Shakesville

Question of the Day

What's the worst film you've seen recently? It doesn't have to be a recent release; it can be anything you've seen for the first time in the last three months or so.

I'd have to cast my vote for Click, which is quite possibly the worst film Adam Sandler has ever made. And that's really saying something. I wish Christopher Walken would stop being in shitty films, because when nothing else is on, I'll watch anything he's in, and that means in the last few months, I've watched both Envy and Click. Regrettably.

Hmph

Caption This Photo

Welcome to The Great Retreat from Empiricism, my feckless minions.

Bush speaks during a news conference in the Indian Treaty Room in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington December 20, 2006. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES)

H/T Oddjob for the linked article.

A Virgin Birth for Christmas

First it was the lady geckos; now the lady Komodo dragons are getting in on the "Males? We don't need no stinking males." action.

Reddy and trilling…

Who Would Jesus Molest?

Part nine zillion in an ongoing series, unfortunately…with the Southern Baptists gettin' all Catholic and shit:

Pastor Paul Williams, who directs prayer programs and special projects at the Bellevue Baptist Church outside of Memphis, has been forced to take a leave while a church committee investigates charges that Williams sexually molested a family member 17 years ago. Williams has been at Bellevue for 34 years, reports Agape Press, a news service run by the American Family Association.

In a statement issued by the church and obtained by PageOneQ, the church's personnel committee says that Williams has taken a paid leave of absence in the wake of "a past, but highly concerning moral failure."

That's certainly one way of describing it. Maybe Pastor Williams can arrange to share a cell with Lou Beres, and they can wax nostalgic about what an awesome religious experience it is to molest family members. Scumbags.

The head pastor of the church, Dr. Steven Gaines, learned of the allegations in June, but didn't do jack about it, because "he thought the issue had been resolved" and, besides, "the event occurred many years ago." Apparently, the church placed Williams "in a counseling program," which I'd bet my last red cent is about as effective as the degayification programs for forcibly-outed godbotherers, where they wave chicken bones over your big gay head and pray to Foghorn Leghorn to excise your dirty, dirty cocksucking urge. Or something.

Of course, while there's no imperative for Gay-Away Camp to work, and its failure is the source of much amusement to those of us who don't think being gay is wrong in the first place, the same cannot be said for faith-based pedophile counseling. It's all just many shades o' deviance (or, "highly concerning moral failures") to Gaines et. al., who conveniently ignore, as ever, the little concept called consent that separates what any two adults do and what an incestuous molesting freak does with a child. And I truly despair that their continual charges that extending equal rights to the LGBT community will ultimately "normalize" dangerous, non-consensual sexual deviance is actually just more of that infamous fundie projection. It's not the rest of us who shrug at pederasty as if it's "no worse" than homosexuality. We know there is a discernible and very important difference; I'm not sure they can honestly say the same.

(Thanks to Constant Comment for passing that one along.)

Because Our Bigotry is More Important Than Your Safety

It's the oldest argument in the book. We can't have gay soldiers in the military, because someone might get a little uncomfortable in the shower:

Back in September, The Daily Show’s Jason Jones sat down with Paul Cameron, one of the nation’s leading anti-gay activists, to ask about a defense for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Specifically, Jones asked about Bleu Copas, a decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist who joined the Army after the 9/11 attacks, but was thrown out for being gay, despite his role in helping translate intercepted messages from possible terrorists.

Cameron said, “I think the country, on the aggregate, is safer without Bleu in the military.” Asked why, Cameron explained, “Guys don’t want to think about other guys, other fellas, ogling them in the shower or whatever.” Jones responded, “I know I’d rather die in a terrorist attack than suffer through an uncomfortable shower with a gay.” Cameron grudgingly responded, "Yes."

Christ, how paranoid can you get? I've always wondered about this whole "shower" thing, anyway... are soldiers really taking that many showers together? In big group stalls, I mean. It just seems really high school locker room to me. Anyway, more on that later.

Well, someone finally decided that in order to find out what soldiers really think about this topic, they should, you know, ask the soldiers, rather than taking the word of Conservative blowhards as gospel. And guess what, friends and neighbors?

As it turns out, a new Zogby poll shows that men and women in uniform disagree.
A new poll reveals that 73% of military members say they are comfortable around lesbians and gays. And 23% say they know an active duty soldier in their unit who is lesbian or gay…. More than half — 55% — of the troops who know a gay peer said the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit is well known by others. […]

“Those who defend the law have argued that openly gay personnel harm military readiness. This research highlights the absurdity of such a hypothesis,” said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
Only 5% of troops said they are “very uncomfortable” around gays.

So can we finally drop this ridiculous "dont' ask, don't tell" policy? In these times, when we're so desperate for skilled, qualified military personnel, expelling them from the ranks simply because of their sexual orientation is absurd. Especially Arabic translators.

I also love how this "it'll ruin troop morale" argument is dependent on soldiers being as homophobic as the blabbermouths pushing it. They couldn't possibly fathom a group of men in the military that know about a gay man (or men) in their unit that actually *gasp* like the guy. Oh no, hetero and homo soldiers couldn't possibly be friends. And it's inconceivable that a straight soldier might not care if a gay guy sees his bait & tackle in the shower.

You mean every man in the military isn't a rabid homophobe? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Oh, and about teh SHOWER omg! :

And what about showers?

Zogby covered that one, too.

Prominent supporters of “don’t ask, don’t tell” have expressed concerns about privacy in the shower, [Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, who has written widely on the subject] said, but nearly three out of four troops said in the Zogby poll that they usually or almost always take showers privately – only 8% say they usually or almost always take showers in group stalls.

See? I thought the whole thing sounded ridiculous. The homo haters make the military sound like one, big, long, group shower. Which would be hawt. Erm, I mean, bad for America!

In these times, expelling someone willing to serve their country because of their sexual orientation is not only bigoted, it's poor military strategy. Your soldiers are not the bigots you imagine them to be. Stop treating them as such. They need all the help they can get.

Welcome to the Blob

In the Blog Mob, or Blob as I shall call it, I am a fool and you are an imbecile. (Who me? Yes, you.) And now that we know about bloggers and their readers, let's find out about the blogs themselves.

The blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think.

…The larger problem with blogs, it seems to me, is quality. Most of them are pretty awful. Many, even some with large followings, are downright appalling.

…Because political blogs are predictable, they are excruciatingly boring.

So then, the Blob is comprised of fools and imbeciles congregating around poorly constructed and uninteresting outposts of little significance. Hardly worthy, it would seem, of the Wall Street Journal's assistant editorial features editor dedicating 1,000 words to it. But maybe it was important to clarify for significant and serious people outside the Blob how balmy the Blob and all its people are. Well, done and dusted. Now I expect we Blobbians will be left in peace to our silly pursuits, without the providers of information to significant and serious people commenting on our mad, mad, mad, mad Blob again.

Until next week.

All I'm Getting for Christmas

Mr. Shakes and I were ending ourselves laughing at this Saturday night. Justin Timberlake was, btw, one of the better hosts SNL has had in a long time. And one of the better musical guests, too.

This video probably isn't worksafe, unless you work in Angelos' house. Thanks to the owner/operator of Angelos Industries for sending along this uncensored version.

Quote of the Day

"The mainstreaming of bigotry and racism has been one of the more depressing developments over the past few years. But, liberal bloggers use bad words sometimes so I guess it all evens out." — Atrios

Holy Tree

Just the other day, I was thinking it's been months since there's been a sighting of any holy folks. Well, the wait's over. Mary has appeared on a tree in California:

Behold the Soledad maple tree, where hundreds of believers are being drawn to contemplate the image of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God in the Catholic tradition, cast on its trunk with the help of light and shadows.

Word has spread fast in this growing town that the Madonna has appeared on a 50-year-old tree on Ticino Street, and hundreds are flocking to see the image, to pray or to satisfy their curiosity.

… But some of the onlookers see a lot more than a head: they see the Virgin's son, Baby Jesus, as if he were hugging her by the waist, his feet dangling. Some see her dressed in a white tunic that flows all the way to the ground.

As per usual, I'm the heathen who doesn't quite see what I'm supposed to. I see a ringwraith holding a baby hippo.

You say tomato; I say tomahto.
Thanks to Fritz for passing that one along. Holy folks Gone Wild on peanuts, x-rays, turtles, ultrasounds, chocolate, dying plants, sheet metal, trees, more trees, wardrobes, water stains, grilled cheese sandwiches, potato chips, plates of pasta, drywall, fish, and more fish.

Time to Get Serious!

No more zany high jinks for Sir Jokesalot—three years and counting into the war, it's time to buckle down and approach this thing with the stoicism it deserves:

Speaking to reporters at the White House this morning, President Bush was asked a simple question that goes to the heart of the American public’s growing concern that the administration is out of touch on Iraq. Does he still believe, a reporter asked, that the U.S. is winning in Iraq?

…Bush generally likes to banter with reporters at such events and make small jokes from the podium. Today, by contrast, Mr. Bush largely kept his humor in check.

“The first comment was done in this spirit: I believe that we’re going to win. I believe that — and, by the way, if I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t have our troops there. That’s what you’ve got to know. We’re going to succeed,” the president said, referring to his pre-election statement. “My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we’re not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted, when I said it at the time, and that the conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad,” he continued, citing the Post interview.

And what is his bottom-line message to the American people?

“I want them to know that I know how tough it is. But I also want them to know that I’m going to work with the military and the political leaders to develop a plan that’ll help us achieve the objective,” he said.

There was then a pregnant pause while the president let the quality of his statement sink in. David Gregory, always quick on the uptake, giggled. "Damn it, Little Stretch!" Bush exclaimed, as he burst out laughing. "You know I can't keep a straight face when I hear you carrying on!"

The rest of the White House Press Core erupted with laughter. "He wants them to know he knows how tough it is!" Ed Henry howled. "Priceless!"

"He's going to work with people!" snorted Paula Wolfson. "I love it! Comedy gold!"

Helen Thomas threw down her pad and pencil and made her way for the door. "You people are all idiots," she sighed.

"Get her!" said Bush. "She's so humorless, she must be onna them feministos!"

And on and on they laughed…

Snort Riiiight.

Bouncing off Shakes' post below, here's my favorite bit in the premarital sex story: (bold mine)

Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, defended the abstinence-only approach for teenagers.

"One of its values is to help young people delay the onset of sexual activity," he said. "The longer one delays, the fewer lifetime sex partners they have, and the less the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease."

He insisted there was no federal mission against premarital sex among adults.

"Absolutely not," Horn said. "The Bush administration does not believe the government should be regulating or stigmatizing the behavior of adults."

Myths and Fallacies

I read with interest the recent (totally unsurprising) revelations that pot is America's biggest cash crop and 95% of Americans have has premarital sex. It occurs to me the two stories are intimately related by their efficient subversion of the "conventional wisdom" regularly disgorged by fighters of two of America's favorite Wars-On—the oft-referenced War on Drugs and the rarely name-dropped War on Recreational Sex. Lots (and lots and lots and lots) of people are using pot, and they're not all turning into insane drug fiends. And lots of people (like, almost everyone) are having sex outside the bounds of marriage, and they're not all turning into amoral lunatics with a chronic aversion to settling down and having families. (And, in fairness, approximately 10% of the population is having sex outside of marriage because, you know, they're legally prevented from getting married.)

Both of these stories expose the futility of using hyperbole as a cautionary tool, which has long been my (and many other progressives') biggest issue with the Wars-On. Casting pot as a drug that will ruin the average user's life is absurd. It's not true, for a start, which young experimenters will easily discern—and discovering that pot is hardly the addictive, life-altering, devastating drug they were taught only serves to undercut what they've heard about drugs that actually are addictive, life-altering, and devastating. I don't think anyone is helped by pretending that there's no difference between pot and meth.

Casting premarital sex as an activity that will ruin the average dallier's life is equally absurd. It's also untrue, for a start; the vast majority of people who have premarital sex are no worse for the wear, broken hearts—which aren't predicated on sex or prevented by its absence—notwithstanding. Most people who claim to regret premarital sex cite one of two reasons: Religiosity, generally entailing some judgment on the part of an eventual suitor or spouse, which still doesn't make premarital sex intrinsically bad or hurtful; or Unwanted Pregnancy, which usually results from foolishness and ignorance that could have been avoided via comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives, also not making premarital sex intrinsically bad or hurtful.

This is all decidedly inconvenient for the Warriors-On. It's no wonder they tend not to like "objective news" and "facts," as they have this terrible habit of undermining some of America's most entrenched myths about Things Some People Don't Like and Don't Want Anyone Else to Like, Either.

Anecdotally, the people I've known with addictions to hardcore drugs didn't start with pot, in spite of its reputation as a gateway drug. They started with either booze or cigarettes, both legal, and both more addictive than pot—and they were hooked on one or both long before they were hooked on any Schedule 1 drugs.

And, also anecdotally, were I to draw a conclusion about premarital sex from the people I know, it would be that the more promiscuous you were, the more likely you are to settle down and have kids. That goes for the men and the women, straight and gay. (Not compared to virgins-until-marriage—I don't know any of them—but as compared to people who have premarital sex rather infrequently, say, the 10 partners or less lane.) If fundies are really worried about people who don't marry and/or procreate, it's the teens and young adults who aren't freaking at the clubs they need to worry about. They're the ones who seem to do bizarre things like have 20-year-engagements or get married but never have kids, even with perfectly good sperm-producing balls and working uteri.

Bush Wants to Expand Military

You and what army?

Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point.

…[T]he president said he interpreted the Democratic election victories six weeks ago not as a mandate to bring the U.S. involvement in Iraq to an end but as a call to find new ways to make the mission there succeed.

Of course he did. Because he is Teh Crazy. Teh Crazy not only believes that the American people want him to send more troops, but that more troops can be found. Teh Crazy also believes we are neither winning nor losing.

"An interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing'," Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with."

Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.

Sometimes Teh Crazy lies, too, because he is desperate and drowning in his own cesspool of incompetence.

Teh Crazy's plan to expand the military is going to cost a lot of money:

…A force structure expansion would accelerate the already-rising costs of war. The administration is drafting a supplemental request for more than $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this fiscal year, according to U.S. officials. That would be over 50 percent more than originally projected for fiscal 2007, making it by far the costliest year since the 2003 invasion.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for terrorism-related operations elsewhere. An additional $100 billion would bring overall expenditures to $600 billion, exceeding those for the Vietnam War, which, adjusted for inflation, cost $549 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Teh Crazy must be stopped. That's the mandate of the Democratic election victories six weeks ago, and the Democrats had better stop him, because he has lost. the. plot.

(Digby makes an important point about the costs of this harebrained idea, too.)

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Mr. Belvedere

Question of the Day

Stolen from Mustang Bobby: Are you still in touch with your best friend from childhood?

Cheney Called to Testify

...on Scooter's behalf. I have no searingly insightful commentary on the topic; I fully expect Cheney to say whatever best protects his own wrinkled white ass and throw whatever bones he can spare to Scooter in the process, though certainly Scooter expects no real help from his former boss. Big wev.

Happy Blogiversary...

...to Jon Swift!

John Edwards and the "Big Heart" Campaign

Political Wire:

While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will chase history in their 2008 campaigns, early clues from former Sen. John Edwards suggest that he will take a different route, running as the candidate with heart. You can read it in the recent book Saving Graces by Elizabeth Edwards and Home, the coffee table picture book by John Edwards about the places where famous and not-so-famous Americans grew up. You can also see it in the schedule -- announcing his candidacy in New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward, the new symbol of the forgotten America.

The subtext of the Edwards campaign will be that it's not enough to represent Americans who have been locked behind walls of power, you need to tear down those walls and deal head-on with issues of poverty, job creation and health care accessibility, the three prime impediments to expanding and strengthening the middle class. While others will try to craft the perfect Iraq policy, Edwards will take the more emotionally satisfying approach of bringing 40,000 troops home immediately and the rest as soon as possible.

…[T]here's no doubt that the Edwards' have put a great deal of thought behind this race and will be formidable, tough opponents that no one can take lightly.

This only reinforces my impression of Edwards as the antidote to Dubya. I said before that, "By virtue of being everything Bush is not, both aesthetically and ideologically, he may just be the cure for that which ails us," and I'm doubling down on that idea as I contemplate "Big Heart" vs. "Heartless" and recall Bush the Heartless Wonder posing in front of a fake backdrop of reconstruction.

I noticed some similar grousing in the blogosphere about Edwards' choice of locale to announce his candidacy, replete with references to its being a distasteful "photo op," but, quite honestly, I feel a guy who's started a poverty center has earned the right to not be questioned on his motives when he walks among the poor, has earned at least our willingness to set aside a cynical presumption of his exploitation of the Lower Ninth Ward long enough to consider whether, perhaps, he instead intended to exploit the media interest in his candidacy to call attention to the continuing plight of the Lower Ninth Ward.

Sometimes people still do things for the right reasons, and I refuse to give up my belief in that. If I do, I won't be me anymore.

AlterNettin'

Thanks to a gracious word from Shakes to Evan Derkacz of AlterNet, I've begun posting in the PEEK column on that site. The initial post is titled 'When "truths" become inoperative,' and concerns today's official demotion of al Qaeda and the ascension of the Mehdi Army on the list of bad things in Iraq. Thanks much, Melissa.

Addendum: The title of the post has been changed to 'Worse than Al Qaeda?' Editors. You gotta love 'em. :-D