Well, I’d almost forgotten about this, but there’s a fantastic report on the rise of Dominionism in the US here, originally brought to my attention awhile ago by Mr. Furious, to give credit where credit is due. This report was written by Katherine Yurica, an investigative reporter with expertise in the politicization of the religious right, who was also commissioned by the House Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Ways and Means Committee to complete a study as part of their investigation into whether television and radio ministries were violating their tax-exempt status by virtue of their political activities.
Basically, she’s no dummy. And no hyperbolic conspiracy theorist.
“The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State” is a long article, but well worth your time to read—and, clearly, far more comprehensive than I would have been able to put together in short order. I’m interested to hear the thoughts/reactions of anyone who takes the time to check it out.
Dominionism, Part 2
Congressional Dominionists: The Wingnuttery Escalates
Emboldened, I suppose, by the president’s alleged mandate, the public’s willingness to be increasingly tolerant of extremism as long as its roots are religious, and the media’s new love affair with all things God, some of the wingnuttiest members of the Senate have decided to attempt to turn us into a Christian Reconstructionist theocracy once and for all and have introduced the Constitutional Restoration Act.
Though it is described as a “bill to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism,” reading its actual summary proves enlightening as to its true intent: this legislation seeks to make it possible for Congress to remove any judge who refuses to acknowledge that the basis for all law, liberty, and government is God.
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.(An identical bill has been introduced in the House.)
Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution. (Emphasis mine; hat tip Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast.)
Okay, the time has come to pull out the tinfoil hats for those who still bother with those things and have a big discussion of the rise of Dominionsism (or Christian Reconstructionsim) in America. But first, I have to finish up my work day, go home, have a Stewart’s Orange Cream soda, and then I will endeavor to bring us all up to speed on how this is not the beginning of a new trend, but the culmination of a long struggle by these nutjobs. Having been particularly interested in this subject for awhile now, let’s just say this doesn’t really surprise me at all—which is not to say that I am still not scared and infuriated by it. (I don't think it has a chance in hell of passing, but it's notable that it's being attempted nonetheless.)
So, more later, as time allows, and I’ll give you this to chew on for the interim…regular Shakers will no doubt have noticed that I tend to harp on a lot about social Darwinism. Well, here’s why: social Darwinism is a political extension of Dominionism, which itself seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite using their interpretation of biblical law as the one true source of law, liberty, and government.
Sound familiar? If not, try rereading paragraph three.
Gunning for Trouble
In a NY Times article which examines the absurdity of our nation’s gun laws, we find out that, in a realization of our worst fears, terrorists are taking advantage of some of the shocking gaps that remain in the legislation, which inarguably has swung too far toward protecting the most expansive interpretation of the second amendment and away from national security concerns:
If a background check shows that you are an undocumented immigrant, federal law bars you from buying a gun. If the same check shows that you have ties to Al Qaeda, you are free to buy an AK-47. That is the absurd state of the nation's gun laws, and a recent government report revealed that terrorist suspects are taking advantage of it…In the interest of full disclosure, I frankly believe the second amendment was written at a time when gun ownership was a necessity in a way it is not today; I don’t believe that owning a gun is warranted, unless for the purposes of hunting, a hobby I personally find distasteful, but would not seek to deny others’ rights to pursue. In any case, I take no political issue with the second amendment in and of itself (its interpretation and application are where my problems lie), and no stand against the existence of a group like the NRA, which seeks to ensure Americans are guaranteed the right extended by said amendment.
The Government Accountability Office examined F.B.I. and state background checks for gun sales during a five-month period last year. It found 44 checks in which the prospective buyer turned up on a government terrorist watch list. A few of these prospective buyers were denied guns for other disqualifying factors, like a felony conviction or illegal immigration status. But 35 of the 44 people on the watch lists were able to buy guns.
[…]
Keeping terror suspects from buying guns seems like an issue the entire nation can rally around. But the National Rifle Association is, as usual, fighting even the most reasonable regulation of gun purchases. After the G.A.O. report came out, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s executive vice president, took to the airwaves to reiterate his group's commitment to ensuring that every citizen has access to guns, and to cast doubt on the reliability of terrorist watch lists.
Unfortunately, the N.R.A. - rather than the national interest - is too often the driving force on gun policy in Congress, particularly since last November's election. Even after the G.A.O.'s disturbing revelations, the Senate has continued its work on a dangerous bill to insulate manufacturers and sellers from liability when guns harm people. If it passes, as seems increasingly likely, it will remove any fear a seller might have of being held legally responsible if he provides a gun used in a terrorist attack.
I do, however, have a big, fat problem with the NRA's tactics and with the gun laws in this country, for the reasons outlined in the above-cited article, and, as I’ve mentioned in a comments thread here before, my biggest issue with America’s gun laws is this: I could own a gun.
I have no business owning a gun—I would have no idea how to properly use it, load it, clean it, or store it. I have no earthly reason to need a gun, either—I live in a low crime area, I have a secure home (touch wood), I’m not a hunter, I’m not in a job that creates enemies and necessitates extraordinary self-protection, etc. No knowledge of guns, no reason for a gun, and likely one of the poor dopes who, if face to face with an intruder, would end up having my own gun used against me. Yet, I could have a gun in my possession in a matter of days. That’s some faulty legislation.
Now, I know that gun aficionados will tell me that most gun owners are responsible people who do know how to properly use, load, clean, and store their weapons, and that they have a legitimate reason for owning them, whether it’s home security or sport. And I’m sure that’s true. I’m sure that most gun owners are responsible; sheerly by virtue of the number of guns we have in this country, it must be. But why should potential gun owners not be compelled to show such competency before being issued a weapon? Patent lunacy. Bad policy.
Soon after Mr. Shakes moved to the US, he walked down to a local superstore, which he found endlessly fascinating—“You can buy groceries and giant tractor tires in the same place?!” Being from Britain, he was particularly intrigued by the racks of guns for sale, right next to sporting goods, which was right next to toys. When he returned home that day, he said to me, amazed, “I’ve just found out the price of murder in America: $302. Two dollars for a hunting license. Three hundred dollars for a rifle.”
$302 and very little else standing between a person with murder on his mind and the means to do it.
Even, apparently, if he's on a terrorist watch list.
Must-Read
Pam writing at Big Brass Blog on some incredibly scary legislation up for debate in San Francisco that would require all local bloggers to register with the city’s Ethics Commission. (!)
Action information contained within the post.
(Also posted at Pam's House Blend.)
Why I Hate Bill O’Reilly with a Fiery Passion that Burns Brighter than 10,000 Suns: Part 1,452,595
Think Progress (emphasis theirs):
Recently, Bill O’Reilly has heaped praise on Pope John Paul II. Here is O’Reilly on the Factor last Thursday:Damn, I totally detest that guy.
But I do know that I’ve studied this pope as well as I’ve studied anybody. And I can’t find anything, anything that this guy didn’t walk the walk. You know, right down the line. Nobody’s perfect, but this guy was close in his personal behavior and the way he conducted himself.
O’Reilly was not so kind, however, when the Pope expressed his opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He launched into this diatribe on the March 12, 2003 edition of the O’Reilly Factor:
But as I’ve said before, I believe also that John Paul is naive and detached from reality. If America does not lead an attack on Iraq, once again, Saddam remains in power and is free to use his anthrax and other terrible weapons as he chooses.
So the pope does not seem to be concerned about that or about Saddam’s behavior in general. Once again, he must know Saddam is a killer. He must know he’s oppressed his own people using murder and torture. He must know that.
[Snip]
Summing up, Jacques Chirac is our enemy, and the pope, well, I don’t know what to think.
Meanwhile, if I recall correctly, O’Reilly actually supports civil unions for the LGBT community, which surely means he would have had some issue with a man who called gay marriage “part of a new ideology of evil.” Usually Bill doesn’t take too kindly to people who cast his views in with an ideology of evil.
Ah, well. Dear, dear Bill O’Reilly: whore, liar, and fair-weather friend.
Question of the Day
As we are all painfully aware, the past few weeks, the news has been dominated by the culture of life crowd, first with the Schiavo fiasco, and now with Popeapalooza.
Well, all you news-savvy Shakers, which recent political story has been drowned out by the no-news-but-God-news over the past couple of weeks that you'd like to have seen get more attention?
Help Needed
I’m trying to locate an Abraham Lincoln quote, in which he addressed the desire of the leaders of the confederacy not just to win, but to have the union completely and utterly capitulate philosophically as well, to achieve satisfaction. Is anyone familiar with that quote? My searches have come up empty, because I can’t remember enough exact words to have a proper look for it.
In the meantime, here's another good quote from the man himself for your consideration:
We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny.
Once you've managed to rid your mind of all the unavoidable sexual connotations embedded in the language, take a moment to reflect upon the fact that it's the GOP who are ostensibly the party of Lincoln. I'm awaiting the headline from the Hong Kong Times confirming that Lincoln has spun himself straight through the core of the earth.
“I’ve Never Done This Before”
Via CommonSenseDesk, Across the Great Divide’s Charlie Quimby posts an interesting little essay on the slippery slope of lying to oneself. Give it a read, and discuss in comments, should you have any inclination.
It's Fun to Shoot People
One of the biggest private security firms in Iraq has created outrage after a memo to staff claimed it is 'fun' to shoot people.I don’t even know what to say about this. It’s just really too disappointing for words.
Emails seen by The Observer reveal that employees of Blackwater Security were recently sent a message stating that 'actually it is "fun" to shoot some people.'
Dated 7 March and bearing the name of Blackwater's president, Gary Jackson, the electronic newsletter adds that terrorists 'need to get creamed, and it's fun, meaning satisfying, to do the shooting of such folk.'
Human rights groups said yesterday that the comments raised fresh questions over the role of civilian contractors operating in Iraq and other world flashpoints.
[…]
The controversial wording of the Blackwater bulletin appears to be an attempt to criticise the 'righteous outcry' that followed a recent statement from a senior US Marine general who, on returning home from Iraq, claimed it was 'fun to shoot some people'. While the views of Lieutenant-General James Mattis drew a frosty response from the Pentagon, others said his observations reflected the harsh realities of war.
Blackwater's entry to the debate appears to suggest that satisfaction can be drawn from combat if 'the bad guys' get what they deserve.
'All of us who have ever waited through an hour and a half movie, or read some 300 pages of a thriller, to the point when the bad guys finally get their comeuppance know this perfectly well,' says the opening address of the six-page bulletin, which The Observer believes to be authentic.
DeLaycious
The beginning of the end for Tom DeLay?
Sign #1:
Cheney said he backed efforts to help save Terri Schiavo’s life, but strongly disagreed with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who wants retribution against judges who blocked restoration of her feeding tube.When the satanic cyborg known as Dick Cheney utters the words “I don’t think that’s appropriate” about the behavior of someone in his own party, you know that particular someone has seriously pushed the envelope further than anyone previously thought it would stretch.
“I don’t think that’s appropriate . . . There’s a reason why judges get lifetime appointments.”
Sign #2:
Even back in Sugarland, Texas, Tom DeLay’s conduct in the Terri Schiavo case isn’t going over well. The Houston Chronicle reports this morning on a poll the paper conducted in DeLay’s congressional district:Add to Darth Cheney’s reaction the fact that the idiots who voted the sickening heap of human garbage Tom DeLay into office are now souring on him, and what you get (one fervently hopes) is the makings of the end of this bloated scumbag.
[N]early 69 percent of people in the poll, including substantial majorities of Democrats and Republicans, said they opposed the government’s intervention in the longstanding [Schiavo] family battle. Respondents in the Chronicle survey also were critical of DeLay’s individual role. Nearly 58 percent disapproved of his decision to get Congress involved.
Many of DeLay’s constituents believe his involvement in the case was a political ploy:
Republican Barbara Sanderson, 64, of Pecan Grove, said the affair contributed to her opinion of DeLay sinking from “very, very, very favorable” to something considerably less rosy. “I think that it was a high-profile political ploy used by a lot of people, and I hate to see our president get involved,” she said. “It’s embarrassing.” DeLay argued that his morals guided him in the case of Schiavo, who died Thursday. But nearly half of those polled said he intervened in the case for political gain.
The only thing I worry about is whether DeLay’s inevitable implosion will either serve as a red herring to distract from Frist pushing through the nuclear option, or a scapegoat for the radical agenda the entire GOP has been complicit in advancing. Well, we’ll just have to keep our eyes on the ball, as the MSM can, of course, not be trusted to do so anymore.
Come on, Shakers—you know the song by now…sing along!
Oh, how I look forward to the beautiful day,
That marks the end of his powerful sway,
When he’s found guilty as charged and taken away,
And the House can commence without further DeLay…
Seeing the Forest...
...has moved to http://seeingtheforest.com/. Update your blogrolls!
Also, Mother Jones Blog has been added to the blogroll.
The Songs That Saved Your Life
Okay, I know this is a totally wev post for most of the readers who pass this way, but it’s 5:00 in the morning, I’m suffering another bout of insomnia, and so this is the perfect post for me at the moment.
As has been mentioned here before, the name of this blog comes not from the shitty band of the same name, but from a Smiths’ b-side. To say that I am a Smiths/Morrissey fan is to say that there was some vague interest in the Schiavo fiasco. The truth is, my entire life since my early teenage years has been set to a Smiths/Morrissey soundtrack (with occasional interruptions by the likes of Bowie, Suede, Siouxsie, Robert Smith, Pulp, Shudder to Think, Blur, The Flaming Lips, et al). I remember seeing the video for How Soon Is Now on 120 Minutes, and recall the first time I heard Viva Hate in its gorgeous entirety and knew my life would never be the same. I know every lyric, every note, every nuance of Morrissey’s voice and what the differences are between multiple recordings of the same track. I haven’t missed a Morrissey show in Chicago since he went solo, I won tickets to the Chicago release party of Your Arsenal, I attended the video shoot for Glamorous Glue at Kingston Mines, and I’ve stood in line for hours waiting to see him at Tower Records. When asked how I can listen to the same albums over and over and over again without ever remotely tiring of them, I can’t explain. It’s the music, yes, and Morrissey’s breathtakingly beautiful lyrics, yes, and the themes—gender, sexuality, class, politics, history, literature, yes. But it’s more than that, too. These songs are as familiar, as much a part of me, as my own thoughts. I sing Smiths songs in my sleep.
I have a dear friend in London who buys all the British music rags, and cuts out all the articles about the Smiths and Morrissey for me, which periodically arrive in long brown envelopes—my own personal magazine. The other day, he sent me an email that contained a link to the coolest story:
Iconic 1980s indie group The Smiths are to be studied at an academic conference in Manchester, their home town.What I wouldn’t give to be there!
The four-piece band, led by famously miserable singer Morrissey, will be analysed by scholars from around the world for two days next week.
The symposium, called Why Pamper Life's Complexities, will aim to assess the band's social, cultural, political and musical impact.
The Smiths are considered one of the most influential bands of the decade.
The academics will reflect on the influence of Morrissey's lyrics on gender and sexuality, race and nationality and the imagination of class.
The band will also be discussed in terms of aesthetics, fan cultures and musical innovation at Manchester Metropolitan University on 8 and 9 April.
The funny thing is, my degree is in sociopolitical anthropology, with an emphasis on the marginalization of gender-based political groups, and when I was at university, I was (as I am still) the laziest fucker on the planet. Not intellectually, mind you—I adored going to class and writing papers, but this was in the early 90s, just before the age of finding anything and everything you need on the internet, and the never-ending paper assignments (40 pages on this, 30 pages on that) necessitated scores of research. The university library, however, was a mess, making research tedious, and, more importantly, I had some serious slothfulness with which to contend, so I developed a habit of writing as many papers as possible using resources that could be found on the floor of my dorm room—namely NME, Select, and Rolling Stone. Sometimes, I just couldn’t swing it, but if the topic was gender roles in the workplace, I would write a paper about gender-bending rock stars; if the topic was male applications of feminism, I would write a paper tracing the rise of feminism in male-authored Britpop lyrics. And the great thing was, my professors thought I was a bloody genius. My work was always solid, and I gave them something original and interesting to read, for a change.
I can’t even begin to imagine how many papers I turned in that cited Steven Patrick Morrissey as a source. And now I find out that there’s actually an academic conference being organized to analyze the Smiths. I wasn’t lazy; I was a trailblazer!
Surely I should have been asked to attend. Harrumph!
Andy, Johnny, Mozz, and Mike.
Go Team!
Recently, Shaker Paul of Adventures of the Smart Patrol and I realized that I had seen him in a play years ago, which was quite a surreal experience, and it happened to be a play I really liked (very funny stuff). In honor of this crossing of fates, he posted one of his speeches from the play, which was about the role of women in the future world:
"You see Grody, a long, long time ago, a woman...became President! She fucked it up big time, and the whole world was thrown into chaos!It got me to thinking, maybe this futuristic Brave New World wasn’t a result of a woman being president, but instead, a cheerleader being president, which over the generations was understandably misinterpreted as a woman having been president.
But! Fortunately, a group of men known only today as...The Elders... assasinated her, and had all the women rounded up into concentration camps! They decided that woman had to be... redefined. So The Elders pondered... brainstormed for woman's ideal societal funtion.. and came up with... CHEERLEADERS!
And, so, all the women were interviewed, and naturally there was a bathing suit competition... and all the aggresive, or ambitions, or ugly women were put to death! And the rest of course has simply been a matter of control, through economics, and breeding, and rabbit punches!"
Just a thought.
An actual photo of George Bush
during his cheerleading days.
Pope Stuff
Today, President Bush called the Pope a “champion of human dignity,” and if you were poor, suffering under Soviet tyranny in Eastern Europe, or facing the death penalty, you’d probably agree. But if you were gay, or a victim of a priest who sexually assaulted you, or a woman who wanted to be a good Catholic and leave an unhappy marriage or have a career that wasn’t interrupted repeatedly by childbirth, or a priest wrestling with celibacy, or a pregnant victim of rape or incest, you’d probably disagree, because the Pope didn’t particularly care about your dignity, your needs, or the realities of your life. The same, of course, can be said for Bush—and then some—so it’s no wonder he views the Pope that way.
However, I believe that to recognized as a champion of human dignity, you’ve got to care equally about the dignity of all humans, and not be selective in your advocacy of equality or your protection of victims, conveniently excluding those who have been victimized by your own hand. So while I acknowledge that Pope John Paul II has indeed done some good things, you will not find me among those who choose to celebrate his legacy.
Consider this my eulogy for whenever he passes on. I only hope the Catholic Church seeks to find in his replacement one who truly earns the accolade unjustly bestowed by our president this morning, although I won’t hold my breath.
[UPDATE: He's gone.]
Government Searches: Be Very Afraid
MSNBC reports that government wiretaps and searches are up 75% (emphasis mine):
Since passage of the Patriot Act, the FBI can use such warrants in investigations that aren’t mostly focused on foreign intelligence.This is, of course, what happens when an irrational and fearful electorate and a cowed opposition party give the controlling party unlimited powers to enact legislation like the Patriot Act.
Operating with permission from a secretive U.S. court that meets regularly at Justice headquarters, the FBI has used such warrants to break into homes, offices, hotel rooms and automobiles, install hidden cameras, search luggage and eavesdrop on telephone conversations. Agents also have pried into safe deposit boxes, watched from afar with video cameras and binoculars and intercepted e-mails.
As I’ve said before, I find directly equating Bush and Hitler to be unnecessarily inflammatory and, hence, unproductive. However, there is indeed a use for using our knowledge of history to draw comparisons between what happened in Germany in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, as is slipped from a democracy into a dictatorship, and what is happening in America today, because the similarities, unfortunately, warrant it.
Most Americans have forgotten that Hitler came to power legally. He and the Nazi Party were elected democratically in a time of great national turmoil and crisis. They themselves had done much to cause the turmoil, of course, but that's what makes the Bush comparison so compelling.The reaction to the burning of the Reichstag was the Ermächtigungsgesetz, or the Enabling Act, which was officially called the “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.” It, too, permitted the encroachment upon the people’s civil liberties in the name of national security.
Similar to the Bush administration, the Nazis were funded and ultimately ushered into power by wealthy industrialists looking for government favors in the form of tax breaks, big subsidies, and laws to weaken the rights of workers. When the Reichstag (Germany's Parliament building) was set ablaze in 1933 (probably by Nazis), the Nazis framed their political rivals for it. In the general panic that followed, the German Parliament was purged of all left-wing representatives who might be soft on communists and foreigners, and the few who remained then VOTED to grant Chancellor Hitler dictatorial powers. A long, hideous nightmare had begun.
History teaches us that it is shockingly easy to separate reasonable and intelligent people from their rights. A legally elected leader and party can easily manipulate national events to whip up fear, crucify scapegoats, gag dissenters, and convince the masses that their liberties must be suspended (temporarily, of course) in the name of restoring order.
At the time of the passage of the Patriot Act, opponents claimed it would be used for ulterior means than protecting national security, under a cloak of secrecy. The ACLU noted:
Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.Compare with this from MSNBC’s report:
Details about some FBI surveillance efforts last year emerge from court records spread across different cases. But only a fraction of such warrants each year result in any kind of public disclosure, so little is known outside classified circles about how they work.Scary stuff.
(Of course, as noted by John at Big Brass Blog, in another useful look at what the past can tell us about the present, Germany's leader served his country's working class well and actually did support his troops, giving them more than lip service, so, in a great irony, treating his own people worse than Hitler did may serve to keep Bush from ever being as bad for the rest of the world as Hitler was.)
Economic Wonkery: Do Not Be Afraid
John and the Dark Wraith have an excellent discussion going on at Big Brass Blog about oil prices. I highly recommend it, including the exchanges in the comments threads.
For those who aren’t regular readers of the Dark Wraith, aside from his superb contributions in the comments threads here at Shakespeare’s Sister, he provides an invaluable service at Big Brass Blog and especially his own blog (linked above and on my blogroll), which is making economic issues understandable—and not intimidating—even for the least economically wonky among us.
My education and experience lend themselves primarily to being a competent commenter on social issues, but I rely heavily on to Dark Wraith (and Mr. Shakes, who tends to contribute more there than here, being an economics wonk) to inform myself about economic issues. I encourage you to give some of your time (if you’re not already) to the Dark Wraith each day, because you won’t find a better place to learn about the fiscal issues we face.
Riddler
In the previous thread about coming up with a nickname for me, Elayne Riggs suggested that I should just use my real name. Truthfully, I have no real desire for people to not know my real name; when I started this blog, choosing the moniker Shakespeare’s Sister was about branding. I thought it would help when I left comments elsewhere to reinforce the blog name.
But instead of just revealing my secret identity, I thought I’d turn it into a little game. (Pam, Ms. Julien, Dark Wraith – no fair just giving up the goods!)
Here are your clues:
1. I can sting.
2. I grow green.
3. I’m an ace news slam.
Have fun!
RIP Mitch Hedberg
I’m so sad. I really liked Mitch Hedberg a lot.
Mitch Hedberg, a Minnesota-born comedian who worked in nightclubs, television and film in a wide-ranging career, died in New Jersey, his family said. He was 37.
Hedberg, who struggled with drugs and alcohol, died Wednesday in a hotel room in Livingston, N.J.
Pending the medical examiner's report, the cause of death appears to be heart failure, said his mother, Mary Hedberg. She said her son was born with a heart defect and frequently felt anxious about his condition.
Mary Hedberg said speculation that her son's death was drug-related was gossip.
"We don't know that for a fact," she said, but added, "it's not a secret Mitch used drugs. Whether that played a role in his death or not, we don't know."
Goodbye, Mitch.
Question of the Day (Extremely Slow News Day Edition)
Mr. Shakes feels weird calling me “Sis,” since I’m his wife and all. I feel weird when I’m called “SS,” because it makes me feel like a Nazi. So Paul suggests we have a contest to come up with an agreed-upon nickname.
I usually refer to myself as Shakes; sometimes people go with Sister (although that does feel a little “get thee to a nunnery” to me). So, what do you think? What should the official nickname of your resident bloggrrl be?
Oh Manchester, So Much to Answer For
Maybe it’s because belligerent ghouls run Manchester schools. In any case, I’m sure it’s somehow Morrissey’s doing. Because the world revolves around Mozz.Organizers of a major erotic festival are closing for business in Manchester due to a lack of interest, which they blame on recalcitrant northern English men.
Erotica Manchester opened on Friday, selling a range of sex aids, clothing and footwear, but ticket sales have been poor and organizers say they will not be coming back.
"We've tried to warm this city up for more than two years but northerners just haven't responded in sufficient numbers," said event director Savvas Christodoulou.
"They are happy enough to come to our London event in the autumn but they seem embarrassed about being seen at Erotica Manchester."
Organizers said their research shows northern women wanted to attend the three-day adult show but were "under the thumb of their other halves."
"We thought Manchester was an open minded city but maybe we were wrong," a spokesman for the event told Reuters. "People flock to our show in London but it seems that up here, the traditional northern male still calls the shots."
Hello, darling. My, what a big gun you have.
