Government Accounting Office. Some accounting is not desirable.
And nobody should ask why Petraeus who should be graded gets to offer passing grades. Did anybody think he would do anything different? In other Really Great Newstm, some suggest the Iraqi police should get a complete do over. And there is always hope. And progress, good progress, even if your eyes say otherwise.
Krauthammer on Iraq elections, then and now
What Charles Krauthammer giddily opined about Iraqi elections in 2005:
The Iraqi elections vindicated the two central propositions of the Bush doctrine. First, that the will to freedom is indeed universal and not the private preserve of Westerners. And second, that American intentions were sincere.
His description of skeptics:
Embarrassingly, scandalously, blessedly wrong.
What Krauthammer says now about his call to reboot the Iraqi government:
New elections are not a panacea.
Vindication ain't what it used to be, apparently.
(HT to mcjoan at dKos, and cross-posted.)
You saw this episode already
I've had nothing to say about Larry Craig and his Minnesota restroom stall travails; it seems to me that most everything that can be said already has been. However, the transcript of Craig's interrogation by investigator Dave Karsnial fairly demands some comment or other. This is fascinating reading, not just for its obvious prurience or the clash of banality and status - a United States senator being grilled by a cop over an alleged sexual solicitation in an airport restroom, criminy - but for the inescapable familiarity of the narrative. We know this routine by heart, after all: the interrogation of the suspect, the dangled offer of the "out," the resistance, the evasion, the pursuit. The struggle over the framing of the truth. It's the stuff of every gritty cop show on television, every true crime series offered on cable.
We know this ritual like we know our own names, our own lives. It's in our cultural DNA. We just never, ever expected to see it applied in this context.
Highlights, sort of, from the exchange: DK: Okay. Um, I just wanna start off with a your side of the story, okay. So, a
To be sure, the officer never really wants to simply hear your side; he just wants you to confess to any and all charges so he can commence with the paperwork. Anyone familiar with police shows knows this. It's early on in the exchange, so investigator Karsnial merely registers his disagreement with suspect Craig's characterization of events without comment, though in blunt fashion. To continue...
LC: So I go into the bathroom here as I normally do. I’m a commuter too here.
DK: Okay.
LC: I sit down, um, to go to the bathroom and ah, you said our feet bumped. I believe they did, ah, because I reached down and scooted over and um, the next thing I knew, under the bathroom divider comes a card that says Police. Now, um (sigh) that’s about as far as I can take it, I don’t know of anything else. Ah, your foot came toward mine, mine came towards yours, was that natural? I don’t know. Did we bump? Yes. I think we did. You said so. I don’t disagree with that.
DK: Okay. I don’t want to get into a pissing match here.
LC: We’re not going to.DK: Okay. And when you went in the stalls, then what?
The level of detail Craig provides regarding his urinal approach will always be with you, no matter where you go in life. Sorry about that. More...
LC: Sat down.
DK: Okay. Did you do anything with your feet?
LC: Positioned them, I don't know. I don’t know at the time. I'm a fairly wide guy.
DK: I understand.
LC: I had to spread my legs.
DK: Okay.
LC: When I lower my pants so they won’t slide.DK: I know you’re not going to fight me. But that’s not the point. I would respect you and I still respect you. I don’t disrespect you but I’m disrespected right now and I’m not trying to act like I have all kinds of power or anything, but you’re sitting here lying to a police officer.
As you can see, things have gone badly. We've reached the point of struggle here, highlighted by the officer's assertion of authority combined with the standard demand for respect which translates to "stop lying to me."
LC: I, I, I.
DK: It’s not a (inaudible) I’m getting from somebody else. I’m (inaudible)
LC: (inaudible)
(Talking over each other)
DK: I am trained in this and I know what I am doing. And I say you put your hand under there and you’re going to sit there and…
LC: I admit I put my hand down.
DK: You put your hand and rubbed it on the bottom of the stall with your left hand.
LC: No. Wait a moment.
Bringing it home now...DK: I just, I just, I guess, I guess I’m gonna say I’m just disappointed in you sir. I’m just really am. I expect this from the guy that we get out of the hood. I mean, people vote for you.
Was Karsnial referring to the nation as a whole or his relationship to Craig - and interrogations are indeed a particular type of intimate relationship, with the potential for disappointment at every turn - when he said "no wonder we're going down the tubes?" Many television episodes end on such unresolved questions, as does this one. Cut to end credits. Fade to black.
LC: Yes, they do. (inaudible)
DK: unbelievable, unbelievable.
LC: I’m a respectable person and I don’t do these kinds of…
DK: And (inaudible) respect right now though
LC: But I didn’t use my left hand.
DK: I thought that you…
LC: I reached down with my right hand like this to pick up a piece of paper.
DK: Was your gold ring on your right hand at anytime today.
LC: Of course not, try to get it off, look at it.
DC: Okay. Then it was your left hand, I saw it with my own eyes.
LC: All right, you saw something that didn’t happen.
DK: Embarrassing, embarrassing. No wonder why we’re going down the tubes. Anything to add?
NN: Uh, no.
DK: Embarrassing. Date is 6/11/07 at 1236 interview is done.
LC: Okay.
Fascinating. Terribly familiar. And destined to inspire - unnecessarily, perhaps - an episode of Law & Order.
(Cross-posted.)
Craig Being Pushed to Resign by RNC
So, I'm reading about how the RNC is essentially pushing Larry Craig into a corner where he has to resign, and I have to say I'm just utterly disgusted by it—because this is the same RNC who sucks Bush's cock like there's Fountain of Youth Juice coming out of it, even though he once pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor DUI and his veep Cheney was convicted twice of drunk driving. And, ya know, that's just the relevant legal shit, which is to say nothing of the litany of fucktastrophes they've levied upon the nation and the global community. Fuck up an entire other country and let an American city drown? No problem. But plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of interference with privacy and the full weight of the GOP bears down on you like Zeus with an axe to grind.
Particularly considering that there are legitimate questions to be asked about Craig's arrest and the police policies which led to it, not to mention their indifference regarding Senator David Vitter's own private ongoing hookergate, the GOP's decision to go hardcore after Craig is rather stunning.
I totally second what Kevin Hayden says here:Let me state that I emphatically reject the puritanical squeamishness driving the calls for Craig’s resignation. I disagree with his legislative issue positions. His hypocrisy sucks. His denials don’t sound convincing. And public bathrooms lack the type of ambience I’d prefer for my own liaisons.
Or, one might suggest, a total lack of any recognizably consistent morality at all.
All that could lower his chances for re-election. Which could convince him not to run again. That’s okay; I consider that democracy, working as it should.
…I don’t believe minor misdemeanor violations should cause automatic disqualifications to public service in the Senate. If public censure convinces him not to run again, that’s his decision, ultimately. But the moral posturing by his Republican peers is itself more objectionable than anything Larry did. After all, we have a president that fucked our Constitution, lied about the intelligence, promoted torture and its twin, extraordinary rendition. And hundreds of thousands have died, needlessly.
That the same Senators disgusted by Larry’s leer find no moral objection to actions I consider crimes against humanity is an indicator of badly skewed morality.
UPDATE: Related (and recommended) reading from Tom Watson.
Memories!
As Mustang Bobby reports below, Tony Snow has decided to celebrate Karl Rove's last day on the job by resigning his post as White House Press Buffer, too. (Joining Snow, Rove, and Gonzo in leaving the White House since the November elections are White House Dan Bartlett, chief White House attorney Harriet Miers, budget director Rob Portman, political director Sara Taylor, and deputy national security advisers J.D. Crouch and Meghan O'Sullivan.)
I have lots of fond memories of ol' Snowjob, but this old chestnut is probably my favorite—Total Wanker: Tony Snow (or, as Space Cowboy calls it, Snow Chunks). Enjoy!
The Bush Cult in full effect:Tony Snow draped his lanky frame across a wooden lectern, leaned forward and gazed out at 850 adoring Republicans who had paid $175 apiece to hear him speak. There was a conspiratorial gleam in his eye, as if he was about to reveal some deep inner secret from his new life as the White House press secretary.
“Yesterday,” Mr. Snow declared, “I was in the Oval Office with the president ——”
He cut himself off, took a perfectly calibrated three-second pause and switched into an aw-shucks voice for dramatic effect: “I just looove saying that! Yeaaah, I was in the Oval Office. Just meeee and the president. Nooooobody else.” The crowd lapped it up.
That’s me, blowing chunks of Tony Snow.
Lap that up.
Snow Day
Tony Snow is leaving his White House Press Secretary job effective September 14.
According to MSNBC, President Bush will announce Snow's departure at 12:45pm ET.This isn't really big news; he's been hinting at it for a while. I suspect that considering the shit he has to shovel and the ass-covering he has to do for the Bush administration, there isn't enough money in the world to make the job worth it. Also, he's still battling cancer, and the job has to be taking a toll on that.
Snow will be replaced by White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino, who has occasionally done briefings for the President. He joins numerous other high-ranking Bush officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, leaving the Administration in recent weeks.
Snow battled cancer earlier this year and previously said he wanted to leave his post, citing the position's "low" pay.
I wish him good health and a long life, but I can't say I'm sorry to see him leave; he's got this smirk that makes you just want to smack him.
Twenty Reasons to Be Concerned About the SPP
From Zapagringo. Here are just a few:
At the behest, or insistence, of the Bush administration, the governing elites of the other two countries have worked rapidly to "securitize" the region which, at least in Mexico, has translated into increased militarization. The SPP is also part of the growing corporate takeover of activities and functions that used to lie in the public sector. Changes are being made in laws, norms, standards, regulations, practices, to facilitate international trade and so increase the profitability of certain corporations, but which in some cases weaken labor, consumer protection and environmental standards.
[...]Read, as they say, the whole thing.
The SPP initiative is intended to harmonize many Canadian and Mexican domestic and foreign policies with those of the U.S. Under the guise of protecting citizens from the threat of terrorism and also facilitating trade, this initiative would involve drastic measures such as a deeper integration of North American energy markets, harmonized treatment of immigrants, refugees or tourists from abroad, and the creation of common security policies.
[...]
Who's behind the SPP?
Two main entities are pushing it forward. One is the US government which considers the SPP to be an ideal initial step in a strategy of integrating the American continent in key areas under the pretext of "trade facilitation". It is true that the SPP does have aspects related to trade, but there are others that many times go unreported in the mass media, i.e., the ones mentioned above--access to energy resources, security, militarization. When the mass media report on the SPP they often mention only the trade aspects and gloss over other important topics.
Even the center-left press in the US falls into this trap. The Nation magazine recently reported that the SPP is a "relatively mundane formal bureaucratic dialogue" and accepted at face value Assistant Secretary of Commerce David Bohigian's claim that the SPP has to do with "simple stuff like, for instance, in the US we sell baby food in several different sizes; in Canada, it's just two different sizes". (The Nation, Aug. 27, 2007)
The other actor pushing the SPP is the private sector, especially the large corporations that are eager to take advantage of the expansion of "free trade" and the access to natural resources that the SPP is promoting.
Linking to this post, Chris Hayes notes,
The more I hear the more wary I become, although even this bill of indictment seems a bit vague—more focused on the general worldview out of which it springs and the motivations of the US than specifics about what, exactly the SPP has accomplished or plans to accomplish. Although, since they’re apparently keeping all SPP documents secret, I guess one can hardly blame the critics.Hayes brings up one of the most important points. If the SPP really is as benevolent as the leaders of the three NAFTA countries claim it is, then fine, open up the process and let everyone see for themselves. On my own blog I said this a few days ago:
So if that's really all that's happening, if it's really just about trivial stuff like jelly bean ingredients and baby food jar sizes, then why do all these CEOs have to meet personally? And why do the leaders of these three countries all have to be there? Why can't this all be taken care of by middle-level bureaucrats? And why do the meetings have to have huge security perimeters and so much secrecy? Why can't any reporters view the proceedings? If it's really not a big deal, then why can't they just let us all see so for ourselves?But of course that's not all they're talking about. And even if it were, as Zapagringo notes,
Seriously, if all that's going on is as trivial as they're claiming, then these meetings should be shut down on grounds of preposterousness. Getting three national leaders and dozens of CEOs together in conditions of high security to discuss jelly beans and baby food while swapping family stories -- at the same time that a hurricane is bearing down on two of those leaders' countries -- is about the biggest, stupidest waste of time and money I can imagine.
In most cases the enforcement of [SPP] regulations requires just the chief executives' signatures. It is actually corporate lawyers who draft the language of the regulations, especially those having to do with trade, in consultation with selected government officials and academics. This procedure overturns the traditional roles played by governments and corporations and in essence constitutes the privatization of what had traditionally been considered a public prerogative.That alone should be enough to raise red flags. The fact that critics of the SPP may be, as Hayes says, "a bit vague" in the specifics is not evidence that nothing of importance is happening. It's a result of the SPP's secrecy: a level of secrecy that democracy finds abhorrent.
H/t to Alison, posting at the Galloping Beaver.
What Women Want
What Women Want is the title of a piece in today's Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal, authored by WSJ editorial board member Kimberley Strassel and subtitled "How the GOP can woo the ladies." It gets off to a banging start with its opening paragraph:
Hillary has herself. Barack has Oprah. John Edwards has his wife, Elizabeth. And what secret weapon do Republican presidential candidates have to curry the all-important "women's vote"?Right out of the box, I can tell I'm going love Ms. Strassel, given that she subscribes to one of my favorite theories of politics: Vagina Voting. That's the theory which proffers that Vagina-Americans (aka "Women") are politically attracted to the closest vagina. Hence, all women should want to vote for Hillary. And if Hillary weren't in the race, they'd want to vote for John Edwards, because of Elizabeth—and also because John Edwards, what with his hair fetish, is practically one big vagina himself.
I love this theory for lots of reasons, like how it presumes women don't have brains capable of mustering the tiniest reserve of political acumen, but most of all because it's rooted in the idea that "Women" is a monolithic group with a shared set of interests, preferences, ethics, needs, and desires. Now, I could write an entire post (or an entire six-volume set) on how manifestly stupid that idea truly is, but instead, I'll just let this graphic, comparing two women—politically active women, no less—suffice.
And even that doesn't begin to convey the depth of diversity among women, considering that Phyllis and I are from the same ethnic group, share the same sexual orientation, have the same regional roots, and are both living above the poverty line. In other words, we share a lot in common, too—and we're still vastly different. So much for Vagina Voting.
But Strassel's main issue is, of course, making recommendations for how the GOP can woo, as she calls them, "the lady voters." And she starts where any good Republican does—not with good GOP ideas but with trashing the Democrats.
The Democrats' own views of what counts for "women's issues" are stuck back in the disco days, about the time Ms. Clinton came of political age. Under the title "A Champion for Women," the New York senator's Web site promises the usual tired litany of "equal pay" and a "woman's right to choose." Mr. Richardson pitches a new government handout for women on "family leave" and waxes nostalgic for the Equal Rights Amendment. Give these Boomers some bell bottoms and "The Female Eunuch," and they'd feel right at home. Polls show Ms. Clinton today gets her best female support from women her age and up.In case you missed it, or the whiplash has momentarily stunned you, let me reiterate Strassel's concept for you: The Democrats are stuck in "the disco days" because they're still talking about equal pay and reproductive rights, which are "tired" issues, despite the fact that women still don't have equal pay and reproductive rights are constantly under attack from the party Strassel thinks should be able to woo Women. And those "tired" issues are all a bunch of pointless twaddle to "women who today both scramble after a child and hold a job," even though working mothers are the ones who would most benefit from equal pay, most make use of family leave where it's offered, and are the most likely to seek an abortion for financial reasons. Okay.
The rest of the female population has migrated into 2007. Undoubtedly quite a few do care about abortion rights and the Violence Against Women Act. But for the 60% of women who today both scramble after a child and hold a job, these culture-war touchpoints aren't their top voting priority.
Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher why the GOP is failing to win over the ladies.
But wait—there's more! Strassel explains how the GOP can make unequal pay a winning issue for them—even though it's "tired," I guess.
Here's an example of how a smart Republican could morph an old-fashioned Democratic talking point into a modern-day vote winner. Ms. Clinton likes to bang on about "inequality" in pay. The smart conservative would explain to a female audience that there indeed is inequality, and that the situation is grave. Only the bad guy isn't the male boss; it's the progressive tax code.Splendid idea! I can imagine that if a Republican candidate had the deeply feminist idea of pointing out to me that my second-class pay rate was inevitable, but he'd be willing to rework the tax code so that married women keep more of their shitty paychecks, I'd totally vote for him! I can't imagine anything appealing more to my sense of fairness than codifying into the tax law a way to mitigate institutionalized sexism for straight, married women so we never have to talk about that pesky unequal pay ever again. Phew!
Most married women are second-earners. That means their income is added to that of their husband's, and thus taxed at his highest marginal rate.
Anyway, after some more hott ideas, Strassel wraps it up with this sage advice:
And there are future generations of women voters to be won by the party that progresses beyond the stale rhetoric of women's "rights" and crafts a new language of women's "choice" and "opportunity" and "ownership."Indeed. Who cares about women's "rights" anyway, right? How stale. If I have to hear one more time that sad refrain about how I have a right to choice, so that I can make the most of my opportunities and since I have autonomous ownership of my own body and all, I'll totally pass out with boredom. What a snoozefest.
Oh. Wait.
I see. So ultimately Strassel is suggesting stealing the language of feminism and reappropriating it for the retrofuck anti-women policies of the rightwing. In order to win over the lady voters. Well, good luck with all that. At least you know you've got Phyllis' vote.
I wouldn't bank on her grandkids, though.
Dear President Bush: How can I make money when you start slaughtering Iranians?
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President George W. Bush,
Having seen how many people got wildly rich during the invasion of, and occupation of Iraq, I was hoping I could get involved in a little of the action when the bombs start dropping on Iran.
Mr. President, it has been blindingly obvious to me for some time that you will not leave office without attacking Iran. You are a man of vision, and that vision has seen the smoldering ruins of the entire Middle East and the world economy. And those visions will be coming true sooner, rather than later and the upcoming PR campaign will be intense.
As you well know, Mr. President, public relations is a vital part of getting a war going, and keeping it going. It takes a lot of fancy words to confuse the masses into becoming willful murderers, after all.
This is where I believe I can help. I can help make this unprovoked war fun. I can make obliterated Iranian babies seem cool. For a price, mind you. But several million dollars seems a small price to pay to keep me from wandering around, writing things like "unprovoked war" and "obliterated Iranian babies."
Sure, I have liberal viewpoints, and I completely understand that you only work with those that share your strict ideology. But, come on, the majority of your base are facing lewd misconduct charges, at the very least. So they're tied up right now, and not the way they like it.
Plus, it's not like I'm married to liberalism or anything. I'm still a capitalist, and as your Presidency has proven, the only thing that defines America any longer is capitalism. Mostly, though, a guy's gotta eat and feed his family. So when I see folks like Scott Custer and Mike Battles getting massive government contracts for doing absolutely nothing, I think to myself "Wow, they must be eating really good."
So let's talk about what I can give you, as you begin the process of killing thousands and thousands of Iranians, while making the U.S. the most hated nation on the planet, times two. Help will be needed, and I'm here for you.
Humor is an important part of getting public support, and let's face it, Mr. President; left to your own devices, you end up making jokes about hunting for WMDs that just end up pissing everyone off. That's not humor. That's instigating the masses.
Now, being that you'll undoubtedly be taking advantage of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in your planned destruction of Iran (hell, why have them if they're just going to sit there), why not focus on the inherent humor of radiation poisoning? So how about this joke: "It'll be much easier for us to capture Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than it was to get Saddam. After all, Ahmadinejad will be glowing."
Huh? How's that? See, I can make nuclear carnage funny, if need be. And you can have that one, free-of-charge. Consider it a sign of good faith.
There must be other ways I can help, as well, though apparently, to receive government contracts, often doing nothing is all that's required. And I can do that, too.
In closing, Mr. President, I am a realist. And I realize, beyond a shadow of a doubt that you plan on pulverizing Iran before you leave office, and likely the country. I mean, you have about 1,200 Kagens working around the clock to sell this thing. And it's quite likely William Kristol is busily cloning himself and preparing airplanes to carpet bomb the U.S. with editions of The Weekly Standard to bamboozle 35 percent of the country into thinking that slaughtering Iranians is a wise idea.
It's going to happen. So I can either ball up my fists and impotently whine about it, or I can make a few bucks. Who knows where this attack on Iran will lead the U.S., so it's important I look out for myself on this one. After all, I didn't raise a fuss at all when you decided to start killing Iraqis, so I already have blood on my hands for that. May as well stuff some cash into those blood-soaked hands, eh?
Mr. President, in today's world, caring about human life is a sure way to stay broke, as you and your team have made abundantly clear. While I know you sleep like a baby regardless, my sleep will continue to be haunted knowing I come from a country that has gone completely insane with blood lust and dreams of total world domination. At least with a fat government contract for, well, whatever, I can toss and turn in a much nicer bed.
Mr. President, you are going to attack Iran. This much is absolutely, completely clear to anyone who actually looks. And as the saying goes, if I'm not part of the solution, I'm part of the problem. And if I'm going to be part of this problem, I may as well get paid some blood money just like everyone else from the Vice-President on down.
Or at very least, you know, make sure gas doesn't get too expensive. I'm American, after all. I'll sell out and let you kill whoever you like for whatever reason for a cheap tank full of gas, as well.
Best regards and I await your reply,
William K. Wolfrum
--WKW
Good Roundup of Iowa Links
In case you're interested in more coverage, Iowa Independent has a number of good stories about yesterday's ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa:
Johnson County Recorder Looks at Marriage Decision Professionally, Personally
More Reactions to Iowa's Landmark Gay Marriage Decision
Gay Marriage Ruling May Have Campaign Ripple Effect
Iowa Judge Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
Another Great Iraq Visit!
Some senators got a nice farewell gift from Baghdad:
"Our plane leaving Iraq was fired upon, and it was a close call, but this is something that our men and women in combat face every day," Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Alabama, said in a statement. "The flight crew was outstanding, and I credit them for the way they handled the situation."No available comment from James Inhofe, who was crapping his pants while still curled in a fetal position.
Sens. Mel Martinez, R-Florida; Richard Shelby, R-Alabama; and James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, were also on the flight.
Can Buy Me Love
Shaker Aly sent me a link to this Sara Evans video for her song As If, which is not, as it turns out, about a valley girl sniffing derisively at someone ("As if!") but about a presumably adult woman who's "acting as if this blue sky's never gonna rain down on me" while begging her boyfriend to keep his thoughts to himself; "don't show me that you're someone else." Charming.
Anyway, the video is actually even worse:
For those who can't view the video, Aly explains: "The basic gist of the song is that Sara goes into a store and sees different 'models' of men. She buys one after another, always returning them, and the only thing that they're good for is cleaning/sex. I thought it was pretty derogatory towards both men and women, saying that the only thing a man is good for is cleaning/sex, and that the only thing a woman wants in a man is someone who cleans/sex. Because a personality is so last season." Heh.
As I've said once or twice or a thousand times before, sexism is nearly always insulting to both men and women, as it (at minimum) stereotypes one sex while making a rather nasty commentary about the others' preferences. This video is a perfect example of that. (And any possibility that the video was an ironic play on sexist swill like that Heineken ad is immediately undermined by the dreadful lyrics about ignoring men's flaws in favor of a false happiness.)
However, what I find particularly interesting about this video is the commoditization of partnership and love. Here, not only are men a commodity, but each archetype is its own brand, and people are to be consumed like iPhones or DVDs—and you simply need buy a product to take home, rather than choosing a person with whom to build a home.
That narrative is particularly intriguing because of its relationship to:
1. Undermining the sanctity of marriage: The theme of purchasing a partner is obviously antithetical to everything for which the Family Values crowd purports to stand. But despite the increasing regularity with which we see images of commodified love and/or partnership, nary a raised voice can be heard. Perhaps if Ms. Evans were looking to purchase a galpal, there'd be a murmur…
2. Consumption vs. citizenship: As we just discussed Wednesday (and many times before), the notion of national sacrifice has been obliterated by the nation of national shopping. Our primary responsibility is no longer to be good citizens, but to be good consumers. So while you're out buying tons o' crap to help save the world, why not get yourself a little something, like a husband?
Bleh. From just about every conceivable angle.
Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Legal in Iowa!
Wow—this was unexpected on a sleepy Friday morning:
A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage.That is so fucking cool.
The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered the Polk County recorder to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples.
"This is kind of the American Dream," said plaintiff Jen BarbouRoske, of Iowa City. "I'm still feeling kind of shaky. It's pure elation, I just cannot believe it."
Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson represented the six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses. He … called the Defense of Marriage law "mean spirited" and said it was designed only to prohibit gays from marrying. He said it violates t he state constitution's equal protection and due-process clauses.And the judge agreed, saying that the state law banning same-sex marriage violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection, then ordered that it be "must be nullified, severed and stricken from the books" to make way for same-sex civil marriage. Awesomeness.
Naturally, there are already people lining up to piss all over the parade.
Polk County is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa S upreme Court. County Attorney John Sarcone said the county would immediately seek a stay from Hanson, which if granted would prevent anyone from seeking a marriage license until an appeal could be heard.Blah blah blah. The fact that it is happening in Iowa should be evidence to every last soul across the land that this is a battle they will lose. Same-sex couples who want and deserve to be married—and share all the rights conferred by marriage—live in every corner of the nation, and it's going to come to Iowa, and Indiana, and Illinois, and everywhere else. And eventually, we're going to win.
…Rachel Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the conservative Iowa Family Policy Center, which opposes gay marriage, said the decision will be appealed. "We're very disappointed and will pursue to the next level of courts," she said.
…State Sen. Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City, said he was surprised by the ruling and promised the Legislature would take another look at the issue. "We'll look at something we can do legislatively," Wieck said.
House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said the judge's ruling only illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. "I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," he said. "I guarantee you there will a vote on this issue come January."
The timing of this decision undoubtedly means that same-sex marriage will probably be an issue during the very big and very important Iowa primary. Could get interesting.
Question of the Day
You've been hired by HBO to develop your own half-hour comedy show. It can be a traditional sitcom (Curb Your Enthusiasm), a nontraditional sitcom (Flight of the Conchords), a mockumentary (The Office), a skit show, fake newscast, whatever you like, just so long as it's a half-hour long, funny, and original. Also, because it's HBO, you don't have to worry about those pesky humor-hammering network censors.
So: What's your concept?
Today in Dumbassery
School dress code says: Students must wear khakis and plain polo shirts. Shirts may not have any logos or slogans.
Critically-thinking challenged fundies say: The school hates Jesus! I'm being persecuted! Change your rules for my whims!
From the great state of Indiana...
The mother of a student who was suspended for violating her school system's dress code says the rules unfairly target religion, WRTV in Indianapolis reported.Obvious fact #1: The dress code has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with graphic t-shirts with logos and slogans. Just because you, Ms. Brown, want to wear a t-shirt with some 'clever' graphic that has a religious bent does not, in fact, mean that the dress code is out to persecute you because you love da Jesus.
Tracy Prochnow said Highland High School in Indiana suspended her daughter, Brittany Brown, on Monday because the junior wore a Christian-themed T-shirt.
Monday was the fourth time Brittany violated the code, which the city's school board implemented this year and requires students to wear khakis and polo shirts.
Prochnow said the school may be violating her daughter's rights, and she has asked the school board to change the code.
[...]
"The school is basically saying I can't wear a shirt that talks about Jesus or Christ or God or any religious type of T-shirt because we have to wear a polo," Brittany said.
Obvious fact #2: Ms. Brown deserved suspension because she willfully violated the dress code four times (...and just how long has school been in session?!). Still nothing to do with religion.
Obvious fact #3: The school districts and households that produced both Ms. Prochnow and Ms. Brown above failed miserably at encouraging the development of critical thinking skills.
Pat Buchanan's Compulsions
Pat Buchanan goes for the long bomb in this defense of Larry Craig's biffy tryst.
He is basically saying that gays -- all gays -- are powerless to control their sexual urges and therefore Larry Craig is blameless: he can't help himself. He's just like an alcoholic who is powerless to control his urge to drink.
Okay, where to start? First, I don't think Pat Buchanan is gay, so assuming for the sake of argument that his compulsion theory holds water, he isn't in a position to know what homosexual urges are like. (And please, FSM, I don't want to know if he does.) Second, I don't think Mr. Buchanan is an alcoholic, so he can't speak from experience on knowing what it's like to be powerless to control the urge to drink. (He may not be an alcoholic, but he has definitely ingested something that has damaged his programming.) So he's talking out of his ass and making wild assumptions about things he knows nothing about. In other words, just another day at the office for Pat Buchanan.
It may seem pointless to argue with him, but just for grins, let's start with the claim that Larry Craig is the victim of a sexual compulsion and that in spite of his views on gay marriage, gay rights, gays in the military, and so on, he can't control his urge to get it on with strangers in a tea room. Mr. Buchanan seems to think that that is strictly a gay thing. I don't know where he gets his information, but sexual compulsions aren't just limited to gay men. Lots of straight people have shown this kind of behavior; it was even suggested by the right wing -- and probably Mr. Buchanan -- that President Bill Clinton suffered from the same disorder when he was hooking up with Monica Lewinsky, and I'm pretty sure that Bill Clinton is straight. So saying that Larry Craig's sexual compulsion is unique to Teh Gay ignores the fact that a lot of sex addicts -- be they a former president or not -- are not gay.
Making the link between alcoholism and homosexuality is just plain nuts. Yes, alcoholism is a disease. I know that from close personal experience. But I also know that there are millions of people who drink and live a life without wondering when they're going to have another drink. There are millions of gay men and lesbians who lead perfectly normal sex lives and to whom the idea of picking up a stranger in a public place for a sexual encounter is repulsive, including me, and for Pat Buchanan to assume that we all hang out in airport restrooms looking for Mr. Right-Now is pathetic.
This outburst from Mr. Buchanan shows yet again that the right wing is obsessed not just with sex, but with gay sex. They can't get beyond the image of two people of the same sex being intimate, and they can't accept the idea that the gay sex life can be just as normal, fulfilling, or as thrilling as straight sex. (At least that's what I've been told.) But this wingnut adolescent fascination with other people's sex lives is almost like a compulsion: they go along day to day, living their normal white-bread picket-fence middle class Republican lives, then suddenly they're overtaken by this overwhelming urge to spout off anti-gay rhetoric that comes out as foaming gibberish. It's like he can't control it.
So instead of blaming him for being a flaming asshole, we should be compassionate. To paraphrase the immortal Ann Richards, the late governor of Texas: "Poor Pat. He can't help it. He was born with a fascist foot in his mouth."
Let's just hope that's the only odd thing he's had in his mouth.
(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof. HT to Petulant via Melissa for the YouTube link.)
GOP Scare Tactic #247: Gas Prices
[Graphic by Liss.]
Two Democrats and a Republican walk into
Enter the Republican from the trip, Rep. Jon Porter (NV). See, Jon knows that support for this war is all but in the shitter. So, instead of going strictly with the "we're making a lot of progress" meme, he tries to go for the American jugular: The wallet.
"To a person, they said there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave," Porter said Wednesday in a phone interview from Las Vegas.Some great stuff there, don't you think? Let's see what kind of backup he has for that piece of info he was told:
Porter did not elaborate on the assessment that gasoline prices could spike. His spokesman, Matt Leffingwell, said afterward that the scenario "makes sense if Iran moves into Iraq."Of course he can't elaborate or speculate on the assessment. He has no idea what he's talking about, so he just does as he's told. (Who's a good boy?) So, rather than question a blanket statement about gas prices increasing exponentially due to troop withdrawal, he shouts it, unashamedly, from the mountain top in the hope that everyone's knee-jerk reaction to cost of living would achieve the desired result.
Porter "can't speculate directly on what is going to happen with gas prices, but the market prices for oil reflect the stability in that region," Leffingwell said.
Well, I got news for you fear mongering bitchez: Pavlov's left the building. Just admit defeat on this and cut the shit already.
[H/T to ThinkProgress]
Festival of Babes: Barely legal and kicking in Portland, Ore.
On Saturday in Portland, Oregon, it's kickoff time. For the 17th year, the Festival of Babes (FOB) soccer festival will take place, as 24 teams from all over North America will come together for a two-day festival of soccer, fun, parties, and most importantly, lesbians. Lots and lots of lesbians. From the FOB Web site:
The Festival of the Babes (FOB) is a lesbian soccer festival founded by a women's soccer team that was compelled to create their own tournament after attending the Gay Games in Vancouver, B.C., and the Seattle Sports Festival. Now entering its 17th year, FOB includes a two-day soccer tournament, Opening Ceremonies, and dance parties each night. Teams come to play from California, Washington, Oregon, Canada, and wherever lesbians play soccer.The partying starts tomorrow night, with games scheduled for Saturday and Sunday. And FOB proves that it is a festival of sportsmanship - if a team gets ahead by five goals, every goal they score afterward, their top players lose an item of clothing. You know, to prevent mismatches.
The festival registers 24 teams that bring approximately 350 players and fans. FOB is a well known and loved community event brings together players from all over with large numbers of women from the host city who are attendees of both the tournament itself and the nightly events hosted by FOB. Although primarily lesbian players make up the teams, the tournament is open not only to lesbians, but to any woman who does not mind being mistaken for one.
But FOB is so much more than just than partying, soccer, more partying, occasional stripping, followed by more partying by roving bands of women that love women. No, wait, check that, that's exactly what FOB is about. And there's not a damn thing wrong with that.
So any Shakers who happen to be near Portland, head over to the FOB Web site to find out the where's and whens of this fun and frantic festival that's barely legal and loving it.
"The mood is really outrageous," said tournament organizer Myra Lavenue. "You have referees dressed in crazy outfits, you have women running around the field with beers in their hands and trying to play soccer at the same time, you have people who hug the goalie or give her a kiss when they score so she doesn't feel so bad ... It's all a celebration of women who love women who love soccer."
And if you can't make it, you can always head over and give their sponsors some love:
Allen2 Law, LLC
Bridgetown Therapeutic Massage
Curve Magazine
Egyptian Club
Equinox Restaurant
Equity Trust Mortgage Corporation
Gravy
Healthy Pets Northwest
Hoot-n-Annie Children's Clothing Exchange
In Other Words
Just Out
la muse salon
Larry Foltz, Intuitive Counselor
Lupa
Maggie Sayles: Singer / Songwriter
McDonald Jacobs, Accountants and Consultants
Moxie RX
Muddy's Coffeehouse
Nike, Inc.
Northwestern Mutual Financial Network: Kathryn Millgard, Financial Representative
Por Que No
Portland Gay and Lesbian Community Yellow Pages
Rose City Mortgage: Anne Viola, Loan Officer
Salty's Dog Shop
Step Beyond Coaching
Vickie Huston, Massage Therapist
Vulvarific
Waddell and Reed: Anne Seelye, Financial Advisor
--WKW
No Speaky
The Republican party continues its quest to drive all Latinos from the party:
Univisión planned to air the first presidential debates in Spanish on Sept. 9 and 16, one for Democrats, the other for Republicans, trumpeting a national coming-out party for Hispanic voters.Yes, I'm sure that's it. Or it's possible that the GOP has gone so into lizard brain mode with regard to the Mexican menace that appearing at a debate where Spanish is actually spoken (gasp!) could cost a candidate votes. Oh, possible, schmossible, that's the entire reason: unless a candidate pays homage to the racists in the party by ostentatiously shunning Latinos, they're in trouble. (But McCain accepted, you say! Yes, and that proves my point.) You see, you can't play the hate card effectively while acknowledging that there are American citizens who are here legally, working hard, paying taxes, and voting, who just happen to speak Spanish as their first language.
Except Republican candidates aren't coming. Only Ariz. Sen. John McCain agreed to participate in the event at the University of Miami.
So much for Sept. 16.
''That date is off the table,'' university spokeswoman Bárbara Gutiérrez said Wednesday.
She said a GOP debate hasn't been ruled out for later in the fall.
''We're thinking that everyone wants to see how the Democratic one goes before they commit,'' she said.
Alternatives to Windows for your PC
News-you-can-use department.
After five years, Microsoft has come out with Vista. It replaces Windows XP, which we've all been using since the (computer) Stone Age. The edict has gone out from Microsoft headquarters that by January 2008 all new computers shall be sold with Vista, the whole Vista, and nothing but the Vista.
What does this mean? Problems, naturally.
If all this convinces you that you'd like to look around, then fear not. There are are alternatives.
If you absolutely hate doing anything with computers except clicking on the icon of what you want, then get a Mac. Macs have their own issues in terms of corralling users, and they're several hundreds of dollars more expensive than PC-based options, but they're easy and they just work. They also have some of the best eye candy in the business.
If you don't mind the level of fussing you have to do in Windows XP, then Ubuntu may be for you.
Ubuntu is a type of Linux operating system, a "distribution" (affectionately known as a "distro"). It runs on PCs and other hardware, and it's open source, meaning the source code is non-proprietary and available for anyone to examine and work on. That might seem like a recipe for disaster, but actually it's exactly the opposite.
Linux systems have much less malware for three reasons. (Malware is the collective term for all the nasty viruses, trojans, rootkits, and whatnot out there.) The main one is that the structure of the OS makes it very hard to get at the kernel, so it's naturally resistant. The second is that fewer people run Linux. (Single digits in the US, low teens in Europe, but between 25% and even over 50% of computer users in some areas of China, India, and Brazil.) That makes it a less interesting target for criminals, which would change with wider adoption. The third is that extremely knowledgeable computer geeks will instantly spot the malware and, since they have access to the code, block it within hours. Linux malware has an extremely short lifespan, and the people who write it don't do much better. An enraged geek is a terrible thing.
It's very easy to try out Ubuntu. Download the current stable version from ubuntu.com. It comes as an ISO file that you can burn directly to a CD. (If that's intimidating, they'll send you a CD at no charge, not even shipping. Thank Mark Shuttleworth.) If you boot from that CD, it will run Ubuntu without touching anything on your computer. That allows you to see whether it'll work with your specific hardware. The weak link, when there is one, is usually graphics, so if there's a problem, try the "safe graphics" mode which is one down from the default option that comes up at the beginning of the boot process.
If you decide you like it, you can install Ubuntu from the same CD. There's only one caveat, but it's VERY IMPORTANT:
To install an operating system, you obviously need to format a drive for it. You probably do not want to dump your old Windows system, and you probably do want a dual boot system. So DO NOT ACCEPT ANY PROMPTS THAT WILL REFORMAT YOUR WHOLE HARD DRIVE. In the earlier installers, that was the default. (Stupid? Yes.) The newer ones tread more carefully, but pay attention anyway. You'll need at least 3 GB of contiguous free space on a drive, and more is better. You can fit it in 1.5 GB, but then it becomes hard to install more neat open source software.
Ubuntu comes with an open source browser (Firefox that also has Windows and Mac versions (AWMV)). There's also the usual office suite (OpenOffice AWMV ) that can read and write Microsoft Office-type files (.doc, .xls, etc.). The mail program is Evolution, which some people swear by. I've always used Thunderbird AWMV. There are open source programs for graphics, the biggest one being Gimp AWMV. It's a Photoshop analog except at the very highest end. Doing high dynamic range, for instance, is much easier on Photoshop. There are open source programs to track your finances, post photo galleries, and play games. Although hardcore gamers prefer Windows. The one thing there isn't, so far, is an open source version of TurboTax. All of this stuff is done, or at least started, by people as labors of love, and I guess nobody loves taxes.
Finding and installing software is easier than on a Windows machine. There are repositories of open source software. Your machine talks to the web to maintain its database of what's available. You can browse the (endless!) list or look up specifc items of interest, tick the box to install, and the "package manager" (aka software installer) does the rest. It's really that easy. I am not making this up.
Open source doesn't mean free, it just means that the source code is open for everyone to see. Some open source programs cost money, and that's usually those that will need lots of support. For instance, specialized business programs, or maintaining operating systems for a whole corporation. If you don't expect support (and individuals don't get it these days, even when they do expect it), then open source programs are almost always free for the downloading.
Support comes from other users via forums. Again, this sounds like a recipe for disaster, but actually works much better. Answers usually come within hours, or at most a few days, whereas my experience with regular technical "support" is that the only support is the one my hand gives to the phone propped to my ear. Ubuntu has some of the best forums in the whole Linux world. It also has excellent documentation and wikis, but those aren't organized as well as the rest of Ubuntu. The easiest way to find what you need on them is to use Google. (your-search-terms-here site:.ubuntu*)
I switched to Linux as my main OS nearly three years ago, although I've used it and its great grandma, unix, since the 80s. It didn't take long for me to grow amazed that anyone threw hundreds of dollars at inferior programs. How could they not know that there was free and faster stuff out there? (Oh, yeah, no advertising budget.) If you're a good member of the community, you donate money to the programs or time to their help forums. If you're not, well, it's a free world.
New Government Seal
Mama Shakes just passed this on to me via email:
OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:
The government today announced that it is changing
its emblem from an eagle to a condom because it more
accurately reflects the government's political stance,
as a condom allows for inflation, halts production,
destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of
pricks, and gives you a sense of security while
you're actually being screwed!
Plus, we all know that the Bush administration doesn't believe in pulling out.
Pop Quiz
You're the guest booker for The Today Show. Matt Lauer strides manfully toward you rubbing his own shorn head for good luck and informs you that he plans to do a piece on all the GOP Scandalz and he wants an expert commentator to interview.
Do you book:
A. a political ethics expert, who would actually have something valuable to say?
B. a steaming heap of turds, which would sit there looking gross and stinking?
C. Tom DeLay, who would babble endlessly about the Democrats and the media?
That'd be C.
The official transcript hasn't been posted yet, so here's my rough transcript:LAUER: Blah blah Republican Scandal-a-thon 2007 blah blah.
Approximately.
DELAY: Democrats!!! SCREEEEEECH! The media!!! SQUAWWWWWK! Double-standard! BLARRRGGGHHH!
Why oh fucking why is Tom DeLay even still around?! Why does (or should) anyone care what he says?! God, I hate our media.
[Video thanks, of course, to Petulant.]
The Democratic Party Has No Room for "Conservative Democrats" Right Now
Not if "conservative" means supportive of Bush's terror policies, and especially not if it means supportive of Bush's terror policies because keeping their jobs is more important than doing their jobs.
Reid and Pelosi promised last week that they would at least confront the president next month over his wiretapping program, with Pelosi taking an uncompromising stand in a private conference call with House Democrats. When lawmakers return in September, Democrats will also push legislation to restore habeas corpus rights for terrorism suspects and may resume an effort to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.A real "distaste." Yeah, nothing leaves a bad taste in the mouth quite like the leader of a democratic nation who behaves like a bloody dictator.
But conservative Democrats and some party leaders continue to worry that taking on those issues would expose them to Republican charges that they are weak on terrorism.
…"The most controversial matters are the ones that people use to form their opinions on their members of Congress," said Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), who voted for the administration's bill. "I do know within our caucus, and justifiably so, there are members who have a real distaste for some of the things the president has done. But to let that be the driving force for our actions to block the surveillance of someone and perhaps stop another attack like 9/11 would be unwise."
And, seriously, Davis should be kicked out of the party just for parroting the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" horseshit that the Democrats who want to take on Bush's policies are only doing so because they dislike Bush and, if they have their way, we'll have "another 9/11." It's like Davis' staffers are briefing him with excepts from Michelle Malkin's website.
The worst part of it is his temerity to suggest that the Democrats who want to restore the rule of law, even for—gasp!—suspected terrorists (emphasis on suspected), are doing so because they have no principles. They're just motivated by having "a real distaste for some of the things the president has done," you see, unlike the principled "conservative Democrats," who vote with the administration lest they be branded as "weak on terror" and lose their pretty jobs.
If they were even half as concerned about retaining their integrity as they were about retaining their jobs, the rest of the Democrats might not be "angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center."
Hilzoy has more.
Bedtime for Gonzo
So with Alberto Gonzales' impending departure from the Department of Justice, who will fill his shoes? It's the obvious question; after all, given the Bush administration's longstanding policy of replacing all departing officials with people even less competent than their predecessors, it's going to be tough to find someone to fill Abu G's shoes. Given the importance of the position in the President's continuing efforts to avoid impeachment, I thought it's worth looking at some of the contenders.
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff
Pro: Has a proven track record, having presided over the DHS during Hurricane Katrina -- and we all remember how well DHS and its subsidiary department, FEMA, performed in that crisis! Looks menacing, which is more important than being menacing.
Con: If he leaves DHS for DOJ, someone has to take over at DHS, and we all know who that'll be. I'm thinking someone who worked in DHS before, someone who's headed a department. That's right -- Mike Brown.
Odds: 25-1
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.
Pro: Smells of cigars, Aqua Velva, and chicory. Tall with a deep voice, and probably a huge penis, or so many, many, many right wingers around the country hope. His manly manliness will destroy all evildoers. Watergate experience shows that he's more than willing to subordinate the rule of law to the interests of a strong executive. Commanded a carrier group in The Hunt for Red October; military experience could be important after coming declaration of martial law.
Con: His mixed record as New York County District Attorney could make it difficult to win confirmation.
Odds: 100-1
Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel
Pro: White House Counsel is obvious path to Attorney General, at least in the Bush administration. Dots her is with those cute hearts. Willing to do anything for George W. Bush. Anything.
Con: Her secret history of writing Bush/Cheney slash fic could prove embarrassing at the confirmation hearings.
Odds: 1000-1
Glenn Reynolds, Professor of Law, University of Tennessee
Pro: Expert in the thorny legal issues of transhumanism, robotics, and nanotechnology. Extremely pro-torture. Will say he's not an administration lackey, but here's an interesting link from someone advocating the murder of all liberals. Heh. Indeed.
Con: If his brain is uploaded into a computer, is he still able to serve?
Odds: 50-1
Ann Althouse, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Pro: Being the kind of feminist who supports the subjugation of women, Althouse will fit right in. Will bring same keen insight into DOJ as she brings to reviews of "American Idol."
Con: I find her inclusion in this list sexist. And why won't the feminist bloggers rally to her defense? Also, incredible narcissism may clash with incaclulable narcissism of the president.
Odds: 150-1.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
Pro: Has done a bang-up job with Iraq. Personally executed five terrorists and/or Sunni civilians, so he's willing to enforce the death penalty.
Con: Soon to be assassinated in a bloody coup that the U.S. will totally have nothing to do with.
Mitigating Factor: Will still be more capable leader than Gonzales, even if dead.
Odds: 100-1.
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Id.
Pro: His wide stance on justice will be just the thing to help the Bush administration cruise into 2008 without stalling. Willing to reach out to others. Has the typical Republican record on family values.
Con: Not technically a lawyer, though he has recently appeared in court to represent a man accused of lewd conduct in a public restroom.
Odds: 500-1
Roy Moore, Former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court
Pro: Knows God. Personally. They like, hang and stuff. Not afraid to ignore the rule of law when he doesn't like it.
Con: Ostensibly believes in Ten Commandments; "Thou Shalt Not Kill" will put him in conflict with Cheney.
Odds: 45-1
Sen. David Vitter, R-La.
Pro: Like Craig, a true family man. Intimately familiar with issues important to infants and toddlers. On many lists in both Washington, D.C., and New Orleans.
Con: Suffers from a lot of chafing, making him somewhat restless in meetings.
Odds: 1000-1.
Sandra Day O'Connor, former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
Pro: Has a keen intellect, respect from Republicans and Democrats alike, and would serve as a healing, nonpartisan presence in the Attorney General's position.
Con: See above.
Odds: Off the board.
(Cross-posted from Blog of the Moderate Left)
More Tucker
Here's the video (via Terrance) of Tucker Carlson's claim to have assaulted a guy who hit on him in a bathroom, about which Mustang Bobby posted below. Check out how hilarious Joe Scarborough and Dan Abrams think it is when he says he bashed the guy (toward the end of the video):
[Transcript here.]
Now, as Mustang Bobby notes, his story changed once it was pointed out he essentially admitted being a gay-basher, and he now claims to have been "[fighting] back against an unsolicited sexual attack." (As opposed to a solicited sexual attack?!) But that's certainly not what he conveys in the video (nor that he and his friend merely "seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived").
As I noted in the comments of MB's post, either the man was hitting on him, or the man was trying to sexually assault him. The two are not easily confused, not when you're dealing with a total stranger who approaches you out of nowhere.
If the man was just hitting on him, then Carlson's attack on him was a straight-up case of gay-bashing.
If the man was trying to sexually assault him, then Carlson's bringing it up when discussing a case of a gay man who clearly wasn't trying to sexually assault someone is inappropriate and deeply irresponsible—and is a smear against gay men just as surely as if he'd erroneously brought up pedophilia.
Either way, it's completely unacceptable.
Translating the news in George Bush's America
Hey everyone, welcome to "Translating the News," the quick-hitting blog post where we take important stories and break them them down so they can be easily understood.
First up:
"Little progress seen on Iraq goals"Translation: The surge is working, and will work even better with $50 billion more.
WASHINGTON - The Iraqi government has failed to meet the vast majority of political and military goals laid out by lawmakers to assess President Bush's Iraq war strategy, congressional auditors have determined.
The Associated Press has learned the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, will report that at least 13 of the 18 benchmarks to measure the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq are unfulfilled ahead of a Sept. 15 deadline. That's when Bush is to give a detailed accounting of the situation eight months after he announced the policy, according to three officials familiar with the matter.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been made public, also said the administration is preparing a case to play down the findings, arguing that Congress ordered the GAO to use unfair, "all or nothing" standards when compiling the document.
Next up:
"Maliki: I won't resign, can't be forced out"Translation: Meet Ayad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq.
BAGHDAD — Looking tired and pale but speaking firmly, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki told McClatchy Newspapers Tuesday that he has no intention of resigning despite rising U.S. criticism of his government.
In a 50-minute interview in his office in Baghdad's Green Zone, Maliki strongly defended his tenure and said that he doesn't expect to be forced out. He said his efforts at national reconciliation, not the surge of additional U.S. troops or actions by Iraqi security forces, are responsible for improved security.
He blamed the United States and its early policies in Iraq for the sectarianism that plagues the country, and said he opposed the current U.S. policy of working with former Sunni Muslim insurgent groups who've turned against al Qaida in Iraq because that, too, promotes sectarianism.
"Report: Iran cooperates on nuke probe"Translation: Fuck it, nuke 'em.
VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. nuclear agency on Thursday called Iran's cooperation with its investigation of past suspicious atomic activities "a significant step forward," in a report expected to hamper U.S.-led efforts for new sanctions on Tehran.
At the same time, the report confirmed that Iran continued to expand its uranium enrichment program, reflecting the Islamic republic's defiance of the U.N. Security Council. Still, U.N. officials said, both enrichment and the building of a plutonium-producing reactor was continuing more slowly than expected.
IAEA Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen, who brokered the cooperation deal with Iranian officials, highlighted the importance of the agreement, noting that Tehran's past refusal to answer the agency's questions triggered Security Council sanctions in the first place.
But he cautioned that Iran still needed to fully implement its commitments, telling reporters that "the key is that Iran ... provides the information that we need" in a time frame that foresees clarity for the first time about Iran's past suspicious activities by year's end.
--WKW
