The Googler Doesn’t Do Email
So, I just found this extended clip of Bush talking about how he uses the Google, and, in all the hilarity about his idiotic nomenclature for one of the most oft-used search engines in the fucking world, the bit that follows it kind of got ignored. Check it out: He goes on about how he doesn’t use email “because of the different record requests that could happen to a president.” (Fuck you, FOIA.) Not particularly surprising, considering his administration’s reputation for secrecy, but it’s fairly astonishing to see him just admit it so bluntly.
Bonus fun: Rumors on the internets.
Question of the Day
If you could create one campaign ad, to be run nationally for the next two weeks, what it would be?
Man-on-Dog
I thought this story about a man getting caught by his wife having sex with the family pit bill was bad, but this one (via) about a man getting caught having sex with his girlfriend’s dead Labrador, in full view of a daycare center no less, is even worse.
Looks like Rick Santorum was right.
Dirty queers. See what you’ve done?
Those men’s committed heterosexual relationships would have prevented them from having sex with dogs, if only you hadn’t undermined the sanctity of marriage with all your equal rights shenanigans.
Another Disgusting Campaign Advert
From, I’m embarrassed but unsurprised to admit, my state:
The radio ad was paid for by Friends of Rep. John Hostettler who [is] locked in a tight race against Democrat Brad Ellsworth. Polls show Ellsworth ahead by a substantial margin.John Hostettler is a total asshole—a self-proclaimed “Christian fundamentalist” who was one of the drafters of the “Marriage Protection Act.” He’s rated 0% by NARAL on reproductive issues, has voted to ban gay adoptions, has voted against Affirmative Action, and is rated 100% by the Christian Coalition. He’s also accused Democrats on the House floor of hating Christians:
But the radio ads don't even mention Ellsworth until the very end. Instead they attack Massachusetts gay Democrat Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi the California Democrat who would become Speaker if Republicans lost control of the House.
The one-minute ad features an announcer impersonating Clint Eastwood from the movie "Dirty Harry" warning Pelosi as Speaker would threaten marriage.
"Pelosi will then put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda, led by Barney Frank, reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel out of U.S. Rep. Frank's home," the narrator says.
"I know what you're thinking," the narrator says. "Is this true? Well, do you feel lucky? Go ahead, vote for Brad Ellsworth. Make Nancy Pelosi's day."
The long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. It continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects—the Democrats. Don’t get me wrong; the Democrats know they shouldn’t be doing this… But like a moth to a flame, Democrats can’t help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians.This guy can’t get shoved out of the House fast enough. The thought of (the foxy) Brad Ellsworth crushing this ridiculous cretin in two weeks is so thrilling that it practically brings me to orgasm.
Caption This Photo
So enamored, this pres
With who he is as he says,
He fails ever in his
Need to see what he is.
In love with a man
Made of flim and of flam,
He ignores, the daft fuck
That he’s a lame duck.
Dear Leader’s a ruse;
Makes him of no use
And wholly remiss, thus—
Narcissus.
Good Lord
This is getting completely insane.
In Tennessee, GOP Senate Candidate Bob Corker is running a radio ad featuring jungle drums when his opponent, Harold Ford, Jr.'s name is mentioned.
Fucking jungle drums.
Listen to it here.
We got a copy of the ad from a producer from WGOW radio in Chatanooga. Bill Lockhart, the program director for WGOW, confirmed the authenticity of the ad and that it's running on the station. "They're freaking jungle-drums," Lockhart tells us. "It's racist -- it tries to conjure up deep, dark African moods. Yeah, it's overtly racial."
It's pretty interesting that this ad is running, wouldn't you say? After all, Corker disavowed the similar tactics in the recent "bimbo" ad which stirred controversy and charges of racism. The bimbo ad, which featured an actress playing what used to be called a "floozy." As you surely know by now, she claimed to she'd met Ford at a "Playboy" party and asked Ford to "call me." For some reason, people got the idea that it was supposed to be playing on fears of interracial sex, and they got very upset about it. Corker himself has called on local stations not to run the bimbo TV spot, saying that it "went too far."
But the RNC has been unapologic about the ad, and it's continued to run.
Gee, I can't understand why Republicans aren't getting the African American vote!
New Jersey Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage
WOOHOO! Gay couples have the same marriage rights under New Jersey's state constitution.
The decision: "Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."
Which means that gay couples may end up with civil unions rather than marriages, which is kind of crappy, but in the end this is a big step forward.
UPDATE: BTW, an interesting side note—the three dissenting justices wanted to extend full marriage rights. So all seven justices were in favor of civil unions, three of whom were also in favor of marriage. Not a one among them who voted against equality. That may be the best news of all.
Hello
Dutch junior fighter Pamela Vugts [age 17] was rushed to hospital when she started bleeding the day after a kickbox gala in Den Bosch.All right then.
Doctors told her she was seven months pregnant and later that day she gave birth to a healthy baby girl by Caesarian, reports the Destentor website.
Neither Pamela nor her parents knew she was pregnant, although the scales showed she was more than 17lbs overweight before her fight.
"She has always been a bit heavy," said her father, Cor. "And because she was having her monthly periods we thought she had just put on weight."
One clue might have been the cries of "What the fuck?! Ow!" emanating from Pamela's womb during the kickboxing match.
Quote of the Day
"Dear Rush,
Michael J. Fox takes drugs to stay alive. You take drugs to get high and to get an erection. You should be in jail.
All the best,
Shayera"
Uh-Oh
Expect the Republican hysteria to reach a fever pitch before election day. They're in real trouble, they're scared shitless, and everyone's a target.
Republicans Losing Ground with U.S. Women
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Women voters, notably married moms, are turning away from the ruling Republican Party in the run-up to US legislative elections due, in part, to dissatisfaction with the Iraq war and domestic issues.So, people finally figured it out- "W" does not stand for "Women."
Polls and analysts say that unlike the 2002 and 2004 elections, when terrorism concerns and other security-related issues drove many women to support
President George W. Bush and his Republican Party, these factors are no longer playing a key role.
"Women voters are turning more Democratic now than they were four years ago," Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Research Center in Washington, told AFP. "Four years ago Republicans were running about even with Democrats among women, but now you see a big gain for the Democrats among women."
A poll conducted by the Pew Center in early October had 55 percent of women voters expressing support for the Democratic Party as opposed to 34 percent for the Republican Party.
"Women are very down on the Iraq war and their view of the president is also eroding," Doherty said. "Men are still pretty divided over the president but women disapprove of him two to one."
For Bush, who has prided himself in saying that his middle initial stands for women, the slipping support could spell trouble on election day as his party seeks to hang on to its majority in Congress and grapples with a series of corruption and ethics scandals.
But wait, there's more!
Black Voters to Remain Loyal to Democrats
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republicans have been stymied in their efforts to woo African-American support and black voters are expected to constitute the Democrats' most loyal voting bloc in upcoming US elections.And the phones light up at Diebold! How long do you think voters in highly African-American populated districts are going to have to wait to vote this time?
After the 2004 presidential election, Republicans stepped up their efforts to recruit blacks, heartened by returns that showed that George W. Bush had garnered a surprisingly high proportion of the African-American vote.
But rather than making continued gains, polls show Republican retrenchment in the black community. A survey a year ago by the Wall Street Journal found Bush's support had sunk to a stunning two percent -- an all-time low.
When black Americans go to the polls in congressional elections on November 7, "my guess is that it is going to be a typical African-American vote, which is going to be 10 percent for the Republican and 90 percent for the Democratic candidate," said David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
But wait, there's more!
Dispirited, Angry US Electorate Going to the Polls
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US voters go to the polls in congressional elections next month divided between dispirited backers of President George W. Bush's Republican Party and Democrats eager to register their anger.We can only hope.
"(Americans) are unhappy about lots of things," said Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "They believe the country is on the wrong track."
The strength of public dissatisfaction is so great that the Republicans are bracing for a potential election night disaster on November 7, when 435 seats in the House of Representatives and one-third of the 100 seats in the Senate are at stake.
"When you talk to Republican pollsters and strategists, the nicest word you can come up with is 'despondent,'" said National Journal columnist Charlie Cook. "This is going to be really bad."
But the economy is going great! Bush said so! That's enough to keep Republicans in office, right?
Well... if you're in the top 1%, the economy is great. And 1% of the vote ain't gonna keep the Bushies in office, folks.
Meanwhile, a little more "Rubbing it in the Face of the Have-Nots":
Luxury Travel by Bush Officials Totals 1.5 Million Dollars
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A top Democratic lawmaker called for a clampdown on luxury travel by administration officials, whom he said have taken scores of trips aboard private jets at taxpayers' expense.I can't imagine why Americans are so dissatisfied.
Representative Henry Waxman alleged that US President George W. Bush's cabinet officials and agency heads have taken 125 such trips aboard private jets, helicopters and other aircraft since 2001.
Waxman's office analyzed data provided by 14 departments and agencies, 10 of which reported travel aboard leased or chartered private aircraft at taxpayers' expense.
If there's still a Republican majority after this election, there had better be some serious investigations into these voting machines.
(Yo-ho, yo-ho, a cross-post's life for me...)
Feds Make Way for Single-Sex Public Ed
Sex discrimination now fine and dandy:
The Bush administration is giving public school districts broad new latitude to expand the number of single-sex classes, and even schools, in what is widely considered the most significant policy change on the issue since a landmark federal law barring sex discrimination in education more than 30 years ago.For now, I’m not going to argue for or against the value of single-sex classes. There are arguments in both directions, I’ve outlined my feelings about it before, and, at this point, I’d prefer to focus on the legislation itself. So that said, this legislation stinks.
Two years in the making, the new rules, announced Tuesday by the Education Department, will allow districts to create single-sex schools and classes as long as enrollment is voluntary. School districts that go that route must also make coeducational schools and classes of “substantially equal” quality available for members of the excluded sex.
Voluntary enrollment sounds fine and all, until one considers how difficult it would be for cash-strapped public school systems who believe in single-sex classes to continue offering coeducational classes to sustain them, if they become the minority. What if there are 10 parents who are hold-outs, who want their sons and daughters in coeducational classes? What if there are three? Providing one teacher for three students is financially problematic, and necessarily creates a “substantially unequal” classroom, where the student-teacher ratio is clearly more beneficial to students. Then do the parents of students in the single-sex classes get to argue that their children should be given the same quality? I mean, this thing is just a mess waiting to happen.
And what about that term—substantially equal? Who decides what constitutes equality in a classroom? Left to its own devices, the public education system was not providing equality in education to boys and girls, which is why in 1972, Title IX was enacted, which banned sex discrimination in public schools. It’s a charming notion that in the intervening years, everyone’s mind has changed so significantly that equality is a given, but I daresay that’s a dangerous delusion—highlighted by fundamental inequalities even in this legislation. You see, it doesn’t even require that a school which makes single-sex classes available for one sex make them available for the other.
Until now, public school districts that offered a school to one sex generally had to provide a comparable school for students of the other sex. The new rules, however, say districts can simply offer such students the option to attend comparable coeducational schools.Got that? So a public school, receiving federal funding, can set up a single-sex school for boys, but aren’t required to offer the same thing to girls (or vice versa). This, then, becomes a plausible scenario: A brand-new school built for boys only—with wireless networking in every classroom, laptop computers at every desk, all the bells and whistles of a state-of-the-art educational facility. The old school, with regular old desks, a single computer lab for which teachers have to schedule limited times for their classes, etc. is left for coeducational students—which necessarily includes all girls.
But Shakespeare’s Sister! you might say. That wouldn’t pass for substantially equal! Wouldn’t it? Precisely those kinds of disparities have been passing as “substantially equal” in school districts for decades, where minority students are meant to have an unseparate and equal education, but a majority white school on one side of town looks totally different from a majority black school on the other side of town. That’s the problem with vague phrases like “substantially equal”—they don’t mean anything until someone who’s getting the shit end of the stick tries to challenge them, and then what they actually mean is never what they were assumed to mean.
And we should absolutely not assume anything in good faith about “substantially equal” when the legislation itself is providing cover for inequality. Why, if genuine and unassailable equality were of prime concern, would there be a loophole that allows public schools to create single-sex classes for one sex and not the other? There’s nothing “substantially equal,” by any reasonable definition, about that right out of the box.
The administration is dangling the opportunity to discriminate in front of every public school in the country, and feigning ignorance of the very real possibility that some of them are going to take it.
Another Republican Under Investigation
Federal authorities in Arizona have opened an inquiry into whether Representative Rick Renzi introduced legislation that benefited a military contractor that employs his father, law enforcement officials said Tuesday.ManTech? Heh heh. What do they build—fembots?
…Law enforcement officials said that the most serious accusation involved Mr. Renzi’s sponsorship of legislation in 2003 that appeared to indirectly benefit the ManTech International Corporation, a communications company based in Virginia that employs Mr. Renzi’s father, Eugene, a retired Army general, as executive vice president.
Who’s shameless?
The WaPo picks up the Fox-Limbaugh story, and offers a fuller transcript of what Limbaugh said, first when he attacked Fox:
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act… This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."Then when he “apologized” (emphasis mine):
…"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control himself."
"Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected... So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."Then when he redirected his assault on Fox:
"Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician."He also went on to accuse Fox of giving people false hope, by implying that a cure lies with electing Democrats. And Limbaugh is calling Fox shameless? Shit.
Meanwhile, Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO’s The Corner charges in with the defense of Limbaugh, asserting he was only saying “what doctors and other experts were saying off the record on Monday when the news of the Michael J. Fox ads were fresh to the election buzzlines: That it looked like he must have laid off his medication to make sure viewers would have a worse-day kinda look at life with Parkinson’s.” She also said she knows that Fox does go off his meds sometimes, like for Congressional testimony, because she saw it on the E True Hollywood Story.
That's not to say that he doesn't suffer — he obviously does. But the hard-to-watch Fox ads we've seen this week were, like most political ads, made in Spin City.Yeah, I don’t doubt that was Limbaugh’s point—but it’s still a ridiculous fucking point. Advocating voting for the Democrats because they are more willing to support stem cell research, which provides the best possibility for a cure, isn’t implying that people will be cured if the Democrats win. It’s saying, quite frankly, that if there is a cure to be found through stem cell research, the Democrats are the party willing to support finding it—and that’s a hard reality to dispute, considering that President Bush pulled out his first and only veto on behalf of blocking stem cell research.
…To make the point Rush made was not mean or heartless. … As Rush pointed out on his show yesterday (scroll down), it’s mean to give people false hope. And when it’s suggested in no subtle way that sick people will be sick if Democrats lose and cured if Republicans do … that’s mean. And that was Limbaugh’s point.
And I still don’t begin to comprehend why giving people “a worse-day kinda look at life with Parkinson’s” by going off one’s meds is somehow shifty or insincere. It’s not like those meds are curative; Parkinson’s is a disease that kills people. It’s also a disease that’s expensive to treat—and anyone who has the temerity to suggest that there’s something exaggerative about Fox making his point sans meds can only do so by ignoring the Parkinson’s sufferers who don’t have the resources and healthcare access he has, and look like that every day, even though no one’s putting them in a commercial or before Congress.
I’ve seen a lot of low lows in politics in recent years, but this just about beats all. I’m truly sickened that Limbaugh would even say this mendacious shit, no less that he’s got defenders who are praising his honesty and pretending as though he’s more of a champion for Parkinson’s sufferers by not “getting their hopes up.” Yes, what a great American patriot he is, because we all know that America’s best attribute has always been saying “No,” has always been telling people they shouldn’t look for more or fight the good fight or hope. Limbaugh looks at people whose American Dream is not to get rich or be successful or get their own talk radio show, but to exhaust every possible avenue in finding a cure for Parkinson’s (and other diseases), and he tells them “Your American Dream is foolish. Your American Dream is stupid and naïve.” What a hero.
Second Verse, Same As The First
Get ready for more Lame Duckery! (bolds mine)
Bush to Hold News Conference on Iraq
WASHINGTON - With Iraq dominating the political debate, President Bush scheduled a news conference Wednesday to update the nation on the war. The White House said he would not announce any increase or decrease in troop levels.An explanation... of what, exactly? There is exactly one thing that interests everyone concerning Iraq: when the hell are we getting out of there? If an increase or decrease in troop levels are not going to be discussed, than what is this?
Bush's meeting with reporters comes less than two weeks before midterm elections where Republicans are anxious about losing control of the House or Senate — or both. Iraq has emerged as the top issue and polls show that most Americans are unhappy with the president's strategy.
October has been the deadliest month this year for American forces. The military Tuesday announced the deaths of two more U.S. Marines, a sailor and a soldier. Since the start of the war, more than 2,800 U.S. service members have died in Iraq. There are currently 144,000 U.S. forces in Iraq.
"Obviously there is a lot going on on the security and political situation in Iraq and it's important that the president also update the American people on the state of the conflict," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.
She said Bush would not announce a change of troop levels. "This is more of a discussion, an explanation" following on briefings this week by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad, the top U.S. envoy in Iraq; Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Oh, of course, the usual Bush "say nothing" Iraq press conference. The same speech he's been making for years. They could just stand up a cardboard cutout of Bush and play a tape. There is no "strategy;" there never has been. The only reason to tune in to these things anymore is to see if Bush throws a tantrum.
Frankly, I'm amazed they got Prezint Whiny McIhatemyjobberson to speak to the press. Just send him back to the ranch; that's where he wants to be, anyway.
UPDATE: In the time it took me to type this post, the headline to the above article changed from "Bush to Hold News Conference on Iraq" to "Bush Says He's Concerned About Iraq." Well, gee, that's good. He's concerned. What a guy. What a leader.
What an ass.
MORE UPDATE: Now, the headline is "Bush Acknowledges US Concern on Iraq." Now we're concerned, too. And he feels our pain. See, he's not so out of touch! I wonder if he read about our "concern" on the google?
(I got married to the c ross-post next door, she's been married seven times before...)
Question of the Day
Famously, movie critic Roger Ebert did not like the movie The Usual Suspects. When he found himself in a distinct minority, he said, approximately, "It's obviously just me. I didn't get it."
Sometimes, you don't think it really is you. Sometimes, you truly believe everyone else is nuts. But then there are other times that you think, no...I think I'm the one who's nuts this time, though I'm not sure why.
The discussion in the Borat thread, in which some people have said though they don't find it offensive, they also just don't find it funny, made me think about the things that aren't generally considered an acquired taste (even though Borat probably is an acquired taste), but that I just didn't "get." Things that were popular, and I couldn't bloody understand why I didn't see what everyone else seemed to see...and I found myself channeling Ebert. It's obviously just me.
The first of these was Michael Jackson. When I was in grade school, everyone I knew was mad for him. Thriller was everywhere. We had a jukebox in the lunchroom, and it played MJ almost nonstop (or so it seemed). I thought the video for Thriller was cool, but the song I couldn't have cared less about, and even less so the man who sang it. I liked Culture Club, and The Eurythmics, and David Bowie. But those fags were totally weird, man.
Unlike Michael Jackson.
Anyhow, so here's the Question of the Day: What popular person, song, movie, fashion, or whatever else has failed utterly to capture your fancy, but you're pretty sure it was just you?
Quote of the Day
"Of course [the president is not backing away from staying the course]. The concern was that it gave opponents the chance to say, 'Well, he’s not willing to make adjustments,' and of course, just the opposite is true."—Donald Rumsfeld
In related news, incidents of whiplash are up 30%.
Boy, those Republicans sure know how to write sex books!
First it was Bill O'Reilly's erotic thriller Those Who Trespass, with bosom-heavers like: "Ashley was now wearing only brief white panties. She had signaled her desire by removing her shirt and skirt, and by leaning back on the couch. She closed her eyes, concentrating on nothing but Shannon's tongue and lips. He gently teased her by licking the areas around her most sensitive erogenous zone. Then he slipped her panties down her legs and, within seconds, his tongue was inside her, moving rapidly."
Then it was Scooter Libby's scatological page-turner The Apprentice, with passages to trigger the gag reflex like: "At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest."
(Actually, they weren't even first and second, but part of a long tradition that includes William Safire—“[She] finally came to him in the bed and shouted ‘Arragghrrorwr!’ in his ear, bit his neck, plunged her head between his legs and devoured him”—William F. Buckley—“I’d rather do this with you than play cards”—G. Gordon Liddy—“T’sa Li froze, her lips still enclosing Rand’s glans...”—and John Ehrlichman—“It felt like a little tongue”—among others, but anyhow...)
Now it's conservative Republican Texas state candidate Susan Combs, currently the Texas Agriculture Commissioner, whose romance novel A Perfect Match has been excerpted by the Associated Press:
Her shoes had fallen off enroute to the bedroom.Blurgh.
"At last," he said, his mouth moving over her.
The heat in the room intensified as Ross let his hands stroke the body of the woman he loved. Emily was panting, her eyes glazed ...
"I can't believe you made me wait three weeks," she got out as he thrust gently against her.
"It was necessary," he mumbled between kisses. "To make me smart enough to realize I deserved you."
"You're just a lucky guy," she said and he could feel her mouth and hands tormenting him, as he struggled for control.
"I know." Then he took them over the top.
Says Arlen, who gets the hat tip, "That’s pretty embarrassing. What’s perhaps more embarrassing is that the AP found it important enough to publish it." Ha. Totally.
Which is worse—idiot Republicans or the useless media? We ask. You decide.
