Shakesville

Don't Fuck with the Bubble

Looks like Prezint Touchy McCrankypants is getting upset that his fabricated war isn't the non-stop blowjob he was convinced it was going to be. Goldarn it, where's that constant praise I'm used to?

President Bush has pledged to work with the new Democratic majorities in Congress, but he has already gotten off on the wrong foot with Jim Webb, whose surprise victory over Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) tipped the Senate to the Democrats.

Webb, a decorated former Marine officer, hammered Allen and Bush over the unpopular war in Iraq while wearing his son’s old combat boots on the campaign trail. It seems the president may have some lingering resentment.

At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.

Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.

“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source.

Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’t be taking any overseas trips together anytime soon.

Or, "Don't remind me that I'm a failure, you!"

Bipartisanship!

Reaching across the aisle!

Supporting the troops!

What a guy!

UPDATE: D'oh! Psychic mind-meld!

More Update: Bobby sez:

Here's a bit of unsolicited advice for Mr. Webb: if the White House offers you a "fact-finding" trip to Guantanamo Bay, don't go.

(Energy Dome tip to C&L. Creamy cross-post goodness.)

Webb v. Bush: The Smackdown

One of our new Democratic Senators gives Bush a little attitude of the sort that doesn’t typically penetrate his precious wee bubble:

At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.

"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

Snap! You just know that Bush thought he could jolly-jolly Webb by asking about his son, because, in the hand-picked crowds through which he usually travels, parents with serving children universally support the war and its commander-in-chief, and having the president merely ask about their kids is an honor. And when Webb, who’s served in the military at its highest levels and is thusly not impressed into awed submission by being near a president, refused to let Bush ingratiate himself with a casual inquiry, but instead used the opportunity to tell Bush he wants all the sons and daughters home, Bush got all pissy.

That’s not what I asked you. Which really means: Play the fucking game, Webb. I’m the goddamned president, and I make the rules, and you’re supposed to tell me ‘my boy is fine, sir’. Now let’s try this again. How’s your boy?

And Webb, who The Hill reports was so pissed off by that he “was tempted to slug” Bush, still didn’t play along. Good for him. And let it be a lesson to the rest of the Democrats. Don’t give him an inch for the next two years—and take every one you can.

"Power Hungry" Doesn't Begin to Cover it

-What do you wanna do today, Dick?
-The same thing we do every day, Bushy. Try to take over the world!
-Narf!

The Boston Globe has an excellent article up detailing Dick Cheney's ongoing Executive power grab that's been going on since the Nixon years.

The Iran-contra scandal was not the first time the future vice president articulated a philosophy of unfettered executive power -- nor would it be the last. The Constitution empowers Congress to pass laws regulating the executive branch, but over the course of his career, Cheney came to believe that the modern world is too dangerous and complex for a president's hands to be tied. He embraced a belief that presidents have vast "inherent" powers, not spelled out in the Constitution, that allow them to defy Congress.

Cheney bypassed acts of Congress as defense secretary in the first Bush administration. And his office has been the driving force behind the current administration's hoarding of secrets, its efforts to impose greater political control over career officials, and its defiance of a law requiring the government to obtain warrants when wiretapping Americans. Cheney's staff has also been behind President Bush's record number of signing statements asserting his right to disregard laws.

[...]

Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor, predicted that Cheney's long career of consistently pushing against restrictions on presidential power is likely to culminate in a series of uncompromising battles with Congress.

"Cheney has made this a matter of principle," Shane said. "For that reason, you are likely to hear the words 'executive privilege' over and over again during the next two years."

Indeed; he's got his little dictatorship moving along nicely, and he's not about to give that up without a fight. Give it a look.

Of course, the same question always pops in my head when I read something like this: "Where the hell was this article in 2004? Hell, in 2000?"

(They're Pinky and the Cross-post...)

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Press Your Luck

Question of the Day

What one thing do you want to learn that you haven't yet? Another language? A musical instrument? A skill? A sport?

There's very little I wouldn't want to learn, given the time and opportunity, but at the top of the list has to be learning Spanish, knitting, and bellydancing.

Mr. Shakes says his list is topped by learning Spanish, ballroom dancing, and carpentry.

[Aside: One of the things I most admire about Mr. Shakes is that he can learn absolutely anything he puts his mind to, and learn it almost instantly. In the time I've known him, he's taught himself how to lay hardwood floors, Latin, and all kinds of other junk. Right now, he's reading a book on how to build a computer, and I'm quite certain when he's done, he'll know how to build one. I also taught him how to read music and pick out a simple tune on the piano in about a week and a half. It's sort of disgusting, really.]

Newt: Still An Asshole

In case anyone was suffering under the misapprehension that Newt Gingrich is no longer an asshole, Newt would like to assure you that he most certainly is (via):

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

Uh huh. He said all this, by the way, at "the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech." It’s cool how people who are short on ethics tend to make up for it by having no shortage of irony.

Newt then went on to complain about those daggum activist judges:

He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens' ability to express themselves and their faith.

Not practice their faith; express their faith—which one might suggest has less to do with freedom of religion than it does with freedom of speech, if one didn’t know that what he really means is legislate their faith anyway.

In any case, one wonders how Gingrich plans to limit the rights of free speech and internet use to stop terrorism while simultaneously expanding the rights of religious expression, in the light of the fact that the terrorist groups by which the US is most threatened are religious in nature. And I’m not just talking about Islamic fundamentalists, but also about the Christian fundamentalists who enjoy doing things like murdering doctors who provide abortions and blowing up clinics. In spite of the fact that they’re also quite likely to complain about court rulings over separation of church and state limiting their religious freedom, is Newt ready to limit their speech? Ban protestors at abortion clinics? Bar vociferous pro-lifers from the internets, just in case…? What about these groups?

Oh right, I forgot. As long as you’re a Christian kook, an American kook, it doesn’t matter—which is why 9/11 "changed everything" but 4/19 didn’t.

I'm Cold, and There are Wolves After Me

As many of you know, I've taken on the bucket of sleaze MSNBC series, "To Catch A Predator," in a few very long-winded posts. (The disclaimer in both of these posts still applies, natch. Please don't accuse me of supporting pedophiles.)

Part the First

Part the Second

Part the Third

Part the Fourth

In the second post, I expressed my concern that shows like "Predator" combined with the general hysteria and hand-wringing over "child molesters" that is currently getting a lot of airplay would eventually lead to a witch hunt mentality that would be good for no one. In the third, I showed how this very mentality resulted in a very real death. The fourth showed a "creative" punishment for a sex offender that would probably lead to a "creative" beating.

A major component of this issue is the fact that the term "registered sex offender" has become synonymous with "pedophile." Needless to say, the terms are hardly interchangeable. That, combined with the extremely elastic and vague definition for R.S.O.s, is trouble waiting to happen.

Well, guess what? Some new feel-good, "keeping our children safe" legislation is starting to cause problems. Apparently, draconian "one size fits all" laws aren't exactly a magical band-aid that will heal all wounds. Go figure. (Bolds mine)

Some Curbs on Sex Offenders Called Inhumane, Ineffective

As convicted sex offenders go, they seem to pose little danger.

One is 100 years old. Another can barely walk and is in the late stages of Alzheimer's disease. Another is dying of heart disease in a nursing home.

Yet under a new Georgia law, thousands of registered sex offenders, even the old and feeble, could be pushed from their homes and hospices.

"He doesn't really know anything about it," said Ruby Anderson, 77, whose husband was convicted of having sex with a minor in 1997 and, at 81, no longer recognizes members of his family because of Alzheimer's disease. "The trouble is, I just don't know where we can go."

As states around the country have sought in recent years to control the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders, Georgia's law stands out as one of the toughest, a testament to the daunting public fears regarding children's safety.

And there's the money quote. "Public fears" might not be quite so intense if shows like "Predator" weren't fanning the flames of hysteria; making it seem as if every child in America is constantly being approached by potential pedophiles. Having your Secretary of State encourage you to check the Sex Offender registry online might get your paranoia percolating as well. And when the public starts a-yellin, the politicians start a-legislatin'. Well, if it's a nice, family friendly issue that will make you look good during your re-election campaign, that is.

The roughly 10,000 sex offenders living in Georgia have been forbidden to live within 1,000 feet of a school, playground, church or school bus stop. Taken together, the prohibitions place nearly all the homes in some counties off-limits -- amounting, in a practical sense, to banishment.

"My intent personally is to make it so onerous on those that are convicted of these offenses . . . they will want to move to another state," Georgia House Majority Leader Jerry Keen (R), who sponsored the bill, told reporters.

Got that? This is nothing but running the undesirables out of town. If you're a convicted sex offender - and the nature of your crime isn't important - Keen expressly states he wants to make your life such a living hell, that you'd rather leave the state than try and live your life. Can't afford it? Don't want to leave your job (if you still manage to have one, after being branded with the R.S.O. scarlet letter) or your family? Too old or ill to leave? Or perhaps you're (dare I say it?) innocent?

Tough. Get out of our state, you. We don't like your kind around here.

Can you say "cruel and unusual?" Can you say "setting a dangerous precedent?"

I wonder how the good people in Florda, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina and Tennessee feel about Keen's little plan?

Since the law's enactment in July, however, a federal judge, human rights advocates and even some of the sheriff's departments that are supposed to enforce the measure have suggested that the zeal for safety may have gone too far.

The residency law applies not only to sexual predators but to all people registered for sexual crimes, including men and women convicted of having underage consensual sex while in high school.

Advocates for the sex offenders say the law is unfair to people who have served their sentences and been deemed rehabilitated. Many police officers, prosecutors and children's advocates also question whether such measures are effective. Most predators are mobile, after all, and by upending their lives, the law may make them more likely to commit other offenses, critics say.

"We should be concerned when we pass laws for political purposes that are irrational," said Sarah Geraghty, a staff lawyer for the Southern Center for Human Rights, the Atlanta-based group that filed court actions against the law's provisions. "This law will essentially render thousands of ex-offenders homeless, and that's just going to make them harder to monitor."

Exactly. Regardless of how someone may feel about R.S.O.'s, they have to admit that this is simply bad legislation. Not only does it paint minor and major offenses with the same brush, it is, in effect, making it easier for R.S.O.'s to commit another offense. Not to mention that the depression and desperation that goes hand in hand with homelessness would probably increase the chances of more crimes being committed.

But hey, if they're not in your state, who gives a fuck, right?

This month, Californians voted to bar sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or parks -- though a federal judge quickly blocked that provision.

In Iowa, which in 2002 became one of the first states to impose residency restrictions, police and prosecutors have united in opposition to the law, saying that it drives offenders underground and that there is "no demonstrated protective effect," according to a statement by the Iowa County Attorneys Association, which represents prosecutors.

"The law was well-intentioned, but we don't see any evidence of a connection between where a person lives and where they might offend," said Corwin R. Ritchie, executive director of the group.

[...]

Enforcing the law consumes lots of law enforcement time, he said, and leads some offenders to list interstate rest stops or Wal-Mart parking lots as their addresses.

"Our concern is that these laws may give a false sense of security," said Carolyn Atwell-Davis, director of legislative affairs for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "We're not aware of any evidence that residency restrictions have prevented a child from being victimized."

Not all sexual offenses are related to children. Placing residence restrictions around these areas is simply playing into the pedophile paranoia that surrounds R.S.O.s and creating a false sense of security for parents. Imposing restrictions doesn't put up magical invisible barriers that somehow keep pedophiles away from schools and parks. And are we expected to believe that pedophiles only approach children at schools and parks, where they are more than likely to be accompanied by an adult? This is a gross example of cheap talk to placate worried parents. And frankly, if I were a parent, I'd be right pissed that Keen apparently took my real concerns so lightly.

Here are some other folks that might be pretty pissed at Keen right now:

Among those swept up under its definition of sex offender are a 26-year-old woman who was caught engaging in oral sex when she was in high school, and a mother of five who was convicted of being a party to a crime of statutory rape because, her indictment alleged, she did not do enough to stop her 15-year-old daughter's sexual activity.

If you have a 15-year-old daughter, what are the chances that you won't live within 1000 feet of a school, playground, church or school bus stop? It's ridiculous that these two women should be lumped in with the worst sex offenders in the first place, but to then give them no other option than to leave the state is vicious. Keen, however, simply can't wait to rub it in how little he cares.

Keen and other advocates have defended the legislation, calling it above all an effort to protect children.

Any time a politician says "this is for the children," they really mean "this is for my public image." This law does bugger all to protect children.

"We felt if we were going to err on any side, we were going to err on the side of protecting the innocent rather than those who have already been convicted," he said.

Again, regardless of the nature of the crime committed, if you're convicted, you're fucked. And if you yourself are innocent of the crime you're convicted of, what then?

He has no plans to alter it. As for those who feel it unfairly targets them, he said they can petition the local school board to move the bus stop.

Is he serious? That is a completely snide statement to make; oozing with holier-than-thou contempt. That's the verbal equivalent of kicking them when they're down. Christ, what an asshole.

Although the legal actions have focused attention on the rights of convicted sex offenders, he noted, the victims "have been given a life sentence."

"There's not a day goes by, if you pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV, that you don't see these crimes continue to happen," he said.

What sanctimonious claptrap. Yes, people that are real victims of sexual crimes have been "given a life sentence." However, some of these "crimes" have occurred between consenting adults, and there is no "victim." I simply cannot stand these appalling, heartstring-plucking, family-friendly soundbites that have nothing to do with justice or protection.

For those affected by the law, however, it seems to have reached too far.

"Every other block, there's a church," Ruby Anderson said. "Where can we go? I've checked."

Her husband, who was a janitor, was charged with statutory rape in 1996 for having sex with a girl younger than 14. He pleaded guilty on one count and was sentenced to probation, according to Houston County court records.

"At this late date for him, the law is very unfair," Ruby Anderson said. "He doesn't have any recollection of what happened."

Well, Ms. Anderson, you can go anywhere you like. As long as it isn't in Georgia. I'm sure Jerry Keen has plenty of suggestions. Well, one, anyway.

(Go to jail. Do not cross-post. Do not collect $200.)

Christian Coalition Declines to Fight Poverty, Go Green

WWJD? Rev. Joel Hunter, president-elect of the powerful Pat Robertson-founded Christian Coalition who was scheduled to assume leadership in the new year, has declined the job, because the group "wouldn't let him expand its agenda beyond opposing abortion and gay marriage."

[H]e had hoped to focus on issues such as poverty and the environment.

"These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about," said Hunter, a senior pastor at Northland Church in Longwood, Fla.

..."They pretty much said, 'These issues are fine, but they're not our issues, that's not our base,'" Hunter said.

At what point can we withdraw the tax exempt status from an organization who has essentially admitted that they're just using Christianity as a front for their anti-woman, anti-gay hate group?

(Thanks to Mike for the heads-up on this story. PEEK-ed.)

You Know What I Find Hilarious?

How there’s been more talk about discrimination against women in the Congressional ranks than I’ve ever heard before, since Nancy Pelosi became the incumbent speaker.

This always happens whenever there’s some notable new female Fortune 500 CEO, too. Suddenly there are all these stories about whether she’s discriminating against other women.

When a straight white man can’t ever seem to find a woman, a gay man, or a man of color for any top positions, it’s always down to the lack of qualified candidates or legitimate policy differences. It’s never—heavens! gasp! no!—that he’s biased. A woman walks into a leadership position and looks poised to pass over another woman for a legitimate policy difference, and she’s instantly a self-loathing misogynist.

Which is not to say that a straight white man isn’t ever the best bloke for a job, or that women are never prejudiced against other women. It’s just to point out how differently these things get treated, depending on the sex of the leader in question.

If you think I’m making much ado about nothing, asking yourself when was the last time you heard the Beltway Gang examining whether Dennis Hastert, or Bill Frist, or even Harry Reid was a sexist…?

Teddy Bear Killaz

There are a whole lot of reasons that I’m glad I’m not a teenager today, starting with the insane security moat they now create in front of stages, and this story forwarded to me by Mama Shakes reminds me of another reason up there at the top of the list, too:

Two students are suing to return to school after they were expelled for making a movie in which evil teddy bears attack a teacher.

The teenagers were among four students expelled from Knightstown High School over the movie, titled ''The Teddy Bear Master.''

But Knightstown Principal Jim Diagostino and Supt. David McGuire don't see the humor, and note that the teacher who is threatened in the movie has the same last name as a real teacher.

''That's crazy to think that's a threat to anyone,'' said Linda Imel, 42, whose 15-year-old son, Isaac, and his friend Cody Overbay, 16, have filed the suit.

In the movie, the ''teddy bear master'' orders stuffed animals to kill a teacher who had embarrassed him, but students battle the toy beasts, according to court papers.

''It's a 14- or 15-year-old boy's idea of humor,'' said Jackie Suess, an attorney for the ACLU of Indiana, which is representing one of the students.

Oy. That totally sounds like one of the idiotic movies Mr. Furious and I used to make as teenagers. (Also in Indiana!) People were always being killed by stuffed animals in our movies. And who else do teenagers in a small town lampoon but annoying classmates and teachers?

One of the movies we made was about our insufferably autocratic history teacher whose head was always shoved so firmly up his own arse in a gymnastic feat of self-love that his students regularly accused him of thinking he was God. In the movie, called “Mr. Douglas* is God,” two students (me and this other dude called Dave) die in a car accident and arrive in heaven to find out that the teacher really is God—and that heaven smells like Taco Bell (just like his classroom did).

That probably would have gotten us in a bit of trouble if the administration found out about it (although my parents, who were teachers at the high school and old friends of Mr. Douglas, thought it was hilarious), but not expelled. On the other hand, my girlfriend and I had a long-running series of cartoons about a civics teacher who, much like South Park’s Kenny, died in horrible ways every day. Like, once his colon exploded because it was filled with too many porkchops, another time his own moustache strangled him, another time his limbs each sprouted angels’ wings and flew away to get away from his incessant babbling. We didn’t even choose him because we hated him. He was just easily caricatured, because he had a big square head and a giant moustache, and provided enough irritation during his dreadfully boring class to provoke our sardonic series.

Those quite certainly would have gotten us in trouble, yet we passed them back and forth in his class every damn day, not even being all that surreptitious about it. I don’t think we ever considered how much trouble we’d be in if we got caught. Back then, I sincerely doubt we would have been expelled, because it would have just been considered incredibly rude and impertinent, which it was, and not automatically assumed to be threatening, which it wasn’t.

In any case, I did far too many stupid, rude, and impertinent things when I was that age that I’m glad I’m not that age now, when such things are inevitably presumed to be threatening. Especially because I know every stupid, rude, and impertinent thing I did would have been all over the internets—so I never would have gotten away with anything.

-------------------

* Name totally not changed.

Memey

Linking, in the interest of science. Coturnix has some interesting thoughts on meme-tracking here.

Psychotics 4 Bush!

To be filed under duh:

[Christopher Lohse], a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.

…Lohse's study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person's psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

The study began in part as an advocacy project "designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them" to vote, while assessing "knowledge of current issues, government and politics." The Bush trend emerged in the course of the study, according to Lohse, who describes himself as a "Reagan revolution fanatic" who nonetheless finds Bush "beyond the pale." During the course of the study, it emerged that "Bush supporters has significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry," and that greater levels of psychosis predicted Bush support.

"Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader," Lohse says. "If your world is very mixed up, there's something very comforting about someone telling you, 'This is how it's going to be'."

None of this is actually new information. That liberal voters tend to be much better informed as a group and tend to reject authoritarianism is well documented, from both the chicken came first angle and the egg came first angle. But it's nonetheless amusing to have further evidence that the people constantly calling progressives unhinged lunatics are, you know, way more likely to be nutzoid than the targets of their gleeful finger-pointing.

Via Tom Tomorrow, who dryly notes: "Anyone who's spent any time reading right wing blogs already understood this to be true." Indeed.

Congressmembers, Start Your Subpoenas

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas*:

The incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is promising an array of oversight investigations that could provoke sharp disagreement with Republicans and the White House.

...Among the investigations [Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.] said he wants the committee to undertake:

--The new Medicare drug benefit. ''There are lots and lots and lots of scandals,'' he said, without citing specifics.

--Spending on government contractors in Iraq, including Halliburton Co., the Texas-based oil services conglomerate once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.

--An energy task force overseen by Cheney. It ''was carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies,'' Dingell said.

--A review of food and drug safety, particularly in the area of nutritional supplements.

Dee-licious.

You know the GOP really lived up to its reputation as a do-nothing, rubber-stamp, power-ceding collection of useless chumps when Congressman Dingell is talking about the usually dry subject possible investigations to be launched by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and it sounds like, "Does Congressional Oversight make you horny, baby?!"

Yes, yes it does.

(PEEK-ed.)

-------------------

* Or your gift-giving celebratory holiday of choice.

Rushbo is taking his ball and going home.

Let's file this under compassionate conservative fatigue:

LIMBAUGH: All right, well, let's just have them [the possibility of three civil wars in the Middle East]. Let's just have the civil wars and let the crumbs crumble and the cookie crumble where -- because I'm fed up with this...

...I mean, everybody comes to us: "You got to fix this and you got to fix that." So we go and try to fix it, and our own people, Democrats and the left in our country do their best to sabotage our efforts, and then we get blamed for trying to clean up the messes that these people start...

Hmm, I love the idea that the American Left trying to sabotage the resounding policy failures is a bad thing. Of course, that's not really what Rushbo's trying to say; he's trying to say that if the Left just shut their stinking traps and supported the team for which he cheerleads, they might be able to score a touchdown—but they'll never find their way to the goalposts with all that distracting booing! So he's just giving up.

Fine, just blow the place up.

"Wait, wait—let me get my ball first!"

Just let these natural forces take place over there instead of trying to stop them, instead of trying to use -- I just -- sometimes natural force is going to happen. You're going to have to let it take place. You can spend all the time you like with diplomacy, and you can spend all the time you want massaging these things with diplomatic -- you're just -- you're just delaying the inevitable.

Wow, get me a buttload of Oxycontin stat so I, too, can medicate myself into believing that Bush is a great statesman and what we've been doing in the Middle East for the past three years is diplomatic massage.

Bush Practices Diplomatic Massage on
German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
(Via Hughes for America; PEEK-ed)

Rumsfeld's Long Goodbye

The White House says that incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, whose confirmation is all but a sure thing, won't be sworn in until next year, because he "needs extra time to wind up affairs as president of Texas A&M University"—an assertion that's apparently news to Gates, who has publicly said he's ready to quit as soon as he's been confirmed.

Another source (anonymous, natch) suggests that the White House may just be letting Rumsfeld break one last thing before he leaves: the record for longest-serving Secretary of Defense.

One source close to the White House, who spoke anonymously in order to keep his job, believes President George W. Bush has decided to wait until after Dec. 29 "as a personal gesture to Rumsfeld." On that date Rumsfeld would become the longest-serving Defense secretary, beating Robert McNamara's record of 85 months.

Crack out the bubbly. That's something worth celebrating.

(Via The Carbetbagger Report. PEEK-ed.)

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Night Court

Question of the Day

What's the strangest, most surprising, or most interesting thing you've learned lately?

I learned that drug testing guidelines were not amended to require that women be a part of drug trials until 1996. Zany.

Studio 60 Liveblogging

Happening tonight at Mannion’s place. Jennifer did a bang-up job two weeks in a row, following my guest slot, and tonight Neddie Jingo steps up to the plate.

If my tired old arse can be bothered running up and down the stairs during commercial breaks, I’ll see you there…

Stop It

I’ve literally spent nearly all day trying to write a sensitive and thoughtful response to this article in the WaPo rehashing with Sojourners’ Jim Wallis and President Carter and other liberal religious types how the Left needs to reach out to people of faith. I’ve gone through it and through it, and tried to be both productive and eloquent in expressing my frustrations with it. I’ve probably written more words trying to pull my thoughts together than the actual article, but, in the end, it’s no more than this: Stop It.

I normally like Wallis, but this kind of stuff just sends me 'round the bend:

Wallis insists that an openly religious Democratic candidate will win the presidency only when the party's liberal base becomes more centrist on issues such as abortion, more at ease with religion in the public sphere, and able to reconcile itself with the "failures of moral relativism."

The failures of moral relativism. Uh-huh. The failures of a nuanced world view, full of messy grays, on which secular progressives like me rely to make sense of a complicated world.

Wallis may strike a more conservative tone on family values and the need for personal responsibility -- he opposes legalized abortion, except when the life of the woman is in danger and in cases of rape and incest, but believes the issue should be left to state legislatures.

That’s exactly the same position on abortion as John McCain’s, about which I just said not a week ago:

I’d just like to point out how fundamentally shitastic this position is. If someone asserts that abortion is morally wrong because it is murder, there’s no logistical gymnastics they can do to justify exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. At least no justification that would make a woman unwillingly pregnant by a rapist or family member free to “murder” the fetus, but not free to murder that child any time during its life. If you believe that killing a fetus is murder, but it’s okay in cases of rape, then surely a woman who changes her mind five years in should have the right to murder her child if it’s the product of rape. And surely, it makes just as much sense to let her murder the guilty person who caused the pregnancy, if it’s okay to let her murder the innocent “baby.”

Of course, no one’s arguing that women should have a right to kill their rapists, nor 5-year-old children who were born as the result of a rape, so how, if someone genuinely believes that abortion is murder, can they reasonably argue that abortion exceptions for rape or incest are okay? They can’t—not without acknowledging that a fetus is not the same thing as a living human being.

Gee—that sounds a lot like moral relativism. Except, ya know, moral relativism used to ease your own conscience, not to develop wise and fair policy for the people said policy will actually affect. Which is really less moral relativism and more total bullshit.

I’m not angry at Wallis, and people like him, for being moral relativists; I’m angry at them for pretending they’re not, and using this mythical contradistinction to argue that the Left has lost its moral credibility because of secular progressives who eschew a black-and-white world view. The Left has lost its moral credibility because of people who perpetuate the fallacy that religion is the singular genesis of morality, and because of people who refuse to defend the radical notion that it isn’t.

The difference between Wallis and me isn’t that I’m a moral relativist and he’s not. The difference is that I’m honest about it. And I'm tired of being lectured on my supposed moral failings by people who can't even do the same.

Two Vaguely Related Things I’ve Stitched Together for One Post

Gore, Still Not Running: "I don't have any plans to run. Nor do I have any creative denials. I'm using the same ones. They'll soon be out on DVD." — Al Gore, quoted by Time magazine.

Truths, Still Inconvenient: "The National Science Teachers Association would love to tell you why they’re more than willing to show a video called ‘Fuel-less: You Can’t Be Cool Without Fuel’ to millions of kids while quickly rejecting a donation of 50,000 copies of An Inconvenient Truth, but it’s hard to talk when you’ve got a mouthful of greasy, sweaty oil-company ballsack." — Punkass Marc, totally summing that shit up.