Have I ever mentioned that I like Al Gore?
The Three-Ring Circus Floats Some Trial Balloons
Some Republicans are urging Bush to dump Cheney and replace him with Condi “if he is serious about presenting a new face to the jaded American public.”
Well, that’s certainly a big if, but okay, I’ll play along.
One Republican strategist, who did not want to be named, said: “If I were Bush I would think of changing Cheney. It is one of the few substantial things he can do to change the complexion of his administration. The rest is nibbling around the edges.”I’m going to give our unnamed Republican strategist the benefit of the doubt and chalk up “change the complexion” to an unfortunate word choice.
Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard magazine and author of Rebel in Chief, a sympathetic new biography of Bush…said he believed Cheney would be willing to stand down in order to help Bush. “It’s unlike Bush to dump somebody whom he likes and respects,” he cautioned. “But the president needs to do something shocking and dramatic such as putting in Condoleezza Rice.”Critics of Barnes’ book have widely questioned his designation of Bush as a “rebel,” but, personally, I’ve always questioned the “in Chief” part—a doubtfulness recently bolstered by Robert Dreyfuss’ Vice Squad, which draws a portrait of Cheney and his office that inevitably leaves one wondering who really runs the show. Cheney’s influence over this administration’s decisions can be tracked from the moment he was tasked with selecting Bush's running mate and subsequently selected himself, right through to the current unrelenting secrecy about everything emanating from the veep's office—including, bizarrely, even who works there—and the bullying and spying performed on behalf of the vice president by his mysterious and true-believing staff. It reads as nothing less than a playbook of a coup that most of America has failed to notice. And Bush comes across like the manipulated buffoon wholly ignorant of important details that he often appears to be.
[O]fficials who have opposed Cheney believe that President Bush has "views" only about basic principles, and that in making dozens of complex decisions he relies on pre-determined staff papers. Says one insider deeply involved in U.S. policy toward North Korea: "The president is given only the most basic notions about the Korea issue. They tell him, 'Above South Korea is a country called North Korea. It is an evil regime.' … So that translates into a presidential decision: Why enter into any agreement with an evil regime?"So who’s right? Is it Barnes—who believes Bush has it in him to cast Cheney aside? Or is it Dreyfuss—who suggests that Cheney’s the true power behind the throne, making the thought of Bush shitcanning his ass nearly inconceivable?
The truth probably falls somewhere in between. Bush may be The Decider, but relies so heavily on the counsel of trusted sources that he can’t really make a decision without it first having been carefully placed in his head by clever manipulators who know how to leave him with the impression the idea was his own. Cheney has undoubtedly filled that role for much of his administration; whether he goes may well be contingent upon Bush’s continued allegiance to him. If he’s got a new devil sitting on his shoulder, expect Cheney’s health to require his retirement in the not too distant future.
(Crossposted at Ezra’s place.)
I Love Lazy Days
Springtime Saturday afternoon naps have to be the greatest thing in the world.
That is all.
Earth Day
"We all live here.
People, ants, elephants, trees,
lizards, lichen, turtles, bees.
We all share the same big home."
(excerpt from: Our Big Home, An Earth Poem by Linda Glaser)
People, ants, elephants, trees,
lizards, lichen, turtles, bees.
We all share the same big home."
(excerpt from: Our Big Home, An Earth Poem by Linda Glaser)
The only response Daniel Henniger deserves
Fuck him, fuck them, and fuck you.
And have a nice weekend.
Addendum: Not that more actually needs to be said, but Steve Gilliard's last words on the subject give the lie to Henniger's entire column:
Any time you start off a discussion of political blogs with a child murdering cannibal, we're not having an honest discussion.
Dishonest start, dishonest ending. While bashing lefty weblogs, Henniger somehow overlooked examples of less-than-fine manners on the right half of the blog spectrum. Hard to imagine how that happened...unless he somehow counts Kevin Ray Underwood's blog as right-wing.
(Here's your goddamned cross-post...)
"We don't speak her name anymore."
I saw Silent Hill tonight, as promised. It wasn't particularly good. I can't say I'm surprised; my love of the horror genre doesn't blind me to the fact that most horror movies suck, and my love of video games doesn't blind me to the fact that all video game movies suck. (Except for Tron. Death to the MCP!) I don't mind seeing crummy movies in the theater from time to time, though, as ticket prices around here are cheap, and the trailer for this one hadn't looked half bad.
Comparatively speaking, the movie wasn't half-bad either. The dialogue is terrible, and the script, apart from a few moments of surprising subtlety, is a mess, but the visuals are often striking, and there are a few sequences that almost make up for the flaws. Review-wise, it's a walk in the park, because if you want to see it, you'll probably find something to like, and if you don't want to see it, you should trust that instinct.
There is one thing worth mentioning, though. And it constitutes a slight spoiler, so if you're determined to see this one clean, stop reading. (This post. I mean, stop reading this post. Cause if you just stopped reading, you could never do crossword puzzles again.)
A lot of unpleasant things happen to people who really don't deserve them in this film, and one of the most important victims is a little girl; and one of things that happens to her is that she's raped by the school janitor. It's presented quickly, and in the movie's favor, there's no exploitation- at least, there's no visceral exploitation. But there's something off-putting in this rapidity; it ends up being emotionally exploitative by the casual presentation, like it was an afterthought just to ensure a response by the audience.
It's cheap, and it's a disconcerting moment in a movie that is otherwise, apart from a few deeply awkward conversational exchanges and some ultra-violence, largely inoffensive. I think what bothers me the most is the laziness of it. I accept, when I go to a scary flick, that there will be the usual cheap scares; you see enough of these movies, you start to fear any open spaces on the screen because you just know nasty stuff is going to pop up there. The quick shots of the frightened girl and leering janitor are a variation on this theme, but whereas a music sting with a fleeing figure aim for the base of the spine only, this new version is appealing to a more complex response mechanism. Its approach provides the illusion of complexity where there is none, and treats the audience as sheep.
Still, I'd say this is the best video game to movie adaptation we've seen yet. As someone who's written extensively on Super Mario Bros, I believe I am qualified to make that call.
Question of the Day
Stranded on a desert island (with plenty of electronics) edition...
You get to take with you one of each of the following:
~ album
~ book
~ film
~ complete television series
Which do you take?
I take Morrissey's Ringleader of the Tormentors, because, since it's new, I've heard it the least, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, Harold and Maude, and Six Feet Under, because I haven't seen the last two seasons yet.
Friday Poop
(Not work safe.)
Just watch this clip of an infomercial for “Dual Action Cleanse,” and then go here for the context, which is, actually, as insane as you’d assume.
In addition to feeling like your car, job, ass, tits, dick, clothes, house, haircut, shoes and neighborhood just aren't good enough, your poop has now become yet another thing to feel inadequate about.
A Tale of Two Headlines
CBS: A Spy Speaks Out
A CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi war charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq.Fox: CIA Officer Fired for Leaking Classified Info to Media
Citing the Privacy Act, the CIA would not provide any details about the officer's identity or assignments. It was not immediately clear if the person would face prosecution. The firing is a highly unusual move, although there has been an ongoing investigation into leaks in the CIA.
These are two totally different guys, but I just thought it was interesting that as one guy is going on 60 Minutes to declare the administration a bunch of lying bastards, another one is getting shitcanned for passing on info to the media as part of an "ongoing investigation."
Must be some fun times at the CIA right now.
The Radical Conservative Scourge
Evan at PEEK has a truly disturbing story about a Focus on the Family (Dobson’s outfit) dispatch, targeting a doctor who performed an abortion on a rape victim who later died. (The doctor was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Kansas Board of Healing Arts.)
Nonetheless, the anti-choice brigade is after him, and Evan says, troublingly, that there is “a creepy lack of any discouragement from violence,” notable since the doctor was “shot by violent pre-lifer Rachelle Shannon back in 1993.”
The Citizen Link report, which makes no mention of the shooting nor anyone who advocates stopping short of violence, quotes Operation Rescue's President Troy Newman:Which reminded me of something I read over at Orcinus this morning:"It's high time that this man is held accountable for his actions that have caused untold misery and loss of life."In the LifeSiteNews article it links to, Newman's rhetoric is even more inflammatory and irresponsible: "Christin was raped in Texas and killed in Kansas..."
Operation Rescue's founder, Randall Terry has well-documented links to killer James Charles Kopp before, during and after his conviction.
With a history of inciting violence and a doctor who's already been shot, how much of a stretch is it to charge that this kind of talk borders on terrorism?
Yesterday being the 11th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, I suppose I should just be grateful that, this year at least, we're not cursed with an Ann Coulter profile in Time.A fine question indeed. Since that time, conservative extremism has not been the target of any large-scale effort to halt its momentum; in fact, that very brand of radicalism has gone mainstream. Ann Coulter’s “joke” that her “only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,” Bill O’Reilly’s offering up San Francisco to al-Qaida, the neverending stream of hateful spewage that pours from the yammering maws of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, etc. etc. etc. Look at this parade of freaks, all of whom the likes of Coulter, O’Reilly, and company purport to disdain, even while serving as conduits for their vile messages of hatred. The only difference between the two groups is that the talking heads of the radical conservative movement know how to deliver the putrid communiqués in subtler tones, but the message is still the same.
Still, every year since 2002, this sad anniversary reminds me of a question I still haven't heard answered:
Why wasn't April 19, 1995 the "day that changed everything"?
They are the well-paid, carefully coiffed arbiters of white supremacy, homobigotry, misogyny, and a twisted nationalism that casts dissenters as treasonous. And day after day after day, they launch their loathsome missives into the atmosphere, giving legitimacy to that which deserves nothing but contempt, making it ever harder to criticize such repulsive swill without being accused of intolerance.
And how much longer will it go on? I dread to consider what will have to happen, since April 19, 1995 was not a "day that changed everything,” before the rest of the country wakes up and pays attention to the creeping scourge of conservative extremism—and denounces its place in our public sphere once and for fucking all.
United 93
There's a movie coming out next Friday, United 93, about the 9/11 flight that crashed in Pennsylvania when passengers foiled part of the hijacking that resulted in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Click on the link for the movie's website, which will give you access to the movie's trailer.
Recently, Devin Farci at Chud.com interviewed a few of the family members who lost relatives in the crash. It's pretty much what you'd expect; the three people interviewed (David and Peggy Beamer, who's son Todd died, and Gordon Felt, who lost his brother Edward) are happy to see their loved ones treated with such respect, and feel the movie will serve as a reminder that we need to maintain constain vigilance in order to preserve the American way of life. (They use that phrase, "way of life," a couple of times.)
I'm glad, in an intellectual way, that these people are getting a some kind of closure. But, and I apologize if this sounds callous, I can't see this as a good reason for me to see the movie. I've watched the trailer a few times now, and each time, it loses some of its appeal. There's a lot of talk going around that it's "too soon;" I can't speak to that, since my emotional involvement in 9/11 was light. What I can speak to, though, is the movie as a movie, and, while it's always dangerous to judge on a few minutes of footage, I'm willing to bet that the film will be just like that interview: respectful, anti-terrorist, and ultimately pointless. (Admittedly, most entertainment interviews are pointless, so it's not as though this one doesn't have its place.) I'm not sure if truth is stranger than fiction, but I do know that a fictional movie based on true events will often serve to reduce those events by constraining them into a predictable structure.
For example, there's a clip in the trailer of a stewardess saying something to the effect of, "I wish I was home with my kids." There's also a bit where one of the passenger just barely makes his flight. I'm not sure if either of these events actually happened, but even if they did, in a movie, they're both horrible cliches, the storytelling equivalent of getting your head bashed in with a cane while a horrible old man shrieks, "Think, Mcfly! Think!" That they're using such obvious ploys for our sympathy, when the subject is so blatantly sympathetic to begin with, doesn't give me high hopes. I don't think the movie will be bad, per se; just sterile, the secular equivalent of one of those Jesus biopics that pop up on TV every few years.
Hopefully, I'm completely wrong. I'm not sure what a "great" 9/11 movie would be, but if I had to guess, I'd say it would be something that does more than satisfy the grieving and memorialize the dead. We can respect the past without ignoring its complexities; perhaps a failure to do so is indicative that those cries of "Too soon!" are more valid than they would initially appear.
So, what do you think? Am I judging too harshly from a few moments of trailer? Are you bothered to see them making a movie like this at all?
Action Item: Save the Internet
Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon doesn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer…Sign the petition.
Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the verge of selling out to people like AT&T's CEO, who openly says, "The internet can't be free."
Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention. We can make sure they listen to our voices and the voices of people like Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet and Google's "Chief Internet Evangelist," who recently wrote this to Congress in support of preserving Network Neutrality:My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity...Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.The essence of the Internet is at risk…
Getting Personal
I've got a new piece up here, "Getting Personal." It is, really, an ode to all of you, and all the other progressives at the multitude of progressive blogs who have struck up friendships and variations thereof, and find within them the reserves of strength and hope to keep chugging away day after day.
Friday Cat Blogging
(You’ll probably have to turn up the volume for these.)
Olivia howls at nothing in particular, as part of her ongoing campaign to drive me batshit insane.
And I finally managed to catch a bit of Matilda’s “chirping” on camera, with some prompting from me. She didn’t really go at it, like she usually does, weaving in and out between my legs while I write, endlessly chirping and squawking and clicking away like a crazy little maniac, but anytime I try to turn the camera on her while she’s doing that, she instantly goes shy, so this will have to suffice.
Rove to be indicted?
David Shuster thinks so. Let it be as he says.
UPDATE: Blogenfreude pointed me in the direction of The Left Coaster, where Steve Soto reports, "According to ABC News’ The Note, Patrick Fitzgerald has already convened the latest Plame grand jury this morning, at 9:30 AM."
Ask and ye shall receive.
Shaker Susan: “I heard something on Jerry Springer's Air America show this a.m. about Cheney taking a nap during a meeting with the Chinese President. Anyone else? Are there photos?”
Why, yes, there are.
(Hat tip to the NY Post, who report: “The veep's people later insisted he was reading his notes, but if you ask us, it sure looks as if he's dreaming of quail hunting - and maybe bagging some birds this time. Photo: Getty”)
Name that Cult Movie: The Answering
Apparently, this was a very tough one this week. Here's the answers to the tricky quotations!
1. Time Bandits- John Cleese as Robin Hood. Brilliance. He's just so damn polite and charming and wonderful. You just have to love him muttering "Awful people" as our heroes leave the scene.
2. Best in Show- I thought this one would be harder to guess, but Fred Willard's character is so hysterical in this scene, I suppose every line he utters is a classic.
3. Meet The Feebles- The next time some Lord of the Rings geek starts going on and on about the genius of Peter Jackson, agree with them, then show them this. A completely sick and twisted movie, starring an all-puppet cast that screw, do drugs, shoot each other, and generally commit incredibly hilarious mayhem. Hell hath no fury like a hippo with a machine gun.
4. Pink Flamingos- John Waters' ultimate film. And yes, Divine really does eat a dog turd at the end.
5. Brazil- Hey, that makes two Terry Gilliam movies this week! Maybe I should have a film festival this weekend...
6. Meet the Hollowheads- I had a feeling no one would get this one. Hell, I think I'm probably the only person that's seen this movie. You can get some good information on the flick here at The Unknown Movies. It's a Brazil-ish, bizarre alternate-universe sitcom parody black comedy, starring John Glover, a very young Juliette Lewis, and Richard Portnow of The Sopranos (pictured above). It's your standard sitcom plot, Henry Hollowhead's boss is coming home to dinner, and he's hoping to get the promotion he's been expecting for over a decade. Needless to say, things go horribly wrong, and it gets worse from there. People seem to either love or hate this movie; I love it... part of my obsession with it probably has to do with the tubes that pump all life's necessities into the homes in this retro, yet futuristic community. From what I understand, the standard studio meddling changed this movie from the original concept of this completely biomechanical society perched on the edge (the original title was Living on the Edge) of an enormous black void, to what the producers obviously hoped would drag in the Married with Children crowd. Ugh. If you're in the mood a colorful, bizarre, quirky film brain-melting like you've never experienced, I highly recommend it.
7. Konga- Not Little Shop of Horrors. Michael Gough (he played Alfred in the Burton Batman movies) chews huge amounts of scenery in this fun giant ape on the loose flick. Gough did several of these silly horror flicks in the early 60's (Horrors of the Black Museum is another), but he's obviously having so much fun that you can't help enjoying yourself. Just look out for his man-eating plants!
8. It: The Terror from Beyond Space- Rumored to be one of the inspirations for Alien, this basically boils down to a "monster loose in the house" movie set on a rocket ship. Lots of fun.
9. Gremlins 2- Hey, another John Glover flick! If you're going to rent this, make sure you get the DVD version so you can see the same "film break" that audiences saw in the theatres. The VHS version has a "special to home video" change in this classic scene that makes me want to punch whatever genius thought it up.
10. Shakes the Clown- "The Citizen Kane of Alcoholic Clown Movies." Featuring Tom Kinney, the voice of Spongebob Squarepants, as one of the scariest evil clowns ever on film. If the scene where the clowns beat up the mimes doesn't warm your black little heart, you're dead to me.
Thank you all for playing... see you next week, same crap time, same crap channel!
more on the scary that is Harry
A couple days ago I wrote about the Georgia woman who is trying to ban the Potter series from the public school libraries because, well, she's a dumbass. Yesterday was the public meeting regarding the issue.
“I want to protect children from evil, not fill their minds with it,” Mallory said. “The ‘Harry Potter’ books teach children and adults that witchcraft is OK for children.”
[...]
At Thursday’s hearing, Mallory spoke against the books along with four other parents and students. One of them was Stacy Thomas, a mother of five, who said reading the “Harry Potter” series made her daughter turn to witchcraft, ultimately causing their Christian family to lose friends, finances and their reputation. Her daughter, Jordan Fusch, 15, testified that she began experimenting with tarot cards, curses and seances after reading the books.
“As a former witch, I can tell you that witchcraft is not fantasy. ... I felt I could not escape the clutches of witchcraft,” Fusch said. “It has taken several years of counseling to get to where I was before witchcraft and reading ‘Harry Potter’ books.”
Wait, stop the crazy train right here. What?! This girl is fifteen and it took "several years of counseling" to "escape the clutches of witchcraft"? What the hell? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess, given the statments, that she read the books when she was, oh, eleven and thought they were neat. Parents freaked out when they lost "friends, finances and their reputation" (side note: finances, wtf?). Sent girl to a therapy not unlike the so-called "reparative therapy" fundie parents send their gay kids to. Just a guess.
Next up is a parent who smacked these people around:
A mother of three, Laura Bowen, whose entire family had read and enjoyed the books, said most students are able to distinguish that the content of the books is not factual.
“A child who is unable to recognize the difference between fantasy and reality is either too young or too immature to read them, or has issues bigger than removing the ‘Harry Potter’ books is going to solve,” Bowen said.
*SNAP!*
Then came testimony from a reading specialist who testified on how she has seen the series make interested readers out of otherwise literary-apathetic kids and also from the school system’s director of media and information services who stated she received over 250 letters of support for the books.
Then, just when you think things are going well and the IQ level was starting to rise, this person decided to speak:
Gaye Bruce, a parent volunteer at Alton C. Crews Middle School, said she wanted to see the books removed even if they inspired children to read.
“I could counter that argument by saying any topic like ‘How to be a terrific terrorist’ or ‘Car Bombing 101’ could be used to entice children to read,” Bruce said.
Yes, that's right. Terrorism! The perfect catch-all for getting rid of anything you don't like. How much money do you want to bet someone is going to use this exact argument to try and remove books like King and King?
The article noted that some of the high school kids rock--they sat silently in the back and wore t-shirts that said: “Censorship Destroys Education" (which someone should market because I would buy that shirt).
The board members received copies of the books and of the arguments from both sides. They have ten days to decide on the books and will probably do so at the next meeting on May 11th.
