Shakesville

Army dismisses Arabic linguist for being gay

Don’t you feel safer knowing that a decorated sergeant and highly specialized Arabic translator has been dismissed from the Army so he won’t undermine our national security with his dirty homosexual deviance? I know I do. I’m going to sleep much better tonight knowing that one of the key positions for which the military was already recruiting on Craigslist, in an attempt to address the glaring need for people just like Sergeant Bleu Copas, has been vacated to save us from this dastardly gay.

An eight-month Army investigation culminated in Copas' honorable discharge on Jan. 30 — less than four years after he enlisted, he said, out of a post-Sept. 11 sense of duty to his country.

What a sicko.

Copas is one of more than 11,000 service members who have been dismissed under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” 800 of whom had “critical abilities, including 300 with important language skills. Fifty-five were proficient in Arabic, including Copas, a graduate of the Defense Language Institute in California.” Sure, it’s cost about $370 million to discharge and replace them, which is a heck of a lot of money, but come on:

Lt. Col. James Zellmer, Copas' commanding officer in the 313th military intelligence battalion, told the AP that "the evidence clearly indicated that Sgt. Copas had engaged in homosexual acts."

Worth every penny, no?

And I’d like to commend the Army not only on its clear breach of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to smoke out this dangerous homosexual, but also of its keen understanding of the radical gay lifestyle.

On Dec. 2, investigators formally interviewed Copas and asked if he understood the military's policy on homosexuals, if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater.

Community theater. Good one. That’ll get those gay hooligans every time!

who's your (grand)daddy?

Ya think maybe ol' Norm was asking when he was busted for gettin' it on in a car? And when I say "ol'" I mean old: Norm is 81. His car was a-rockin' with his 38 year-old partner when the police came a-knockin'. Amusing twist? Norm is Norman Coleman, father of the junior senator (R) from MN, Norman Coleman Jr.

Norm Coleman Sr., the father of Minnesota's junior senator, was cited for lewd and disorderly conduct Tuesday after police officers reported finding him engaged in a sex act in a car near a pizzeria on E. 7th St. in St. Paul.

A police report said officers were called to Savoy Inn about 6:30 p.m to investigate a report that two people were having sex in a car. The police report stated a woman, Patrizia Marie Schrag, 38, also was cited for lewd and disorderly conduct.

Sad but unsurprising twist?

Sen. Coleman issued a statement after learning of the citation against his father.

"I love my father dearly," the senator said. "I do not condone his actions or behavior, and I am deeply disturbed by what I have learned. He clearly has some issues that need to be dealt with, and I will encourage him to seek the necessary help."

Oh for fuck's sake. He was "seeking the necessary help" here, dude. His "issues" are that he needed some physical companionship/enjoyment. Just because he's old--and he's your dad (a lot of people seem to have an aversion to thinking of their parents as sexual creatures)--doesn't mean he Has Issues because he was doin' it in a car. He has needs, as any human being. I've looked around a bit and I don't see any mention (print or picture) of Norm's mother; I assume she is no longer living. If she is deceased, how completely cold to call out his father like that, publicly demeaning him with sinister insinuations of "having issues" when he's just an old guy--a human guy with human desires. What a jackass.

Question of the Day

All right, it’s the obvious follow-up to yesterday’s question. Who’s your favorite SNL character of all time?

I loved loved loved Gilda Radner’s characters Emily Litella and Roseanne Roseannadanna, but my favorite is probably übernerd Lisa Looper, along with her nerdy boyfriend, Todd, played by Bill Murray. Oh my flying spaghetti monster, does that make me crumple with laughter.

Of the more modern characters, I’ve got to hand the prize to Chris Kattan’s Mr. Peepers. When he’d go after that apple and absolutely shred the thing, I would die.

Runners-up: John Belushi’s Olympia Café proprietor (“Cheeseborger cheeseborger!”), Martin Short’s Lawrence Orbach (“This is my dog, Derbingle. He depends on me for sustenance and I depend on him for companionship.”), Nora Dunn’s and Jan Hooks’ The Sweeney Sisters (“Here come the bells / So many bells!”), Mike Meyers’ Sprockets host Dieter (“I'm so full of anticipation that my genitals have sucked into my body cavity!”), Christopher Walken’s The Continental, Phil Hartman’s Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer (“Your world frightens and confuses me!”), Chris Farley’s motivational speaker Matt Foley (“In a van down by the river!”), Tim Meadows' Leon Phelps the Ladies’ Man, Molly Shannon’s Mary Katherine Gallagher, Tracy Morgan’s Brian Fellows (“That bird is crazy. I’m Brian Fellows!”).

Party On

White House Holds One-Year ‘Celebration’ of Energy Bill With Industry Reps

Party on, Lee Raymond! Party on, Wayne!

More War

This is worrisome for a whole slew of reasons, especially when considered alongside the article linked just below:

Surrounded by yellow Hezbollah flags, more than 60 Iranian volunteers set off Wednesday to join what they called a holy war against Israeli forces in Lebanon.

…"We are just the first wave of Islamic warriors from Iran," said Amir Jalilinejad, chairman of the Student Justice Movement, a nongovernment group that helped recruit the fighters. "More will come from here and other Muslim nations around the world. Hezbollah needs our help."

The volunteers are setting out with no weapons, but it’s unlikely they’ll remain unarmed for long if they reach Lebanon. Iran has said it will not send any forces, but does not appear to be making moves to stop the volunteers.

Iran: The Next War

Read. Discuss.

Or don’t. These are just recommendations.

Bush Bounce

35%

Caption This Photo

(Yes, that's a real picture of old Annie from her website. You can find it there if you so desire. Caption away, but let's stay away from tranny jokes, okay?)

And circling overhead, it's Al Sharpton

One should fight like the devil the impulse to think well of Al Sharpton.

The Rev engaged in a little parachute protest here in Gatewayville yesterday, dropping in to rail at electric utility Ameren over the pase or power restoration following last weeks storms. Posing in front of Ameren's HQ, Sharpton called for the utility to cut its rates, threatened future demonstrations if his demands weren't met, and accused Ameren of restoring power to white neighborhoods ahead of black neighborhoods (a claim not supported by the numbers, according to local CBS affiliate KMOV).

Then he got back into his presumably air-conditioned BMW and drove away.

This on a day when an Ameren employee was killed while working to restore power in one area, and a contractor was severely burned working in another neighborhood - a predominantly black neighborhood, incidentally.

I'll say this: Unless Sharpton shows up with a hard hat, a bucket truck, and a willingness to climb an electric pole, I don't want to hear a goddamned word out of him about power outages. Not one word.

(Cross-posted.)

The Mystery of David Kelly

Those of us who followed the Downing Street Memo story will remember the name David Kelly. Mr. Kelly was the British weapons inspector who reportedly killed himself after becoming a key figure in the dust-up over claims that Tony Blair’s team had “sexed up” the intelligence on Iraq WMDs. I say “reportedly,” because there is increasing evidence that Mr. Kelly didn’t kill himself at all.

It may sound like tinfoil hat stuff, but before you dismiss it out of hand, consider: “The tenacious Lib Dem MP Norman Baker gave up his front-bench job to investigate these claims. What he has uncovered is remarkable and poses questions which demand to be answered.” Not a bunch of radical nuts pushing a conspiracy theory, but evidence uncovered by a member of Parliament.

Why should Americans care about this? Well, for the same reason we cared about the Downing Street Memos—because of the collusion between the Bush and Blair administrations leading up to the Iraq War; because they conspired to swindle us into a war of choice and schemed to hide the evidence of it.

Who could have done such a deed? The Iraqi secret service? Our own? Shadowy terrorists lying in wait in the Oxfordshire woods armed with undetectable poisons and an array of evidence to lay a false trail and bamboozle everyone?

A possible suspect missing from that list? You bet.

The case for suicide was first challenged with charges of inconsistency, but now there is much more evidence “which can no longer be ignored,” which is why the British press is covering the story and asking the question: “Will we ever be told the truth about the death of Dr David Kelly?”

(Hat tip to The King.)

The quiet about-face in Iraq

The president of the United States, joined by the prime minister of Iraq, all but declared the much-touted six-week old "security crackdown" in Baghdad an utter failure yesterday. And well he should have: The casualties among Iraqi civilians and security forces over the past fifteen days totaled two hundred and twenty-eight (according to reports compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count), rivaling the 233 fatalities during the previous fortnight, and surpassing again the 154 slain during the first two weeks of the crackdown. The "new" strategy of relying on Iraqi forces with Americans in a supporting role has proven ineffective, to say the least.

Bush's newest new strategy? More Americans. So much for rosy projections of dwindling US troop levels any time soon. Bush tried to put a brave face on the dour news, but came across as less than convincing:

"Obviously, the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and therefore there needs to be more troops," Bush said in a news conference with Maliki.
"Conditions change inside a country," he added. "And the question is: Are we going to be facile enough to change with [them]?

Speaking of facile, Bush offered bland assurances that an improved security situation in other areas of Iraq would allow for shifting troops to Baghdad. Juan Cole has his doubts:

There is nothing obvious in this plan that would make you think it will succeed where other such plans have not. And, if they are moving US troops from someplace else to Baghdad, wherever they moved from would be in danger of falling into instability. This thing has become a shell game.
The big success story stressed by Bush and Maliki was the withdrawal of the British troops from the small Muthanna province in the south (pop. 500,000). Note that officials in the provincial capital, Samawa, complained that they weren't ready to take over their own security, that there have been a series of police riots there, and that if there is any order it is imposed by the Badr Corps, an Iran-trained Shiite paramilitary. Maliki promised further withdrawals, and one can predict the same sorts of outcome.

In the meantime, you have to wonder how the American public (that is, that portion of the public that has not been paying especially close attention) will react when it realizes that, as Dan Froomkin points out today, we're fighting a whole new war in Iraq:

It's a historic admission: That job one for many American troops in Iraq is no longer fighting al-Qaeda terrorists, or even insurgents. Rather, it is trying to quell an incipient -- if not already raging -- sectarian civil war, with Baghdad as ground zero.
Arguably, that's been the case for quite a while. But having the White House own up to it is a very big deal. [...]

How will people feel about our troops being sent into the crossfire between rival Muslim sects? That is not the war anyone signed up to fight.

Like it or not, it's now the war we've got.

(Cross-posted.)

Dream on, Hillary

New column at The Guardian's Comment is Free, for anyone who's interested.

If At First You Don't Succeed...

...trial, trial again.

Jury finds Yates not guilty in drownings

HOUSTON - Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity Wednesday in her second murder trial for the bathtub drownings of her young children.

Yates, 42, will now be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released. An earlier jury had found her guilty of murder, but the verdict was overturned on appeal.

The defense never disputed that Yates drowned her five children one by one in the bathtub of their Houston-area home. But they said she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, believed Satan was inside her and was trying to save them from hell.

Now, I wasn't on the jury; I didn't hear the testimony. I haven't read all of the facts in this case. But when I read this:

Prosecutors had maintained that Yates failed to meet the state's definition of insanity: that a severe mental illness prevents someone who is committing a crime from knowing that it is wrong.

[...]

The state's key witness was Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist who interviewed Yates for two days in May. He testified that Yates killed the youngsters because she felt overwhelmed and inadequate as a mother, not for altruistic reasons.

Welner said that although Yates may have been psychotic on the day of the murders, it wasn't until the next day in jail that she talked about Satan, wanting to be executed and saving her kids from hell. He said the hallucination may have been triggered by the stresses of being naked in a cell on suicide watch and realizing what she had done.

Welner said Yates knew her actions were wrong and showed it in multiple ways: waiting until her husband left for work to kill them, covering the bodies with a sheet and calling 911 soon after the crime.

Prosecutors also brought back a key witness from the first trial, Dr. Park Dietz, the forensic psychiatrist whose testimony led to her conviction being overturned. The judge barred attorneys in this trial from mentioning the earlier testimony problem.

Dietz again testified that Yates knew killing her children was wrong because she knew it was a sin.

... I really don't understand how this could be overturned on appeal. I mean, yeah, she's obviously "crazy," but I doubt she's insane. When this first occured, I always had heard that she knew exactly what she had done, and knew it was wrong. The point that she may or may not have had the best intentions was moot... she knew she was committing a crime.

Anyway. It should be interesting to see the berserk reaction to this. Especially due to the possibility that she could be released in the future.

(Crazy... I'm crazy for cross-posting so lonely...)

Operation Get Off My Lawn, You Whippersnappers!

As part of its ongoing reforms since 9/11, the FBI is trying to assemble a crack team of “recent retirees with critical skills to be deployed in the event of an emergency.”

The FBI Reserve Service Program, authorized by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, recruits bureau employees retired for 5 years or less, to be on call for temporary re-employment.

All snark aside, that seems like a good idea. (In a general sense, I believe many professions could benefit from the expertise of recent retirees serving as mentors and touchstones for new employees just starting in the career, but I digress.) The thing that’s a bit worrying, though, is this:

No word yet on response, but a blurb on the FBI web site advises that there are "MANY vacancies throughout the world".

Yeesh. I’m not sure if I’m more bothered that there are “MANY” vacancies at the FBI throughout the world, or that the FBI is advertising the fact on its website.

Ann Coulter is Very Smart

And proves it once again by deducing in spectacular fashion that Bill Clinton is a latent homosexual.

Wow. Just wow.

Stark: “Satire is obsolete when the ‘America, Fuck Yeah!’ crowd produces shite like this.” Um, yeah. AMERAKUH!

Lance Bass Comes Out

It’s been speculated for, well, ever (and known by anyone with a functioning gaydar), and now it’s official. ’N Sync boybander Lance Bass is gay.

"The thing is, I'm not ashamed -- that's the one thing I went to say," Bass says. "I don't think it's wrong, I'm not devastated going through this. I'm more liberated and happy than I've been my whole life. I'm just happy."

Yay! Congratulations, Lance.

(Hat tip to Holly.)

Washington State Rules Against Marriage Equality

Pam’s got the goods. It’s a huge punt (back to you, legislature!), and the decision infuriatingly cites procreation (or the lack thereof) as a reason to limit marriage equality.

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes.

Bullshit. Less than a week after we’re granted one of the most gagginating photo ops of the Bush administration, as the president vetoed a stem cell bill while surrounded by “snowflake babies”—the result of embryo adoption—I don’t want to hear about how the well-being of children is contingent upon encouraging families in which children are reared by their biological parents. On one hand, we have the GOP suggesting that 400,000 embryos ought to be adopted to avoid their fate as research tools or medical waste, and on the other, we have the courts denying gay marriage on the premise of the superiority of biological families. Unfuckingbelievable.

As long as straight couples are allowed to be married and deliberately childless, or infertile straight people are allowed to marry, there’s no justification for denying marriage to same-sex couples on this basis. So what if allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn’t further the purposes of procreation and survival of the human race (which is fallacious anyway, considering that gay people can procreate, if nontraditionally, and adopt)? Neither does my marriage. Not every straight person with the capacity to procreate wants to do so, and many of them still get married—because they don’t define marriage as the conduit to procreation. Each of us should have the right to define our own marriage. For some people, it may be creating a stable structure into which to bring children; for others, it may simply be about signaling a long-term commitment with a single beloved companion; for others, it may be about convenience; for others, it may be about money. People get married for all sorts of reasons, some more noble than others, and it’s not up to the courts or the government to create the definition of their marriages for them. That’s sort of what “freedom” is all about.

Senate Limits Rights of Underage Victims

Sorry if you’re raped by your stepdaddy, girls. You’re having that baby.

The Senate passed legislation Tuesday that would make it a federal crime to help an under-age girl escape parental notification laws by crossing state lines to obtain an abortion.

…“If it is happening 20 times a year, it is still worth doing to protect those parental rights and to protect those children from being in these kinds of situations,” [said Senator John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who wrote the measure].”

Okay, but what if it’s the parent who has fathered the child? Why on earth should we protect his rights?

There are three possibilities that would result in an underage girl being taken across state lines for an abortion to avoid parental notification. 1. The girl is pregnant by an older man who is forcing her to get an abortion or by a boy whose parents are forcing her to get an abortion. In either case, if she is being taken against her will, there are laws in place already (like kidnapping) that would punish those victimizing her, making this law moot. 2. The girl is pregnant and doesn’t want her parents to know because she fears for her safety if they found out. 3. The girl is pregnant by a father, stepfather, or some other relative and cannot rely on parental approval for a much-wanted abortion. In either of those cases, this law essentially endangers her, which makes its rationale about protecting the girls moot, and ensures parental rights for parents who don’t deserve it.

There is simply no justification for this law, except as red meat for the base.

In a statement, Mr. Bush said that “transporting minors across state lines to bypass parental consent laws regarding abortion undermines state law and jeopardizes the lives of young women.”

As Michael at The Moderate Voice says, “How? … Does Bush even know the 'risks' of having an abortion? From a medical point of view, they're very small. Seriously, what kind of fake argument is that? It doesn't "jeopardize the lives of young women" at all. That has to be the most ridiculous statement of the year. Or at least close to it.” Indeed.

Of course, there are two ways to look at the phrase “jeopardizing the lives of young women.” As Michael noted, the literal threat to one’s life—as in, a grave chance of death—is ridiculous. But the abstract threat to one’s life—as in, quality of life and opportunity to realize one’s potential—is another consideration. And Bush has got it totally wrong. Allowing a young woman to terminate a pregnancy according to her wishes does not have the capacity to threaten her life, but forcing her to carry to term a pregnancy against her will certainly does. It will necessarily and unavoidably interrupt her schooling; if she keeps the baby, it may delay or derail many of her aspirations—college, career. That’s a tough situation for young mothers who want to keep an unexpected pregnancy; how much tougher is it for a young mother who didn’t want to keep it? What kind of parent will she be in that situation? What will it mean for the unwanted child’s life?

The irony of this bill is the focus on “protecting parental rights,” meaning the parents of the pregnant girl. It wholly ignores that the pregnant girl will soon be a parent herself, whether she wants to or not. And her right to make that decision is of no consequence.

Whiners and ingrates

Whiners: Steely Dan.

The veteran group behind such jazz-rock hits as "Rikki Don't Lose that Number" says Wilson ripped off its Grammy-winning tune "Cousin Dupree" for his title role as a slacker in the new comedy "You, Me and Dupree."
In a 10-paragraph letter posted July 17 on Steely Dan's Web site, and addressed to Wilson's brother Luke, band leaders Walter Becker and Donald Fagen asked Owen Wilson to appear at a show in Irvine, California, to apologize to the band's fans.

In the song, a slacker named Dupree returns home to take up space on his aunt's couch and immediately decides that he wants to shag his cousin.

In the movie, a slacker named Dupree crashes at the home at a friend about to be married.

Actionable? Hardly. Belated? This movie was in the works for at least a year; why are Becker and Fagen just now getting around to complaining about it? If a word of acknowledgement was all they wanted, they could easily have negotiated that months ago, maybe even gotten their song worked into the soundtrack. Put down the bong and pay attention to current events, dudes. Becker and Fagen are bigger slackers than Dupree, and utterly unsympathetic.

Ingrate: Ken Jennings.

"Jeopardy!" ace Ken Jennings, who won $2.5 million during his 74-game winning streak, has a few unkind words to say about the show -- and dapper host Alex Trebek.
"I know, I know, the old folks love him," Jennings writes in a recent posting, titled "Dear Jeopardy!" on his Web site.

"Nobody knows he died in that fiery truck crash a few years back and was immediately replaced with the Trebektron 4000 (I see your engineers still can't get the mustache right, by the way)."

Jennings also takes aim at the show's "effete, left-coast" categories and "same-old" format.

"You're like the Dorian Gray of syndication," he says. "You seem to think 'change' means replacing a blue polyethylene backdrop with a slightly different shade of blue polyethylene backdrop every presidential election or so."

Jenings can dish it out - all in "humor," so he claims - but apparently can't take it, as evidenced by his plaintive bleating on being spanked by Michael Starr in the NY Post.

Game show contestants for $100, Alex.

Answer: Fairly characterized as a thankless wretch or ungrateful person; also a classless jerk.*

Question: Who is Ken Jennings?

*See also "a cynical self-promoter," as suggested by NPR's Mixed Signals:

Why would Jennings decide to drum up a little controversy now? Could it be because he has a book coming out in September? Naaaah.

(Cross-grumbled elsewhere...)