Shakesville

Bin Laden Offers Truce

A new audiotape purportedly issued by al-Qaida and featuring the voice of Osama bin Laden says they are still planning attacks in the US but are offering a truce to the American people.

The voice on the tape said he was directing his message to the American people after polls showed that "an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq but (Bush) opposed that desire."

He said insurgents were winning the conflict in Iraq and warned that security measures in the West and the United States could not prevent attacks there.

"The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of European nations," he said "The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission."

The speaker did not give conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by Al-Jazeera.

"We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war.

"There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America," he said.

Well, yeah, there is shame in that solution, which, although, true enough, would prevent wasting billions of dollars that have lined the pockets of war profiteers, would also leave millions of women, gays, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, and others at the hands of madmen who believe God’s their waterboy. And this exemplifies why Bush’s plan for the war on terror is so bloody bad—it’s left us between a rock and a hard place without a good solution. Endless warmongering in which innocent people suffer, or endless oppression by religious fanatics in which innocent people suffer. I don’t know if there is a good plan at this point to extricate ourselves, and, more importantly, those innocent people, from this madness. We probably just need to hand the reins to Juan Cole and hope for the best.

Feds Seek to Oogle Your Google

More data-mining, this time in the name of protecting the children. (Heavens, Myrtle! We’ve got to protect the children!)

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

Dear Government,

It’s, like, 99% of the time. Because 99% of internet searches are for porn. That’s just a guesstimate, but I think it’s a pretty good one. If all you need to know is how often porn shows up, just go with that and save us all your bull-headed intrusion.

Love,
Shakespeare’s Sister

Meanwhile, Google is refusing to comply. (Good on ya, Google!) They have promised to vigorously fight the government’s request for 1 million random web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period. The government claims that it requires the records in its ongoing effort to defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (struck down as unconstitutional in 2004), which they argue is “far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn.” But, gee—I thought that conservatives believed that the government wasn’t supposed to operate as everyone’s nanny, and that the market will solve all of our problems. How can it be that the government will do a better job protecting children from the horrors of naked people than their own parents? Than the corporations who develop online filters?

Hmm. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that the law is so broad it could easily prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites, too. What a conundrum.

The King of Zembla notes: “No word yet on how the DoJ plans to ascertain which Google porn searches were typed in by minors as opposed to, say, John Ashcroft.“

Cisneros

Wev. Go read Maha for the lowdown. She's got a great post up, and I’m too annoyed to bother.

Breaking News: Jay Leno Has a Big Chin

Oh, and he’s a total ass, too.

Now don’t get me wrong—I don’t expect much from the Lord of Unfunny Late Night, but a segment on last night’s show was so appalling, that it left Mr. Shakes and I both with our mouths hanging open in shock. First of all, I only tuned in because I wanted to see Colin Firth, who was the first guest (and who, by the way, was ever so charming and looking more Mr. Shakes-like than ever with his new beard, thereby deepening my existing crush). So, I watched The Colbert Report, waiting for Leno’s six-hour jokeless monologue to be over, and then flipped over. He still hadn’t gotten to the first guest, but was starting some skit called “Products of Tomorrow,” which should have been called “Jokes of Yesteryear.”

Product #1: A French Army Knife—complete with corkscrew…and white surrender flag! Ho ho ho. Trite; marginally xenophobic. Moving on…

Product #2: The self-healing computer—delivered with an Indian-in-a-box, who said (in a thick Indian accent) that his name was Brandon even though he hailed from New Delhi. “Brandon?” “There are more of us named Brandon all the time!” (Get it? Get it? Ha ha. Outsourcing is so silly!) Complete with red-dotted forehead, he was quite the computer-fixer-upper, who fixed Jay’s computer by slapping it. At the end, he asked Jay if he could do anything else for him. “Yeah,” the comedy maestro replied, “get me a burger and fries.” Somehow the retelling of this skit doesn’t quite manage to evoke how shockingly offensive it actually was. Neither Mr. Shakes nor I find race-based humor inherently offensive (hello, Dave Chappelle); this, however, was not humor—it was just flat-out racism, and left us looking at each other in slack-jawed disbelief. It was just…unbelievable. Racist; xenophobic.

[It was at this point I said, “When do we make fun of women?”]

Product #3: Breast implants attached to The Clapper. Just clap—and they inflate! (I actually may have been more offended by the use of a “Clapper” joke, whose sell-by date was 1987, than the product itself.) The audience was so thrilled with this hilarious Product of Tomorrow that they applauded wildly…thereby causing the implants to explode! Ha ha ha ha ha! Isn’t that hilarious? The best part was the close-up of the disembodied boobs blown to pieces. Hackneyed; sexist.

[It was at this point I said, “When do we make fun of gays?”]

Product #4: Brokeback Mountain saddle from Banana Republic. Modeled on a horse strewn with a hot pink feather boa, the gay saddle featured saddle bags (purses) from Louis Vuitton, a faux leopard skin saddle blanket (“Faux fur,” lisped Jay, “because we’re cowboys!”), a hair dryer instead of a rifle, and a disco ball saddle horn. It was at this point that Mr. Shakes said, “Oh my fucking God,” with a horrified look on his face. The audience laughed uproariously. Homophobic; sexist (so much homophobic humor is also sexist, using women’s items, like handbags, to mock gay men, as if to suggest they’re so ridiculous that they’re almost women!).

Honestly, I cannot even believe this shit is going on in 2006. It’s so infantile. And the thing that really bothers me is that Leno, though resolutely unfunny and annoying, seems to be a pretty nice guy. He has a reputation for being generous—and, at least in his stand-up act, for not relying on sexism or racism for laughs. His wife, Mavis, is the Chair of the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan. Yet here he is, mocking other cultures, minorities, women, and gays for his fat paycheck. And America laughs right along with him.

Well, not all of us.

Get it together, Jay Leno. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

(And yes, I know that there are other things to worry about, but it’s bullshit exactly like this all throughout our culture that aids in the promulgation of all the other stuff we fight against every day.)

I've got a monopoly to maintain! I own the electric company, and the water works... plus the hotel on Baltic Avenue!

Well... look who's come crawling back.

Disney in Talks to Buy Pixar

NEW YORK - The Walt Disney Co. is in serious talks to buy Pixar Animation Studios Inc., the maker of the hit movies "Toy Story" and "Finding Nemo" among others, following months of exploring how to continue their profitable film distribution partnership, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

-snip-

Disney and Pixar have been partners for more than 12 years, allowing Disney to distribute and co-finance popular and profitable Pixar movies that have also included "The Incredibles." But Jobs said two years ago, amid squabbles with then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner, that he would end that relationship when it expires later this year and seek a new distribution partner.

Disney's current CEO Robert Iger, who took over last October, has reportedly made continuing the companies' relationship a priority. Iger last fall allowed Disney TV shows like "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost" to be made available in a format that could be downloaded and played on iPods.

There has been weeks of speculation that Disney might try to take a stake in Pixar or buy it outright.

The Journal said the companies are still haggling over a price, and any major moves in Pixar's stock price could disrupt negotiations. The newspaper said the two sides could decide on a less-ambitious plan, including an agreement for Disney to distribute movies that Pixar finances and makes.

I don't think it came as any big shock to anyone when Pixar dumped Disney. They've been making films far superior to the drek that Disney has been churning out year after year after year. I guess the farm got a little lonely once the cash cow left.

Pixar's films are brilliant; one aspect of them that I really love and appreciate is that they very rarely indulge in the lame attempts at humor and "being hip" that Dreamworks and Disney seem unable to give up.

Fart jokes and belches right in the trailer? That's probably the best joke in the movie. Not a Pixar film.

Lame pop culture references jammed in to the script, presumably so "the parents have something too?" Not a Pixar film.

Maudlin moments that never bring about a genuine emotional response from an audience, but are simple, overly-sentimental heartstring-tugging that more or less leaves you cold? Not a Pixar film.

If you ask me, Pixar is the reason that the "Best Animated Feature" award was created. "Real" actors obviously couldn't take the blow to the ego by being beaten by a cartoon, but Pixar's films are so goddamned good, they became impossible to simply leave out of the Oscars. I'm a big fan of Animation, but I must say, I find the "Animated Feature" award a little insulting. Best Picture should be Best Picture, regardless if it's made with human beings, or zeroes and ones. But I digress.

I suppose the underwhelming response to Chicken Little helped to spur this buying bid.

Citing unnamed people familiar with the plan, the Journal said Disney would pay a nominal premium to Pixar's current market value of $6.7 billion under the deal being discussed in a stock transaction that would make Pixar chief executive Steve Jobs the largest individual shareholder in Disney.

-snip-

Pixar shares were up $3.24, or 5.7 percent, to $60.50 in premarket trading while Disney shares were down 22 cents at $25.

Jobs is the largest shareholder in Pixar, with more than 60 million shares, or 50.6 percent, according to Pixar's filings with securities regulators last year. At its current share price, his stake is worth about $3.44 billion.

Jobs is already a force in the media business as he also heads Apple Computer Inc., which reported Wednesday that first-quarter income nearly doubled on record revenue and big demand for its iPod music players.

You know, it would really do my heart good to see Steve Jobs tell Disney to take a flying leap off the Matterhorn. They obviously don't need the partnership, and Pixar seems to be one of the few movie studios left that believe in the film first, profit second.

Just once, it would be nice to see art trump cash... know what I mean?

G'day, Disney... fancy a chat in my cave?

(Cross-posts are your best entertainment value.)

Syria? Whosit? Whassat?

The McClellatron 3000 is back in action.

QUESTION: There are allegations that we sent people to Syria to be tortured…

MCCLELLAN: To Syria?

QUESTION: Yes. You’ve never heard of any allegations like that?

MCCLELLAN: No, I’ve never heard that one. That’s a new one.

QUESTION: Syria? You haven’t heard that?

MCCLELLAN: That’s a new one.

QUESTION: Well, I can assure you it’s been well publicized. My question is…

MCCLELLAN: By what, bloggers?

Can’t you just hear the sneer and feel the spittle as he sputtered out “bloggers” with all the contempt your mother attached to the name of a friend who was always allowed to do everything you weren’t allowed to do?

“But Joey’s allowed to sleep over on school nights!”

“Well, Joey will probably turn out to be a dodo-headed lunatic who has to rob liquor stores to feed his family.”

Or spin Bush administration bullshit like a whirling dervish while Satan swallows his soul in itty, bitty pieces every day.

Abramoff Charged for Face Time with Pres

Although the White House insists President Bush never met Jack Abramoff -- except maybe at large gatherings -- the Texas Observer reports that in May 2001, Abramoff "charged two of his clients $25,000 for a White House lunch date and a meeting with the President."

I'd pay $25k to never have to see his sneering mug again. He can go clear brush in Crawford to his heart's content, and I'll just stay out of Texas.

Blunt

Quote of the Day at Political Wire:

"The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren’t a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."

-- Ohio U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett (D), quoted in the Columbus Dispatch.

Good for him. And the Dispatch reports today that after Ohio Republican Party Chairman Robert T. Bennett said Hackett should apologize, Hackett refused.

"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it," he said.

“Brokeback Mountain humbled me.”

The following message was left on IMDb, under the title “I’m a Conservative Christian and This Film Changed My Mind.”

I've always been somewhat reluctant to come down hard on homosexuals (in social situations with other church-goers or with my Republican friends at political events). I'm just not the type to judge others out of spite. I've never really known anyone close to me that's gay, although I've met a few people here and there at my work that later I was told were.

Last weekend, I was in Dallas and - to make a long story short - I ended up "having" to see this film. It definitely was NOT my choice to do so, but to avoid a confrontation, I relented. Everybody makes this sort of compromise sooner or later, right? If the film we wanted to see hadn't been sold out, I don't think I'd ever have seen "Brokeback Mountain."

It's been four days since I saw the film, and progressively, day after day, I have been forced to admit that I am ashamed of the way I felt about homosexuals. I literally had no concept of what life is truly like for these individuals, and must continue to be. In my heart I know that good, wholesome, long-standing friends of mine - true-believing Christians - have made life horrible for these people when they go out of their way to bad mouth them behind their backs (no one I know I think would get in someone's face), tell their children homosexuals are going to Hell, etc etc.

I can't explain what I'm feeling, but I haven't had this kind of doubt (about the church I go to) since I made the decision a long, long time ago to leave the family business against my father's wishes. I also didn't go into the same branch of the armed forces that he went into. Which is another story. In a way, I guess, my own personal history and my relationship with a disapproving (and uneducated) father somehow made me "get" what Heath Ledger's character goes through. Let me just say that a lot of heartache was involved. The God I believe in, that I teach my kids to trust, would never wish the kind of pain that I went through on anyone, which really I now know for real, is the same kind of pain homosexuals must go through just to live what for them is an honest life, and the choice they must make. I'd never had my eyes opened to this before, not ONE IOTA.

Tonight, winding down, I said a little prayer. It was more or less the same thing that's been going round and round inside my head since I saw this movie... who am I to judge? I honestly was trembling at one point during the credits before we got up to leave, and I had to struggle to re-gain my composure. Now that I am remembering that, it reminds me of the way I trembled when I first asked God to forgive me of my sins and accept me as I am.

"Brokeback Mountain" humbled me.

(Hat tip Broadsheet.)

The thread predictably disintegrated into arguments about whether homosexuality is a sin, whether the poster is “really” a Christian, and if the poster is even real. And though the debates rage on, the poster did come back with a follow-up:

Wow. You all can't imagine the shock I had today of coming back to this comment board and finding all of the responses since I saw the movie last month. Thank you all for the kind things you had to say. Frankly, I'd forgotten all about this website. The holidays were very busy, and I've just gotten back into the swing of things. Also, something happened over Christmas that's been on my mind, and I thought I should share…

"Brokeback Mountain" came up one day while two of my brothers-in-law, father-in-law, and another son-in-law like myself (plus his 18 year old eldest son, a freshman in college) and I went out to breakfast early one morning after some quail hunting. My wife's youngest brother said something about the movie as a joke and everybody else chuckled along like you'd expect. I'd already decided what I was going to do if anybody mentioned it, and I said, "I saw it when I was in Texas. And you know, it was damn good." They all shut up, and it was pretty quiet for awhile. I just kept eating like nothing happened…

It's the same old crap I grew up with. It's like moving a mountain, sometimes, and again that's why I think I connected with this movie so deeply. I don't know how to express it really, but I have to say that the more I think about it and after that breakfast table bit, what with all that gay people have to put up with and still don't give up, stick up for themselves or do the best they can, the more I respect THEM than the people who wish they'd go away or who want to shut them down…

I hope this movie makes a boatload of money. Those two cowboys deserve every cent they get.

Thanks, and hang in there.

Oy, Dems

Well, if you had your hopes up that the Dems would at least present a united front in voting against Alito, even if they weren’t going to filibuster his deserving ass, wave goodbye to that hope. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska has announced his intention to vote affirmatively for Alito’s confimation.

"I have decided to vote in favor of Judge Samuel Alito," Nelson said in a statement issued by his office.

"I came to this decision after careful consideration of his impeccable judicial credentials, the American Bar Association's strong recommendation and his pledge that he would not bring a political agenda to the court," Nelson said.

In an interview on Fox News Channel, Nelson said Alito made a commitment not to become a judicial activist.

"I have to take him at his word at the moment," Nelson said. "But I think that he will take to the bench his decision-making based on facts and based on cases."

[…]

"I think there won't be a filibuster. I have not heard very many people even talking about it," Nelson told Fox News.

Yeah, and the rest of the story talks about Kennedy’s membership in the Owl Club. Awesome.

Progressives Still Not Getting It

Shaker Merciless pointed me in the direction of this post by Garance Franke-Ruta at Tapped, which discusses the "Saving Our Democracy" conference scheduled for Jan. 21, described as “a major colloquium to rescue our democracy from the far right” and sponsored by The Nation Institute and The New Democracy Project. Out of the 24 scheduled speakers, only two are female. Says Franke-Ruta:

This may seem like one of those small intra-New York left controversies, and yet it is the kind of thing that happens so frequently in so-called progressive circles around the country that it's worth noting, because it's just this kind of thing that makes people wonder if the men of the left actually prefer being a small, insular clique of out-of-power individuals above adopting the values they publicly espouse.

…I've watched too many male organizers and funders rolling their eyes from the backs of rooms as women raised similar concerns at other forums to think questions like this are unique to the New Democracy Project or this particular conference…

[C]ontroversies like this benefit no one. They make women feel diminished and excluded, and men feel like they're never going to be able to organize a simple public conversation with their professional friends without getting hit over the head with identity politics. And yet the same sad script keeps playing out, over and over again, until everyone feels like throwing up their hands in despair.

(The post includes written responses from The Nation’s Katha Pollitt and Lisa Jervis, the publisher of Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture, which I recommend reading, too.)

Some of the comments left in response to the post tell the story of why this is a problem that needs to be addressed (emphasis mine).

more circular firing squad style headcount based dissent within the ranks of the left. How many black people are on the panel? Is there an outspoken lesbian poet? Jesus, it's no wonder we can't get anything done. I don't care if the only good ideas that occur to the left for the next 20 years come from men or women, or talking dogs. What needs to happen is we need for the good ideas to be heard above the din of everyone wanting to be heard because they are so enthralled with the sonorous tones of their own voices…

The prescription is for Democrats to start promoting ideas that benefit liberalism and not paralyzing themselves with absurd infighting on ridiculous issues like gender and ethnicity-counting…

It sounds to me as if "vigilance" here is code for "quotas" -- or at least something similar. Nothing good can come of that. Nothing in this earth will change while identity politics rules. Nothing. Until we start respecting only ideas and action and refusing to acknowledge what kind of "identity" is bringing it forward, we will be beating each other up continually instead of the turning our passions against the true enemies…

What I love about all three of those comments is the assertion that the Left needs new “ideas,” but doesn’t need to concern itself with diversifying its inner sanctum. Not a shred of recognition that perhaps the ideological stagnation from which the Left suffers may be a result of its major power players still being predominantly white, straight, and male—which, by the way, wouldn’t be a problem if those particular straight, white males could and did speak eloquently to progressive issues of concern to women, gays, and minorities, but they don’t. And it’s not because they can’t—Paul the Spud can speak just as passionately about women’s issues as I can, and I can speak just as passionately about gay issues as he can. Extricating oneself from the responsibility of speaking to issues beyond one’s own demographic is a choice, and marginalizing the concerns of women (for example) as “identity politics” is indicative of nothing more than the unwillingness to identify with women.

The idea that “a major colloquium to rescue our democracy” doesn’t actually look like our democracy is patently absurd. And, frankly, I no longer have the slightest tolerance or sympathy for men who “feel like they're never going to be able to organize a simple public conversation with their professional friends without getting hit over the head with identity politics.” I couldn’t organize a meeting of my friends and colleagues without including both men and women, straights and gays, and people of all colors—not because I have a love of “quotas,” but because my life is rich with people different than me by virtue of living in America, and my appreciation of a spectrum of experience.

No more excuses. If you want to avoid being head-thumped with identity politics, then start identifying.

Question of the Day

I thought this QotD was a little silly, but Shakes liked it, so here we go:

What film do you think should have won the Oscar for Best Picture that was never nominated for the award? (And didn't have much of a chance in the first place?)

It's such an easy answer: Shaun of the Dead.

What? That's my choice. Stop laughing.

Look... not only do you have a great zombie movie with some genuine scares (longtime readers will know that I have a particular weakness for zombie flicks), but there are some genuine, heartfelt moments that never slide into complete sap. The acting is top-notch, there isn't one joke that falls flat, and it even made me tear up at one point.

Seriously, if you've never seen it, rent it. Even if you "don't like horror movies." Because this is a lot more than a horror movie. It's a romantic comedy (the ads billed it as "A romantic comedy... with zombies"), it's a buddy picture, it's scary, it's funny, it's sweet, it's wry, it's got a killer soundtrack, it's a hell of a good time...

Dammit, it's why you go to the movies in the first place.

Shaun of the Dead: Best Picture of 2004. Robbed at the Oscars.

How 'bout you?

Breaking News: King Dick Gets Fitted for Throne

Oh, my mistake. He’s actually just lounging in a gilded chair while hanging out with his peeps in Oil Land. Ya know—when in Rome. Or something.

(Seriously, what the eff look is that on his face? Is he smiling? Grimacing? Passing a stone? Passing wind? I hope someone got him an aspirin in case it was another heart attack. Honestly, the man of a thousand disturbing faces, he is.)

Now, Lord Fashion Tragedy is known for inappropriate attire, but I’m hoping someone can please explain to me what the deal is with these shoes. The man’s like a freaking gazillionaire. Can’t he afford something a little spiffier than Hush Puppies?

Wev

House Republicans Unveil New Ethics Plan:

House Republicans moved to seize the initiative for ethics reform Tuesday with a comprehensive package of changes, including the banning of privately sponsored travel like that arranged by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The package also includes a virtual ban on gifts, except for inconsequential items like baseball caps, and a provision that will affect few people: elimination of congressional pensions for anyone convicted of a felony related to official duties.

[…]

Current congressional rules prohibit lobbyists from paying for travel for members of Congress and their staff.

But qualified private sponsors can pay for food, transportation and lodging when lawmakers travel to meetings, speaking engagements or fact-finding events in connection with official duties. Abramoff's clients had contributed to his nonprofit organizations, allowing those groups to sponsor congressional travel.

Abramoff was cited for arranging lavish trips for DeLay, R-Texas, to the Northern Mariana Islands and to Scotland, where he played golf at St. Andrews. DeLay has said he did not know Abramoff paid for the travel and asked the House ethics committee to look into the trips. The panel has taken no action.

So, in other words, the biggest abuse isn’t getting addressed. Well, knock me over with a feather.

"Supporting" the Troops

I wonder what Michelle Malkin would have to say about this little story?

Nothing, I'm sure. Unless Hillary Clinton makes a statement about it.

Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.

-snip-

On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that "all" commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.

"We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) is heavy, but it is made so we have mobility and the best ballistic protection out there. This is crazy. And they are threatening us with our benefits if we don't comply." he said.

But they don't really want body armor, right Michelle?

(Energy dome tip to Crooks & Liars)

(Come cross-post through the tulips with me...)

Dems on the Go-Go

Vacation...all I ever wanted!
Vacation...had to get away!

Via John at AMERICAblog comes this dire snippet from a Sunday Times article:

Democratic aides said there had been even less strategy than usual in trying to coordinate the questioning by the eight Democratic senators. The situation was complicated because senators and staff were out of Washington before the hearing.

I was pretty outraged, until I found out they couldn’t be reached by email, fax, phone, or any other modern means of instant communication because they were in Australia doing individual walkabouts in the outback. Apparently, Karl Rove suggested to them it would be a good teambuilding activity.

Twits.

Last Friday, Pam excerpted a transcript from an episode of Anderson Cooper 360 on which Alan Dershowitz appeared. Based on Alito's claim that his personal views have no bearing on how he would rule on cases, Dershowitz suggested a line of questioning that, as Pam noted, "would have blown the hearings wide open."

DERSHOWITZ: Well, you know, if I were a senator, I'd ask them the following question. I would say, "You have said that your personal views are utterly irrelevant to how you will decide cases. We don't agree with you on that. But since you've said that, let's ask you some really hard questions about your personal views."

"Is your mother right when she says that you personally strongly oppose a woman's right to choose abortion? What do you personally think of gay rights? What do you personally think of affirmative action?"

He couldn't say, "Well, I can't give you those answers because it will come before me." No, no, no, no. You've told us that your personal views are irrelevant. We think they're relevant, so give us the answers. I think it's a very, very hard question for him to duck.

[...]

Some of the best appellate court judges tell us in advance what their views are. There is nothing inconsistent with a judge expressing his views but keeping an open mind. And they ought to demand of every nominee, Republican or Democrat, "Tell us what your current views are or what your past views were."

[...]

Senators don't know how to ask these hard questions.

Even if they knew how, they weren't prepared.

Do I sympathize with Senators needing a vacation? Yes. And yet I don't think I've ever had a vacation from work during which I wasn't called at least once by my employer. I was called on my honeymoon. I was called when out of town for my grandmother's funeral. I had a boss who used to like to call me to brainstorm at 2am. (I didn't accommodate him, but it didn't stop him from ringing anyway and leaving rambling voicemails on my answering machine.) And I don't think my situation is that unusual. Lots of people can't ever totally get away, and most of us don't have the very future of the country depending on us.

The University of Sugar, Spice, and Everything Nice

The lovely Jessica at Feministing points us in the direction of The Nation's Katha Pollitt's response to logic-impaired NY Times columnist John Tierney's blathering screed on the feminization of education, "Male Pride and Female Prejudice," which contained such gems as:

Advocates for women have been so effective politically that high schools and colleges are still focusing on supposed discrimination against women. You could think of this as a victory for women's rights, but many of the victors will end up celebrating alone.

One might suggest to Tierney that the choice to celebrate one's personal success alone, granted by the freedom that self-sufficiency allows, is in itself indeed a victory for women's rights, but I suspect the thought of a woman who prefers independence to a life attached to a strawman who is only available to her if she's uneducated is a concept he has trouble grasping. I understand; it's tough to wrap one's mind around such convoluted and implausible hypotheticals. Ahem.

Pollitt notes in her response to Tierney:

If the mating game worked fine when women were ignorant and helpless and breaks down when they smarten up, that certainly tells us something about marriage.

An excellent point. Clearly, the education of women is threatening the sanctity of marriage. Are you listening, Karl Rove? I suggest you dispatch Tierney, Brooks, O'Beirne et al to write columns to this effect at once, and set a Protection of Marriage Amendment in motion STAT.

(Related reading: Mannion starts a series on gender and education.)

Good Lord

Ted Kennedy was outed as a member of the Owl Club, “a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership.”

In an interview with WHDH Channel 7’s Andy Hiller that aired last night, Kennedy said, “I joined when I . . . 52 years ago, I was a member of the Owl Club, which was basically a fraternal organization.”

Asked by Hiller whether he is still a member, Kennedy said, “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”

He then said of being a member in a club that discriminates against women, “I shouldn’t be and I’m going to get out of it as fast as I can.”

The Harvard Crimson reports that, in 1984, the university severed ties with clubs like the Owl, citing a federal law championed by Kennedy.

Meanwhile, Kennedy admitted to Hiller that he himself probably couldn’t pass Judiciary Committee muster.

“Probably not . . . probably not,” Kennedy said.

The Owl Club is simply not of the same ilk as Conservative Alumni of Princeton—the group which Alito had on his résumé but has no recollection of ever being a part of—who sought to keep women and minorities out of Princeton altogether. Yet, in being an exclusively male group from whom Harvard disassociated itself after legislation endorsed by Kennedy himself, it’s got the whiff of similarity, and that’s, as we all know, enough these days. And, quite honestly, Kennedy should have given them the old heave-ho long ago, and he sounds like a jackass when he says stuff like “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”

Democrats can’t run on a platform of integrity unless they are willing to have integrity. That simple.

(This story is all over the conservative blogosphere, btw—and I see by doing a search that now Limbaugh and O’Reilly are on it, too. Too bad. Another blow for liberals because Dems can’t walk the walk.)

How Do You Defend the Indefensible?

Well, you don't of course. It's much easier to engage in cheap character attacks. After all, that's what ~~Tiggers~~ the Bush team does best.

White House Rejects Gore Assertion on Eavesdropping

I know. You're shocked. Sit down and drink some ginger ale; you'll feel all right in a moment. (Bolds mine)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday rejected Al Gore's assertion that President George W. Bush broke the law in authorizing domestic eavesdropping and said the former vice president's comments showed "hypocrisy."

Ahem.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended Bush's authorization as legal and aimed at detecting and preventing attacks.

"This is aimed at international communications involving someone who is associated with al Qaeda. This is about connecting the dots and preventing attacks from happening," McClellan said. "It is a vital tool in our efforts to preventing further attacks inside the United States."

Gore, the Democratic challenger who lost to Bush in the 2000 presidential election, made the comments at the start of a congressional election year in which the domestic eavesdropping flap has become an issue.

First of all... Scotty... no one is saying that Bush doesn't have the right to protect Americans. That's part of his "job," after all. No one is saying that Bush can't spy on people suspected of terrorism. The warrant policies have been in place since the 70's, after all, and it would be foolish to assume that no spying has been done after your favorite date in the whole wide world, 9/11.

The point, dear Scotty, is that this was done without a warrant. Bush broke the law. That is the problem here. I would expect the government to do some spying in order to "protect Americans." However, if the President is going to do some spying on Americans, he'd better have a damn good reason.

And he'd better have a warrant.

And please don't give me that "What if there was no time? We don't have time to wait to get a warrant" silliness. It's just pathetic, really.

Second... can we please stop saying that Gore lost to Bush in the 2000 election when he makes statements that are critical of Bush and his administration? This is not a simple issue of sour grapes. Thank you.

"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore.

How exactly is stating that Bush has broken the law hypocritical? Has Gore somehow committed a crime against the Constitution and the American people?

"I'd just say if Al Gore is going to be the voice of Democrats on national security matters, we welcome it," he said.

You know what? If that would mean more speeches like yesterday, I'll welcome it too. Now get back to your LiteBrite and let the grownups talk, Scottie.

Fortunately, the ACLU is not being blinded by the 9/11 smokescreen, and has filed a lawsuit.

NEW YORK - Civil liberties groups filed lawsuits in two cities Tuesday seeking to block President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program, arguing the electronic surveillance of American citizens was unconstitutional.

The U.S. District Court lawsuits were filed in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights and in Detroit by the
American Civil Liberties Union.

The New York suit, filed on behalf of the center and individuals, names President Bush, the head of the National Security Agency, and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA's surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization.

It seeks an injunction that would prohibit the government from conducting surveillance of communications in the United States without warrants.

Which is, of course, the way Bush was supposed to behave in the first place. We're suing the president to require him to get a warrant before spying on Americans... when he already needs a warrant before spying on Americans.

I'm living in a cuckoo clock.

So, now that the ACLU is involved, I'm sure Bill O'Reilly will be frothing at the mouth over this. Although a supposed "independent thinker" really should be more concerned with the fact that the President is breaking the law. But that's expecting a bit much of falafelboy.

What about Malkin? I'm sure she had some scathing words for Gore.

Gee... not a word. What a shock.

Of course, there's plenty of time and bandwidth to further bash Hillary Clinton for daring to suggest that soldiers should have more, or better body armor. By the way, she's still using examples of soldiers saying they "don't want more" by only quoting men in the army, ignoring the Marines; the soldiers that the Pentagon report was about in the first place.

Malkin: All Hillary-Bashing, all the time.

I guess a President that breaks the law isn't worthy of her precious "sober analysis."

(I knew a girl named cross-post, I guess u could say she was a sex fiend...)

Daddy Depp

Last night, when he was being interviewed on the red carpet on his way into the Golden Globez, Johnny Depp told whichever generic presenter was shoving a mic in his face that he came up with Willy Wonka’s voice while playing Barbies with his daughter. I thought that was the cutest thing ever (even though I’m not a particular fan of Barbies, for all the expected reasons). It’s not the first time Depp has talked about playing Barbies with his little girl, and although I know it causes all sorts of eye-rolling among certain people, I think his willingness to talk so openly and honestly about engaging his daughter through activities she likes—activities in which dads especially don’t tend to engage with their daughters—is really laudable.

Traditionally, dads—if they engaged much with their young children at all—restricted their interaction with daughters to high-energy activities like learning to ride a bike, sports, general roughhousing, etc. Now, I think dads are much more engaged generally with their children, but it’s still a shock (if a pleasant one) to hear a father talking about playing with dolls with his daughter.

It’s valuable for girls to have their fathers spend time immersed in their daughter’s interests, which generally happens more frequently with mothers and sons, as moms drive their boys to Little League games or attend chess club matches, whatever. A father showing an interest in a “girlish” pursuit is important not only to validate its worth, but to reinforce the notion that don’t have to suppress their own interests in favor of a male partners’ in order to spend quality time with him. A lot of girls learn from a very young age that male attention is held more easily if they do something a man enjoys, rather than the other way around. It’s no surprise to me that straight daughters raised by two parents of the same sex tend to show this inclination less.