The Bush administration is off to a stumbling start this week, as a glance at concurrent headlines indicates:
Attempts by the White House to shrug off leak story complications run into skepticism as Senate Judiciary Committe chair Arlen Specter declares that "the president of the United States owes a specific explanation to the American people." That's what happens when you have a president who says he wants to find out the truth about leaks, but who turns out to be the leaker-in-chief.
Bush administration credibility comes under fire in another quarter with high-profile stories about plans to launch an airstrike against Iran, the better to thwart nuclear ambitions in that country. The official response to the stories comes down to "That's ill-informed...but, uh, it's true enough."
Still more truthiness issues: The Pentagon defends itself against assertions that it made a bit of a boogeyman out of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
In the meantime, one of George Bush's staunchest European allies appears to be in the process of being turned out of office. That's what the exit polls say in Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is narrowly losing to a center-left candidate who has announced intentions to pull his country's troops out of the ever-dwindling coalition of the willing.
And let's not forget those depressing poll numbers here at home: a new career low for W.
And you thought your Monday was tough. With news like this on the president's desk, a little corrective anxiety might be just what the advisor ordered. Terror alert, anyone?
(Cross-posted for your convenience...)
It's about time for another terror alert
Christians Sue for Right to be Assholes
This is priceless. Whatever happened to the “activist judges” rhetoric? I guess you’ve got to hope for a “judiciary run amok” when you’re suing for your right to be a fucking asshole.
Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.The right to be Christian—I love it. See, here’s where that little phrase my rights end where yours begin comes into play. You have a right to be a Christian—believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and was the son of god who died on the cross for your sins and raised from the dead three days later to ascend into heaven, go to church, wear the signs of your faith, pray, read the Bible, and personally practice all your beliefs, which, if they include the belief that homosexuality is wrong, means not being a homosexual yourself. But when you begin to assert that your “right to be a Christian” should allow you to encroach upon other people’s rights to be safe from intolerance in their schools, workplaces, homes, or anywhere else, that’s where you get the back hand of my ire.
Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.
Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.
With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."
"What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.Laughable. Racists are marginalized for a reason—a reason around which people like Baylor like to do an end-run by evoking their always-useful contempt for science, which has not considered homosexuality a choice for some time. Of course, if part of your “right to be a Christian” is to flatly ignore any scientific evidence that might undermine your right to be an asshole, you’re free to argue from here to kingdom come that you ought not be marginalized like racists rightfully are.
Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.
By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.
"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."
She caused another stir with a letter to the gay activists who organized an event known as Coming Out Week in the fall of 2004. Malhotra sent the letter on behalf of the Georgia Tech College Republicans, which she chairs; she said several members of the executive board helped write it.Interesting definition of tolerance. We’ll tolerate you as long as we don’t have to see you, hear from you, or in any way be made aware of your existence. I guess it falls to people with more developed linguistic skills to point out that, in fact, it’s actually not tolerance at all.
The letter referred to the campus gay rights group Pride Alliance as a "sex club … that can't even manage to be tasteful." It went on to say that it was "ludicrous" for Georgia Tech to help fund the Pride Alliance.
The letter berated students who come out publicly as gay, saying they subject others on campus to "a constant barrage of homosexuality."
"If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda," the letter said.
In the end, this situation is little more than further evidence of the tendency toward projection that we see so often among movement conservatives. They deem homosexuality a choice, regard any open displays of homosexuality as indicative of an entire “lifestyle” the parts of which are immutably inextricable from being gay, accuse gays of “barraging” others with their choices and beliefs, and associate the merest identification with homosexuality as political propaganda. None of which accurately describes gays, but certainly does describe the likes of Malhotra, Scarborough, and company, who choose their religion, which they claim obligates them to “speak out against homosexuality” and any other people or behaviors they don’t like, and turn their religion into a political tool which is taken to the legislatures and the courts with regularity. Homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle choice, but being a Christian is.
And I think we know which one really has the radical agenda.
You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!!
I give you... Plan 9/11 from Outer Space.
“The folks who conducted this act on our country on September 11th made a big mistake. They misunderestimated the fact that we love a neighbor in need. They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander-in-chief, too.”
-George ‘Dubya’ Bush, September 26, 2001
Tanna: Eros, do we *have* to kill them?
Eros: Yes.
Tanna: It seems such a waste.
Eros: Well, wouldn't it be better to kill a few now than, with their meddling, permit them to destroy the entire universe?
Tanna: You're always right, Eros.
Eros: Of course. But those are not my words; those are the words of the Ruler.”
-Plan 9 from Outer Space
Man, I wish I thought of this first!
(Tip of the Energy Dome to Tbogg.)
Mandouchea
So everyone's panties are in a tizzy over the latest American Idol reject Mandissa (that is, if you give a shit about American Idol). She was so talented, how could they?? Blah blah.
The rumor was that she lost the "gay" vote because she made a comment about overcoming addiction and "lifestyles" before singing a gospel song a couple weeks before she was booted. Because everyone knows that only gay guys and little girls watch American Idol. Okay. So then in the post-failure media blitz that every reject goes through (one final hurrah before we never see their losery faces again), she is asked (even by serious, "hard-hitting" media such as The Advocate) - "where did it all go wrong, Mandissa, say it isn't so, we hardly knew ye," blah blah. And then she gives the usual Christian backpedal, "I don't hate anyone, I'm heartbroken, it's a misunderstanding, Lordy mercy, etc." But when asked if she would ever perform at a gay event (as the more talented and much more gracious Kimberly Locke of the "Clay Aiken" season has done), Ms. Madness proclaims, "No, I do not advocate that," or some shit. When asked if she thought a gay person could be cured (a reference to her worship of some author of ex-gay propaganda), she said "I don't know anything about that." Right. So she is basically telling us that although her pre-song comment had nothing to do with the "gay lifestyle," (something about food addiction) don't get her wrong, she really is anti-gay. But don't worry, she hates the sin, not the sinner. Much like I hate the Christianity, not the Christian.
Okay, girl, you done fucked up. Even if you didn't win American Idol (sorry, but the girls and the gays are all creaming for Ace or Chris, take your pick) you could've had a nice little campy gay diva career full of remixes, circuit parties and breakdowns. Even if you hated gays, you could have kept your mouth shut and racked up a few dance chart hits before spilling the beans (hello, Donna Summer!). So you kept your "integrity." You made very clear the nature of your homophobia. Good for you. I'm sure you'll be welcomed into the gospel community and revival tents all along the Bible belt. Splendid. But you missed an opportunity. You know what it's like to be somewhat of an outcast, to be discriminated against because of who you are (black, female, overweight, whatever - all have been a struggle for you, no doubt). And the gay community would have embraced you not only because of these factors, but also because of your genuine talent. For them, it is sometimes about a funky shiny package (Madonna, Britney), but mostly about what is delivered in that package (Barbara, Cher, Aretha, Liza for Christ's sake!). And as all of these divas have learned, when times get rough, and they've lost their luster with the public, the only ones who stick with them through it all are their gay fans.
But Mandissa shouldn't feel too bad. After all, this is just the latest in a long thread of homophobia running throughout American Idol. There are the thinly veiled homophobic barbs between Ryan and Simon (the latest being Simon's "beard" comment), the way every nelly boy somehow gets voted out and rarely even makes it to the top 12 (Clay Aiken was a rare example because scores of girls mistakenly thought he was crooning to them - hence the recent lawsuit when they discovered he wasn't), and the over-abundance of "aw shucks" country bumpkins who sail through to the final rounds after all the requisite references to God and Jesus and family values. Could a few incensed fags topple Mandissa despite all these factors, a good two weeks after her supposed anti-gay comment? Nah. It's just that her last performance sucked. Furious, out!
Feminism is Humanism
This morning, Shakes asked me why it is that there are so many men, including far too many progressive men, who seem so bloody-mindedly determined to malign and attack the feminist movement, even as they are supportive of individual feminists. What is it, she wondered, that makes it feel so threatening, that elicits the urge to try to discredit it or deny its necessity? It’s not an easy question to answer, particularly as it reminds me of positions I once held, because I had never stopped to question why I held them.
Men (and here, I generally mean straight men) are conditioned—by the news media, by the entertainment industry, by religious fundamentalism, by the government, and by other men—to believe that, first of all, they have a more important set of responsibilities and rights than women, and that, not only do they have these things, but that they deserve them and should do everything they can to defend them.
This tendency among men to swallow this bullshit strikes me as being particularly stupid.
The last 50 years have seen an incredible, historic change in the role that women play in the family, in the workplace, and in society as a whole. Their opportunities have expanded exponentially—the invention of the pill, the feminist movement, the acceptance of women in higher education, a wider set of expectations and greater freedom. It’s certainly not all perfect, but it’s gotten a lot better. During this time, men have struggled to redefine their own role in society, which has left modern men often feeling listless and without self-worth. That is not to say that they have any right to feel this way; it is simply to say that it is. The only reaction that predominated in any discernible way has been one of hostility toward the feminist movement, from the overt sexism of anti-choicers to the condescending sneering so often witnessed even in men who define themselves as progressive. Feminism is widely regarded as having somehow stripped men of their own status in society. There have been no real attempts to create a new set of values to which men can aspire that is not either a regressive traditionalism dressed up in family values or a petulant and pointless negativity toward the success that the feminist movement has had.
One of the greatest bulwarks against men accepting the feminist movement is that they seem to think that women gaining power must necessarily dilute their own exclusive powers and status. But in so holding onto this erroneous notion, they forget that they themselves are powerless in the face of the corporate plutocracy that now weighs down so heavily upon all of us. If they could get their heads around the fact that they too are powerless and insignificant and ignored, they would stop trying to beat up on the kids they perceive to be weaker and instead acknowledge their own weakness, ally themselves with them, and move forward with them in a new movement that would grant greater freedoms for all of us. It shouldn’t be about trying to maintain some illusory advantage over others. It should be about trying to create concrete advantages for all of us.
If men were smart, they wouldn’t fight against feminism. They would embrace it for what it really is: Humanism. (And stop fretting over whether the term “feminism” is exclusory; its principles aren’t.) They would incorporate the principles of all civil rights movements and collaborate with their proponents on the genesis of a vast humanist movement. Instead of feeling threatened by or put upon by these movements, instead of feeling they somehow denigrate straight, white men’s lives or their ability to be who they are, men would apply these ideas in an effort to improve their own lives, along with everyone else’s. What we need to do is confer all the rights and privileges that these men have traditionally enjoyed upon everyone else, and then, once we’ve done that, we can start thinking about what new rights, obligations, responsibilities we can confer on everyone, in order to make our society a more egalitarian and fair place to live.
Men need to get it through their heads that they, too, are under the heel of power structures that have no interest in promoting their welfare. They must understand that the rights and privileges that they have hitherto been enjoying fall far short of the privileges they could enjoy were they to try and achieve them. The internecine warfare that occurs between women and men, people of color and white people, straights and gays, as they all squabble like schoolchildren in an attempt to gain or deny rights, is exactly what those in power want. They promote it, they foment it, they do everything they can to aggravate it, because they know that if we were all ever to get our fucking shit together, and demand that the society we all live in and contribute to should be fair and decent to everyone, then the egregious wealth and power that they enjoy would finally meet its end.
What men need to understand is that their wives, the black guy across the street, the gay guy next door, are not the only ones toiling under the weight of a patriarchal system that doesn’t benefit all men, but instead a select few who hold all the power and all the wealth in their hands, the weight of a society that rewards capital and a slavish work mentality over human dignity and the freedom of individuals to express their own interests and realize their full potential as human beings.
Shakes once pointed out to me that the etymology of patriarchy is father, not man, which is an observation that struck right at the heart of the matter for me. In an abusive family, the sons are beat right along with the daughters. Would it not make more sense for these sons to band themselves with their sisters, with whom they, in fact, have more in common than with their father, instead of beating their sisters, too, as mere agents of the abusive father? In the latter case, they only sustain a system that is just as shitty for them as for their sisters. As we spoke about this, Shakes noted, “Abuse by proxy carries the same illusion of garnering the father’s approbation as the American Dream deceives those who will never walk the halls of power.” This relegation to powerlessness is not solved by a small-minded attempt to gain power over others who, in the grand scheme of things, are equally powerless.
We need to step out of the paradigm that has been set for us by the powerful few and which only serves to diminish any chance we may have of rectifying the terrible inequities that exist within our society. Instead, we need to define ourselves in a new way, and stick it, as they say, to The Man. If we ever manage to do this, we will have achieved something earth-shattering, something bigger than men or women alone, something worthy of humanity.
Eyes Wide Open
It’s kind of a shame that Fitzy has had to oversee a massive, multimillion dollar investigation, meticulously going through every syllable of recent history, in order to be able to say with certainty what anyone with the most minimal faculties of logic and reason had discerned several years ago:
As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.Don’t get me wrong—I’m immensely grateful for the service Fitzy has performed on our collective behalf in his role as Special Prosecutor. It’s just truly annoying that the media was so complicit in facilitating the administration’s cover-up, uncritically parroting any lie they were fed and denouncing anyone who dared to suggest the above conclusion Way Back When as motivated solely by irrational loathing of Bush, that what was obvious to those of us paying attention was not also obvious even to those who take only a passing interest in The News.
As I’ve watched The Truth begin to unfold, just start to stretch its legs after its long slumber, and see and house of cards constructed by this mendacious administration begin to collapse under the weight of inevitable revelation, I’ve been at turns infuriated by the thought of how much damage has been done in the interim, while we impatiently waited for The Truth to set us free, and bitterly satisfied that we have been vindicated. We were right all along. The administration was intent on war in Iraq no matter what, they did misuse intelligence to get us there, they were the vicious vengeance-seekers who outed Valerie Plame to try to discredit her husband, the tax cuts didn’t “by far the vast majority … [go] to those at the bottom,” the Medicare Prescription Bill was a colossal corporate hand-out, the president was warned about Katrina, Afghanistan isn’t a rousing success, we haven’t turned a corner in Iraq, and on and on and on and on and on.
At each turn, we were met with accusations that our blind hatred of Bush drove our criticisms, but what the accusers failed to realize—and fail to realize still—is that our hatred was never blind.
You’re goddamned right if you think I found George Bush an insignificant slip of a man who was unprepared for and undeserving of the presidency, whose history as a drunken dullard, constructed aw-shucks shtick, and careful positioning as the ordained man who would marry religious extremists with neocon corporatists made me want to puke from the moment I laid eyes upon his sneering visage. You’re categorically correct if you think that his leadership shames me, that every heh heh which has emanated from his condescending mouth has made my skin crawl, that I am utterly unable to find the merest shadow of anything to like about him, that I fervently long for the day he takes his leave from governance and retreats to Crawford for good, where I won’t give the tiniest, microscopic shit about him whether he is lost in a tragic brush-clearing accident and his body devoured by wild dogs before the search party arrives, or whether he lives out the remainder of his useless life in good health and happiness—either way, I don’t care, as long as I never have to think about him for the rest of my days. You’re right as rain if you think I hated him from the get-go, but maybe it’s time to consider that my hatred left my eyes wide open, and it was his most ardent supporters who were blind.
Blindly allegiant. Blind defenders. Deliberately, selectively blind.
We didn’t subscribe to the propaganda; we saw through it and found the truth that their rose-white-and-blue-colored glasses obscured.
There’s no joy in having been right about Bush’s many failures, not when so many lives have been lost, so many people been hurt, at the business end of his visions of empire. But, by god, we were right, and even when staring that ugliness in the face day after day left us disheartened and dispirited, angry and scared, we did the work that citizens are meant to do—we watched our leaders, even as our vigil was held in contempt. We were not cheerleaders; we put our scrawny defense out on the field and held the line. And even when closing our eyes to the entire game and having a little nap—wake me when it’s over—seemed like it would just be the best thing in the world, we kept our eyes open. We were never blind.
Maybe the sentiment I’m expressing doesn’t mean much, or seems to reek of bombast, to those who live in a beautifully blue enclave or spend their days immersed in a profession where political acuity is so ordinary that it makes the thought of people who languidly bob along in whatever direction the river flows seem quaint. But I live in a part of the country—a small town, in a very red state—where one’s neighbors or coworkers were openly hostile to those who would criticize the president several years ago, where your life as an unapologetic liberal could be pretty damn tough. Not so long ago, I was accused of tinfoil hattery, of hating America, for the merest suggestion that Bush led us to war under false pretenses. There was a time, not two years ago, when Mr. Shakes and I were roundly rejected as radicals for giving voice to ideas that have now been revealed as truth. Now, some of the same people who would have keyed my car for bearing a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker are yammering about what a jackass Bush is.
It’s one thing to write a blog; it’s quite another to stand up and say what you believe when you’re the only person in a room who believes it. It’s not always easy (nor particularly smart, I guess) to challenge your boss on being a homophobe, a sexist, a racist—to address his making the workplace hostile for liberals in an election year, especially when you’re the only liberal. Passionately caring can be a burden; it would have been so much easier to close our eyes and turn our faces away, to just be like everyone else. And so I think it’s important to note that we did it, and do still, to lift our spirits a little by pointing out that it matters; it’s worth it. We need to recharge sometimes, because this vigil has no end. Our eyes must always be open.
More Iran Plans
Just click through at least to check out the accompanying pictures at The Heretik and State of the Day. Ha and more ha.
“The Iran Plans”
Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker:
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups….Oy. That is all.
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’”
Question of the Day
What famous person (dead or alive) do you admire hugely, but would be afraid to meet, because you think there's a very real possibility that you wouldn't like him/her, or because if you didn't get on it would crush you?
Big surprise, I know, but I've got to go with Morrissey. I've met him, but I've never had the chance to hold an extended conversation with him. I actually think we'd probably get along splendidly, but if we didn't for some reason, I'd be heartbroken beyond description.
Do you need a concealed weapons permit for this kind of thing?
A Ross County jail inmate hid a gun so well that not even the guards who did an extensive pat-down found it.Sure it did. It was probably slippery.
The Cleveland woman hid a loaded handgun inside her body and smuggled it all the way to her jail cell, where it accidentally fired when she was trying to hide it.
"While in the holding cell, she removed a .25-caliber semiautomatic from her vaginal cavity," Chillicothe Police Capt. Tom Hewitt said yesterday.
Victoria Lundy, 41, hid the gun in the toilet-paper holder. It fell to the floor and discharged.
The bullet lodged in the ceiling as guards scrambled to quickly recover the weapon, Hewitt said.Okay, I admit I’ve never used my vagina as a secret compartment, but I really don’t believe I could fit a gun in there.
…Hewitt said the incident won’t likely change jail policy.
"It’s the first time I’ve heard of it in my 25 years" he said. "There’s not a whole lot you can do. You can’t do body-cavity searches without a search warrant."
The pat-down of Lundy did include a search of the crotch area, said Assistant Jail Administrator Capt. Tim Holman of the Ross County sheriff’s office.
"It’s crazy, but it’s made us a little more aware," Holman said.
(Via Dlisted.)
Dollars and Sense
Reading Digby, I see this:
Here's the problem. The president pretended that he was disturbed by the leaks in the Plame case and said he wanted the perpetrator to come forward. Now we find out that he was personally authorizing the leak for political purposes. Scotty can call it "in the public interest" but everyone knows it was in the political interest of the president.…and it suddenly occurs to me that, as taxpayers, we ought to begin petitioning the president to personally reimburse every last dime of the millions of dollars that Fitzy’s investigation has cost. That’s a pretty hefty price tag we’ve paid to allow him to hide the truth from us.
And to what end? If what he did was perfectly legal and in our best interest, as they’re arguing, there’s no reason he shouldn’t have come clean with it when it was first an issue. Our national security wasn’t dependent upon our not knowing that the president himself authorized the leak; his job security was. He directed tax dollars toward a long investigation, the express purpose of which was to delay us from finding out information that we might not like.
He used our money to enable his desire to lie to us. And I think we need to ask for it back, thank you very much.
Six-Year-Old 911 Caller Considered Prankster; Mother Dies
Via Chris Howard, this story is just terrible.
Robert Turner called 911 to get help for his mother, Sherel Turner, 46, whom he found lying unconscious on the kitchen floor of their Detroit apartment…More than a quarter are prank calls?! Okay, first of all, the operator who didn’t treat this brilliant little kid’s call seriously is an idiot and a half whose idiocy left a little boy motherless (and from that partial transcript I see no reason why anyone would automatically assume it’s a prank), but who are the fucking assholes who are making prank calls to 911?! My first reaction was to wonder since when don’t the police check out any and every emergency call, but if over 25% of them are pranks, that’s a lot of wasted resources in a city where cops are needed for real emergencies. That means 911 operators have no second chance; they have to get it right the first time.
"Then I had felt her tummy. She wasn't breathing. Then I had called 911," said Robert. "I told them to send an emergency truck right now."
911 Operator: "911. What's the problem?"
Robert: "My mom has passed out."
The 911 operator, however, did not take him seriously and told him to stop playing on the phone, the station reported.
911 Operator: "Where's the grownups at?"
Robert: (Inaudible)
911 Operator: "Let me speak to her before I send the police over there."
"I tried to tell them she wouldn't talk," said Robert.
Robert: (Inaudible)
911 Operator: "I don't care. You shouldn't be playing on the phone. Now put her on the phone before I send the police out there to knock on the door and you gonna be in trouble."
Robert: "Ugh!" (Hangs up.)
Kimberly Harris, the union president of AFSCME Local 1023, said more than a quarter of phone calls received by 911 operators are prank calls.
This also reminds me of the time that I looked out my window and saw a building on fire. I called 911, and the operator who picked up said, before I even uttered a word, “Yeah, we know about the fire,” and hung up on me. I guess he didn’t think that any rapes, murders, or burglaries take place in Chicago when there’s a fire going on.
Man Puts Mother-in-Law on eBay
And her biggest complaint is the starting bid:
Steve Owen, 42, published a photo of 50-year-old Caroline Allen under "Collectables And Weird Stuff" on the internet auction site - describing her as "used". He has invited bids starting at just £1 reports The Sun.LOL. I like this story because it sounds like, even though they clearly antagonize one another, they have a bit of a sense of humor about it.
He posted the ad on the site after Caroline quit her home of 27 years in America and bought a house round the corner from him and common-law wife Tracey, 35, in Alvaston, Derby.
Steve said: "I'm deadly serious. She comes to the house every day trying to change me and make me tidy. I just hope someone will take her off my hands. She's single and not bad looking."
Caroline hit back: "He's lazy and I won't stop nagging him until he changes - that's my job. But he could have made the starting bid £100. I look better in the flesh."
Mr. Shakes gets on well with my parents, and they love him to itty bitty pieces. I reckon if both of us were drowning, and they could only save one of us, you’d check in the next day to find this: Shakespeare’s
I also get on well with Mr. Shakes’ dad, a former sailor with a dirty sense of humor who won’t show me his tattoos because “they aren’t appropriate for a lassie.” Which, of course, just made me want to see them more, but no such luck.
Mr. Shakes’ mum (who’s divorced from his dad) is a whole other story, but suffice it to say, she’s none too fond of the American hussy who stole her only son and dragged him 4,000 miles away—and I suspect she’d prefer to move right past putting me on eBay and put me instead at the bottom of Loch Ness.
Interesting
So some total dickhead gossip columnist tried to extort a multibillionaire in exchange for keeping his name out of the rags. Wev. But I’m curious about the coverage of the victim’s political affiliations. CNN notes:
Burkle, one of the world's richest men, has an estimated personal wealth of more than $2 billion. He has given millions of dollars to political causes, including more than $200,000 to Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his campaigns.Sounds like a Republican.
On the other hand, the New York Daily News says:
He is a major Democratic Party fund-raiser and is a senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton. Sean (Diddy) Combs, Leonardo DiCaprio, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Hillary and Bill Clinton, former Calif. Gov. Gray Davis, former Vice President Al Gore and Bundchen are just a few of his acquaintances.Sounds like a Democrat. (Can he really be pals with both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger? That’s fun.)
None of which really matters, except that Page Six, for whom the extortionist worked, published several stories about Burkle that simply weren’t true.
Burkle had insisted to Page Six staffers and editors that the items were not true. Among the other false items is a Jan. 1 report that Burkle flew Tobey Maguire, girlfriend Jen Meyer and blonde actress Sarah Foster in his private jet to Aspen, Colo., where they "vacationed at Burkle's mansion."Burkle sent a personal letter directly to the chairman of News Corp., which owns The Post (and Page Six)—Rupert Murdoch, who never replied. And I think we all know where on the spectrum Mr. “Fox” Murdoch’s ideological inclinations fall. Which might just sound like tinfoil hattery until you go back to CNN:
Burkle does not own a mansion in Aspen, did not fly his private jet to Aspen, and didn't vacation with Foster, Maguire or Meyer.
Burkle in February joined forces with union workers at nine Knight Ridder Inc. newspapers in an effort to buy the group. His company, Los Angeles-based The Yucaipa Cos. LLC, teamed with the Newspaper Guild-Communications Workers of America, which had been looking for investors to help with the acquisition.Hmm. A billionaire Democratic supporter who was getting involved with Murdoch’s competition.
Of course The Post is saying that the extortionist, Jared Paul Stern, was operating on his own and has suspended him. And maybe he was—although part of what he said (captured on tape by the Feds) that Burkle needed to do to keep his name out of the papers was hire his editor’s fiancée. Even if he was acting on his own, he was only able to go after Burkle because Burkle was being repeatedly attacked in the paper, and whose agenda was fueling that scenario is what interests me. It sounds like Murdoch was using part of his media empire to settle a political score—which isn’t illegal, but it’s not ethical, either. Gee, where have I heard that before…?
The Road We’re Traveling
For 8 years, every form of abortion has been illegal in El Salvador, even in the event that the mother’s life is in danger. There are no exceptions. In the event of an ectopic pregnancy, the fallopian tube must burst before she can get surgery. There are “forensic vagina specialists” who “check vaginas for evidence of an abortion procedure.” Evan’s got a Rachel Maddow interview with Jack Hitt at AlterNet PEEK to which you must listen. It’s completely chilling. As if we needed more evidence for why safe and legal abortions are necessary, here it is.
the bad attitude of the law
Leander Pickett is a teacher’s assistant at Englewood Elementary. According to colleagues, he’s a nice guy and a hard worker. On Tuesday he was directing traffic in the morning outside the school, making sure the bus “load/unload zone” was going smoothly. Then his day went all to shit. You see, two Homeland Security officers had pulled into the school’s loading zone “to look at a map”. When Pickett told them they had to move, they said “we’re Homeland Security, we’ll fuck your shit up if you don’t shut up”. I’m only slightly exaggerating:
[A]s Pickett was directing bus traffic, he said he was handcuffed and roughed up and humiliated by the very people that were supposed to protect him.
“I walked up to him and said, ‘Sir, you need to move.’ That’s when he said ‘I’m a police officer. I’m with Homeland Security … I’ll move it when I want to.’ That’s when he started grabbing me on my arm,” Pickett said.
Englewood media specialist, Terri Dreisonstok, went out and told them that Pickett was indeed an employee and he was right, etc… Says Terri:
“At that point I intervened and I went up to the gentleman and said, ‘Mr. Pickett is an employee here,’ and they said that didn’t matter. ‘We’re with Homeland Security,’ and on and on they went, and pretty soon, before you know it, he’s handcuffed and slammed against a car,” Brinson said. “All the children are watching, they’re all upset.”
All the kids were watching this. Nice. There are other people who witnessed the exchange/incident and all of them back-up Pickett’s account. Of course, Homeland Security doesn’t care about facts:
The department also said it’s looking into what happened, and that Pickett’s version is wrong. It claims he was antagonizing the officers.
It’s only just looking into but it already knows that Pickett is wrong—no matter those pesky witnesses. He antagonized the officers by telling them they needed to move their car away from a school bus loading/unloading zone. What-fucking-ever.
“If this is Homeland Security, I think we ought to be a little afraid,” Brinson [Gail, principal of Englewood] said.
Pickett is planning on suing. So how long after the “stonewall-admit-nothing” defense doesn’t work will the “few bad apples” bullshit be trotted out?
American Hero: Harry Taylor
Crooks and Liars has the video of the guy who Misty mentioned yesterday, telling Bush he was decidedly unhappy with his leadership. It’s fun to watch Bush squirm and be a spineless weasel, always making sure the audience is on his side, but more than that it’s inspiring to watch someone say, in precisely the calm and reasoned tone needed, what I hope I would have the presence of mind and bravery to say if given the same opportunity.
Mr. Harry Taylor, you have earned yourself a Shakespeare’s Sister Brass Balls Award:
Douchery
Supporters of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay protested at an event Thursday held by the Democratic candidate for the congressman's seat, and the event quickly dissolved into a shouting and shoving match. Police were called, but made no arrests.And, what?—his supporters are going to have to get used to being roughed up? Yeesh.
"I got pushed. I got hit. I got a sign wadded up in my face and my hat pulled down over my eyes," said Marsha Rovai, 69, a supporter of Nick Lampson. "They just did it to be nasty."
DeLay campaign manager Chris Homan said he organized the protest but DeLay, a Republican, didn't know about it.
"Mr. Lampson is going to have to get used to being confronted about his voting record the next seven months," Homan said. (Link.)
Crooks and Liars has more about the email that was sent out encouraging DeLay supporters to “give Lampson a parting shot that wrecks his press conference.” Nice.
Bush Leak Authorization “Legal but unusual”
Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters, but they add that the leak was highly unusual and amounted to using sensitive intelligence data for political gain.It’s a question of ethics. Just because something is technically legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical. The GOP, who pilloried Clinton for his extramarital blowjob long before he broke the law by lying under oath, certainly understand the distinction between something that is legal, but not ethical. But obviously, as always, their ethical code is a highly subjective one. By my calculations, if a president does something unethical that only affects his inner circle, that’s an unbelievable outrage. However, if a president does something unethical that affects national security and endangers the life of covert CIA operatives, that’s just peachy. Interesting.
"It is a question of whether the classified National Intelligence Estimate was used for domestic political purposes," said Jeffrey H. Smith, a Washington lawyer who formerly served as general counsel for the CIA.
Food for Thought
The Dark Wraith has set forth a veritiable feast of ideas and analysis this morning, in his latest piece, Currencies of War. The article looks at the burgeoning arms race between the United States and Iran, and then goes on to analyze how the current geopolitical and economic climate is making an outbreak of hostilities between the two countries more likely than you may have thought.
You are politely encouraged to go read.
