Army signs up autistic teen

This story is really pissing me off.

Diagnosed with autism at age 3, Jared is polite but won't talk to people unless they address him first. It's hard for him to make friends. He lives in his own private world.

Jared didn't know there was a war raging in Iraq until his parents told him last fall -- shortly after a military recruiter stopped him outside a Southeast Portland strip mall and complimented him on his black Converse All Stars.

"When Jared first started talking about joining the Army, I thought, 'Well, that isn't going to happen,' " said Paul Guinther, Jared's father. "I told my wife not to worry about it. They're not going to take anybody in the service who's autistic."

But they did. Last month, Jared came home with papers showing that he not only had enlisted, but also had signed up for the Army's most dangerous job: cavalry scout. He is scheduled to leave for basic training Aug. 16.

Officials are now investigating whether recruiters at the U.S. Army Recruiting Station in Southeast Portland improperly concealed Jared's disability, which should have made him ineligible for service.

…Last fall, Jared began talking about joining the military after a recruiter stopped him on his way home from school and offered a $4,000 signing bonus, $67,000 for college and more buddies than he could count.

…After learning that Jared had cleared this first hurdle toward enlistment, Brenda said, she called and asked for Ansley's supervisor and got Sgt. Alejandro Velasco.

She said she begged Velasco to review Jared's medical and school records. Brenda said Velasco declined, asserting that he didn't need any paperwork. Under military rules, recruiters are required to gather all available information about a recruit and fill out a medical screening form.

"He was real cocky and he says, 'Well, Jared's an 18-year-old man. He doesn't need his mommy to make his decisions for him.' "

…When they asked Jared how long he would be in the Army, he said he didn't know. His enlistment papers show it's just over four years. Jared also was disappointed to learn that he wouldn't be paid the $4,000 signing bonus until after basic training.

During a recent family gathering, a relative asked Jared what he would do if an enemy was shooting at him. Jared ran to his video game console and killed a digital Xbox soldier and announced, "See! I can do it!"
Now, I happen to be close to a young man with autism, who I believe, based on this article, may be higher functioning than Jared, but he, too, would be easily persuaded by someone who preyed on him with the promise of money and “more buddies than he could count,” especially if that money and those buddies also came with the irresistible lure of proving that he could succeed at something not everyone chooses to do, to which not everyone is suited. I can imagine that his idea of soldiers is that they are tough guys, important guys, and that a military recruiter who wanted to sign him up was not a desperate man eager to fill a quota, but someone who personally chose him because he saw in him the unique mettle it takes to be a good soldier. It might be extremely difficult to convince him that he wasn’t chosen because he looked like a great candidate, but because he was vulnerable. Even if he came to understand it, it would hurt him deeply.

No good can come of this for Jared. If his parents aren’t successful in having his enlistment overturned, he will be sent to Iraq on a dangerous tour of duty for which he is wholly unprepared. If they are successful, he may never quite understand why they withheld the opportunity from him, since his video game acuity proves, to him, that he can “do it.”

Cpl. Ansley, the recruiting officer, has shown up at the Guinthers’ house, telling them “he would probably lose his job and face dishonorable discharge unless they could stop the newspaper's story.” He certainly deserves no less for exploiting Jared and who knows how many others like him.

The hat tip goes to Fixer, who notes: “If our recruiters are this desperate (not taking anything away from Jared, who seems to be a good young man), there is something seriously wrong with the military. We have to get these idiots out before it becomes FUBAR.” It’s a good point. I’m so angry about Jared being manipulated, I’ve barely stopped to think what it means that our military is willing to put a kid who “was scared to death of the toilet flushing, the lawn mower” on the front lines. Good lord.

Open Wide...

Bush has nominated Hayden to replace Goss.

What a surprise. More on Hayden here. If you’re too lazy to click through, all you need to know is that he wipes his ass with the Constitution, which is, of course, his preeminent qualification, and that he was head of the NSA while they were wiretapping your Aunt Marge.

Open Wide...

Breaking News: “Pro-Life” really means “Anti-Sex”

You don’t say:

Many Christians who are active in the evolving anti-birth-control arena state frankly that what links their efforts is a religious commitment to altering the moral landscape of the country. In particular, and not to put too fine a point on it, they want to change the way Americans have sex. Dr. Stanford, the F.D.A. adviser on reproductive-health drugs, proclaimed himself "fully committed to promoting an understanding of human sexuality and procreation radically at odds with the prevailing views and practices of our contemporary culture." Focus on the Family posts a kind of contraceptive warning label on its Web site: "Modern contraceptive inventions have given many an exaggerated sense of safety and prompted more people than ever before to move sexual expression outside the marriage boundary." Contraception, by this logic, encourages sexual promiscuity, sexual deviance (like homosexuality) and a preoccupation with sex that is unhealthful even within marriage.

It may be news to many people that contraception as a matter of right and public health is no longer a given, but politicians and those in the public health profession know it well. "The linking of abortion and contraception is indicative of a larger agenda, which is putting sex back into the box, as something that happens only within marriage," says William Smith, vice president for public policy for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. Siecus has been around since 1964, and as a group that supports abortion rights, it is natural enemies with many organizations on the right, but its mission has changed in recent years, from doing things like promoting condoms as a way to combat AIDS to, now, fighting to maintain the very idea of birth control as a social good. "Whether it's emergency contraception, sex education or abortion, anything that might be seen as facilitating sex outside a marital context is what they'd like to see obliterated," Smith says.
No shit. And very specifically, sex—even within a marital context—that is exclusively for pleasure and not for childbearing. It’s that very rigid definition of acceptable sex from whence springs their incessant screeching about homosexuality being “deviant,” in spite of the fact that a healthy attitude about sexuality between consenting adults would regard same-sex attraction as legitimate a desire as a penchant for redheads. But no babies can be made! The horror! When was the last time you heard any of these retrofucks show any concern about the truly deviant sexuality of rapists? The only time they even mention the word “rape” is when they’re saying it shouldn’t be an exception to abortion bans. And that tells you everything about the “pro-life” crew that you need to know: They find rape more acceptable and less worthy of prevention measures than homosexuality because at least it could produce a baby.

The abovementioned Focus on the Family has a massive website, and when “rape prevention” is put in as a search term, the most relevant result (buried after a bunch of unrelated drug prevention crap) is an article about how abortion doesn’t make the pain of rape go away. When “homosexuality prevention” is put in, however, the results provide a plethora of information about how homosexuality is “preventable and treatable,” links to conversion conferences like Love Won Out, how to help children who struggle with “homosexual feelings,” etc.

These are the priorities of the “pro-life” movement, plain and simple. They have dedicated millions of dollars, and seemingly limitless time and effort, to eradicating the scourge of homosexuality, but provide nary a word on rape prevention. To them, a man who has consenting sex with another man is an atrocity deserving of endless resources, but a man who forces himself on a woman isn’t worthy of mention.

They can claim from here to eternity that their primary interest is “a religious commitment to altering the moral landscape of the country” (which, from my perspective, they’re doing, since I consider prioritizing babymaking sex over AIDS prevention, for example, a decidedly amoral position radically diverging from the moral landscape currently hanging on by a thread), but what this is really about is the subjugation of women, who by any measure will have less freedom and opportunity if control over their own reproduction is taken away from them. (That’s not to minimize the additional strain on men who would also become fathers against their will, but fathering 7 kids doesn’t have quite the same affect career-wise, for instance, as carrying and bearing them does.) While little girls are being targeted with purity balls by Focus on the Family, to try to indoctrinate against extra-marital sex early, a search on prostitution—to which, historically, men turned to get their jollies when “nice girls” were locked up in chastity belts and wives who didn’t want to get pregnant again simply refused sex—just turns up yet more information on homosexuality. Though prostitution flourishes in sex-restricted cultures that don’t provide women with reproductive choices, the pro-lifers don’t seem to care much about preventing it even as they try to lock down women again.

Their “morality” is one in which boys will be boys, girls will be virginal until marriage, at which time they will submit to becoming babymaking machines, and rapists are more tolerable than gays. I’m sure that’s precisely what Jesus had in mind.

Open Wide...

Bush’s Second German Interview

In addition to the Bild am Sonntag interview mentioned below, Bush also granted one other interview while in Germany—a televised sit-down with Germany's most popular political talk-show host, Sabine Christiansen. Der Spiegel has a transcript (which is curiously noted as “the White House transcript of an English-language interview broadcast on the Sabine Christiansen show on Sunday evening.”) Unsurprisingly, Bush comes off as a total jackass.

CHRISTIANSEN: …And as I heard, you're going to visit for the first time the former GDR. Are you looking forward to that?

BUSH: Yes, I am. It was very kind of Chancellor Merkel -- who I call Angela, by the way -- to invite me to her residence. It's a gesture of friendship that I appreciate. And Laura and I are looking forward to it. And it will give me a chance to continue our dialogue on important issues…
Who gives a shit that he calls her Angela? What a knob-end.

CHRISTIANSEN: …Chancellor Merkel told me that you've shown a lot of interest in her life, in her former life in the former GDR. What was the point of interest for you?

BUSH: Well, last night we were sitting around in the private dining room upstairs here, and I thought it would be interesting for her to describe what it was like to grow up in a communist world. Laura and I certainly don't know what that's like, nor did Condi Rice or Steve Hadley, the members of my team. And I thought it would be good for all of us to hear what it was like.

It was very interesting. She talked about -- you know, her dad was a pastor and she talked about the different pioneer clubs and the schools. It also gave me a chance to get a glimpse into her soul…
“We were sitting around in the private dining room…” Who says shit like that?! Ooh, you got to go into the private dining room?! Wow—who would have thought that the most famous man in the world would be allowed into the private dining room? Quite a coup, that.

And again with the looking into someone’s soul horseshit. Man, he’s an idiot.

CHRISTIANSEN: That sounds more like a real transatlantic friendship than a partnership -- well, with difficulties we had before.

BUSH: Well, listen, first of all, I had a good relationship with Chancellor Schröder. The problem was, of course, that there was a disagreement over a very difficult decision I had to make, and that was Iraq.

…And I like to remind people that September the 11th for us was a change in our history, and it certainly changed the way I thought. And for others, it was just a moment in passing. So there was a disagreement.
Fucking hell! First of all, no shit you like to remind people that “9/11 changed everything.” Secondly, what a mendacious bastard to suggest that Schröder was indifferent to 9/11. And finally, I can’t believe he’s still trying to sell the same snake oil that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq! Unbelievable!

Honestly, there’ s so much crap in this interview, it’s hard to even boil it down. But here’s one last little snippet:

CHRISTIANSEN: Let me ask one more question to that climate topic. After Katrina, and after a lot of new evidence of rapid climate change, are you now convinced that this is really a serious problem?

BUSH: No, I've always said greenhouse gasses are a problem. There is an argument there as to whether or not they're naturally made or man-made. And my attitude is, let's just get beyond that argument and do something about it. I believe that we need more nuclear power. If you're really interested in solving greenhouse gas problems, nuclear power is one of the great renewable sources of energy. I know it's controversial.
He knows nuclear power is controversial, but doesn’t “know” that the “argument…as to whether or not [greenhouse gasses] are naturally made or man-made” is one of the most useful talking points of the energy industry. You’d think living his life snugly in their pocket, he might have overheard them at some point discussing their plan to fund efforts to actively “[raise] questions about and [undercut] the prevailing scientific wisdom” on global warming.

And, not to get all “logical” on Mr. Faith-Based Beliefs or anything, but how the fuck do we “do something about” greenhouse gasses if we don’t identify their primary source? If it’s we who are producing them, then nuclear power, which produces fewer CO2 emissions, might “help,” although it certainly has its own problems. If the gasses are “naturally made,” then how in the name of all that’s holy does a switch to nuclear power make a damn bit of difference, except to these folks?

Honestly, he is an embarrassment. For more fun, check out the whole thing, and see what he’s “explained…to people in our country” about Iran.

Open Wide...

Fish heads fish heads roly poly fish heads…

Fish heads fish heads eat them up yum!

The BBC’s got more on Bush’s interview with the German paper Bild am Sonntag about which Litbrit posted yesterday, in which Bush noted that the high point of his presidency was catching a perch in his lake. (That would be the 11-acre, 17-foot-deep manmade lake on his property that he stocked with fish himself; hat tip Digby.) Anyway, the BBC also notes that Bush said of his “worst moment,” the 9/11 attacks:

"In such a situation it takes a while before one understands what is happening. I would say that this was the hardest moment, once I had the real picture before my eyes."
Insert your own “My Pet Goat” joke here. (Am I the only one who recollected, upon reading that, how not difficult it was to comprehend what was happening that morning? I was then working in a high-rise on Chicago’s Mag Mile, smack dab between the Hancock Building and the Sears Tower, and I didn’t sit around like a dumb fuck incapable of grasping the severity of the situation. Like, I imagine, people all over the country, I started sorting out a response, and called the office of the building to see if they had any information, located flashlights in case we had to make an emergency evacuation, and confirmed with the CTA that public transportation would continue to run so that when we were, inevitably, evacuated, people knew they had a way to get home. I imagine this took me less than 7 minutes. Ahem.)

Anyway, Bush also had a few thoughts on the World Cup.

Mr Bush was asked about the World Cup being hosted by Germany and admitted that when he was young, soccer "simply did not exist" where he was brought up.

But he added: "There is a new generation of Americans who have grown up with soccer.

"For them, the World Cup is of great interest and it's the most important sporting event in the world. And some of us, the old guys, are beginning to understand how important the World Cup is for the entire world."
Let’s just skip right over the arrogance of “the leader of the free world” admitting he’s finally coming around to the notion that the biggest event for the most popular sport in the word is important. Instead, I’d like to examine Bush’s claim that soccer didn’t “exist” where he was brought up.

Bush was “brought up” (in part) at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, which has a champion boys’ soccer team and one of the best soccer facilities in New England. I’m not sure what year the program started, but I know it was in existence during Bush’s tenure at the elite boarding school, because this press release about a $1 million donation to renovate the soccer field notes that the two sons of the man who bequeathed the gift played on Phillips’ team.

Smoyer, a resident of Princeton, N.J., made the commitment in honor of his sons David ’59 of Jamaica Plain, Mass., and Bill ’63, who was killed in action in Vietnam in 1968. Both played varsity soccer for each of their three years at Andover…
Bush graduated from Phillips in 1964—after both Smoyer boys. Perhaps he was simply unaware of the existence of soccer in the same way he was unaware of how strings were pulled on his behalf to avoid service in Vietnam, but a more likely scenario is that he’s just incapable of not lying about everything. In spite of even some dumb schlub in Podunk, Indiana (that’d be me) being able to look up his bio and his school’s athletic program thanks to the internets, thereby easily disproving his claim that “soccer ‘simply did not exist’ where he was brought up,” he’s so stubbornly determined to pretend he’s just a good ol’ boy from Texas that he’ll spout all manner of bullshit to reinforce that ridiculous image. What an unbelievable wanker.

Finally, he had some generalizations to make about Germany (and Germans) that I’m sure they’ll appreciate:

"The Germans today simply don't like war... And I can understand that. There is a generation of people whose lives were thrown into complete disarray by a horrible war."
Argh. You know, not too put too fine a point on it, but there have been several generations of Americans whose lives were thrown into complete disarray by horrible wars, too—including his generation. He may have skated merrily through the Vietnam war untouched by its horrors, but not every man of his age was so fortunate. (He could stand to learn about this, as well as the existence of soccer, from the Smoyer family.) And the grossest thing about his comment is the recognition that there are people in Germany who have learned the lessons of horrible wars, while tacitly conceding there are Americans—chief among them himself—who haven’t.

Arrogant, mendacious, ignorant. A slip of a man who doesn’t deserve to be employed as a Wal-Mart greeter, yet he’s running the fucking country. And the best part of his time at the helm has been catching a fish. Awesome.

Open Wide...

“Bush Moves Might Be Too Little, Too Late”

So says GOP pollster Lance Tarrance:

The recent White House shake-up was an attempt to jump-start the administration and boost President Bush's rock-bottom approval ratings, but have those efforts come too late to salvage the presidency? A prominent GOP pollster thinks that may be the case.

"This administration may be over," Lance Tarrance, a chief architect of the Republicans' 1960s and '70s Southern strategy, told a gathering of journalists and political wonks last week. "By and large, if you want to be tough about it, the relevancy of this administration on policy may be over."
Gee, ya think? Who would have guessed that picking a couple of dung beetles off a steaming pile of shit doesn’t suddenly make it smell like roses.

Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald takes on conservative efforts to attribute Bush’s complete and total failure to his being a liberal, which is the new attempt to turn movement conservatism into a phoenix rising from the ashes of its fiery crash-and-burn, after tagging Bush as a right-wing ideologue failed to catch on.

(Crossposted at Ezra’s place.)

Open Wide...

I wonder if it would have been possible to get this more wrong.

Eugene Volokh, law professor and author of conservative blog The Volokh Conspiracy, offers up a post on Involuntary Sexual Arousal and Touching, and comes to the following conclusion: Because we criminalize the touching of a woman’s breasts or genitals without permission, but don’t criminalize someone for patting you on the back or touching your arm in conversation even if it’s unwanted, it must be because of “something interesting and possibly important in play here: Some conduct that involuntarily sexually arouses another (or seriously risks doing so) may be improper, even if similar conduct in which involuntary sexual arousal is absent is generally fine.”

Got that? The reason it’s wrong to touch a woman’s breast or genitals against her will, as opposed to her shoulder, is because it might sexually arouse her.

Say that someone intentionally taps you on the shoulder to get your attention, or intentionally pats you on the back to compliment you, or even touches your arm in conversation or hugs you when parting. You might be slightly put off, at least under some circumstances, but the law would (and, I think, should) consider this to be well within the boundaries of permissible behavior. Not all unwanted touchings are batteries.

Say, on the other hand, that someone intentionally touches your genitals, or intentionally caresses your breasts (if you're a woman). In many circumstances, this would be considered a crime. Why the difference? I think that here too there is a connection with sexual arousal -- either the possibility that you might be involuntarily sexually aroused, or the likelihood that the other person is deriving some sort of sexual arousal from touching you.
Um, yeah. That last part—that the person doing the unwanted touching is getting off on it?—that’s kind of the whole issue. And is isn’t about the sexual arousal, per se, as much as it is that they have turned a woman’s body into community property to be used for their own gratification. Picarism, which is the compulsion to stick other people with sharp objects (like pins or needles) for sexual satisfaction, isn’t considered criminal because the picarist gets off on his behavior; it’s because it is an abuse of another person’s body for the pleasure. There have been cases of serial rapists who cannot penetrate their victims with their own genitals, because they are impotent in the presence of another person, therefore using instead an object to do the deed; is it not rape if neither victim nor rapist is sexually aroused? Historically, arguments were made in rape cases that any evidence of the victim’s sexual arousal could be construed as consent. Sex abuse has nothing to do with sexual arousal of the victim and everything to do with the uninvited invasion of another human’s private parts.

When I use a term like “private parts,” everyone knows to which parts precisely I am referring, and there’s a reason for that. It’s because no one imbues breasts and forearms or genitals and shoulders with the same cultural meaning in terms of privacy. Bathing suits cover particular areas specifically because of our cultural regard for those areas. For the same reason, if some guy pulled off my baseball cap on the subway, it wouldn’t mean the same thing as if he pulled off a Muslim woman’s head scarf. It’s utterly disingenuous to pretend for the sake of an idiotic argument that all body parts, and every cultural understanding of all body parts, are intrinsically the same—except as whether their being touched has the capacity to arouse someone.

And, as an aside, Volokh conveniently leaves out of his argument the reality that having someone to whom one is attracted, and to whom one has given consent to be touched, the stroking of an arm or shoulder can also be sexually arousing. If some stranger brushes up against my arm in a store, my knees don’t go weak. If Mr. Shakes is sitting beside me on the couch and lets his fingertips drift slowly up and down my arm, it gives me goosebumps, and it’s only a matter of time before I drag him off for a good rogering. The truth is, just about any body part being touched has the capacity to elicit sexual arousal given the right set of circumstances, so right from the start, his argument that likelihood of arousal is the fundamental distinction between criminal and non-criminal touching is utter bunk.

But let’s go back to bathing suits for a moment.

I suspect nearly everyone is familiar with the method of conveying to children what is appropriate and inappropriate touching by using the example of a bathing suit. No one should ever touch you on the places covered by your bathing suit. For boys, that’s a signal that a stranger who tries to touch their genitals or buttocks is doing something wrong. For girls, it’s the genitals, buttocks, and breasts. Is Volokh seriously arguing that the reason we impart this information to children is because we’re worried about the children becoming sexually aroused? Or even just because we’re worried about the pedophile becoming sexually aroused? I suspect not. I suspect he would recognize that there are other issues at play here aside from just sexual arousal—issues about bodily autonomy, trust, safety, emotional health, appropriateness. Which means, then, he’s attempting to make the argument that sometime after puberty, women lose their right to not have the same body parts invaded on those principles; instead, we criminalize this behavior against adults only because of the possibility of sexual arousal.

The argument is a real heaping pile of horseshit, but it has a familiar ring to it, no? Something was niggling at me; I’d heard it somewhere before. When I considered writing a bit asking whether Volokh’s main concern, if a stranger grabbed his crotch, would be the possibility of his own arousal, it hit me. This is the fear of homophobes—that if a gay man makes an unwanted sexual advance, they will become “involuntarily” aroused.

I’m not making any thinly veiled accusations against Volokh’s sexual predilections. Honestly, I don’t even know what they are, and a cursory search of his site to see what he’s written on gay issues didn’t seem to reveal him to be some kind of rabid homophobe (although not stunningly gay-friendly, either). I’m just pointing out that we’ve seen shades of this very argument made before. It was dumb then, and it’s dumb now.

(More from Belle Waring and Ann Bartow.)

Open Wide...

Hayden to Replace Goss

That’s the word, anyway. Bush is likely to announce Michael Hayden as Goss’ CIA successor on Monday. Out of the frying pan; into the fire.

It was Hayden who appeared in the White House briefing room in December to defend a highly classified National Security Agency program that includes interception of domestic phone calls and e-mail messages without warrants if one of the parties has known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Hayden said at the National Press Club in January: "It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about. This is targeted and focused."
Of course he defended it—since he was the NSA director under whose authority it was implemented. And like the rest of the administration, he has nothing but contempt for the law, offering up this defense for skirting the FISA court and official oversight of the wiretapping program:

According to [Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was NSA director when the surveillance began and now serves as Bush's deputy director of national intelligence], most warrantless surveillance conducted under Bush's authorization lasts just days or weeks, and requires only the approval of a shift supervisor. Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."
Hayden was one of the key purveyors of the “agility” defense, repeatedly and stubbornly ignoring the existence of the 72-hour grace period during which retroactive approval for wiretapping can be secured without breaking the law.

Hayden is close to both Cheney and Negroponte, who is Hayden’s current boss and whose problems with Goss have been cited as a possible reason for his sudden “resignation.” Hayden is just another scummy partisan hack who will dutifully serve to turn the CIA into a branch of the White House, eradicating all those pesky problems like independent thought and whistleblowers.

Hayden’s got to go through confirmation hearings before he gets the position. Let’s hope the Dems kick it up a notch and nail this guy’s ass to the wall. The last person we need running the CIA is someone who has no respect for the civil liberties of Americans or the Constitution in which such rights are guaranteed.

Open Wide...

Happy Birthday, Spudsy!!!

Happy birthday to you!
Happy birthday to you!
You look like a liberal traitor,
And you smell like one, too!



(I was doing an image search for “Happy Birthday Paul,” just to see what I’d find, and found that picture. It was so adorable, I had to post it!)

Paul and I met in person for the first time last year on my birthday, a meeting that was a decade in the making. We were first in the same room when I went to see a play that he was in, back when I was still in college. I saw it a bunch of times, because it was a fun thing to do with out-of-town visitors—funny, cheap, and heavily dependent on improv, so repeat viewings didn’t feel repetitive. The insane Dr. Finger was always my favorite character, mainly because of the madman who played him with gusto.

What were the odds that madman would turn up in my comments thread one day ten years later?

Life is funny.

I’ll see you tonight, gorgeous. Happy birthday.

Open Wide...

Poll: People dislike spending (more) money.

There’s no better way to start the weekend than with a little swooning at the obvious, and Yahoo.com is more then willing to assist on this fine Saturday; according to a recent poll, “Gasoline prices weigh on Americans.”

Americans are driving less, trimming vacations and cutting back on heating and air conditioning, according to an AP-Ipsos poll taken as gasoline prices in many areas have topped $3 a gallon.
Apparently, having to blow 40 bucks at the pump every time you want to drive to the beach house is putting a crimp in some folks’ style. The article makes a point of mentioning than it’s middle and upper class families that are feeling the “financial pinch”; I suppose those are the ones most likely to own the big gas guzzlers, although even in my low income bracket, it’s still running me over thirty bucks to fill-up.

Regardless, while the two car households across the country are trying to refine (heh) their lives, nobody’s doing anything completely crazy like looking for a more gas efficient vehicle. At least, not anytime soon:

But the price spike hasn't influenced people's views on buying more fuel-efficient cars.

A year ago, four in 10 said they were considering getting a car with better mileage — the same number who say that now, according to the AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults taken Monday through Wednesday. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Auto industry watcher Erich Merkle said gas prices would have to top $4 a gallon in the next six to nine months to significantly affect sales of SUVs and light trucks.
Huzzah! I sometimes wonder what the tipping point is for the average American- how much personal inconvenience (or moral horror) is necessary before someone will make a significant change in their own lives, or start taking action against the predominant status quo. Some combination has finally forced the ostriches of the country to wake up about Bush, and it would be nice to remember the exact pieces, in case we ever need it again.

Open Wide...

Ethan, I've activated the bomb in your head.


Ostensibly, Mission Impossible III is the story of Tom Cruise (they keep calling him “Ethan Hunt,” but I’m not buying) and how he struggles to reconcile his knack for action packed adventure with his love for his fiancée Julia (Michelle Monaghan), who is a doctor type person, and is very adorable and innocent and has no idea what Tom did- and occasionally still does- for a living. It’s an old idea but not automatically a terrible one; once it’s been established that an action hero can do just about anything, you have to find some other aspect of their lives to target so that the audience believes they are actually threatened, and a love interest who has no idea what’s going on, and who represents the hero’s hope for a better future, makes a great target.

But this is a Tom Cruise movie, and at this point, it’s hard not to watch him on screen without coming up with your own subtext. Something about how Tom is a top level member of a secret organization which is responsible for keeping the world safe, and in order for anyone to get truly close to him, they have to accept this and even, in some small way, take part in that organization. An organization that you can’t ever get free from, no matter how hard you try; the only real exit is in a body bag.

Fortunately, Tom didn’t write the script, although I’m sure he had some say in what was used; so the end result, while it won’t blow anyone’s mind, and it certainly won’t change your attitude towards action thrillers, is a moderately intelligent screenplay that manages to keep its minor secrets safe as long as needed. This is director J.J. Abrams (creator of “Alias” and “Lost”) first time on the big screen, and he does a fine job, and the cast, for the most part, are great fun. Not surprisingly, Hoffman makes a terrific villain, convincingly threatening without ever resorting to campy theatrics. His few scenes are probably the best in the film, especially the opening, and I found myself wishing he had more screen time than the ostensible hero.

And that’s your biggest problem right there. Even if you can manage to get past his off-screen mania (and that’s not the easiest thing to do), the fact remains that Tom Cruise is less an actor than a persona, and that persona is getting more tired with each passing year. As a performer, he’s like a con-man whose cons succeed not because he’s particularly convincing, but because the glimpses of vulnerability we see behind his grins are enough to convince us to buy in; unfortunately, those glimpses are getting more and more obviously staged, and that vulnerability is turning out to be less like honesty and more like a desperate attempt to placate an audience he is increasingly unable to connect with.

He’s not utterly wretched, but… Well, at two points in the film, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Michelle Monaghan take center stage, and both times, the actors are so much more interesting and likeable than Cruise is that it’s almost like you’re watching a whole different movie. (Hoffman actually manages to make a better Cruise than Cruise.) At this point in his career, the man is simply a name that sells tickets; and if he doesn’t change his act soon, even that won’t be true for much longer.

See it if you like action thrillers, and if you can stomach His Heterosexualness. Those who can’t, just rent The Bourne Identity again.

P.S. I gotta mention- Maggie Q is in this, and the dress she wears to the Vatican? More than made up for the cost of the movie ticket. (Plus, she’s really, really cool.)

Open Wide...

Did you see Jesus today?

You might have if you live around Tracy, CA. Jesus was set free to float above the town:

Free...as a bird


A Jesus balloon was seen cruising the sky in Tracy, located near San Francisco.

[...]

Noah, too, could be seen flying in the sky. He was escaping the floods with his animals.

The balloons were flown to promote the National Day of Prayer.


The National Day of Prayer has a task force. I did not realize that. Did you know that tomorrow is "Ten Commandments Day"? Yep (and, hooo boy, is that link...interesting).

So, anyway, support "national prayer" with enormous balloon Jesus heads and all that. Yeah.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What’s your favorite comfort food?

Hands down, mine is mashed potatoes. Which, as it happens, is currently cooking on my stove, as part of one of Mr. Shakes’ favorite Scottish meals—mince and tatties. Otherwise known as ground beef with onions and mushrooms, spiced with Worcestershire, pepper, and nutmeg, dished over mashed potatoes, served up with a pint. He’ll be as happy as a pig in shit—always my goal with Friday dinner, a savory little reminder of his home, whether it’s mince and tatties or fish and chips with beans and ketchup.

One day I really will do a haggis…but not tonight.

Open Wide...

yummy

The other night my husband went to his monthly Professional Geek Meeting after work, so it was just me and the kids for dinner. I thought I'd make them a "kid meal" and make myself something else (re: spicy hot) later. I made 'em honey-battered corn dog bites, tater tots, and a mini fruit salad of apples, bananas, and pears. My six year old and three year old were thrilled. My almost two year old....notsomuch. He looked at his plate, picked it up, and sniffed it disdainfully. He started to say something but got caught up while searching for the word he was looking for. "C--C--C--". Then he put the plate down and declared:

"Crap."


Not "crap, I forgot something" but "woman! how dare you offend my palate with such crap".

This from the same kid who once ate an ant. I told him it could be worse. He could have been drinking rum from a barrel, thinking it was uniquely flavored, only to find a dead man in the bottom:

BUDAPEST (Reuters) - Hungarian builders who drank their way to the bottom of a huge barrel of rum while renovating a house got a nasty surprise when a pickled corpse tumbled out of the empty barrel, a police magazine website reported.

[...]

[T]he body of the man had been shipped back from Jamaica 20 years ago by his wife in the barrel of rum in order to avoid the cost and paperwork of an official return.

According to the website, workers said the rum in the 300-liter barrel had a "special taste" so they even decanted a few bottles of the liquor to take home.


I wonder what kind of "special taste" dead men add to rum? Yech.

And, FTR, I didn't say that to Dublin. I laughed--I couldn't help it. He did eat his dinner, after a few more minutes of staring at it, as if staring at it long enough would make it morph into something more exotic for his taste.

Open Wide...

USA! USA!

Way to go, Security President:

The official team bus to be used by the United States during the World Cup will not bear a flag for security reasons.

The 32 official buses were presented Thursday in Frankfurt and the other 31 buses have large national flags of the their teams painted on rear sides.

German and U.S. security officials came to the conclusion to leave the flag off the U.S. team bus, an official of the German organizing committee said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the topic.

The bus is predominantly blue in color.
Coincidentally, so is most of the country these days. And this is exactly why.

Open Wide...

Caption This Photo


U.S. President George W. Bush walks around
Fragers Hardware store in Southeast Washington
May 5, 2006. Bush used his visit to the 86-year-old
store to speak on new job figures released on Friday,
and the economy. REUTERS/Jason Reed

Open Wide...

Line in the Sand

From the You’ve Got to Love Anything That Contains the Line “Thus, Bush's eavesdropping on suspicious-looking Arab-American citizens and members of P.E.T.A. cannot be justified under any half-cocked bullshit about executive power” Files.

Go here.

Forwarded to me by my girlfriend (and ever-lurking Shaker) Miller.

Open Wide...

Wev

Democrat Patrick Kennedy to enter rehab. I haven’t posted on this, because I just can’t muster the energy to care too much.

In the interest of fairness and balance, I also haven’t posted on: Republican Bob Ney using campaign funds to pay lawyers more than $200,000, Republican Senator Conrad Burns doing the same, or Republican Curt Weldon using $80,000 of campaign funds to pay for meals—“His dining choices range from high-end establishments like The Monocle, a Capitol Hill restaurant popular with lawmakers and lobbyists, to the humble Cracker Barrel.” And some other illegal stuff various Republicans have been doing.

Open Wide...

It’s Official: Tom Cruise Not Gay

WARNING: This video comes via The Superficial, who note: “As part of his Mission: Impossible 3 publicity tour, Tom Cruise made an appearance on BET's 106 and Park and was encouraged to dance on stage. Nothing I say can prepare your mind for what you're about to witness. Just make sure to brace yourself, because the awesomeness of this clip has been known to physically knock people off their [feet].” (Thanks, Angelos. Sorry, NightShift.)

Open Wide...

Goss Has Resigned as CIA Chief

Na-na-na-na, na-na-na-na, hey hey hey, goodbye.

UPDATE: “Bush said that Goos [sic] has "helped make this country a safer place and helped win the war on terrorism." So, for those keeping score: “Goos” gone; reality still AWOL.

Open Wide...