Shakesville

oh what a beeeyoootiful morning....

What? Too early for cheery singing? How are you this morning, Shakers? I know someone who is already having a craptastic day, as this news hit the wires:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Texas officials paid Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' family more than $100,000 for a small piece of land in 2000 - 10 times the land's worth - despite the state's objections to the way the price was determined, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported Saturday.
The three-member committee that determined the price included Peggy Lundy, a friend of Miers, and property-rights activist Cathie Adams, Knight Ridder reported. They were appointed to the panel by state District Judge David Evans, who had received at least $5,000 in campaign contributions from Miers' law firm.

[...]

According to Knight Ridder, the land - which was part of a large Superfund pollution cleanup site - was valued at less than 30 cents a square foot. But the panel recommended paying nearly $5 a square foot for it.

The price was later reduced from $106,915 to $80,915, but Miers has yet to return the $26,000 difference to the state, said the story by Jack Douglas Jr. and Stephen Henderson.

``Nothing indicates that Miers sought out the judge or engineered the appointments to the panel, but there's also no indication that she reported the potential conflicts of interest in the case or tried to avoid them,'' the story said

Of course she didn't! That would require something called honesty and if we've learned anything about Bush's cronies, they're anything but honest (and they're greedy). She is sounding like a real peach to be a Supreme Court Justice, isn't she?

Sounds like Harriet and the Bush admin will be spending the day coming up with more bullshit excuses for the worthiness of her nomination. But me? Today I shall be packing for a surprise vacation, watching the Bengals vs. Steelers game (Who Dey, baby!), and heading over to the in-laws for a 93rd birthday party tonight. What are your plans?

"culture of life" postponed until '06

It appears the Senate won't be able to get around to voting on the stem-cell issue until next year. Arlen Specter had threatened to attatch it to another bill but reneged because it would cause a "multifaceted controversy", then he also says:

"The majority leader (Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist) has agreed to make this a priority item at the beginning of the next session of Congress, where all facets of the issue may be explored," Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, told the chamber.

So it'll just be a multi-faceted controversy next year.

Back in May, the House told Bush they fart in his general direction and passed legislation that would expand federal funding of stem-cell research (though not by a veto-proof margin). As we know, Bush has stated he will veto any such measure that comes before him because he thinks it destroys embryos. That's not the case though, because with Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR), it is a zygote which is killed in the process of extracting its stem cells, not an embryo or fetus. It is, at that point, a mass of cells; they haven’t developed into bone, skin, heart, liver and any of the other 216 cell types in the human body. If cell individuation has already occurred, then they zygote would no longer have any usefulness in ESCR. But apparently, Bush doesn't know this and neither do the "culture of life" fanatics out there opposed to ESCR. Back in May, when the legislation passed, we got this lovely little gem from Shrub as well:

“We should not use public money to support the further destruction of human life.”

Unless it's for a bullshit war for greed and power right?

(I've written previously on this issue, "take this slogan and shove it" [stem cell research] and "zygoterific" [Snowflakes/embryo adoption])

as the harpy screeches

It seems Florida Repubs just love them some Ann Coulter. While speaking at the "Ronald Reagan Black Tie and Blue Jeans BBQ" the blond bansidhe of the Right had this to say:

"The Democrats complain about the Republican base being nuts," Coulter said. "The nuts are their entire party."

She warned attendees to not allow Democrats anywhere near foreign policy, "not even to keep them away from domestic policy."

Coulter defended the war in Iraq and chastised Democrats for "demoralizing America."

"The war was a magnificent success," she said. "We're a few years into the rebuilding."

She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.

"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."

She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

Her hateful and deluded diatribe drew applause and compliments:

"She's not very subtle, but I always enjoy her talks," Republican Senate candidate Travis Horn said. "They're very hard hitting, but the truth hurts."

Truth hurts does it? So that's why you're apparently living in Republican HappyRainbowKitty Land?

hello!

Taking my cue from Patrick, I thought I'd say hello and intro myself. I run a small blog called expostulation. I'm nowhere near as exciting as Patrick, what with the punk band and all. I, too, live in a conservative area--SW Ohio. My Professional Geek hubby and I have four kiddos who are taking nicely to our liberal brainwashing (muwahahaha!) and a dog who thinks he is a person named "Damnit Dog What Are You Doing" (though his real name is Copper, because we're just that original).

I'm also extremely honored that Shakes invited me to guest-blog. Which reminds me, here is something I thought was interesting (and no, not because of my thing for Bono. Honest!). Seems Bono met with Shrub about the poor people of the world (because, as we know, Bush gives two shits about them). That's not the interesting part. This is:

[Bono] said he once criticized Bush for not getting the Millennium Challenge money out quick enough and was rebuked for it. "One senator threw a newspaper at me in a meeting. 'How dare you disrespect the president of the United States!'" Bono told [Rolling Stone].

What is with these people?! I mean, really. Bush is not a king for chrissakes. What I'd love to know is who the senator was that throws things like a pissed off toddler.

One Last Post Before I Go...

As Patrick noted, I'm off to my little (and only) sister's wedding this weekend. It will be a very happy occasion, as she is marrying a man I dig immensely, and who, more importantly, loves both her and her son to pieces. Her soon-to-be-husband is absolutely hilarious, with just a wicked sense of humor. He's also a conservative Catholic Republican, so we love to harass each other (quite good-naturedly) about politics.

They had a seven-year friendship before he realized he couldn't live without her and proposed (very When Harry Met Sally). One night, when they were in town, the four of us went out to dinner, and my sister was recounting how she told him four years ago that she had fallen for him, but he brutally rebuffed her. He jokingly responded, "Hey, it was 2001 - that was a tough year; lots of stuff going on...there was 9/11 -" I immediately interrupted, "Wow, Republicans really do use that as an excuse for everything!" He laughed until his face was red.

Recently, at my cousin's wedding, the whole extended family was getting together for one big picture. The photographer asked everyone to move left. As we shuffled over, my imminent brother-in-law said, "We're all moving left - just like Melissa has always wanted!"

Boy, I can't wait for those indictments...

Both Patrick and Misty from Expostulation will be keeping you company this weekend. Thanks to you both!

As for me, I'll be spending a little time before I go at Lefty's Bar, where tonight's theme is Scary Monsters, Super Freaks. With apologies to David Bowie, whose Scary Monsters (Super Creeps) is one of my favorite songs:

They have the Oval Office; they are crooks and they cannot hide
When you look into their eyes, they are dead and nobody home
Well, they’d probably be killers if they fought in war, but they’re cowards inside
They opened strange doors that we’ll have to close again

They began to wail
Excuses scream
Waiting for indictments
Know what I mean?

Scary monsters, super freaks
Keep me running, running scared
Scary monsters, super freaks
Keep me running, running scared

They asked to stay; got just enough votes
They asked for our trust and libs gave them a finger in the air
Now they’re stupid in the street and they can’t justify
Why anyone should trust them after all their stinking lies

They wail
Fitzy’s on the case
Excuses scream
Waiting for indictments
Know what I mean?

Scary monsters, super freaks
Keep me running, running scared
Scary monsters, super freaks
Keep me running, running scared

Scary monsters, super freaks
Keep me running, running scared
Scary monsters, super freaks
Keep me running, running scared

Oh oh woh-oh
Oh, oh-oh-oh oh
Oh oh oh, oh oh
Oh oh oh oh oh
Oh oh oh oh oh
Oh oh oh oh oh

Friday Night Fun

Okay, this seriously cracked my shit up!

Passed on by the Finder of Good Things, Shaker Deborah, who notes:

It's obvious that you, your readers, and I share a near-obsessive love of wonderful movies and books...

In honor of that, I send along this clip which, among other things, demonstrates the awesome transformative power of the cutting room.

Now I have to go watch it again.

Shep

Does Fox News, bastion of all things GOP, know about this?

Shepard Smith, who hosts a popular program on Fox News and received widespread praise for his work covering Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, also dodges questions about his sexual orientation.

Smith once chatted me up in a New York City gay piano bar, bought me drinks, and invited me back to his place. When I declined, he asked me to dinner the next night, another invitation I politely refused.

We sat at the bar chatting and drinking martinis until 3 a.m., our conversation interrupted only when he paused to belt out the lyrics to whatever showtune was being performed.

Wev. Who cares? The only thing notable about this story is, as Raw Story notes, that it appeared in a paper that previously criticised outing and hypocrisy by outers. What up, Washington Blade?

News from Shakes Manor

Wednesday night, while watching the Astros-Cards game…

Shakes: Such a weird way to pronounce that name—Ohs-walt.

Mr. Shakes: Aye.

Shakes: We should start telling people our name is pronounced McEee-wan.

Mr. Shakes: I’m shoore there are people who proonoonce it McEee-wan.

Shakes: No there aren’t.

Mr. Shakes: Yes, there are.

Shakes: Not.

Mr. Shakes: Are.

Shakes: Not.

Mr. Shakes: Are.

Shakes: Not.

Mr. Shakes: We coold be trendsetters, and demand that we be called the McEee-wans, and then there woold be.

Shakes: But if we’d be trendsetters, then you’re admitting there are no people who currently call themselves McEee-wan.

Mr. Shakes: Ooh, you’ve goot me! Coongratoolatoons! You’ve woon the Great McEee-wan Debate of 2005. Lincooln and Dooglas woold be soo prood!

In the ensuing tussle, I’m certain there was reference made to my doominant noostril.

Caption This Photo

You think you've got me?
You haven't got me.
Idiots.

Fresh Kidz

Toast sent me a link to this story, and we’ve been having an interesting conversation about it. Anyway, I thought I’d throw it out there, along with my thoughts, and see what others make of it.

AMHERST, Mass. There are no freshmen at Amherst Regional High School.

Following in the steps of several area colleges, ninth-grader is now the official term used for first-year students. School officials say the term freshman was dropped because of the male connotation of the word.

Assistant principal Marta Guevara said yesterday that the change to ninth-grader was initiated nearly two years ago during a week that highlighted issues surrounding violence against women.

Ninth-grader Sam Hart of Shutesbury told the Springfield Republican that he doesn't see the term freshman as sexist. And he notes there are other words that have man in them.

And what, pray tell, are we going to call college freshmen? Thirteenth-graders?

I understand, and support, a certain amount of what is usually derogatorily referred to as language policing; substituting humankind for mankind is clearly preferable, and making changes like policeman to police officer, or fireman to firefighter, are not purely symbolic (as the anti-PC crowd would have us believe), but a good way to honor the women who increasingly join these professions. But removing the word freshman from the lexicon doesn’t seem to serve any but a symbolic purpose, because the word no longer has male connotations outside of its etymology. Our cultural understanding of it is different—policemen may yet conjure an image singularly populated by men in uniform; freshmen does not yield the same results. Is there really anyone who hears the word freshmen and thinks of nothing but a group of apple-cheeked lads in jackets and ties anymore?

There’s something about this that is primarily offensive to my sensibilities as a lover of language and as a student of culture, something that the other aforementioned changes in language (which aptly represent a change in culture) do not evoke. And perhaps someone will be keen to argue that such offense shouldn’t supercede a feminist’s interest in subverting patriarchal signifiers, irrespective of whether they are symbolic or not, but I also find my feminist sensibilities questioning the wisdom of linking the eradication of a word like freshman with “issues surrounding violence against women.” A lot of adults, never mind 14-year-olds, aren’t prepared to understand a convoluted causal link between language and violence. Without an entire course on explaining it (to which I would certainly not object, but I don’t see it being offered anytime soon in American high schools), I fear the eradication of this word that doesn’t have obvious patriarchal (or even specifically male) connotations will seem silly and easily dismissed, with the end result a wholescale rejection of any lessons the school attempted to impart. Eradicating violence against women is too important to be potentially undermined by symbolic gestures.

Happy One Year of Blogging...

....to Upon Further Review! (Definitely not a blogiversary. Ahem.)

John says he might be burnt out. Don't even joke about that, bub. If you go anywhere, I may crawl into a fetal position and waste away in a snarkless fugue.

Friday Cat Blogging

Life Goes On: The girls turn Jim’s sickbed into their lesbian love nest.

Why are you pointing that thing at me?

Stop taking pictures and put food in my bowl.

The Hammer Speaks!

Tom DeLay, or perhaps I should call him LL Cool Tom, has his own blog. And not only that, he's complaining about my glee in showing off his mugshot. Screw you, DeLay! I shake my fist in your general direction!

Who Knew a Horse’s Ass Could Smile?

After yesterday, of course, we all did, after witnessing DeLay’s idiotic mugshot. Shaker Deborah forwards this AP story which confirms my (and others’) suspicions that the whole point was not giving fodder to the Dems for midterm ads.

Why is Tom DeLay smiling? After all, he’s been indicted. Forced out of his job as House majority leader. And called into court for fingerprinting and a mugshot like a common criminal.

Answer: A photo of DeLay grinning from ear to ear doesn’t pack quite the punch in a Democratic attack ad as one that looks more like the mugshot of, say, actor Hugh Grant, after his arrest in 1995 for picking up a prostitute.

Note the House of Representatives security pin on DeLay’s lapel.

He looks in the photo like a proud member of Congress who might just have won the lottery, not one indicted on charges of money laundering. The photo looks like it could have been taken anywhere.

And that was just the point.

In any case, here’s something that brings us a little closer to the truth:

A full picture speaks 1,000 words—even though it only needs to speak two.

Crooked asshole.

White House in Turmoil

Today’s WaPo has an article (a rather delicious one, if I do say so myself) about the mess in which Bush currently finds himself.

With special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald driving his CIA leak investigation toward an apparent conclusion, the White House now confronts the looming prospect that no one in the building is eager to address: a Bush presidency without Karl Rove. In a capital consumed by scandal speculation, most White House senior officials are no more privy than outsiders to the prosecutor's intentions. But the surreal silence in the Roosevelt Room each morning belies the nervous discussions racing elsewhere around the West Wing.

[…]

"People are very demoralized and unhappy," a former administration official said. "The leak investigation is [part of it], but things were not happy before this took preeminence. It's just been a rough year. A lot has gotten done, but nothing is easy."

The one thing that isn’t mentioned is the prospect of a Bush presidency without Cheney. Whether this means that Cheney’s fairly certain he’s in the clear, or is further evidence of a falling out between Bush and Cheney (as in, Bush doesn’t care if his second is forced to hit the road), or isn’t indicative of anything at all, I have no idea.

After five years of speculation that Cheney is basically the foreign policy president and Rove is basically the domestic policy president, however, it’s an interesting possibility we face that one or both of our acting presidents may not be long for the Beltway world.

Recommended Reading

There’s a good profile of the DCCC’s Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Chicago) in Rolling Stone. Chicagoans are well familiar with Emanuel, but I don’t think he’s as much of a known quantity nationally. This is the guy tasked with taking back the House, though, so he's worth knowing. I’m interested to hear your thoughts—are you familiar with him? Were you aware of his role in the Clinton White House? What do you think of him?

One of the things that has always stuck me about Emanuel when I see him on one a show like Meet the Press, is that his “legendary intensity” and infamous “hyperactivity of an attack dog straining at the leash” and tendency toward “constantly fidgeting, gesturing, spinning” often come across as nervousness. He tries to calm himself down, but it doesn’t work. I kind of wish he’d just let himself be nutzoid, like Carville. It might suit him better.

Neil Shakespeare May Be an Evil Genius

Why? Because on Wednesday, he wrote this, as if it were just more of his sassy satire, but then today, I read this. Just what exactly do you know, my virtual brother, that you’re not telling us? Don’t make me come over there and give you a noogie.

Friday Blogrollin'

Demagogue, which is just full o’ good stuff.

Royally Kranked, because he’s cranky, clever, and uses "jerkoff" a lot.

Mike the Mad Biologist, who’s not only mad in both senses of the word, but smart, too.

Whatever, which totally doesn’t even need an endorsement, because, you know, whatever.

Rullsenberg Rules, an eclectic and interesting mix care of Nottingham, UK, which happens to be the home a dear friend who has taught me to shout NOT-IN-GUM FOREST while whenever clad in his ubiquitous football scarf.

Shorty PJs, which is not politics, but lots of other good stuff many of us also enjoy.

As always, let me know in comments if I ought to be reading your blog....

Question of the Day

Shaker Constant Comment suggested that, having explored what movie scenes make us laugh and cry, we go on to favorite romance scenes in movies. I like that one, and I know there are plenty of romantics around here who will probably like it, too. My all-time favorite has to be the scene in The Piano when Holly Hunter lifts her skirt, revealing the tiniest hole in her black stockings, through which peers the tiniest bit of her skin. Harvey Keitel puts his finger on top of the hole and gently caresses her; she sits bolt upright and her breath catches in her throat. The look she gives him...oh. It has to be one of the sexiest things ever put on film. So how about you? What's your favorite romantic scene of all time?

Christmastime Already?

It just seems to be coming earlier and earlier every year, doesn’t it? And nowadays, it’s not the sound of Christmas jingles on megastore loudspeakers, or green and red M&Ms, or even the announcements of holiday sales in the useless faux-newspapers which clutter my mailbox that make me realize how soon Christmas will be upon us. No, it’s the annual publication of a rightwing screed against liberal Scrooges and their radical anti-Christmas agenda.

This year’s early entry? The detestable John Gibson, with The War on Christmas: How the Conspiracy to Subvert Our Most Sacred Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. And now I shall turn it over to The Green Knight:

So far, only one Amazon reviewer has given it more than one star, and he was being sarcastic.

First of all, the "secularization" of Christmas that Gibson decries has been happening ever since Coca-Cola put Saint Nicholas into a red-and-white fur suit and turned him into Santa Claus. Yes, Virginia, that was a corporate action, turning a saint into a toy dispenser. The "secularization" has been noted and complained about ever since -- but it hasn't been done by the big bad libruls; it's been done by the corporate world.

Second, absolutely nobody is forbidden to celebrate Christmas. Nobody. Never was, never will. Let's get a grip.

Third, if you really are a Christian, you know (as Gibson, judging by his title, apparently does not) that the most sacred Christian holiday is Easter. Not Christmas. Easter.

Fourth, and I just think this needs emphasizing, John Gibson is a bonehead.

As for me, I want to know where Gibson lives, a place where, evidently, this insidious war on Christmas has been so successful that he isn’t bombarded for two solid months with jingles, adverts, trees, ornaments, Santas, reindeer, Navitity Scenes, ringing bells, carols, elves, sleighs, garland, bedecked halls, lights, cantatas, ribbons, giftwrapping, North Stars, North Poles, candy canes, stockings, wreaths, mangers, hay, donkeys, wise men, pageants, snowmen, snow angels, and all other manner of Christmas-related decoration and celebration to the point where he feels sure he will vomit tinsel. Because if a place totally devoid of all that manufactured, bought, and sold holiday cheer exists, I’d love to move there.