Shakesville

Your Laugh for Monday Morning

Caution: Do NOT drink coffee while reading this headline.

Bush Orders Ethics Training for White House Aides

Ahem.

Heh.

Hah.

HA HA HA HA HA HA *snort* HA HA HA HA!!!

Excuse me, I have to wipe away some tears here... seriously, you're kidding, right?

NPR.org, November 5, 2005 · President Bush has ordered all White House officials to take part in an ethics training program. The classes are to include instructions for handling classified information. Mr. Bush's directive comes after top White House aide I. Lewis Libby was indicted on charges of lying to a grand jury about a leak that revealed the name of a CIA operative.

(Audio at link)

So let me get this straight: Bush's team is filthy with corruption, and his response is to send them back to High School to take Ethics 101. You know, because apparently the common-sense idea that you shouldn't screw over the American people with your every action somehow escapes them.

Dear Leader: We accept the fact that we had to sacrifice a whole Saturday in detention for whatever it is we did wrong, but we think you're crazy for making us write an essay telling you who we think we are. You see us as you want to see us: in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a criminal, and a liar, and a criminal, a liar, and a criminal. It just keeps going on like that. Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, The Bush Club.

You know what I got for Christmas this year? It was a banner fuckin' year at the old Rove family! I got a carton of indictments. The old man grabbed me and said "Hey! Smoke up Turdblossom!"

(Don't you... cross-post about me...)

(Edit: Updated old/unruly photo.)

A Maverick No More

I've got a new post about the loathesome John McCain up at Ezra's place. Now he's courting Falwell. Yeah, quite a zany maverick, that one.

30!!!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY,
MR. SHAKES!!!!!

Four thousand miles away and thirty years ago, the crazy, wonderful, brilliant, hilarious, kind, and generally spectacular Scotsman who drives me nuts on a regular basis and makes me indescribably happy was born. A day for celebration indeed, although I didn't know it until twenty-five years later.

Happy birthday, Flaheed. I love you.

Question of the Day

What little movie do you just love, that you find yourself recommending to everyone, because hardly anyone has seen it?

There are tons of these for me, although a particular favorite is Henry Fool.

One night soon after moving into a new apartment, I was sitting out on some of my new neighbors' back porch with them, and we were discussing films. I mentioned Henry Fool, and they starting gushing about how much they loved the film, too, and couldn't believe I'd seen it. We all kind of looked at each other, like, Wow, we're going to get along great, and we did.

Friday Cat Blogging

Matilda. Such a princess.

Olivia. After throwing herself at the window like a maniac.

Shove It, Krauthammer

It’s totally weird how someone who has such a poor understanding of and lack of respect for women and their bodies can be such a douchebag, but Charles Krauthammer has managed to twist that seeming contradiction into a fine art. In his latest column, the Sultan of Stupid takes his patented brand of douchebaggery to new depths, defying even his most jaded dissenters’ expectations that he couldn’t delve yet further into the intellectual abyss he has staked out as his territory.

In an attempt to defend Scalito’s indefensible (and unconstitutional) Casey dissent, Krauthammer puts forth this sterling argument:

Pop quiz: Which of the following abortion regulations is more restrictive, more burdensome, more likely to lead more women to forgo abortion?

(a) Requiring a minor to get the informed consent of her parents, or to get a judge to approve the abortion.

(b) Requiring a married woman to sign a form saying that she notified her husband.

Can any reasonable person have any doubt? A minor is intrinsically far more subject to the whims, anger, punishment, economic control and retribution of a parent. And the minor is required to get both parents involved in the process and to get them to agree to the abortion.

The married woman just has to inform her husband…

[W]hen, in 1991, Judge Samuel Alito was asked to rule in Planned Parenthood v. Casey on the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's spousal notification requirement, Supreme Court precedents on abortion had held that "two-parent consent requirements" for a juvenile with "a judicial bypass option" do not constitute an "undue burden" and thus were constitutional. By any logic, therefore, spousal notification, which is far less burdensome, must also be constitutional -- based not on Alito's own preferences but on the Supreme Court's own precedents.

Krauthammer attempts to defend this line of reasoning by noting, “Remember: The question is not whether (a) or (b) is the wiser restriction. The only relevant question is which is more likely to discourage the woman from getting an abortion,” but there are two problems with that claim. First, the intent of bringing this case was to challenge limitations on abortion rights, not to discern how best to “discourage” women from getting an abortion, nor should that have been the intent of the judges ruling on the case, either. Secondly, no half-assed caveat can excuse drawing comparisons between a child’s relationship to her parents with a wife’s relationship to her husband, which are fundamentally different—in spite of certain conservatives’ unwillingness to see those differences.

Think Progress notes:

Just because a system of notification is acceptable between a child and a parent does not mean it’s acceptable between a woman and her husband.

I can’t imagine what could possibly be difficult to understand about that, but apparently, Krauthammer (and Scalito) share the same blind spot in their capacities for comprehension.

And by the way, enough with the “spousal” notification bullshit, okay? You won’t let gay people get married, so we’re only talking about heteros here, and last I checked, men couldn’t get pregnant, so let’s call this what it is—the Husband’s Prerogative Over His Wife’s Body Law. Sure, it doesn’t have the snappy ring to it that “spousal notification” does, but at least it’s honest.

Rage Against the Machine

Thousands participate in a rally against the visit of U.S. President Bush in Mar del Plata, Argentina, Friday, Nov. 4, 2005. President Bush is in Mar del Plata to participate in the Fourth Summit of the Americas. (AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills)

What started as a rally has now turned into a riot.

Someone's Getting Snippy

Not only is Bush The King of Obvious Body Language, it's also the high point of hilarity to see his responses to questions when he's feeling backed into a corner.

Bush Sidesteps Questions About CIA Leak

"So and So from the Bush Administration Sidesteps Questions about Such and Such" is becoming a very common headline these days.

MAR DEL PLATA, Argentina - President Bush sidestepped questions Friday about whether he owes the American people an apology for the role of administration officials in the CIA leak case. He also refused to comment on calls for a staff shakeup.

Gee, what was all that about firing anyone in his administration that breaks the law? Oh, yes, the usual Bush bullshit.

And here's the return of your favorite sidestep and mine, the "Serious Investigation" dodge.

"We're going through a very serious investigation," Bush told reporters. "I have told you before that I'm not going to discuss the investigation until it's completed. My obligation is to set an agenda and I have done that."

The way things are going these days, Bush isn't going to be able to talk about anything other than what he had for breakfast that day. Everything will be under investigation. (You'll note the appearance of the exact same phrasing in the above link.) And how exactly is asking him whether or not he owes the American public an apology asking him about the investigation? No one asked for details about the investigation, Mister Bush. They just want to know if you feel enough respect for America to apologize to them for making such a mess of things.

Oh, I forgot, this is the man that never makes mistakes.

"My obligation is to set an agenda and I have done that." I love when he gets pissy. He just hates being questioned in any way.

Asked about whether he would replace key members of his administration, as suggested by prominent Republicans, Bush said, "Again, you're trying to get me to comment on the investigation which I'm not going to do."

Bush also deflected questions about public opinion surveys which show his credibility in steep decline.

"I think this may be the fourth or fifth consecutive press conference or semi-press conference that I've been asked about polls," Bush said.

I think they may have edited out the "goddamnit" at the end of that sentence. Gee, usually Bush is so laid back, the type of guy you'd like to have a beer with... you mean he doesn't have some charming, flippant remark at the ready to throw out when confronted with the miserable failure of his Presidency?

I'm shocked.

Please, please, please, let him lose it on camera. I'd give an obscene amount of money to witness a Bush temper tantrum on live television.

(You're so vain... you probably think this cross-post is about you...)

Vincent Gallo is Insane

I mean seriously, deliriously insane. He’s mad as a bloody hatter.

An internet site is offering controversial film maker Vincent Gallo's sperm for sale for $1 million. VGMerchandise.com - which calls itself "the official website for Vincent Gallo merchandise" - includes a detailed agreement whereby wannabe mothers can pay for Gallo to inseminate them by in vitro fertilization (IVF) or even naturally for an extra $500,000, a fee it alleges he will waive if he deems the woman attractive enough.

For those of you who don’t know who Vincent Gallo is, he’s the director of such films as Buffalo 66 and The Brown Bunny, the latter of which has the distinction of having been deemed by Roger Ebert less entertaining than a viewing of his colonoscopy, thus starting a feud which continued with Gallo calling Ebert a fat pig, and Ebert retorting, “It is true that I am fat, but one day I shall be thin, and he will still be the director of The Brown Bunny." (After Gallo reworked the film for general release, Ebert revised his opinion, but had the final word: “[S]ince I made that statement I have lost 86 pounds and Gallo is indeed still the director of ‘The Brown Bunny.’”)

Anyway, of course you knew I had to go check out the actual listing, which, under a banner that features Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes, and Gallo himself, goes into great detail about Gallo’s physical attributes (“Mr. Gallo is 5'11" and has blue eyes. There are no known genetic deformities in his ancestry (no cripples) and no history of congenital diseases. If you have seen The Brown Bunny, you know the potential size of the genitals if it's a boy.”) and his preferences regarding which female vessel should shell out the cool mil to carry his spawn:

Mr. Gallo maintains the right to refuse sale of his sperm to those of extremely dark complexions. Though a fan of Franco Harris, Derek Jeter, Lenny Kravitz and Lena Horne, Mr. Gallo does not want to be part of that type of integration. In fact, for the next 30 days, he is offering a $50,000 discount to any potential female purchaser who can prove she has naturally blonde hair and blue eyes. Anyone who can prove a direct family link to any of the German soldiers of the mid-century will also receive this discount. Under the laws of the Jewish faith, a Jewish mother would qualify a baby to be deemed a member of the Jewish religion. This would be added incentive for Mr. Gallo to sell his sperm to a Jew mother, his reasoning being with the slim chance that his child moved into the profession of motion picture acting or became a musical performer, this connection to the Jewish faith would guarantee his offspring a better chance at good reviews and maybe even a prize at the Sundance Film Festival or an Oscar.

Uh, okay. So in a curious new twist on his infamous and tiresome complaining that he don’t get no respect, he now suggests that good reviews and awards elude him because he is not Jewish. I can see his point; in the last 10 years, the directors of the Oscar-winning Best Pictures have been Clint Eastwood, Peter Jackson, Rob Marshall, Ron Howard, Ridley Scott, Sam Mendes, John Madden, James Cameron, Anthony Minghella, and Mel Gibson. Geez, I can’t tell if that’s a list of Hollywood directors or members of the Israeli parliament!

Gallo has directed fewer full-length films than Jane Campion, Sofia Coppola, Agnieszka Holland, John Singleton, Ang Lee, Antoine Fuqua, M. Night Shyamalan, Penny Marshall, and Julie Taymor, just to name a few directors who aren’t white men (unlike Gallo), which, contrary to his assertion, seems to be the primary indicator of whether one is to release a film to accolades and awards (certainly the Oscars, anyway, for whatever that’s worth). Good filmmakers all, though none of them have made exclusively good films (or claim to have done so)—and none of them is more famous for yapping about how they deserve more credit than they’re due than for the films they’ve made. Also unlike Gallo.

And there’s a whole list of white male directors who deserve more recognition, too. That Gallo fails to see them is perhaps the keenest indication of why his films haven’t gotten the praise he thinks they deserve—his director’s eye is always pointed back at himself.

News From Shakes Manor

Background: I never hear my name. Mr. Shakes has an ever-broadening reservoir of ridiculous nicknames for me—Tschoobs, Tubbs, Chubbs, Chunkles, Boobs, Bubles, Bublekins, Bawheed, Nushtelhead, Dushtels, Hen…the list goes on and on, one nonsensical moniker after the next, specifically designed to make me laugh (and inevitably successful in said endeavor).

Last night on The Colbert Report, Stephen’s guest was Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, who he christened Judge Tubbs. I knew immediately this was not going to bode well for me.

Mr. Shakes: Bwah ha ha ha! Joodge Toobbs! That’s what I’m gooing to call you froom noo on, every time you pass joodgment oon me.

Shakes: Oh no.

Mr. Shakes: Ooh yes! Joodge Toobbs!

Shakes: Shut up.

Mr. Shakes: Oooooh, Joodge Toobbs has rooled! I moost shoot oop!

Shakes: Seriously. Shut up.

Mr. Shakes: I’m gooing to get you a gavel for your Christmas pressie, Joodge Toobbs.

Shakes: I don’t need a gavel. I’m just going to smack you upside the head.

Mr. Shakes: Here coome da joodge!

Damn you, Stephen Colbert.

Privacy

Dan Savage (he of the santorum redefinition) has an interesting idea:

Here we are, decades after Griswold, and social conservatives and liberals are constantly arguing about whether or not the right to privacy, which is a popular right (naturally enough), and one to which most Americans believe they're entitled, is actually a right to which Americans are entitled, constitutionally-speaking. Liberals love it because the RTP underpins our constitutional right to have access to birth control, abortion services, gay sex, porn. Social conservatives hate it for that very reason.

The debate raged when John Roberts was being confirmed (read about here, here, here, and here), and it is raging again as Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court makes its way through the Senate (you can read all about it here, here, and here). Is the RTP in there? Or isn’t it?

I find myself wondering why we don’t just put it in there? If the Republicans can propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, can’t the Dems propose a “Right to Privacy” amendment? Since the RTP is popular (unlike the anti-gay marriage amendment), the Dems should put it out there and let the Republicans run around the country explaining why they're against a right to privacy—not a winning position. Then, once it passes, we’ll be spared the debate over whether or not the RTP is in there every time a conservative is nominated to the Supreme Court.

The Right to Privacy Amendment—c’mon, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Patty Murray, Barak Obama! Propose it!

It’s a great idea—except for the whole constitutional amendment part. Constitutional amendments are notoriously difficult to pass, sometimes to our chagrin (ERA) and sometimes to our fortune (FMA). That doesn’t preclude the Dems using a proposed privacy amendment as a largely symbolic gesture, much as the FMA is, but in the current political climate, privacy rights are so important that it seems we ought to figure out a way to promote the idea without its being symbolic.

So, how about instead of using the Federal Marriage Amendment as our guide, instead we use the Defense of Marriage Act? DOMA, despite being very nearly as heinous as the FMA and arguably unconstitutional, passed as a federal law. (Similarly, the Title IX of the Higher Education Act, Women’s Suffrage, and other equal rights legislation had an easier time than the Equal Rights Amendment did.) A Privacy Rights Act would likely stand a better change of being passed simply by nature of its form. It would also avoid certain pitfalls that a constitutional amendment might cause—namely, that proposing an amendment regarding privacy rights plays into the hands of those who claim a constitutional right to privacy doesn’t already exist. A Privacy Rights Act, on the other hand, could be defined as bolstering the privacy rights already enshrined in the constitution.

Whether an amendment or an act, it would be inevitably difficult to define, finding the sweet spot where it straddles the ambiguity privacy rights necessitate and the clarity of intent needed to protect law-abiding individuals and not criminal enterprises and/or corporations. But I think it’s worth a shot.

It certainly would be fun watching the GOP try to argue their case against privacy rights.

(Hat tip AMERICAblog.)

Question of the Day, Part Deux

Okay, to go along with Shake's QotD below, and because I'm a bit of a badfilm nut, I'm throwing this at ya:

What is your favorite awful movie of all time?

Sure, it's easy to bash crap like Battlefield Earth, but it's more difficult to love it. Come on, you know you've all got a DVD or moldy old VHS that you hide in the back of the collection, because if your friends ever found out that you like to wear a white puffy shirt while you sing and dance along to The Pirate Movie, you'd never hear the end of it.

'Fess up. Everyone has a guilty pleasure.

Mine... is Road House.

I'll give you all a moment to bow your heads in respect.

You've got the Swayze.

"Pain don't hurt."

"Nobody ever wins in a fight."

Your villain is the ultra-cool Ben Gazzara.

You have immortal dialogue like:

"Calling me sir is like putting an elevator in an outhouse. It don't belong."

"This place has a sign hangin' over the urinal that says, "Don't eat the big white mint"."

"A polar bear fell on me."

And the all-time classic:

"I used to fuck guys like you in prison!"

Bliss. Throw Sam Elliott into the mix, Jeff Healey and his band, ridiculous nude scenes, people getting their voice boxes ripped out, inane bar fights, and one of the most clichéd plots in film history, and you've got bad movie gold.

Hell, it even spawned an off-broadway "Fightsical" play, aptly named: ROAD HOUSE: The Stage Version Of The Cinema Classic That Starred Patrick Swayze, Except This One Stars Taimak From The 80’s Cult Classic "The Last Dragon" Wearing A Blonde Mullet Wig.

I am SO upset that I never got to see this. Oh, and hubba-hubba. Even with the wig.

There. Now you're all in on my shame. Hit me with your best shot!

Bush's Popularity Reaches New Low

Mr. President, just what does the bottom of the barrel look like?

Question of the Day

What's the worst movie of all time?

Now, this shouldn't be confused with an overrated movie. I don't want to see any The Italian Jobs or Citizen Kanes listed, which always make for stirring arguments in the overrated division. Just a movie that's flat-out bad.

(And Toast, if I see Blue Velvet in there, you're going to be in trouble.)

I'm hard-pressed to think of anything I disliked more than American Pie 3: Too Much Stiffler, although I'm sure you'll remind me of other dreadful films that I've tried to put out of my mind.

2%

That’s the percentage of black Americans who support President Bush according to recent polling. So he hardly has anywhere to go but up, and yet I think he may have managed to cut that number in half, during yet another disastrous photo op:

It was Soul Food Thursday at Howard University last week, and many students were looking forward to their favorite meal: fried chicken, macaroni and cheese, collard greens and cornbread. At lunchtime, however, students discovered that much of the campus had been locked down and that the school's cafeteria was off limits.

Apparently, many of them did not know that President Bush and first lady Laura Bush had arrived for a "youth summit" at the Blackburn Center, where the dining hall is located. Stomachs began to growl, tempers flared, and, eventually, a student protest ensued.

[…]

What might have been a public relations coup for Bush -- a visit to a historically black college to show concern for at-risk youths -- ended up as another Katrina-like moment, with the president appearing spaced-out, waving and smiling for television cameras while students were trying to break through campus security to get to the cordoned-off cafeteria.

[…]

All he had to do was drop in on Soul Food Thursday, be seen sharing a wing and some collard greens with students -- and score one for the GOP.

But the visit went from bad to worse. On a day when the U.S. Senate passed a resolution paying tribute to civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who died last week, campus security guards were telling students that if they wanted to eat they'd have to come back when the president and first lady were gone, then go to a service door at the rear of the dining hall and ask for a chicken plate to go. Never mind that a student meal plan at Howard can cost as much as $2,500 a semester.

Howard is not some hotbed of political activism… To set off a student protest at this school, you'd have to be politically tone-deaf in the extreme, out of touch and flying blind. And yet, Bush did it.

(Hat tip to Shaker Oddjob, who pointed to this Kos diary.)

The protest ended up with students locking arms around a flagpole in the Quadrangle and refusing to move as long as they were denied access to parts of their own university, even in the face of threats from the Secret Service, who warned them that snipers were at the ready on rooftops. Unbelievable.

The irony is that Bush and the first lady were appearing as part of the White House Conference on Helping America’s Youth that was being held at Howard. Yep, that sounds about right—exactly the kind of help most black Americans have no doubt come to expect from the Bush administration.

Here’s a Reuters (Larry Downing) photo of the event:

He looks very comfortable, don’t you think? And no, I didn’t just pick the worst one. You can see more here, and they’re all just as bad. Well done inconveniencing a bunch of American youths to prove how helpful you are to America’s Youth. And you didn’t even end up with a decent photo. Wanker.

Three-Ring (and Two-Judge and counting) Circus

DeLay’s antics continue unabated:

Two days after Rep. Tom DeLay won a fight to get a new judge in his case, prosecutors Thursday succeeded in ousting the Republican responsible for selecting the new judge.

Administrative Judge B.B. Schraub withdrew after District Attorney Ronnie Earle filed a request to have him removed.

Schraub said he will ask the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court — a Republican — to name a judge to preside over DeLay's conspiracy and money laundering trial.

[…]

On Tuesday, District Judge Bob Perkins, a Democrat, was removed from DeLay's case at the congressman's request because of his contributions to Democrats.

The district attorney argued that Schraub was objectionable, too, because he has contributed to GOP candidates including Gov. Rick Perry, a DeLay ally. Earle said the contributions called into question Schraub's ability to be impartial.

[…]

Prosecutors also suggested that Schraub appears politically indebted to Perry, who appointed him as administrative judge and can reappoint him in January.

Good lord. Quite a fiasco.

Perkins shouldn’t have been removed “at DeLay’s request” in the first place. Nice precedent.

Scotty Turns on Rove?

So says John Podhoretz, who claims that “Scott McClellan's messy fingerprints are all over the WaPo story” in which Rove's future role is debated. (Via Wonkette, who wisely asks, “Seriously though, does Scotty even have fingerprints? Hasn't he blurred them off by all the thumb-sucking and rocking back-and-forth in the corner he does between briefings?”)

Podhoretz’s evidence breaks down thusly:

The essence of the story is that Karl Rove needs to go because he's made life difficult for McClellan. You have to figure, therefore, that the story was leaked or sanctioned by McClellan, a fact that is telegraphed clumsily by a series of pro-McClellan sentences. … This is the first time ever that a sympathetic word has been published about Scott McClellan, which is tipoff #1 that the story derives from him or his friends. Tipoff #2 is the idea that what's affecting the White House is less the whole leak affair than its effect on Scott McClellan. Yes, I'm sure people are wandering the halls of the Old Executive Office Building, murmuring to each other, "I just can't get any work done because of what's happened to Scott!"

His recommendation is that the White House keep Rove (“the most effective White House strategist in our lifetimes”) and dump McClellan (who “isn't a very good press secretary, to put it mildly. He looks as though at any moment he is going to bolt from the podium and go running into the bathroom to throw up”). I say can both their asses, but then again, I’m one of those “anti-Rove hysterics” that he mentions. I’m just nutty that way.

Who Needs Brains?

A group of female high school students in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania have started a girlcott of Abercrombie & Fitch because of a series of t-shirts featuring phrases, in addition to the one pictured, such as “Blondes are adored; brunettes are ignored,” “Available for parties,” “Freshman 15” (with the “signatures” of 15 men), “I had a nightmare I was a brunette,” “Do I make you look fat?” “When the going gets tough, the tough go blonde,” “Give me something to scream about,” and “I'd look great on you.” While I’d love to think that any woman who donned the pictured shirt would do so ironically, I imagine that’s not strictly the case. Abercrombie & Fitch has reported an October sales increase of 41%, and I’m going to guess that isn’t exclusively due to an uptick in a keen appreciation of irony. (In fact, there may be a lack of irony all around; in promoting their girlcott on The Today Show, the Allegheny County girls gifted A&F with a not insignifcant amount of free advertising—Chicago-based media company Starcom USA notes that a 30-second commercial on The Today Show costs approximately $58,000.) The shirts are stupid, and I would likewise consider anyone who wore them with a modicum of sincerity rather a dullard, but, in these cases, a big kerfuffle usually just means higher sales for the vendor of the stupid item. (Just ask Bill O’Reilly how his lawsuit against Al Franken went. Better yet, ask Al Franken about his subsequent book sales.) When I see crap like this, I just don’t buy it—and don’t shop at the store anymore. Done and done.

(Unless it’s already in the media, and then I’ll bitch about it. Obviously.)

Perhaps the dumbest response comes courtesy of irrepressible idiot, Illinois state senator, and gubernatorial candidate Steve Rauschenberger, who has a plan to introduce a resolution in the state senate to call on A&F to stop selling the shirts. Gee, I thought the GOP believed in the free market? And by the way, if you care about women so much, how about protecting their rights to reproductive freedom instead of "protecting" them from fucking t-shirts?!

Anyway, I’m with Liz on this one:

How about we try to figure out why it is that women think so little of their brains that they would wear these shirts which clearly make them look like serious bimbos and also insult women who happen to be smart, have good personalities or less well endowed and of a darker complexion.

Good idea. Someone might also point out to these women, many of whom will quite unfortunately be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lives, that they might not always have their boobs, but they will always need their brains.

The Heretik has more.

Heckuva Job, Brownie

The fall-out surrounding just how thoroughly incompetent and callous former FEMA director Michael Brown was continues. Yesterday, Rep. Charlie Melancon, whose district south of New Orleans was devastated by the hurricane, posted on his website a selection from 1,000+ e-mails provided to the House committee now assessing responses.

"Can I quit now? Can I come home?" Brown wrote to Cindy Taylor, FEMA's deputy director of public affairs, the morning of the hurricane.

A few days later, Brown wrote to an acquaintance, "I'm trapped now, please rescue me."

"In the midst of the overwhelming damage caused by the hurricane and enormous problems faced by FEMA, Mr. Brown found time to exchange e-mails about superfluous topics," including "problems finding a dog-sitter," Melancon said.

Melancon said that on August 26, just days before Katrina made landfall, Brown e-mailed his press secretary, Sharon Worthy, about his attire, asking: "Tie or not for tonight? Button-down blue shirt?"

A few days later, Worthy advised Brown: "Please roll up the sleeves of your shirt, all shirts. Even the president rolled his sleeves to just below the elbow. In this [crisis] and on TV you just need to look more hard-working."

On August 29, the day of the storm, Brown exchanged e-mails about his attire with Taylor, Melancon said. She told him, "You look fabulous," and Brown replied, "I got it at Nordstroms. ... Are you proud of me?"

An hour later, Brown added: "If you'll look at my lovely FEMA attire, you'll really vomit. I am a fashion god," according to the congressman.

You can see copies of the emails here.

Here are some other fun exchanges I found:

Howard W. Pike: Mike, CNN reporter Lisa Sylvester called from the D.C. bureau and was doing a story. I provided very favorable comments on your service with the Arabian Horse Association. They do not seem to be seeking the “truth” but rather want the slanted view I have seen today on CNN etc. […]

Brownie: […T]thanks, Howard, for helping me while I deal with this awful mess down here.

In another email, we find out from Brownie that “Howard Pike is the former head of the Air Line Pilots Association and a good friend of mine.” Which clearly makes him qualified to be orchestrating media coverage to reflect the “truth” (note: his quotes, not mine) on behalf of an administration official.

Sharon Worthy: (under the subject line “Sonic and other food places”) Well, in Ocala, Fla, the gourmet capital of the fast food world, my grease choices are bountiful. Tonight Whataburger. Tomorrow night Sonic. Wednesday Shake ‘N Shake. But Thursday, my dinner options grow as I am staying in Orlando…I’m so excited for Thursday night!

Brownie: Order a #2, tater tots, large diet cherry lemonade.

I guess it would just be too obvious to point out that the people who were desperate for food and water would have been pleased as punch to have the same troubles with which Ms. Worthy was faced.

Assholes.

Worst. President. Ever.

Say it with me: Bush is not a popular president.

CBS’ new poll has his job approval at 35%. Cheney’s favorable rating is down to 19%. Yeesh.

And, via Political Wire, Zogby polling shows that the president no longer has majority support among any age demographic:

"After suffering what was perhaps the worst week of his administration, President Bush's job approval rating has nosedived to a historic low, settling at 39%," a new Zogby America survey shows.

"His poor rating mirrors pessimism people feel about the direction in which the nation is headed. Just 37% said things are going in the right direction, down 8% from less than two weeks ago."

Key finding: "Respondents were sharply divided by age in their opinion of the president. Just 18% of respondents under age 25 said they think Mr. Bush is doing a good job. 44% of those 55 to 69 approved of his overall performance, while 47% of those over age 70 gave him good marks."

Two thoughts: One—all he has left is the support of his base, who would probably stand by him if he were caught on film fucking a goat, and would instantly deem goat-fucking a moral imperative for patriots. Two—what the hell did people learn about him in the last year that wasn’t patently obvious before the election?! ARGH! We tried to tell you he was an incompetent numbskull—why didn’t you listen?!