Now, it’s well established that Paul the Spud and I have a long-running psychic mind meld, which manifests itself in myriad ways, from our similar specs frames to our Ethel Merman impressions, and it’s also no secret that Spudsy and I love each other to itty, bitty pieces, having forged the special, unreplicatable bond that can only be shared between a fag and his hag, a full-bosomed mistress of cuntitude and her boybitch. But could we, would we, be strong enough to withstand sleep deprivation, physical exhaustion, hunger, dehydration, nicotine withdrawal, the foul stench of a massive throng of unwashed geeks, and the mind-numbing assault of 24 hours of bad films?
We now have our answer—and that answer is a resounding yes.
Armed with only our wits (and two bags full of water and snacks), we made it alive through B-Fest—through the suckitude of Superman IV, through the eye- and ear-straining madness of The Creature from the Black Lagoon in 3-D, through the soul-sucking direness of Godzilla (1998)…straight through the disaster that is Gas-s-s-s! and the hell on Earth that is Rhinestone Cowboy. (In a bit of a cheat, we did skip out before Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2, but, in our defense, I did have a train ride ahead of me during which I had to stay awake, lest I ended up in South Bend at the end of the line.)
This being my first time at B-Fest, I had no idea what an event it actually is. There were people from all over the country—and some as far away as France—in attendance, many of whom came toting air mattresses, gigantic coolers, and all manner of comfort and nourishment reinforcements. As we walked in with our two small bags of stuff, I noted we might be laughed at for being woefully unprepared. We weren’t, but that’s probably only because no one laughed at anyone for anything at B-Fest; we only mocked what was on the screen.
And aside from the manic and delirious fun that was had during Plan 9 from Outer Space (including the throwing of vast quantities of paper plates each time the flying saucers—pictured above—appeared onscreen, and the cacophony of “Night!”s and “Day!”s and “Bela!”s and “Not Bela!”s and “Tor!”s at the beginning of each scene as an homage to Ed Wood’s masterwork), that was the best thing about B-Fest—meeting some of the other people who attended, who were not only hilarious, but so very, very nice. (I especially enjoyed meeting the adorable Shaker Zack, and wish we’d had more opportunity to talk, but, you know, there were films to ridicule!) It’s a bit too easy to say that, this being a magnet for geeks, particularly of the male persuasion, it can be chalked up to being a room full of the proverbial Nice Guys who always finish last; certainly, that plays a part at B-Fest, but I’ve met enough sci-fi or swords-and-spells fanatics who can be condescending pricks to anyone who doesn’t speak Klingon or Elvish to know that not all geeks are nice guys (or girls). The people I met were just really welcoming, and that made the experience so much the better.
It was sort of impossible, for someone who has studied gender and sexuality for so long and spends so much time immersed in politics, not to note some of the interesting political and social things happening, too. I won’t blather on about all of it, because it’s probably not so interesting to anyone but me, but it was hilarious to hear the collective gasps and groans when everyone saw that the costuming for Plan 9 had been done by Dick Chaney, and it was very curious to experience the tension between blatantly sexist and homophobic humor and a post-modern take on the same. It was the men who delivered an endless stream of bad jokes at the expense of Dolly Parton’s endowments during Rhinestone Cowboy, and made more Brokeback Mountain references than I can count, but two of the best snarky pro-feminist lines came from men, too: During The Creature from the Black Lagoon, which features a token woman scientist, whose primary field of study seems to be how long scantily clad women can manage to swim just out of the reach of lagoon monsters, one of the male scientists is saying to her, “You must understand…” and our audience hero intoned, “You must understand that as the only female scientist, you’re best suited to get all the rest of us some coffee.” And, at the end of Cobra Woman, “It’s always the same—the woman’s got to give up her career.”
One particularly amusing thing was the co-opting of the “USA! USA!” chant into a sarcastic statement on American imperialism and up-our-own-assesness. Any time there was a “America to the rescue” moment in a film, the audience erupted into “USA! USA!”, and I’m sure for the conservatives in attendance, it may have been a genuine response spawned of their usual silly notions of the infallibility of American hegemony, but they no doubt quickly realized they were outnumbered, as the chant also rose in clearly facetious response to American cars breaking down, the Madison Square Garden getting bombed to kill Godzillets, and someone blurting out while being robbed by aliens, “I’m an American!” And then, the final blow, when Jean Reno starts kicking ass in Godzilla, the response came: “Viva la France! Viva la France!”
It was a really fun, if exhausting, experience. You’ve really got to like crap, and you’ve really got to be able to fall asleep anywhere, anytime—which I can do. (Now Spudsy and Mr. Shakes can compare stories about my sleeping during concerts and the deafening racket of B-Fest.) Thanks, Paul, for inviting me and procuring our survival kit and being so much fun, as always. And to Zack and Preacher Quint—it was so nice to meet you, and I’m so sorry for stepping on your feet so many times.
B-Fest: A Story of Survival
B Students
The doors have been thrown open to all of Shakes’ various guest posters for the next day or so, as The Two Ronnies (aka Spudsy and I) are going to B-Fest, a 24-hour marathon of B-movies, featuring such classics as Superman IV, Rhinestone, Earth Girls Are Easy, Cobra Woman, Creature from the Black Lagoon (in 3-D, bitches!), and Plan 9 from Outer Space. It’s like a 24-hour immersion in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 as B-movie lovers gather in the darkness to holler their best bits of snark at the screen, while fighting off exhaustion, sore asses, and the urge to flee as the creeping realization that you’ve exchanged daylight and fresh air for 24 solid hours of recycled geek breath slowly washes over you.
We’ve got our bottles of water, our baby carrots, and our love of crap ready to go! Onward to B-Fest!!!
See you later—if our eyeballs haven’t fallen out…
More Koufax Noms
Congratulations to those bloggers nominated in the category of Best State and Local Blogs, including BlueJersey, Pam's House Blend, and Tennessee Guerilla Women (which are the only three I know well). As with the previous two categories, voting is not yet open to give voters time to check out all the nominees.
As Moz Would Say, Truly Disappointed
I was just over at The Talent Show and saw this picture:
How could Gary Sinise be a Republican*? WTF? He started the Steppenwolf, which is all liberal and shit. That’s so weird.
Am I the only person in the world who didn’t know Gary Sinise is a Republican?
And why have I only bumped into Republican actors? Gary Sinise (very nice), Mel Gibson (super nice), and Bruce Willis (total dick). What gives?
If I hadn’t been in an elevator with Tommy Lee Jones, who will still glowing with the aura of once having been Al Gore’s roommate, I’d consider the first 31 years of my life a total loss.
---------------
* Yes, I looked it up. He's really a genuine GOP-er.
Friday Blogrollin'
Acid Test
On the Fritz
Sugared Harpy
Unclaimed Territory
Just Ain’t Right
How do you say “You’ve been replaced by a robopussy” in Japanese?
A Japanese woman smiles next to Hello Kitty Robo, developed by Japanese robot maker Business Design Laboratory, at the 2005 International Robot Exhibition in Tokyo November 30, 2005. For just under 240 pounds a month, a fraction of the cost of a human temp, the PeopleStaff agency will dispatch Hello Kitty Robo, a robotic receptionist capable of sensing a visitor's presence, greeting him or her and holding simple conversations. REUTERS/Yuriko Nakao (Full story.)
The day I walk into an office that expects me to hold a conversation with a giant cartoon robot cat is the day I take my business elsewhere.
News from Shakes Manor
Mr. Shakes: I like that picture of yoorself you chose for the bloog.
Shakes: Thanks. I thought it was funny how Paul and I have the same glasses, further illustrative of our PSYCHIC MIND MELD.
Mr. Shakes: You look like The Two Ronnies.
Shakes: What?
Mr. Shakes: Goo oon—do a search for The Two Ronnies. You’ll see what I mean.
Shakes does a search for The Two Ronnies and comes up with not only the above image, which was The Two Ronnies' "famous spectacles" logo, but also the following picture of The Two Ronnies, from an ancient British sketch comedy show, called, coincidentally enough, The Two Ronnies.
Mr. Shakes: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Shakes: You are such a cunt.
Mr. Shakes: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Shakes: I can’t believe you called us The Two Ronnies.
Mr. Shakes: Why noot? The resemblance is uncanny.
(I would have tried to fight off this brutal attack on our collective cuteness for longer, except I was falling out of my chair from laughing.)
Breaking News: Shakes and Spudsy get their own talk show!
A Really Bad Excuse
As I was wading through the quintillion or so news stories today that dealt with either the criminal incompetence, corruption, or hubris of the Bush Administration, I stumbled upon this particularly odious little snippet from a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction:
There were no detailed, overt preparations for the reconstruction of Iraq in the run-up to the 2003 invasion "to avoid the impression that the US government had already decided on [military] intervention."Our War Monger in Chief and his happy little band of corporate cut-throats have emitted a prime bundle of obfuscations about the lack of post-war planning, ranging from their assertion that it was impossible to know what the situation on the ground would be after they conquered the country, to their claim that their victory was so brilliantly swift that it undid the planning they had in place. However, this stark admission that no detailed planning of any kind was undertaken, married to the absurd notion that to have done so would have somehow helped the enemy, leaves me truly breathless.
The Administration has been very fond of using this type of tortured logic in order to either justify its actions or deflect criticism from its more obvious fuck-ups. This latest NSA scandal provides another example. Here's Bush, explaining why Republicans in Congress shouldn't pass legislation that would give him the "express authority to continue the program."
But it's important for people to understand that this program is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we run it or how we operate it, it'll help the enemy."Oh, okay - so it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that if Republicans were to pass such legislation it would be an implicit admission that his ridiculous program was illegal in the first place. Sure.
If these guys are so concerned about defeating "The Enemy," it occurs to me that a better plan would be to, you know, come up with some sensible fucking policies that stand a chance of actually achieving that end. The enemy is abetted, after all, not by those who have the temerity to question these idiotic schemes, but instead by the idiots who commence them in the first place.
Question of the Day
Courtesy of Mr. Shakes...
What non-elected person has the most influence on America? (Answers that are not allowed: Karl Rove, Rupert Murdoch, or Osama bin Laden.)
Truth Falls Away in a Cloud of Predictable Tedium
If you want to know what’s wrong with the media, look no further than this video. Unbelievable. Watch the last minute in particular.
Katie Couric is a GOP shill. Howard Dean’s ability to keep his composure is admirable. That’s why I could never be a political party chair. If I had to face that bullshit, I’d have reached through the screen and punched that bitch in the throat.
Boy sues; schools are “designed to the disadvantage of males”
It was only a matter of time.
Seventeen-year-old Milton High School senior Doug Anglin (whose father just happens to be a lawyer and just happened to write his son’s complaint) has filed a federal civil rights complaint against his school with the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, alleging that Milton discriminates against boys.
''The system is designed to the disadvantage of males," Anglin said. ''From the elementary level, they establish a philosophy that if you sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. Men naturally rebel against this."Okay, I think I’ve got this straight. Men “naturally” rebel against a philosophy which rewards sitting down, following orders, and listening, but women “naturally” respond to it. That must explain why there are no male priests, doctors, psychologists, teachers, judges, or attorneys, for a start, all of which require not only the ability to get through a school system which has always required students to sit down, follow orders, and listen, but also require the same as part of the actual job. Oh wait—isn’t Daddy Anglin an attorney? How did that happen?
…[Anglin] proposes that the high school give students credit for playing sports, not just for art and drama courses. He also urges that students be allowed to take classes on a pass/fail basis to encourage more boys to enroll in advanced classes without risking their grade point average. He also wants the school to abolish its community service requirement, saying it's another burden that will just set off resistance from boys, who may skip it and fail to graduate as a result.
Well, never mind that. Let’s look at Anglin’s suggestions.
Give students credit for playing sports, not just for art and drama courses. Interesting obfuscation, except students are already given credit for gym class, which is the actual equivalent of art and drama courses. If you start giving school credit for extracurricular activities, then the plays and art shows which drama and art students participate in outside of school hours ought to garner school credit, too—which brings us right back to a level playing field. And, let’s face it, if implemented, this idea is really just going to be discriminatory against boys anyway, since playing a sport requires discipline, adherence to rules, following coaches’ orders, and listening, and boys “naturally” rebel against all those things.
Allow students to take classes on a pass/fail basis to encourage more boys to enroll in advanced classes without risking their grade point average. So, basically, make school easier. Anglin says this isn’t about girls being smarter than boys, but it certainly sounds that if girls are “willing to risk” their GPAs to take advanced classes, but boys aren’t, that it’s about girls being braver and working harder than their male cohorts. Of course, Anglin would undoubtedly argue girls take less risk and don’t have to work as hard, since school favors them and they’re “naturally” disposed to sitting down, following orders, and listening. It’s quite the snake eating its tail.
Abolish community service requirement; it's another burden that will just set off resistance from boys, who may skip it and fail to graduate as a result. See, now this is where I start to think that this really isn’t about a school that discriminates against boys, but boys who are simply unwilling or unprepared to meet the demands of school. There’s no earthly reason that girls should be able to complete a community service requirement and boys shouldn’t. No small number of community service groups—the Elks, Moose International, the Exchange Club, YMCA, etc.—began as (and some still are) exclusively male organizations, so any argument that women are “naturally” predisposed to community service and men aren’t would be a tough sell. People who are socialized to have a selfish and entitled nature, however, are not difficult to find at all. I suspect some of them are boys.
I don’t want to minimize the possibility that boys are struggling more in school in larger numbers than girls are, but I’m going to turn it over to Mannion for a moment to explain why addressing this as a gender-specific issue is a bad idea:
In his New Republic article, Richard Whitmire reports some statistics that show that while 72 per cent of eighth grade girls are reading at or above their grade reading level only 61 per cent of boys are and he uses these numbers as more evidence that boys are in trouble…And that’s really the issue here. We have a large failing of very many students in both genders throughout our educational system, but because girls who are doing well are doing well in higher numbers, this is becoming a question about How To Rescue Boys. Inevitably, this leads to all sorts of discussions about the innate tendencies of boys and girls, which has the dual ill effect of generating solutions that may benefit only struggling boys (thereby ignoring the girls who need help, and in some cases, potentially undermining the success of the majority of both boys and girls who are already doing well) and allowing us to collectively ignore the possibility that there is a reason completely unrelated to gender which can account for the problem. It wasn't the inherent, gender-specific qualities of girls that kept them uneducated for so long; it was lack of opportunity, justified by the repeated invoking of those supposedly immutable qualities. Just as we were right to be suspicious of such claims in denying educational opportunities to women, so we should be reluctant to view what is, in reality, a more complicated issue through the lens of gender now.
There are several ways to look at that… But here's how I look at it.
If you have an incoming high school freshman class of 100 boys and 100 girls, you have 61 boys who are reading at or above their grade level and 72 girls who are and you have 67 kids, boys and girls, who aren't!
67 kids out of 200 who can't read at their grade level? That's a big problem. And for 28 of those kids you can't attribute the trouble to their being boys, because, well, they're girls. Which suggests that reading skills aren't necessarily a matter of gender and that those 39 boys who are having trouble might very well be having trouble for the same reasons the girls are.
Obviously, then, if you set out to solve the problem in a boy-centered way you are going to end up slighting or even ignoring all those girls.
The disdain for intellectualism we see in evidence every single day is heard equally by boys and girls. The teaching-to-test rather than teaching-to-learn made prevalent by No Child Left Behind effect both boys and girls. The increasing tendency of parents to intervene on a failing or misbehaving child’s behalf by criticizing—or suing—the school instead of demanding the kid get its ass into gear affects both sons and daughters, assures them that they don’t have to earn their grades; they just have to shout until they get what they want.
Is Anglin’s problem really that he’s a boy—or that he’s been overly indulged? He’s got a 2.88 GPA and plays both soccer and baseball. His father thinks that “the school system should compensate boys for the discrimination by boosting their grades retroactively” so they can get into college. Is it crazy to suggest that if your kid can’t maintain a GPA appropriate for a college-bound student, then perhaps he should have spent less time playing two sports and more time doing his homework? Apparently so. Better that we twist and contort the school system to allow Anglin to have it all, rather than expecting that he give a little more.
AUMF, she sighed.
Good piece by Jacob Weisberg in Slate: The Power-Madness of King George.
Simply put, Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a temporary condition.I admit the piece is a little bit of a “Yeah, that’s the general consensus around here,” but it’s a good summary and well-written with some enjoyable snark.
This extremity of Bush's position emerges most clearly in a 42-page document issued by the Department of Justice last week. As Andrew Cohen, a CBS legal analyst, wrote in an online commentary, "The first time you read the 'White Paper,' you feel like it is describing a foreign country guided by an unfamiliar constitution." To develop this observation a bit further, the nation implied by the document would be an elective dictatorship, governed not by three counterpoised branches of government but by a secretive, possibly benign, awesomely powerful king.
…according to Gonzales, [Bush] has garnered even more authority under the congressional authorization for the use of military force, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. This resolution is invariably referred to by the ungainly acronym AUMF—the sound, perhaps, of civil liberties being exhaled by a democracy.
Totally unrelated (except insomuch as it addresses yet another signal that we are living in some parallel universe that aspires to be Bizarro America) but also worth a read: The Poor Man suggests we stage an all-star panel on blogger ethics in his pants. Good idea, say I.
Kerry to Lead Filibuster of Alito
Shaker BD passes on this link:
I have confirmed reports that Kerry wants to filibuster Alito, and he is talking to his colleagues to round up the 41 votes he needs.Shaker VL emails that a senior aide has noted, “People aren’t engaged in this fight… The reality is this isn’t something that American people are calling in droves about. We’re getting more calls in on NSA spying than we are on Alito.”
So get calling the Alito 8 who won’t support a filibuster (contact info at the link) and call Senator Kerry to thank him and encourage him to stick with it: (202) 224-2742.
Just pick up the phone and make a difference!
More News Conference Fun
QUESTION: Mr. President, though -- this is a direct follow-up to that -- the FISA law was implemented in 1978 in part because of revelations that the National Security Agency was spying domestically. What is wrong with that law that you feel you have to circumvent it and, as you just admitted, expand presidential powers?Translation: I’m full of shit, but I’m telling you over and over that I’m not. I am not full of shit. That’s very important for you to believe and reprint far and wide until every American believes it, too.
BUSH: You said that I have to "circumvent" it. Wait a minute, that's a -- it's like saying, "You know, you're breaking the law." I'm not. See, that's what you got to understand: I am upholding my duty and at the same time doing so under the law and with the Constitution behind me. That's just very important for you to understand.
Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having the discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA's still an important tool. It's an important tool, and we still use that tool. But, also -- and I looked. I said, "Look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law?" And people said, "It doesn't work in order to be able do the job we expect to us do."
And so, that's why I made the decision I made. And, you know, "circumventing" is a loaded word. And I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right.
Secondly, I’m a tool.
And, you know, I’m a lying tool, but I refuse to admit it, because I can do anything I fucking want MWAH HA HA HA.
(Yeah, and on the whole “legally right” thing—not so much.)
I’m Clairvoyant! (Abramoff Photos Edition)
January 22, 2006—Shakespeare’s Sister:
I predict that when these photos inevitably surface, the White House will easily dismiss them with a line like, “The President meets thousands of people. That doesn’t mean he has a personal relationship with every one of them.”January 26, 2006—President Bush:
I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with him or know him very well. My point is, I mean, there's thousands of people that come through and get their pictures taken.Boy, and the photos haven’t even been published yet. Bush is ahead of schedule.
School is a Battlefield
The pictured poster was designed by the Bay Area’s San Leandro High School Gay-Straight Alliance as part of an effort to comply with state laws “requiring schools to ensure students' safety and curb discrimination and harassment.” In December, the school board approved a policy which requires all teachers in the district to hang the posters in their classrooms, but, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that five teachers are refusing to display the posters in their classrooms because “homosexuality violates their religious beliefs.”
Lots of things in public schools violate someone’s religious beliefs. But, much like pharmacists who choose a profession in which they may be required to dispense medications they may personally not like, professional public school educators must respect that many of their students’ personal beliefs and traits will be different from their own. That’s why Pentecostal public school educators can’t require their female students to not cut their hair and wear only ankle-length skirts, and Jewish public school educators can’t demand that their male students all wear yarmulkes, and atheist public school educators can’t forbid crucifixes and yarmulkes and hajibs. It simply isn’t the job of public school educators to dictate their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to their students.
And, as an aside, even if homosexuality does violate one’s religious beliefs, respect for and protection of homosexuals does not.
Take a look at that poster. This is a safe space to be who you are. Why is it even necessary? In 2001, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) surveyed lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) students under 19 years of age nationwide, and found (in part):
69% of LGBTQ youth reported experiencing some form of harassment or violence. 61.1% of LGBTQ youth reported experiences of verbal harassment with 45.9% having experienced it daily. 46.5% reported experiences of sexual harassment, 27.6% reported experiences of physical harassment, and 13.7% reported experiences of physical assaultNearly 14% of LGBYQ youth have been physically assaulted at school, and these so-called Christians are more interested in taking a stand against hanging a poster reassuring them that they’re safe than actually making sure they’re safe. They’d rather make political points about how persecuted poor Christians on government wages are than be a part of productively addressing the actual, physical persecution of gay teens.
~ 99.4% of LGBTQ youth reported hearing homophobic remarks from other studentsMy parents were both public high school teachers and are both devout, practicing Christians whose lives revolve around their church, and neither one of them felt the least conflict of interest in making sure their gay students were protected and treated with respect. If my mother heard one of her students even use “gay” as a negative term—“This homework assignment is gay”—she would chastise them for it, no less if they were actually harassing a gay student. And far from considering that in violation of her religious beliefs, she felt it was a necessary application of them, not to mention one of her prerogatives as a teacher.
~ 36.6% of LGBTQ youth reported hearing homophobic remarks from faculty or school staff
~ 39.2% of LGBTQ youth reported that no one ever intervened when homophobic remarks were heard. 46.5% reported that someone intervened only some of the time. Other students were more often reported to intervene (82.4%) than were faculty (66.5%)
If homosexuality violates your religious beliefs, fine—don’t be gay. But don’t pretend it gives you the right as a public educator to refuse to protect your gay students.
I’d have loved to hear the explanation from these five homobigots where in their scripture it tells them that protecting homosexuals from harassment is against God’s will, but, of course, these brave Christian soldiers weren’t available for comment.
(Hat tip to Catherine.)
BOO!
Bush Taking Bin Laden Threat Seriously. Yep, that’s an actual headline.
"When he says he's going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it," Bush told reporters after visiting the top-secret National Security Agency where the surveillance program is based. "I take it seriously, and the people of NSA take it seriously."Well done, chief.
Of course, the reason for this little proclamation of seriousness kind of puts it into perspective.
President Bush, defending the government's secret surveillance program, said Wednesday that Americans should take Osama bin Laden seriously when he says he's going to attack again.Don’t forget, little sheeple, there’s a boogeyman out there who wants to gitcha, and everything I do, legal or not, is all in the name of protecting you.
The thing is, bin Laden’s not just a boogeyman; he’s a real person with real designs on hurting Americans, but to think that Bush considers him anything more than, as Joe in DC (who gets the hat tip) notes, “a political weapon”—and a convenient justification for assuming the role of dictator he’s always wanted—is foolish.
Back in March 2002, when people were beginning to wonder why we hadn’t captured bin Laden “dead or alive,” Bush wasn’t taking bin Laden seriously. In fact, he was dismissing him as all but impotent and not particularly important.
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --When the heat was on about bringing bin Laden to justice, as the president had promised to do, he was reduced to being unworthy of thought. Now that the heat’s on about breaking the law in the name of national security, bin Laden’s back to being a serious threat. Terror is bigger than one person who's now been marginalized…but Americans should take Osama bin Laden seriously when he says he's going to attack again.
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you…
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
I don’t suppose some enterprising journalist would see fit to query the president about how bin Laden managed to regain his status—and how the administration could have dropped the ball so thoroughly as to let such a madman reconstitute his power—or if this is just more political gamesmanship designed to obfuscate the reality that all the Bush administration really cares about is an incremental coup, the success of which is dependent on Americans’ confusion, fear, and apathy.
Hillary Cannot Be the Democratic Nominee
It’s just that simple. She’s not going to win. A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll pitting Clinton against Condi Rice found that more registered voters might consider voting for Rice (38%) than might consider voting for Clinton (32%). Rice polls stronger among Democrats than Clinton does among Republicans, as well.
Independents appear to favor Clinton, but I suspect if Rice were replaced with John McCain, that brown column would be a lot shorter.
Here’s the problem with Hillary: She’s a compulsive triangulator, and for every vote she picks up by co-sponsoring flag-burning legislation or rambling nonsense about “protecting the children” from video games or reiterating her hawkishness, she loses 2 votes from progressives and independents with a libertarian streak. Part of the reason she depends so heavily on triangulation is that she doesn’t have a governorship or any other leadership credentials to point to, so all the caveats that apply to Senators running for President apply to her, too. She’s also not a great speaker. She’s certainly not a terrible speaker, but she’s not particularly inspiring. She’s no John Kennedy; in fact, she’s not even John Edwards.
And the truth, fair or not, is that a lot of people just don’t like her. They didn’t like her when she was the First Lady, and they don’t like her now. And I don’t think there’s anything she could do to change most of those minds.
Hillary’s a stupendous fund-raiser and has enviable name recognition. But she can’t win—and considering her willingness to scuttle rightward whenever it’s convenient, I’m not sure why liberals would even want her to.
