Until Blogger lets me post something of substance again (i.e. something that includes blockquotes or more than two links or something zany like that), here’s a little quiz for you:
In this picture, is Senator Biden:
A. Showing us the number of chances he had left?
B. Checking which way the wind is blowing to determine his next vote?
or
C. Something completely different altogether, of which you will inform me in comments?
(With many thanks to Rox for the image and to folkbum for suggesting choice B.)
Biden My Time
Embrace Feminism
Go read Linnet on the most vulnerable part of the male body. Just an excellent post. Here’s a little teaser:
There were two narratives in the recent election: the national security narrative and the cultural values narrative. What tied them together? Masculinity. Liberals aren't tough and manly enough to protect you from the terrorists. That very same lack of masculinity is what prevents them from being right on values--because the values in question are patriarchal values that center around gender roles, which is why there's such a focus on reproductive rights (not only abortion but sexual health in general) and homosexuality. Only a real man can stop people from fucking around with their natural gender roles. Only a real man can ensure that men will stay men and women will stay women.What’s Linnet’s solution? Embrace feminism:
Feminists don't dither. And dithering makes us look weak. Embracing feminism is a great way to repulse the charge of weakness. The right is saying that our egalitarian notions of gender make us weak, that our championship of women's rights and gay rights make us like gays and women (and therefore, in conservative thought, weak). And we are helping them by acting like they've got a point. We need to stop this and assert our feminism. By proudly shouting our egalitarian viewpoint to the rooftops, we are refuting the charges of weakness. By hiding our egalitarianism under a napkin, we're confirming those charges.Honestly, though, you should go read the entire thing. Pulling out just those two paragraphs does not do it justice. And I hope if any of the legions of Lefty men who feel that women’s issues are “side issues” happen to stop by, as opposed to the resident regulars of Shakes Sis who already know they’re not, you’ll do us all a favor and read this post, then finally, finally admit that your sexism is a thorn in all our of sides.
Let Down
Mr. Shakes just sent me an email saying:
This bankruptcy bill depresses me. Is there any hope at all? We're helpless—the entire system has been subverted.I fear that he’s right. Echidne of the Snakes has a superb post on the dismal details of this bleak bill, which I highly recommend with a small caveat: be prepared to be rather scared and decidedly angry when you’re through with it. A highlight:
But what about those who file bankruptcy because of high medical expenses? Surely the proposal will allow them some extra slack? Actually, no. An amendment proposing a homestead exemption of $150,000 in home equity for this group was defeated by the Republicans in the Senate. So was an amendment asking for extra consideration for those in the military who had to file bankruptcy because their military service caused their private businesses to fail, an amendment asking for extra consideration for those who file bankruptcy because of identity theft and an amendment asking for a homestead exemption for the elderly. All defeated by pretty much every single Republican in the Senate…The grim future for many average Americans forecast by this bill, coupled with the disappointment of the Dems’ inability to meet it with a unified opposition, symbolic though it would have been, makes the passage of this legislation very disheartening indeed.
DeLay Shocker!—Ethics Violation
Oh, how I look toward the day,
When the House can commence without further DeLay…
Just how many times will Tom DeLay have the opportunity to make a mockery of the rules governing the House of Representatives before the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct delivers the smackdown he so richly deserves?
A delegation of Republican House members including Majority Leader Tom DeLay accepted an expense-paid trip to South Korea in 2001 from a registered foreign agent despite House rules that bar the acceptance of travel expenses from foreign agents, according to government documents and travel reports filed by the House members.The three-day trip cost (at least) $106,921. DeLay’s claimed expenses were $13,000 for transportation, $330 for lodging, $150 for meals, and $20 for “other.” The expenses claimed on behalf of his wife were the same. Also, though DeLay described the trip as having an “educational” purpose:
Justice Department documents show that the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, a business-financed entity created with help from a lobbying firm headed by DeLay's former chief of staff, registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act on Aug. 22, 2001. DeLay; his wife, Christine; and two other Republican lawmakers departed on a trip financed by the group on Aug. 25 of that year.
An "illustrative schedule" dated February 2001 for the August 2001 trip lists proposed meetings with the U.S. ambassador, Korean legislators and business executives, but includes "free time for shopping, touring, golf" on each of the three days in Seoul.As for the ethical violation:
It could not be determined yesterday whether the lawmakers actually followed that schedule.
DeLay's aides said yesterday that the congressman did not learn of the group's registration until this week. "There's no way we could have known, and they didn't inform us of the fact that their status changed," said DeLay's communications director, Dan Allen.Nice job you’ve got there, Dan Allen—telling lies for the lyingest sonofabitch in the whole of the House. One thing, though—how about that former chief of staff of old Tommy Boy’s who help set up the group…mightn’t he have been aware of their status?
Oh, and just one more question for ya, Dan. Do you know if Rep. DeLay has ever heard the expression, Ignorance of the law is not a viable defense? Just wondering.
Another Bipartisan Accomplishment
You want to know why Dems who will break with their party on legislation like the exceptionally crappy bankruptcy bill are bad for the party? Because it allows the Bush administration to say things like this:
The fact that the Senate was able to set aside those issues and move toward passage shows it's another bipartisan accomplishment.Great. And when the American people finally realize they’ve been totally hoodwinked by an administration that continues to go further and further into debt by spending money it doesn’t have yet expects the American people to forfeit their homes if they get in over their heads, the Dems won’t even be able to say, “We opposed this bill. We fought tooth and nail for the American people,” because instead, the bankruptcy bill will go down as “another bipartisan accomplishment.”
-- Trent D. Duffy, a deputy White House spokesman
Democracy in Pictures
At the American Street, eRobin’s got an outstanding commentary on democracy around the world that you don’t want to miss. Fantastic stuff. Check it out.
Cat Fight!
Kos is wrong; Atrios is right:
Kos mounts a half-hearted defense of House Democrats who are supporting a Bill which is going to pass anyway. From an individual House member's perspective it's absolutely correct.Chapter 1,346,824 of the Democrats' leviathan tome How to be a Loser.
But, from the point of view of the party as a whole, it's completely and utterly wrong. When more than a few members are peeled off, suddenly it's a "bipartisan bill." In 2006, Nancy Pelosi won't be able to make the bankruptcy bill part of a national issue because too many members supported it LOUDLY AND PROUDLY. And, if we don't nationalize the congressional race in 2006 we will lose once again.
Until the party begins to take disciplined stands against these things, they don't stand for anything.
(On a side note, I disagree that supporting this bill was “absolutely correct” from an individual House member’s perspective, either. It was arguably correct from a political or financial perspective, but in absolute terms—not a chance. This was an evil little slice of legislation that will further advance the conservatives’ social Darwinist construct. Nothing correct about supporting it from any kind of moral perspective.)
Smoke ’Em Out
A little bit more on the earlier story about the possible staging of Saddam’s capture. First the Green Knight reminds us that A:
Two years before, Bush had said repeatedly that he would smoke the terrorists "out of their holes." Failing to find Bin Laden, the imagery was simply switched to the villain du jour.and asks if anybody else is, B:
reminded of Jessica Lynch, who got the opposite treatment?And as a final note, I’d like to revive this quote from Donald Rumsfeld, issued just after Saddam’s capture (bear in mind that the ex-marine who brought us this story asserts that Saddam was found in a house, in possession of a gun, which he used to engage our troops, killing a soldier):
"[T]he 20-year-old criticised the release of false information about her capture by Iraqi forces....
The Pentagon initially put out the story that Private Lynch - a slight woman who was just 19 at the time - had been wounded by Iraqi gunfire but had kept fighting until her ammunition ran out. But she told [Diane] Sawyer that she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that her gun had jammed during the chaos....
Initial reports also suggested that Miss Lynch had been abused after she came round in the hospital. She says that again was untrue - there was no mistreatment, and one nurse used to sing to her.
She said she was grateful to the American special forces team which rescued her but, asked whether the Pentagon's subsequent portrayal of her rescue bothered her, she said: 'Yes, it does. They used me as a way to symbolise all this stuff. It's wrong.'"
"Here was a man who was photographed hundreds of times shooting off rifles and showing how tough he was, and in fact, he wasn't very tough, he was cowering in a hole in the ground, and had a pistol and didn't use it and certainly did not put up any fight at all," Rumsfeld said.Dost thou perhaps protest too much, Master Rumsfeld? I’m just saying…
"In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave," he said.
Pro-Choice = Pro-Rights
Seeing the Forest’s Dave Johnson (who you really should be reading if you’re not already) posts today about the “conventional wisdom” that Democrats ban pro-life convention speakers, which has become a hot topic again with the whole Bob Casey issue (which anyone with the basic ability to Google knows is hogwash; he was barred from speaking because he refused to support the Clinton-Gore ticket), raising its head again as the possible choices for unseating Santorum are reviewed.
I know this may be an unpopular opinion, but I have a real problem with anti-choice Dem candidates, and here’s why: abortion rights is an issue for which one must distinguish between one’s personal belief from one’s political belief. One of John Kerry’s most eloquently stated positions was on this very topic, when, during one of the debates, he alluded to the fact that he is personally pro-life, but separates that from his position of being politically pro-choice.
Pro-life is one of those squirrelly Righty terms that doesn’t say what it really means. Most conservative pro-lifers are, in fact, anti-abortion, both personally and politically. Yet being personally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice are not mutually exclusive positions. It’s that whole “my rights end where yours begin” thing again. There are many people with unwanted pregnancies who do not opt for abortions, even though it is a legal option. Disagreeing with the concept of abortion is different from disagreeing with whether it should be legal, and that’s an important distinction, which we are somehow reluctant to make in the Democratic Party.
There are, of course, those who would argue that their pro-life position is rooted in a belief that abortion is murder, which is what makes this a difficult conundrum…until you look at what being anti-abortion really means. It means that you are telling women they are not autonomous beings, but instead
vessel(s) for whom no plan or hope or possibility or circumstance, however desperate, matters more than being a nest for that "itty bitty zygote."It means telling women that you should have more control over their bodies than they do.
In what other circumstance would we tell women that they are required to submit their bodies to the whims of others? Why, if a woman’s body is not her own, is rape illegal? Despite the apocryphal stories of legions of women who use repeated abortions as a method of birth control, many of the women who seek abortions do so after taking all the necessary precautions, and if, after doing so, they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of failed birth control, why is their right to make decisions about whether their bodies will effectively serve as incubators for the next nine months any different than their right to make a decision about whether they willingly have sex?
The argument that abortion is different because abortion prevents life is simply not tenable; you cannot extricate the (arguably) laudable goal of protecting all potential life from the oppressive nature of denying women an opportunity to control their own bodies and their own destinies.
Conservatives love going on about the “special rights” that groups like the LGBT community are “always asking for,” but it seems to me that demanding the right to have control over another human being’s body is exactly the definition of a “special” right indeed—so “special,” in fact, that it’s not to be found anywhere else among our many laws (excepting, perhaps, punitive law, such as capital punishment).
There is room in our tent for pro-life Dem candidates, but only those who are resolutely pro-choice in their voting. And as for the centrist bloggers who assert that abortion is an issue on which we should be willing to compromise, it’s very generous of you to be willing to sell my body to the GOP, but my womb—or any other part of me—isn’t for sale.
D.U.I.
Or, Depleted Uranium in Iraq. Ron has more at Running Scared. Go read.
DU is more of a problem than we thought when it was developed. But it was developed according to standards and was thought through very carefully. It turned out, perhaps, to be wrong.Perhaps.
--Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush
Do you think it ever occurs to President Bush that the only weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq are the ones we brought with us? I suppose not, since he's not very analytical.
Saddam’s Capture Staged?
An ex-marine is alleging that Saddam’s capture was staged, and that he was captured not hiding in a spider hole, but living in a small house in a village:
Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted in the Saudi daily al-Medina Wednesday as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army.If last week was Bad News Week, this seriously seems to be What the Fuck Week.
"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.
"We captured him after fierce resistance during which a Marine of Sudanese origin was killed," he said.
He said Saddam himself fired at them with a gun from the window of a room on the second floor. Then they shouted at him in Arabic: "You have to surrender. ... There is no point in resisting."
"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh said.
(Hat tip RawStory.)
More Hoosier Madness
TheIndyChannel via Pam:
Troopers intervened at the Statehouse Tuesday as verbal exchanges between supporters and opponents of a proposed state constitutional ban on gay marriage threatened to escalate.Note the last paragraph. "Opponents ... [decry] the proposal as ... violating their constitutional rights." It's interesting that the IndyChannel misrepresents the LGBT as not having any straight supporters, people whose constitutional rights wouldn't be affected by the amendment that might still have an interest in making sure that everyone else in the state has the same rights, that might also think such a proposal promotes hatred and bigotry, that might be keen to show that equality isn't a "special right."
The confrontation happened at a rally where about 1,000 people expressed support for the proposed amendment inside the Statehouse. Some people from an earlier rally outside the building -- one that protested the proposal -- went inside and heckled the speakers.
Two people tried to grab one of the primary hecklers, but others intervened and prevented any violence.
[...]
An organizer of the pro-amendment rally, former gubernatorial candidate Eric Miller, spoke over the hecklers, arguing that children must not be taught that there is no difference between traditional and same-sex marriage.
"Our children must continue to be taught that marriage is between one man and one woman," Miller said.
As the amendment supporters left the building, people against the amendment chanted slogans demanding equal treatment for gays and lesbians.
[...]
The Senate already approved legislation that could eventually amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, and Republicans who now control the House say they'll push it to passage.
Even if it passes this year, it must be approved by the next elected Legislature in 2007 or 2008 before it would be eligible for a statewide vote of the people.
Opponents have gathered outside the Statehouse, decrying the proposal as promoting hatred and bigotry and violating their constitutional rights.
The video on their own site reveals the truth: a woman proudly holds a huge (and clever) sign saying "I [heart] my gay son-in-law." So did the IndyChannel have an agenda, or was it just bad writing? I certainly hope it was the latter.
Important Story for Lefty Bloggers: Clint Curtis
If you were following any of the post-election investigations into possible voter fraud, you were probably reading BradBlog, and you probably know who Clint Curtis is, and you might even know that the investigator from the Florida Inspector General's office who was investigating Curtis’ case committed suicide in 2003 two weeks after telling Curtis that the case was about the break open. Unless you’re still reading BradBlog, though, you might not know that the investigation into that suicide was reopened—and then quickly reclosed—by Georgia police, after speaking to someone in Florida.
Here’s a quick summary for those to whom this story is new:
1. In 2001, Clint Curtis filed a whistleblower complaint with the Florida Inspector General’s office, alleging that his employer, Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI), was also employing an illegal Chinese alien, Henry Nee, who was committing espionage out of YEI. He also charged that YEI was illegally over-billing the Florida Department of Transportation on a multi-million dollar contract that was brought to YEI by Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) (who now sits on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee but was then the Florida Speaker of the House and legal counsel / registered lobbyist for YEI). Ahem.
2. Henry Nee pleaded guilty; though, despite having admitted sending missile components to China “ten or twenty times” in the preceding year, he was sentenced to be released under a 3-year supervised probation and a $100 fine to be paid immediately. YEI was also found to have billed the Florida Department of Transportation for $248,255 of "questionable charges."
(If you’re thinking, Shakespeare’s Sister, I thought you said this had to do with voter fraud, and now you’re talking about Chinese spies—just where exactly are you going with all of this?!, just hold tight; I’m about to get there. Numbers 1 and 2 were important in setting up Curtis as a credible source who knows what he’s talking about.)
3. Clint Curtis has also alleged, most recently in a 2004 sworn affidavit, that he:
So, for your consideration…a whistleblower whose complaint about his employer led to the outing of a Chinese spy and the revelations of bilking the state of Florida out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, also admits having designed a voter fraud program to be used in Florida at the request of a Florida politician who was once the running mate of the President’s brother and now sits on the Judiciary Committee.designed and built a "vote rigging" software program at the behest of then Florida Congressman, now U.S. Congressman, Republican Tom Feeney of Florida's 24th Congressional District … in 2000 while working … as technical advisor and programmer at Yang Enterprises, Inc.
[…]
Feeney, who had run in 1994 as Jeb Bush's running-mate in his initial unsuccessful bid for Florida Governor … inquired whether the company could build a "vote fraud software prototype".
[…]
Curtis says that Feeney "was very specific in the design and specifications required for this program."
"He detailed, in his own words, that; (a) the program needed to be touch-screen capable (b) the user should be able to trigger the program without any additional equipment (c) the programming to accomplish this needed to stay hidden even if the source code was inspected."
[…]
Upon delivery of the software design and documentation on CD to Mrs. Yang, Curtis again explained to her that it would be impossible to hide routines created to manipulate the vote if anybody would be able to inspect the precompiled source code.
Mrs. Yang then told him, "You don’t understand, in order to get the contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program is needed to control the vote in South Florida." [emphasis in affidavit]
Now ask yourself—why haven’t we ever heard the name Clint Curtis on the news?
Or, for that matter, the name Raymond Lemme.
4. Lemme was the aforementioned investigator from the Florida Inspector General's office who was assigned to Curtis’ case, and who, according to Curtis, said during a 2003 meeting that he (Lemme):
"had tracked the corruption 'all the way to the top' and that the story would break in the next few weeks and I would be satisfied with the results."Lemme’s death was ruled a suicide. It is worth noting that Florida requires mandatory autopsies for suicides. Georgia, however, does not.
On July 1, 2003 -- just two weeks later -- Raymond Camillo Lemme was found dead in a bathtub, with his arm slashed twice with a razor blade near the left elbow in Room #132 of the Knights Inn motel in Valdosta, Georgia; a border-town some 80 miles from Tallahassee, Florida where Lemme lived and worked.
5. This prompted the reopening of the case by Georgia authorities:
[G]raphic and disturbing photos from the crime scene -- said in the original police report to have not existed due to a failure in the camera's "flash memory cards" -- have recently been published on the web!Uh huh. Okay.
[…]
The legitimacy of the photographs was confirmed by a spokesman from the Valdosta police. Capt. Brian K. Childress of Valdosta's Professional Standards Unit told us in our original conversation with him that, "the flash card initially did fail" but that they were able to recover them after they "reopened the case due to interest on the
Internet."
"We recovered the photos with some software and were eventually able to get them," he told us, "sometime late last year around December." (Our original story on Curtis was published December 6th last year.)
6. And this prompted the reclosing of the case by Georgia authorities:
Despite inconsistencies in the photos and other evidence that would seem to conflict with information in the police report, Childress informed us that while the case was re-opened last December after our original report, it was closed quickly thereafter.Who at the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) would have the authority to tell another state to close a case file on a possible murder? And why would they exercise that authority?
"We spoke to someone at the Florida Department of Transportation," he explained, "and then closed the case again. It was either late '04 or early '05."
FDOT was brought as a client by Tom Feeney to YEI, who then proceeded to rip of FDOT, of which YEI was found guilty, based on the testimony of one of their employees, whose case was being investigated by a man whose subsequent suspicious death was not to be scrutinized per orders from someone at FDOT. What the fuck?!
Brad, who’s still trying to get answers, sums it up thusly:
[T]he continuing veracity of Curtis' claims, along with the continuing and documented collapse in credibility of both Feeney and YEI in this matter, have continued to give us reason to believe that some very bad people may well have done some very bad things. The reopening of the case in Valdosta, the sudden appearance of the photographs, the quick re-closure of the case after FDOT officials intervened, and the odd behavior of the Valdosta Police have added a newsworthiness to this element of the story, such that we are no longer able to keep from reporting it. As much as we truly might have liked to.I agree completely, which is why I’m sharing the story here. Nothing was ever so rotten in the state of Denmark.
(But go read Brad’s more detailed post, too , as he has sections on the inconsistencies in evidence, the departure from the force of the investigating officer in Lemme’s death, and the stonewalling with which he’s being met as he tries to get answers to the numerous questions surrounding this case.)
People ask where are the Woodwards and Bernsteins of today. Well, we’ve found them—they’re called Brad, Aravosis, Susan G… The only difference between them and W&B is that it’s a lot harder for them to get their stories into the Washington Post. They need our help. We pushed Gannon into the mainstream media; now it’s time to do the same with Clint Curtis. Let’s go.
Yikes
Link:
Iraqi officials said Wednesday that 35 bodies -- some bullet-riddled, others beheaded -- have been found at two separate sites and they believe some of the corpses are Iraqi soldiers kidnapped and executed by insurgents. In other violence, a suicide bomber detonated a garbage truck packed with explosives outside the Agriculture Ministry and a hotel used by Western contractors on Wednesday, killing at least three people, officials said.The Iraqi men who continue to sign up to be trained as soldiers are incredibly brave.
I know that for many of them, soldiering is a last resort, because unemployment is incredibly high, and many of the jobs that they should be doing are instead being done by American contractors, and all that...but I don't think any of it should take away from their bravery. These guys have been repeatedly (and successfully) targeted, and anyone who's standing up to fill that role in Iraq right now is a pretty courageous dude.
Blogosphere?
Rox wants to know if anyone can come up with a better name than blogosphere. My feeling is that it's the "blog" part that's unappealing. It's too reminiscent of a word one might employ in describing the sound of a cat vomiting.
Any suggestions?
The Freakshow Comes to Indiana
I’m so thrilled to know I’ll be within the same state borders as the most loathsome collection of hateful pricks to ever ascend from the bowels of hell. I have to say I am tempted to question the sanity of inviting this group of fuckwits to take part in a forum on gay rights, considering they’ve made their position on gay rights abundantly clear:The Equal Rights Coalition will play host to America's most notable homophobe in Fort Wayne on Sunday. The Rev. Fred Phelps, who runs the God Hates fags website and whose followers regularly demonstrate against LGBT rights has agreed to take part in a forum on gay rights.
Members of Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas - most of whom are family members - gained national notoriety when they protested outside the 1998 funeral for Matthew Shepard, the gay college student beaten to death in Wyoming.
The murder led to the play "The Laramie Project" in which Phelps is depicted. The award winning play will run for four days beginning Thursday at the Lincoln Museum in Fort Wayne.
Phelps and his followers plan to picket the museum and six area churches that he claims are tolerant of gays.
[…]
Rob Grayless, regional director of Indiana Equality said he hoped the forum would prevent a clash between the protesters and and counterprotests.
[…]"We'll accommodate it if it's anywhere near reasonable," Phelps said. "It's just a wonderful way to show the contrast between the truth of God and the abomination of sin."
I can’t imagine what these degenerates are going to add to what is meant to be a reasonable discussion of equality, but I suppose I will defer to Grayless’ judgment. I just wouldn’t be so sure that Phelps and his gang of merry harassers won’t be completely disruptive during the forum and then still take to the streets in their usual obnoxious fashion.
In any case, it’s nice to see that some Hoosier Christians are being vocal in their disdain for the despicable message spewed by the revolting Phelps:
The minister of one of the churches being targeted by the Phelps group called the scheduled demonstration a perversion of Christianity.I’m sorry, too. And I’m sorry that the LGBT community in Indiana will have to suffer the intrusion of this gang of venomous cretins.
"One cannot hate in the name of God," said the Rev. Phil Emerson of Good Shepherd United Methodist Church.
"My great heartbreak is unchurched people in Fort Wayne will read this story and will say that's what it means to be Christian or that's what it means to be godly. There's nothing of God about this group, and I'm sorry they associate themselves with any Christian names."
Moral Bankruptcy
Well, unless a miracle happens or some members realize that the best way to ensure continued largesse from the credit card industry is to somehow kill this thing while pretending to support it, it should be a done deal. It sucks, but it was an absolute miracle when it failed to pass the last time, and we had more senators then. Elizabeth Warren has some additional thoughts.One of the fundamental problems with this legislation is that it is motivated by the same principle that guides Bush’s intent to reform Social Security. He believes that removing such safety nets will inspire people to change their spending and saving habits. The problem is, as I’ve mentioned before, in a post about free needle programs that I wrote for Ezra’s place:
If nothing else we'll be spared the spectacle of Biden '08.
Rarely can legislation fundamentally alter human habits; it more frequently simply criminalizes or legalizes an already common practice, without doing much to alter the commission of the underlying deed. There is a real world out there that must be acknowledged when constructing policies so inextricably linked to human behavior.Conservatives like to think they’re being magnanimous when they something like, “I believe that every person has the ability to take care of him- or herself and doesn’t need to rely on the government.” And it’s a nice theory. But it doesn’t address the reality that a reliance on Social Security or the last resort of bankruptcy isn’t always the result of weakness; sometimes people are just plain old unlucky. Sometimes a debilitating illness, the death of a primary breadwinner, a bad investment, or a swindle by a crook can wreak havoc with the life of an otherwise responsible and hardworking person.
A Protestant theologian called Reinhold Niebuhr wrote something called the Serenity Prayer, which has been reproduced on plaques, mugs, collectible plates, laminated prayer cards, posters with kittens, and all other manner of paraphernalia. “God, grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and the Wisdom to know the difference.” Sometimes it is indeed wise to respect the folly of humans, to know that the change you want to make isn’t necessarily the one you can make. That’s reality, and ignoring it makes for bad policy.
That’s life. Disregarding its facts is not only ignorant, but cruel.
The D.J. and W
Faggoty-Ass Faggot (whose blog I’ve just discovered and who is just all kinds of delectable bitchiness and irreverence) offers some thoughts on radio Delilah. In case you don’t know who Delilah is:
One time I called to express my concerns about the creeping fascism in America and my fear that our democracy is being slowly but steadily undermined in ways that the average American dismisses as conspiracy theory, and she played Deutschland Deutschland Über Alles. She’s really not good.*The premise of her show is this: people from across the country call in to tell Delilah their love story of woe or inspiration. Sometimes a wife calls to express her devotion to her husband of thirty years. Or a new mother calls to crow about the joy her child is bringing her. Or perhaps a man tells about his stormy relationship with his girlfriend. The unifying thread is love. And then there's the gimmick.
What's the gimmick? Each caller gets a special song picked out by Delilah herself.
But not just any song, you see. No, Delilah picks out a love ditty that is completely inappropriate or un-fucking-related to any part of the caller's story. For
example:Caller: Delilah, this has been a very difficult two years for me. I finally left my abusive husband after eleven years. For eighteen months he stalked and harassed me, and after a restraining order and a trial, he's finally put away and I can move on with my life and perhaps find new love. Can you play something just for me?
Delilah: Of course we can. Here's The Police with Every Breath You Take.
Or perhaps:
Caller: Delilah, my brother is my best friend. He's in the army, and next week he's deploying to Iraq for a year. It's going to be so hard not to have him around to talk to every day. Can you play something to show him how much I'm going to miss him?
Delilah: Just for you, caller, here's Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton with Islands in the Stream.
Caller: Oh thank you, Delilah. That's just perfect.
Faggoty-Ass Faggot wisely observes that the draw of the indescribably saccharine Delilah has similar roots to the appeal of, well, someone else who probably doesn’t deserve it:
As I listen to Delilah, it strikes me that her success has come at an interesting period in our country. The consensus among many Americans is that life is scary right now, the choices are too difficult, and everything seems too complex for the average person to handle. There's a place, it would seem, for someone who pretends to listen to your troubles, offers a few simple platitudes, and slaps a Band-Aid on your troubles that covers the problem but in the long run solves nothing. Like Delilah.You said it, FAF.
Or Dubya, perhaps? It's a similar mechanism, I hypothesize, that drives people to
listen to shallow radio hosts for comfort, slap magnetic yellow ribbons on the bumpers of their cars, and hand a retard a 60% approval rating.
I just wish the forty-third president of these United States would spin Everlasting Love for the masses rather than try to take away my Social Security.
---------------------------------------
* That is, of course, a total lie.
