Well I’m fucked.
SNL
I finally got around to watching C&L’s video clip of SNL sending up Jean Schmidt. It included the show’s opening sequence leading up to “Live from New York…” and Weekend Update. It occurs to me that if they just reduced the show to those 10 minutes or so every week, I’d laugh exactly as much as I usually do during its usual hour and a half.
Oh, and also—I love Tina Fey.
News from Shakes Manor
Background: Mr. Shakes is home from work today, with, apparently, the express purposes of annoying me. Also, among his many silly nicknames for me is “Nuble.”
Mr. Shakes: So, did you hear aboot the attack of the Nublewerfers?
Shakes: Uh…no.
Mr. Shakes: In WWII, the Germans had a rooket looncher called a Nublewerfer. It was a big fooking rooket looncher that loonched big fooking rookets.
Shakes: Oh yeah?
Mr. Shakes: Yeah, and if you’d been a German in WWII, you woold have been the coommander of a Nublewerfer.
Shakes: You’re an idiot.
Mr. Shakes: [Laughs hysterically.]
(For the record, it was a Nebelwerfer.)
Déjà Vu All Over Again
Who’s Your Daddy?
When it’s (allegedly) Tom Cruise, you know you’re in for a wild ride once you’re firmly ensconced in this mortal coil. Apparently, you’re also in for some seriously attentive parenting.
Tom Cruise has reportedly purchased an Ultrasound machine so that he can moniter his alien fetus anytime he wants. Katie Holmes isn't due until next year, but Tom wants to make sure that the new Prince of Scientology is safe at all times.Xenu doesn’t require human sacrifices, does he?
He also told Barbara Walters in an interview that the pair won't get married until after their alien is born. They are planning a summer/autumn wedding.
There's not going to be a wedding, is there? Once Katie gives birth to his alien spawn he will get rid of her! He will finally has the key to make him immortal!
Hitchens is a Douche
I know that title is a bit of a “duh,” but he’s being even douchier than usual, going on about the need for civility in the great Iraq debate (as if there’s only one debate, anyway): “As I never tire of saying, heat is not the antithesis of light but rather the source of it.” Oh, barf.
The Green Knight was there with the well-deserved left hook:
It's nice to see that the man who called the Dixie Chicks "fucking fat slags" and whose debate with George Galloway was nothing more than an exchange of bratty insults, who smeared Cindy Sheehan by the illegitimate means of guilt by association, who called Al Gore "completely nuts" and wasted the 1990s attacking the Clintons and Mother Theresa has suddenly discovered civility. Maybe it'll even last a few days. But I doubt it.Luckily, I feel no obligation to be civil toward the loathsome Hitchens.
Just go away, you sloppy fat drunkard, and take your incessant, inane bloviations with you. Oh, and Andrew Sullivan as well.
(Mr. Shakes, btw, has been thrilled to discover, upon moving to America, that the useless plonkers who were quite rightfully disdained for their oafish attempts to intellectualize a resoundingly stupid brand of conservatism back in Blighty, have been welcomed with open arms by the Yanks.)
This Gossip is, Like, Totally Gay
Was Joseph McCarthy gay?...Heh. Of course, there’s always the chance he was a resolute heterosexual who just refused to say so on the record, like Ken Mehlman.
From Rotten.com:
14 Jan 1952: In his private diary, Washington Post columnist Drew Pearson records the Washington rumor that Senator Joseph McCarthy is gay.
25 Oct 1952: "Joe McCarthy is a bachelor of 43 years. [...] He seldom dates girls and if he does he laughingly describes it as window dressing. It is common talk among homosexuals in Milwaukee who rendezvous in the White Horse Inn that Senator Joe McCarthy has often engaged in homosexual activities." Hank Greenspun, Las Vegas Sun. McCarthy briefly considered a suit but took no action, because it would have meant testifying.
On NNDB.com:
The Young Republicans held a state convention in Wausua, Wis., at which Sen. McCarthy was an honored guest. During the convention, McCarthy spent the night with William McMahon, formerly an official of the Milwaukee County Young Republicans, in a Eausua hotel room, at which time, McCarthy and McMahon engaged in illicit acts with each other.
I don't know if he was gay....but the guys he slept with apparently were.
Carter
Our greatest ex-president spends some time with Jay Leno. Great interview. An amazing example of someone who constructs and endorses policy based on his personal beliefs while still respecting the law, not to mention reality.
Corporate Cowards
Oddjob passes on this article from the Telegraph, which reports that an exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History in New York celebrating the life of Charles Darwin has failed to find a corporate sponsor “because American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution.”
The entire $3 million (£1.7 million) cost of Darwin, which opened at the American Museum of Natural History in New York yesterday, is instead being borne by wealthy individuals and private charitable donations…Shameful. The AMNH is understandably hesitant to release the names of the corporations who were approached and decided not to sponsor the exhibit, not wanting to burn bridges to future donations, thus allowing the corporate cowards to avoid criticism and potential boycotts.
While the Darwin exhibition has been unable to find a business backer - unlike previous exhibitions at the museum - the Creationist Museum near Cincinnati, Ohio, which takes literally the Bible's account of creation, has recently raised $7 million in donations.
The outbreak of corporate cold feet has shocked New York's intellectuals. "It is a disgrace that large companies should shy away from such an important scientific exhibition," said a trustee of another prominent museum in the city, who was told of the exhibition's funding problem by a trustee of the AMNH.
Playing Switzerland in the war to save scientific integrity in America is not only cowardly, but bad business, as America steadily falls further behind in graduating scientists, social scientists, and engineers—exactly the kinds of people who help design and develop the products, production tools, and marketing strategies upon business is dependent. That corporations are willing to essentially give up on America’s future generations is indicative of their increasing dependence on globalization. And therein lies the fundamental problem with treating corporations like individuals, and favoring them over the worker—corporations are not patriotic. They don’t care where they operate, and as soon as doing business in America isn’t as cost-effective as doing business somewhere else, they’ll leave without hesitation.
Take a moment and consider that future: an ill-educated American workforce, a brain drain, and corporations leaving in droves, to go where the new technologies, new ideas, and cutting-edge science is—places where politics didn’t trump progress. A dire future indeed, and the future is upon us.
(Oddjob hat tips Raw Story.)
Jawdropping
For those of you that are not regular readers of Tbogg...
Wait, you're not? What the hell is wrong with you?
Ahem.
For those of you that are not regular readers of Tbogg, you've been missing his recent commentary on "OSM," (Trademarked, copyright, don't touch our shit) the new name of the right-wing blog experiment formerly known as "Pajamas Media." The snark is flying thick and fast.
Today, Tbogg had this post about the merry pranksters, and I clicked over to take a look for myself. I scrolled down a little, and one little quote leapt out and grabbed me by the eyeballs:
TigerHawk says it's a good thing for Presidents to manipulate intelligence.
Wait, what?? Oh, I've got to see this. (bolds mine)
We have lost our way in the partisan acrimony over whether the Bush administration "lied" about or "manipulated" intelligence to promote the war in Iraq. Opponents of the President's policies in Iraq (or opponents of the President, period) seem to be arguing for a world in which all Americans sit in judgment of every foreign policy decision as if they were the chief executive burdened with the responsibility of decision. This is an absurd conception of leadership that nobody serious actually believes. I'll say it: I want my president to manipulate intelligence in furtherance of his conception of the national interest. That's what we elect him to do.
Zuh??
That's what we elect him to do? Hang on a second here, let me check the Presidential Oath of Office.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Apparently, they forgot to add "...and manipulate intelligence to deceive the citizens of the United States." I'm sure it's there somewhere. In the fine print.
There's more.
We want the President to manipulate intelligence in small and large ways. The small ways are essentially bureaucratic -- it is in the nature of intelligence that it must be construed in the context of bureaucratic infighting. The large ways are geopolitical -- our foreign policy is an extended, endless game of poker. We do not want our chief executive to reveal all his cards, even if that means he must deceive us about his reasons for certain of his actions.
So in other words, deceiving the American People about a blowjob is an impeachable offense. Deceiving the American People about pre-war intelligence that gets over 2000 of them slaughtered is A-OK. Because he's doing it to protect us. Or something. Fuck, I don't know, you tell me. He goes into some muckety-muck comparing the President's actions to those of CEO's (not using Enron as an example, for some reason), and then gives us this:
Nobody serious objects to this idea that we want our government to lie to our enemies. The objection, of course, is that an administration might lie not to deceive the enemy, but for a nefarious purpose. Obviously, if a government lies to justify an action that cannot be seen as in the national interest, the lie itself is suddenly indefensible. The political opposition to George Bush, therefore, has devoted a great deal of time to imputing a nefarious motive behind Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is why we hear the laughable claims that the war was for Halliburton, the product of some dark "neocon" conspiracy to aid Israel, or to grab Iraq's oil. The opposition hurls these slanders so that it can characterize the administration's behavior as self-serving, and therefore not in the national interest at all.
Yes, the very idea that Halliburton would want this war and might possibly benefit from it is completely absurd. Self-serving? Dont make me laugh.
The problem with this line of attack, though, is that it exposes the weakness in the opposition's argument. We want the administration to lie if it is doing so in the national interest, and therefore will not object to its characterization of the available intelligence unless we think that the purpose of the war was nefarious. But if the purpose of the war was nefarious, does it really then matter that the administration lied about the intelligence? Is it not far worse to go to war for a nefarious purpose? The "respectible" opponents of the war -- the Cold Feet Democrats, for example -- will not claim that the purpose of the war was nefarious. They simply complain that the President "lied" about the underlying intelligence. But if the war was in the national interest, we needed him to lie. They know this, but for so long as the war repels rather than attracts votes we can expect them to claim that "truth" is the highest value, even if it means showing our cards to our enemies.
Speak for yourself, pal. I never want my President to be lying to me, particularly when national security and American lives are at stake. Sure, your little CEO comparison is nice, but CEOs aren't sending people to their deaths. Over their lies.
This whole post is so amazingly absurd that I'm having difficulty putting what I'm feeling into words. Some commenters on the post had these things to say:
Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and the gang looked into the eyes of the American people, still profoundly shaken by 9/11, and willfully tried to scare the shit out of us in order to make his case for war. Powell's visit to the U.N. with his "there can be no doubt" and his "rock solid intelligence", has proven to the world that the word of the United States can not be trusted.
So the administration, in an effort to go after Iraq (Bush and the gang had been looking forward to this for a loooooong time), sold half-truths to a frightened populace and cherry picked the intelligence he gave to Congress.
Any argument that rests on a foundation of dishonesty in government is one that doesn't trust truth and open democracy to win out.
To that I'd ask, what are we fighting for?
Tigerhawk, here is the case for why a President, or a CEO of a public company, should not lie to the public, even if he thinks it is in the best interests of nation or company.
If a leader resorts to deception to make his case - no matter how honorable his intention - people will stop believing him. People stop believing liars. A leader whose word cannot be believed cannot lead.
That's not a partisan political argument. Any politician know that without their credibility, they have nothing, which is why they try so hard to keep it.
Other problems relating to lying - that certain forms of deception are strictly illegal and may lead to impeachment or the SEC prosecuting you for fraud - are serious, but perhaps subordinate to the main drawback.
So remember, kids:
Lying to the American people about a blowjob is bad.
Lying about whether or not you have WMDs is bad. Even if none show up.
Lying to the American people and sending them to a bogus war on cherry-picked intelligence is just and good.
After all, global policy and American lives are just a poker game.
(We had joy, we had fun, we had cross-posts in the sun...)
Triumph
Question of the Day
Got the jump on everyone!
Well, since we seem to be enjoying these so much, here's one from me before I leave for the holiday weekend:
What song do you wish you had written?
This may or may not be "your favorite song." Is there a song so brilliant, that moves you so much, that you wish you had created it?
I wish I had written "Hallelujah." Leonard Cohen beat me to it.
Now I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you to a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
You say I took the name in vain
I don't even know the name
But if I did, well really, what's it to you?
There's a blaze of light in every word
It doesn't matter which you heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though it all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
It kills me. Like I told Shakes yesterday, I can't hear the Jeff Buckley version of this song without crying. And she's already made fun of me, so shut up.
And you?
Attn: Geek Squad
To all the Shakers who are Tolkien and/or Star Trek fans, may I present: Bilbo.
Surreal.
Bush Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Yesterday’s QotD was so fun—here are some of my favorites:
A Low Down Dirty Bush
Any Which Way But Bush
Bedtime For Bush
Bend It Like Bush
Bring me the Head of George Bush
Bringin' Down The Bush
Bush Attacks!
Bush Fiction
Bush Madness
Bush the Barbarian
Bush, Lies and Videotape
Bush's Web
Bushy Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
Catch Bush If You Can
Dirty Rotten Bush
Dr. Bushlove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb.
Fat Man and Little Bush
Fatal Bush
Fear and Loathing in Las Bushas
George Bush and the Chamber of Secrets
George Bush's Big Adventure
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Bush
Killer Bushes from Outer Space
Liar, Bush
Little Bush of Horrors
Psycho Bush Party
Raging Bush
Run Bush Run
Scent of a Bush
Ten Things I Hate About Bush
That Darn Bush!
The Bush Horror Picture Show
The Bushes Must Be Crazy
The Incredible Shrinking Bush
The Unbearable Lightness of Bush
While Bush was Sleeping
Good stuff! We’ll definitely have to do that one again with other members of this misadministration.
LOL
Footy.
Passed on by Paul the Spud - and probably not work-safe unless you've got your speakers turned down.
Charges in Britain for Releasing Government Memo
Two British civil servants are being charged under Britain’s Official Secrets Act for allegedly leaking the government memo from April 16, 2004 which recounted the conversation in which Bush, either jokingly or seriously, supposedly proposed bombing al-Jazeera.
Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh is accused of passing it to Leo O’Connor, who formerly worked for former British lawmaker Tony Clarke. Both Keogh and O’Connor are scheduled to appear at London’s Bow Street Magistrates Court next week.Let’s just say that it turns out Bush was joking. First of all, that’s a pretty odd joke for a president to make. Secondly, that would mean that the British government has sought charges against leakers of a document which revealed a joke made in terrible taste, while the American government does its best to shield leakers of the identify of a covert CIA operative working on WMD proliferation. Sigh.
According to the Crown Prosecution Service, Keogh was charged with an offense under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act relating to “a damaging disclosure” by a servant of the Crown of information relating to international relations or information obtained from a state other than the United Kingdom.
O’Connor was charged under Section 5, which relates to receiving and disclosing illegally disclosed information.
And, you know, if it was just a joke, it’s a pretty coincidental one.
Al-Jazeera offices in Iraq and Afghanistan have been hit by U.S. bombs or missiles, but each time the U.S. military said they were not intentionally targeting the broadcaster.Just sayin’.
In April 2003, an Al-Jazeera journalist was killed when its Baghdad office was struck during a U.S. bombing campaign. Nabil Khoury, a State Department spokesman in Doha, said the strike was a mistake.
In November 2002, Al-Jazeera’s office in Kabul, Afghanistan, was destroyed by a U.S. missile. None of the crew was at the office at the time. U.S. officials said they believed the target was a terrorist site and did not know it was Al-Jazeera’s office.
Non-Denial Denial
What does the White House say about the charge [that Bush advocated bombing Al-Jazeera]? "We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response," a White House official tells the BBC. Which is like a denial, only different.At least it’s a refreshing change from “not commenting during an ongoing investigation.”
Disgrace
Scary Lady from My Childhood Nightmares and Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt is running into a little trouble with those comments she issued from the floor of the House. Ms. Julien and Holly in Cincinnati have been keeping tabs on old Jean, and they link to an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer which reports that the Marine behind whom Schmidt was hiding, when she made the thinly veiled reference that Rep. Murtha is a coward, is disputing her comments.
Danny Bubp, a freshman state representative who is a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, told The Enquirer that he never mentioned Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., by name when talking with Schmidt, and he would never call a fellow Marine a coward…Pretty magnanimous of Bubp to defend Schmidt, even half-assedly, especially since, thanks to her, angry constituents are calling for both of their resignations. I’m not sure, however, that he’s right that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I mean, let’s remember what happened here: in the middle of a debate which ensued after her party deliberately misconstrued Murtha’s resolution as part of a ridiculous political stunt, Schmidt got up to speak, dressed in a stars-n-stripes jumper, proceeded to misquote one of her own colleagues (“[Bubp] asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: That cowards cut and run, Marines never do."), thereby impugning the bravery of a man who has dedicated his life to American service, first in the Marines and then in Congress, and breaking the House rules which prohibit name-calling of fellow lawmakers, and was then forced to immediately withdraw her remarks, also following up with a letter to Murtha explaining that she “has a lot to learn.”Bubp, who has served in the Marine Corps Reserve for 27 years, including three years of active duty, said he called Schmidt on Friday afternoon to discuss the resolution that called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq - not to talk about Murtha.
The House nonbinding resolution failed by a 403-3 vote.
"There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward," Bubp said. "My message to the folks in Washington, D.C., and to all the Congress people up there, is to stay the course. We cannot leave Iraq or cut and run - any terminology that you want to use."
Still, Bubp said the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.
[…]
"I could just imagine how nervous she must have been on the floor with everyone watching," Bubp said. "I don't want to be interjected into this. I wish she never used my name."
In other words, she was a total disgrace.
Boy, I hope the people of her district are proud they elected her instead of veteran Paul Hackett.
(Image of Scary Jean from Crooks & Liars.)
Announcements
Blogenlust has moved to http://www.blogenlust.net, so update your blogrolls. And if Blogenlust isn’t on your blogroll, well, what’re you waiting for?!
Scott at Poetic Leanings is saying goodbye—but will continue to post his poetry.
In case you hadn’t already noticed, Pam and Tart have new looks.
Did anyone else hear this?
So, Air America (WCPT in Chicago) came through for about five minutes on my car radio last night when I hopped in after class. (Seriously, CPT, get yourself a stronger signal.) Now, it may not have actually been "Air America," I think I heard an announcement about how AA actually is required to go off the air after sundown by the FCC (which may have been a joke, I'm not sure), but it was definitely the progressive radio station.
So, the host was railing away on Murtha. On Murtha! And here was his beef: That John Murtha voted against the Republican bastardization of his resolution to end the Iraq war.
His argument was something along the lines of "Why did he vote against this, when the Republicans were giving him exactly what he wanted?" He was completely missing the whole point.
So, a caller tried to correct him.
Remember, this is the progressive radio station.
The host went off on the caller; they got in a brief argument of semantics (You said he voted against his resolution! No, I said he voted against his proposal! No, your exact words were resolution! No, I said proposal! I have it here in front of me! No, you said... etc, etc), and then the host hung up on him. And called him a coward.
This is progressive radio?
Now, like I said, the station format may change at dusk; I may have been hearing a conservative show. But he did say that the station was "WCPT, Chicago's Progressive Talk."
Did anyone else hear this? And what are your thoughts?
(My name is cross-post, I live on the second floor...)
