I was just talking to a friend about how great Emma Thompson was in Love Actually, specifically the scene in which she’s standing in her bedroom, listening to Joni Mitchell, and trying not to fall apart. That scene always gets me choked up (one of many in that film, I must admit), and thinking about it inspired today’s question…
What movie scenes always make you cry?
(For those of you who don't cry at movies, scenes that would make you cry, if you did, will suffice.)
Question of the Day
Hackocracy
The title of this post is taken from the cover story on the Oct. 17 issue of The New Republic, which notes:
[W]hile cronies populate every presidency, no administration has etched the principles of hackocracy into its governing philosophy as deeply as this one. If there’s an underappreciated corner of the bureaucracy to fill, it has found just the crony (or college roommate of a crony), party operative (or cousin of a party operative) to fill it.And just when one might foolishly think the Bush administration can’t get any more hackocratic than it already is, oddjob points to this article, which reports that a political loyalty test is now being used by the National Park Service in filling all positions of mid-level management and above.
The National Park Service has started using a political loyalty test for picking all its top civil service positions, according to an agency directive released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under the new order, all mid-level managers and above must also be approved by a Bush administration political appointee.The order, which is described as “an unprecedented political intrusion into what are supposed to be non-partisan, merit system personnel decisions,” applies to “park superintendents, assistant superintendents and program managers, such as chief ranger or the head of interpretive or cultural programs.” If you’d like a mere preview of exactly what this could mean for our National Parks Service, check out this post from November, which focused on possible changes to a film shown at the Lincoln Memorial and the decision to sell a book at the Grand Canyon, claiming it was formed by the great flood from the biblical story of Noah.
The October 11, 2005 order issued by NPS Director Fran Mainella requires that the selection criteria for all civil service management slots (Government Service grades or GS-13, 14 and 15) include the "ability to lead employees in achieving the ...Secretary's 4Cs and the President's Management Agenda." …
The President's Management Agenda includes controversial policies and proposals such as aggressive use of outsourcing to replace civil servants, reliance on "faith-based initiatives" and rollbacks of civil service rights.
"Presidents come and go but the civil service is designed to serve whoever occupies the swivel chair in the Oval Office," [PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch] added. "It is downright creepy that now every museum curator, supervising scientist and chief ranger must be okayed by a high-level political appointee."It’s beyond creepy—it’s un-American, and it’s the logical extension of a hackocracy run amok.
(Welcome, Raw Storians. Click here for our home page.)
Hmm
Cheney and Gonzales may have tried to block the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. It really sounds like the White House is in complete chaos these days. Too bad. They’re such a nice lot.
Love It!
Check out the best obituary ever (emphasis mine):
Theodore Roosevelt Heller, 88, loving father of Charles (Joann) Heller; dear brother of the late Sonya (the late Jack) Steinberg. Ted was discharged from the U.S. Army during WWII due to service related injuries, and then forced his way back into the Illinois National Guard insisting no one tells him when to serve his country. Graveside services Tuesday 11 a.m. at Waldheim Jewish Cemetery (Ziditshover section), 1700 S. Harlem Ave., Chicago. In lieu of flowers, please send acerbic letters to Republicans.
Awesome. Via AMERICAblog.
More on Strategy (Again)
Today at Tapped, Yglesias looks at the Dem’s odds and suggests:
Thanks to gerrymandering, the Senate's natural malapportionment, and various forms of incumbent advantage it will be -- as the article acknowledges -- extremely difficult for the Democrats to recapture either house of Congress, even given a very favorable public-opinion terrain. Democrats could easily capture 54 percent of the vote and still leave the GOP with a majority of seats.I’m not convinced that if the Dems fail to secure a majority in 2004, it is most indicative of an impregnable GOP stranglehold on power. Such an assertion is predicated on the notion that Congressional districts are invulnerable to encroachment from an opposition party, and it seems to me that Paul Hackett’s near miss in a resolutely red district proves that’s not necessarily the case. Many districts, even gerrymandered, are won within close margins.
If, under the circumstances, Democrats make gains but the GOP retains control, the real moral of that story will be that the Republican stranglehold on power is essentially impregnable.
Sirota also takes issue with Yglesias (emphasis mine):
I believe Democrats losing in 2006 would be less of a commentary on the GOP's power, and more of a referendum on how Democrats' unwillingness to take concrete, sometimes controversial positions on the major issues of the day has relegated the party to permanent minority status.That’s an interesting thought, no? If the Dems have decided it’s better to lose a little than lose big, and fear that staking out bold alternative positions might result in the latter, then they have little hope of winning. A willingness to lose at all in the current political climate guarantees nothing less than the certainly of loss.
Right now is when the party has to choose whether its seriously interested in seizing power, or whether it is too comfortable in the minority to actually take risks.
Heh
A Crazy, unpredictable, rambling fool who thrives on parties, perversions, caffine and sugar. A welcome guest at any party but not marriage material.
(Via The Green Knight, aka Dr. Bunson Honeydew.)
Tit Tunes
How multi-purposeful:
Computer chips that store music could soon be built into a woman's breast implants.I can’t believe I’m going to have to wait 15 years to welcome Mr. Shakes to bed with my boobs broadcasting Let’s Get It On.
One boob could hold an MP3 player and the other the person's whole music collection.
BT futurology, who have developed the idea, say it could be available within 15 years.
BT Laboratories' analyst Ian Pearson said flexible plastic electronics would sit inside the breast. A signal would be relayed to headphones, while the device would be controlled by Bluetooth using a panel on the wrist.
According to The Sun he said: "It is now very hard for me to think of breast implants as just decorative. If a woman has something implanted permanently, it might as well do something useful."
Something tells me that Ian Pearson played too much “Tune In Tokyo” when he was a kid.
More on Strategy
At the weekend, I interjected my thoughts into a salon on the analysis of a recent study that, at its essence, reiterates the claim that the Dems are too liberal and must move center to win a majority. The Gadflyer’s Paul Waldman has also posted a response to the Galston and Kamarck study, in which he deems the report “appallingly wrong,” and explains why.
The ugly fact of American public opinion is that most people know next to nothing about politics. They don't have a clear understanding of where the parties stand on most things, and they don't have a meaningful grasp of exactly what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative." Tweaking your issue positions just won't register with them.This is, of course, not the only supporting evidence that a party’s positions alone can’t win elections. Poll after poll indicates that the majority of Americans side with the Democrats’ positions on key issues. The problem, of course, is that elections are, fairly or not, about more than policy. Waldman notes:
Let me offer a bit of supporting evidence. Since 1964, the National Election Study has asked respondents, "Which party do you think is more likely to favor a stronger government in Washington?" Regardless of recent developments in the Bush administration, for those immersed in politics the logical answer to this question is the Democrats. So how many Americans respond that way? In 1964, during the reign of that apostle of big government, Lyndon Johnson, the number was 35%. In 2000, 23% said the Democrats, while 50% said they didn't know. Similarly, until 1992 the NES asked respondents which party is more conservative on the national level. This may be the most basic fact about American politics one could imagine; if you don't know that the answer is "the Republicans," then you really don't know anything. The last time the proportion of people answering this question correctly cracked 60% was 1968; the last time it was asked, in 1992, 57% got it right (and they had a 50-50 chance by guessing, after all).
What these data tell us is that the content of ideology and the meaning of ideological terms is utterly opaque to most Americans. The notion that a party can make a few of their positions more "centrist" and widen their appeal is thus simply false.
The fact is that Democrats lose not because voters reject their policies, but because voters reject them.And, in reality, not even who you are, but who you appear to be. Therein lies the problem for many liberals; we don’t call ourselves the reality-based community for nothing. We believe in truth and reason, and to many of us, the absurdity of wholly created personas for the express purpose of winning elections is anathematic. Yet Bush’s fabricated façade has been unquestioningly embraced as authentic by many Americans. Political junkies see through it—those who admire him know the truth and simply don’t care—but his veneer is solid in most quarters; even many disinterested Dem voters don’t rigorously question his cowboy credentials. This is the reality with which we are faced, even as much as we don’t like it.
This is what the entire DLC crowd seems not to understand. Elections, particularly presidential elections, aren't about what you want to do, they're about who you are.
So what are the Democrats to do, as they continue to win on issues, but lose elections? As the process remains rigged in favor of smoke and mirrors? As policy matters less and less, and politics matters more and more?
I don’t have the answer. It seems a liberal candidate of integrity can’t win in this environment unless s/he is also gifted with a universally appealing personality that the media consents to fairly articulate. If that’s an accurate assessment, all of America loses no matter who wins elections.
Bush is Not a Popular President
Bush’s approval rating has sunk below 40 percent, while the percentage believing the country is heading in the right direction has dipped below 30 percent. In addition, a sizable plurality prefers a Democratic-controlled Congress, and just 29 percent think Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court.
[…]
In addition, with 13 months until the 2006 congressional elections, 48 percent say they prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared with 39 percent who want the Republicans to control Capitol Hill. In fact, that nine-point difference is the largest margin between the parties in the 11 years the NBC/Journal poll has been tracking this question.
Why Marriage Matters
This morning, I’ve been spending some time with my nose in Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry by Evan Wolfson, which was given to me by Ms. Julien. It’s a really great book, and I can’t recommend it enough.
One of the things that annoys me the most about the fact that we can’t just sort this issue out already is that as long as the fight continues, there will continue to be a thriving anti-gay industry, as homobigots raise limitless sums of money on the cause of gay hatred. Infuriating. So much of the conservative “moral values” juggernaut is funded by exploitation of two issues: abortion and gay marriage. If you can see no other reason for the Democrats to unequivocally champion choice and marriage equality, here’s one: untouchable protection of both will severely limit the Right’s money-raising ability.
Wow.
I guess ignoring the NAACP, voter disenfranchisement and New Orleans are hurting Bush more than he thinks, regardless of Herman Munster Kenny-boy's efforts.
Because only 2% of black Americans approve of George Bush.
Again, I say Wow. Bush is crumbling like a slice of Apple Brown Betty.
Enjoy the crash, Republicans. Bed. Made. Lie.
UPDATE: August says:
Here's what's really interesting- the poll noted by NBC has a 3.4 percent margin of error. That means from a statistical level, it's a theoretical possibility that with the possible exception of Condoleeza Rice and Michael Steele, not a single black person in the United States of America approves of George W. Bush.
Statistics are fun!
(Energy Dome tip to Oliver. I love cross-posts in the springtime...)
Too Bad About Bob Hope
Because Bush could really use the help.
Bush Seeks to Rally U.S. Troops in Iraq
We've got spirit, yes we do! We've got spirit, how 'bout you?
WASHINGTON - President Bush sought to rally U.S. troops in Iraq ahead of Saturday's vote on new constitution on Thursday, saying the "enemy understands that a free Iraq would be a blow to their vision."
"We put in motion something that can't be stopped, and that is the march of freedom," Bush said in a video conference with soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division, based in Tikrit, hometown of deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Can we please put a ban on the word "Freedom?" Like, just for six months. That would be enough, honest. Then you can go back to whacking that dead horse to your heart's content.
Well, this is nice of the President... doing a video conference with soldiers.... man, all of those people must have been really inspired, huh?
The president engaged in a question and answer sessions with 10 servicemen and women, who he saw on a large video screen set up in a room of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House.
I'm sure they were. All 10 of them.
"Do the Iraqis want to fight, and are they capable of fighting?" he asked.
They politely replied, "Duh, Mr. President."
"We're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said. "Thank you for all your work. When you back to the United States, if I'm hanging around, come by and say hello."
If he's.... hanging around.
Well, I don't know about all of you, but I'M inspired.
(Killing me softly with his cross-posts, killing me softly...)
Question of the Day: Brush with Fame Edition
Apropos of the meme below, and The Heretik’s charming Vonnegut story, I thought it might be fun to share lame or maybe not-lame celebrity meeting stories.
I’ve had the fortune to meet, sometimes just briefly, some of my favorite musicians/singers: Morrissey on several occasions, the boys from Suede, Craig Wedren from Shudder to Think, Harriet Wheeler from The Sundays, Tim Booth from James, Martin Rossiter from Gene (who was extraordinarily nice and witty), and some other interesting and talented folks.
The building in which I worked in Chicago for many years right out of university was on the Mag Mile, directly across the street from the Hotel Intercontinental, and had a Starbucks on the ground floor, making it an attractive stop to famous faces in Chicago. (I had quite an amusing run-in with Mel Gibson, who’s actually very nice, in that Starbucks.) One floor of the building also served as “FBI Headquarters” in The Fugitive and US Marshals, and I rode up in an elevator with Tommy Lee Jones once. All I wanted to do was ask him about being Al Gore’s roommate; I didn’t.
The Bruce Willis film Mercury Rising also filmed several scenes right outside the building, and somewhere on the cutting room floor is footage of me interrupting a scene because I was annoyed with being trapped in the lobby and prohibited from leaving for over a half hour, ending with Bruce Willis yelling at me, “We’re trying to shoot a film here!” and my yelling back, “I’m trying to live my life here!” Republican prick.
Much to Catherine’s jealous ire, I had many occasions to chat with her future husband, John Cusack, when we used to frequent the same record store over a decade ago now, and, before he was famous, bitches, I spent an evening backstage at a Chicago comedy club sharing a smoke (ahem) or two or twenty with a then-unknown comic named Dave Chappelle. Oh, the stories…
So—what are your brushes with fame?
Sharing a Pint Meme
A few days ago, Toast tagged me with this one:
[With] what five living people would you most like to go out for an evening of beers and lively conversation, and why?
Kind of a tough to limit it to just five, but here’s my best shot, in no particular order:
1. Al Gore—I’m sure everyone knows the reasons; I’ve admired him since I was a teenager, before he was even announced as Clinton’s running mate. I think he’s a fascinating guy, and I would undoubtedly abuse the privilege of meeting with him to shamelessly beg him to run in 2008.
2. Rosa Parks—I think this might be more of an afternoon tea and chat than an evening of beers, but regardless of the setting or beverage, I’d really enjoy having the opportunity to speak to her about what I consider one of the bravest acts in American history.
3. David Bowie—Come on, because he’s David fucking Bowie.
4. George Carlin—I almost can’t imagine how immeasurably fun a conversation with him would be. My only worry would be whether I could keep up. And if I could make him laugh…well, that would just be brilliant.
5. My Londoner Andy—Because it’s been toooooo long since we’ve had the opportunity, and it’s going to be even longer.
I won’t tag anyone—do it if you wanna, and if you do, let me know in comments!
Always Prepared; Always a Hack
Lawyers Recall Miers' Preparation Skills:
Most of the cases the Supreme Court nominee handled were settled before they went to trial, her former law partners say. Those colleagues and lawyers who opposed her remember Miers for her preparation and attention to detail.Wow, astounding. So, in other words, she was a competent attorney. Color me impressed.
And here’s something for which all of us who love and admire our current Pres and VP owe Miers a debt of gratitude:
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Miers defended Bush and running mate Dick Cheney against a lawsuit claiming that Texas representatives to the Electoral College couldn't vote for the Republican ticket.Thank you, Harriet, for bringing your exceptional skills of competency and dignity to such an important matter. How can we ever repay you?
The Constitution forbids electors from voting for a president and a vice president if all are from the same state. Cheney had lived in Dallas for five years and returned to Wyoming only after joining the ticket. Miers argued that the Texas residents who brought the lawsuit didn't have standing to sue.
The appeals judges hearing the case later decided that Cheney was indeed a Wyoming resident. The opposing lawyer, Charles W. McGarry, said Miers focused on a narrow procedural issue but did a competent job.
Oh, right. I guess the President is taking care of that.
Increasing Quantity, Declining Quality
Depressing. The EU's television news is getting just as shitty as ours. And guess what? It's for the same reason: money.
Stunted
Mannion takes on Bush’s obvious behavior issues and suggests that our petulant president may have undiagnosed learning disabilities. One of his readers, Anne Laurie, suspects that ADD, along with alcoholism, runs in the Bush family. I certainly don’t intend to contradict any of the possibilities they have posited, although any analysis (amateur though it may be) of Bush’s childhood issues is surely incomplete without an acknowledgement of that which plagues many children, conceivably those from wealthy and/or powerful families more than most—being excessively, and damagingly, spoiled.
Spoiling a child in the extreme can, much like learning disabilities or chemical dependencies, have the effect of emotionally stunting the indulged child. Bush and his siblings may or may not have been spoiled with “things,” but clearly all of them were spoiled with reassurances about their future successes, spoiled with often undeserved opportunity, and, in W’s case, this immoderation clearly continued into his adulthood, as his mistakes (Air Force antics, DUI, etc.) were handled by others on his behalf, as much as they could be. Whether Bush suffers from depression, untreated learning disabilities, addiction, we can only speculate from the sidelines, but there is undeniable evidence that he has been irreparably spoiled.
The traits of a spoiled child and indulged adult run throughout Mannion’s piece:
Who would tell him? And it's not as though he goes out of his way to find out what people think.—Indeed, he endeavors to do the opposite, surrounding himself with yes-men and blind loyalists; in effect, spoiling himself, as he shields himself from criticism and complaint.
an angry, volatile, mean-spirited, unhappy man—A man who acts angry, volatile, mean-spirited, and unhappy most evidently when he does not get his way (ref. his debates with Kerry, during which, as Mannion notes, “I sometimes thought he was going to start crying out of frustration and fear”). I don’t believe it’s a stretch to suggest that, for many of us, his ill-tempered displays at such times have evoked the image of a child’s temper tantrum.
when he should be acting most Presidential he will seem to be in his own, rather childish world—The center of his own universe. He will even seem to be completely unaware that other people can see him.—Completely unaware, or, perhaps, completely unconcerned. Witness his rude and obnoxious behavior during his interview with an Irish journalist, using a condescending tone that seems to be dripping with the sentiment that he runs the goddamned show, dammit. He doesn’t consider his behavior unacceptable, specifically because he has the expectation that it will be categorically accepted, by anyone in his presence.
There are other times when I think that he is emotionally and even intellectually retarded. Think about it. Doesn't he often come across like Tom Hanks in Big, like a 12 year old boy trying to pretend to be a grown-up?—Yes. His communications with colleagues are ridiculously immature, he insists on making up asinine nicknames for his associates and reporters and even other world leaders, he loves to play dress-up, and he makes inappropriate jokes—always casting himself as the star (hunting for missing WMDs, partying in NOLA when he was younger). He’s never grown up, because he’s never been forced to do so.
George Bush did not have patient parents.—It is often the least patient parents who are the most likely to spoil their children, the parents who find it easier to give in to junior’s whims than put a foot down firmly and draw the line, even if it means whining, howling, and crying. It’s not difficult to surmise that Bush learned this tactic early, considering he still employs it today—those in his circle who dare to oppose him are quickly dispatched to nowhere, while his devoted indulgers are promoted to their vacated positions.
The young George Bush undoubtedly had an insular childhood, while his parents refused to sully their beautiful minds worrying about the troubles of others, and in his adulthood, he has recreated that insular world. The only construct he knows, and the only one in which he feels comfortable, is that in which he is the star—the good ol’ boy jokester, the fearless leader, the #1 muckity-muck whose wisdom cannot be questioned or denied. In President Pan, where I first addressed my consternation with Bush’s habitual spoiled childishness, I wrote:
I remember being young and foolish, thinking that I knew more, knew better, than all the adults around me. I was smarter than they were, the unbearably dull old fools. Rejecting the counsel of those wiser, sensing the years in which that wisdom was earned create a seemingly untraversable distance, are familiar marks of youth, one that falls away as we ourselves age.Well, it’s not really hard to imagine at all, is it?
But imagine if someone spent his entire life never recognizing the folly of declining guidance, never learning to defer to the advice or judgment of others, always believing that he knew more, knew better, than everyone else, and so had no use for curiosity or counsel. Imagine if he were handed the power of an empire. Imagine if the boy who refused to grow up became the most important man in the world.
Update: Pam's got more on the spoiled brat in the White House.
