It's Delurk Week. (Thanks to Evil Bender for the reminder.) So all you lurkers who rarely or never pipe up, say hi!
Cheeky devils!
It's Delightful, It's Delicious, It's De-Lovely…
Cheeky devils!
I'd Rather Be Shoe Shopping
Ouch.
Ohio Sen. George Voinovich writes letters to the families of fallen U.S. soldiers. Until now, he's said in those letters that the sacrifices Americans troops are making in Iraq are every bit the equal of those U.S. soldiers made in World War II. But Voinovich told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this afternoon that he's going to have to change his letter now. "I've gone along with the president on this, and I've bought into his dream," Voinovich said, his voice choking with emotion. "At this stage of the game, I don't think it's going to happen."
The Ohio Republican's delivery was more emotional than some of his colleagues', but the sentiment he expressed this afternoon was pretty much the same as the one Rice heard from most members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: The president has lost the American people and their representatives, and the new "way forward" he put forth last night isn't enough to win them over again.
[...]
Some highlights from the day's session:
Sen. Russ Feingold: The Wisconsin Democrat said that that it is time for Congress to use "the power of the purse" to cut off funding for the war -- not just for the escalation, but for the entire war. "By setting an end-date for funding for the war, we can give the president the time needed to redeploy troops safely from Iraq." Feingold's words drew a rare round of applause from some of those gathered to watch the hearing.
Sen. Chuck Hagel: The Nebraska Republican said the president has "set in motion" a "very, very dangerous" series of events. "I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam," he said. When Hagel referred to the president's plan for an "escalation," Rice said that she and the president preferred the term "augmentation," and that it was important for everyone to have the right "image" of what's actually happening on the ground in Iraq. When Hagel said he had a pretty good "image" of the situation already -- "Iraqis are killing Iraqis . . . we're in a civil war" -- Rice responded lamely: "Not all of Baghdad has fallen into a civil war."
Come on, give me a break, look at what I've got to work with, here!
And a Good Day to You, Too!
WaPo: "We heard a number of complaints last week because we used the word 'catfight' to describe a disagreement between two distinguished members of Congress—Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.). To those who civilly articulated reasons why the term is inappropriate, we say: Point taken."
Not "We're sorry," just "Point taken." And only to those who civilly articulated the very, very new concepts about why describing a professional disagreement between two eminent leaders of our country as a catfight is inappropriate. The rest of you who did not respond civilly to our offensive behavior can go fuck yourselves.
(Via.)
So…I guess we're at war with Iran now?
First, let's revisit a post from October for a moment:
Lindorff: "The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower and its accompanying strike force of cruiser, destroyer and attack submarine slipped their moorings and headed off for the Persian Gulf region on Oct. 2, as I had predicted in a piece in The Nation magazine a few weeks back. The Eisenhower strike force, according to my sources, is scheduled to arrive in the vicinity of Iran around October 21, at the same time as a second flotilla of minesweepers and other ships. This build-up of naval power around the coast of Iran, according to some military sources, is in preparation for an air attack on Iran that would target not just Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, but its entire military command and control system. …I hope I am wrong about all this, but the sailing of the Eisenhower, which had been pushed forward recently by about a month by the Pentagon for clearly political reasons, makes me think I'm right."Now, let's revisit part of Bush's speech last night:
President Bush’s address to the nation tonight included "some of his sharpest words of warning to Iran." Bush accused the Iranian government of "providing material support for attacks on American troops" and vowed to "seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies."Today's WaPo:
Bush added, "I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region."
U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq late Wednesday night and detained several people, Iran's main news agency reported today, prompting protests from Tehran just hours after President Bush pledged to crack down on the Islamic Republic's role in Iraqi violence.Glenn Greenwald:
…U.S. officials have not confirmed the raid but did say in a press release that they had taken six people into custody in Irbil during the course of "routine security operations." The release said the individuals were "suspected of being closely tied" to attacks on Iraqi and U.S. forces.
Isn't it a definitive act of war for one country to storm the consulate of another, threaten to kill them if they do not surrender, and then detain six consulate officers?If it's not, it has to be best described as "damn close."
Glenn also says, "I think there is a tendency to dismiss the possibility of some type of war with Iran because it is so transparently destructive and detached from reality that it seems unfathomable. But if there is one lesson that everyone should have learned over the last six years, it is that there is no action too extreme or detached from reality to be placed off limits to this administration."
And here's what I said back in October upon reading news of an additional carrier strike group being deployed to the region: "This is insane; even BushCo isn’t batshit crazy enough to do this now. That’s what one part of my brain keeps saying when I read stuff like this. The other part says: Wake up, you dosey maroon. BushCo is batshit crazier than you can possibly begin to imagine."
Oh those fundies...
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"
"I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie"
"No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims."
"If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right."
"But God don't talk in Arabic. He talks in a REAL language, namely, English. It's true that back in them days He translated that to some other language after Speaking it in English, but after all, it's His universe and He can do what He doggone well wants to do."
"LOL, I think that I am the one that is missing something. Because I fail to see how "glyphosate" resistant weeds is an arguement FOR evolution. I do not even know what glyphosate is so how can that be evidence for anything. Maybe for you it is evidence, for me it is just a word that I do not know the meaning of."
"[How eating pork leads to wife swapping]
The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. In America, most people consume pork. Many times after dance parties, they have swapping of wives; i.e. many say "you sleep with my wife and I will sleep with your wife." If you eat pigs then you behave like pigs."
"Lets get serious. You will believe a A FUCKING APE IS YOUR ANCESTOR. A FUCKING APE!!!!!!!!!! A PRE HOMOSPHIEN MAKES FOREST GUMP AND RAIN MAN LOOK LIKE ALBERT EISTEIN!!!!!!!!!Not to mention disturbing:
Doesn’t make sense. Evolution is stupid. You have to be a jackass to be evolution. Do you think man used to be a hairy, ugly, illiterate not so bright monkey lookin motherfucker.
Want to say to your kids ” this Ape used to be your ancestor.”
Get real… How does a retarded ape envolve to a human. Don’t make any sense. sOUNDS LIKE THE FUCKING TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
This is what I think, you have an ape, and a monkey.. Science is the study of.
You humans compare the ape and monkey to a human and put them together.
Scientist are misleading!!!! Will you let a ape do your taxes?? Can a ape drive a car??? Can a ape talk??? No!!!!!!!!
Caveman is a illusion… Its kinda like the missing link. A dumb hairy motherfucker who doesn’t know how to make complex decisions.
You guys need Jesus bad… You guys watch too much Discovery Channel.
Know this ATHIEST RELIGION IS SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION, SCIENTIST ARE ATHIEST, AGOSTIC, SCIENCE IS MAN MADE RESEARCH.
YOU GUYS DON’T BELIEVEN GOD BECAUSE SCIENCE DETERMINES YOUR DICISIONS.
"Since the population of mankind is a "closed" population - no humans can migrate to and from earth, only the rate of births and deaths can increase or decrease the human population.
Therefore, the way to control the population growth is through the increase of the human mortality rate by legitimate means. Not through the crimes of abortions, infanticide, euthanasia and etc; but through the automatic DEATH PENALTY for the broad spectrum of deeds that are high crimes in the sight of the true GOD. This principle of population control has never been addressed by demography. It is the cornerstone of proper human population control which the builders have rejected.
Some of the high crimes which God requires the human society to vigorously enforce the death penalty upon are: blasphemy against the true God; idolatry; breaking the Lord's day; dishonor to parents; murder; adultery; incest; homosexuality; bestiality; rape; kidnapping; seeking to destroy the righteous; putting to death the innocent (such as putting innocent embryos and fetuses to death in abortions); seeking to overthrow God's appointed authority, etc.
In order for the world community of humans to actually put this decorous principle into practice, it must adopt the MORAL LAW OF GOD - THE TEN COMMANDMENTS as the supreme laws of the World community.
This principle of controlling the population would positively affect the economic prosperity of nations, positively affect the health and increase the life expectancy of lawabidding citizens, properly educate the human race, positively affect the family structure, overwhelmingly reduce crime, etc. Every legitimate aspect of the human society would benefit greatly."
"[Commenting on a study which suggests that women who exercise by doing the housework can reduce their risk of breast cancer]
Missing the point. It's not the exercise. Joggers and Pilates people - and the sun-worshippers - are the ones getting breast cancer. The explanation is this. It is God Who gives you cancer. A woman who keeps house, and bears the children God gives her as a gift, and prays the Rosary - no abortions and no pills - will be cancer-free, all other things being equal. "Blessed is the man whom God corrects; refuse not therefore the chastising of the Lord, for He wounds and cures, He strikes and His hands shall heal" - Job."
"If you're going to get an abortion it should be mandatory to get your tubes tied.
Sex is only fun and games to male's, but you got a fucking responsibility bitch"
"God hates therefore I hate. God only cares about the Adamic white race therefore I only care for the Adamic white race, bastard."
"A person who sold a slave did not make God sick like watching two men do it."
"I honestly don't care about your rights. If it were up to me, all Atheists would be burnt at the stake and or cast into a river with weights tied to their ankles and or placed before the firing squad, etc etc etc."
"Female circumcision is not barbaric. It is done for a reason, to keep the female pure. If only we adopted such practices here in the UK, then maybe women would be less inclined toward infidelity and therefore family values would still be an integral part of society. Family values instil a sense of discipline and respect, which we need as a counteraction against the modern trend of zero respect and zero discipline that is undermining the very fabric of our decaying society."
"Seriously, does anybody ever cry at an Atheist's funeral?
I mean, since Atheists have no value whatsoever as human beings (they're not even human, but only inhuman animals), since Atheists are nothing but miserable Liars, Cowards and Murderers, after all, why would anybody in their right mind weep over the dead rotting corpse, or bone chips and ashes (that get mixed together with those of others from the crematory) of a worthless dead Atheist?
And what epitaph do you engrave on an Atheist's grave marker? "Here lies the only good Atheist, which is a dead Atheist". What else is there say? Nothing at all. No last words, no last rites, no flowers, no anything.
Every time an Atheist dies, the world is better off as a result of that dead Atheist being dead, & its damned God-forsaken soul burning in the fiery pits of Hades. :)
Which begs another related question, do Atheists cry at funerals? If so, why? Since Atheists hate God, and they hate Family, and they hate Country, who are they crying for? It is true: The only good Atheist is a dead Atheist."
"If u have sex before marriage then in Gods eyes u are married to that person if a man rapes a woman in Gods eyes they are married it sucks for the girl but what can we do lol"There are many more and all are sourced at the site.
Meanwhile, Back in the States...
...things aren't going so well here, either.
Study: 744,000 are Homeless in the U.S.
WASHINGTON - There were 744,000 homeless people in the United States in 2005, according to the first national estimate in a decade. A little more than half were living in shelters, and nearly a quarter were chronically homeless, according to the report Wednesday by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, an advocacy group.Just to put this in a bit of perspective, here are a few more population counts:
A majority of the homeless were single adults, but about 41 percent were in families, the report said.
The group compiled data collected by theDepartment of Housing and Urban Development from service providers throughout the country. It is the first national study on the number of homeless people since 1996. That study came up with a wide range for America's homeless population: between 444,000 and 842,000.
Alaska - 663,661In the richest country in the world, we have a population of homeless that is greater than the amount of people living in the Capital.
Delaware - 843,524
D.C. - 550,521
Montana- 935,670
North Dakota - 636,677
South Dakota - 775,933
Vermont - 623,050
Wyoming - 509,294
Some cities and states have done their own counts of the homeless, providing a mix of trends, said Nan Roman, president of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. For example, New York City and San Francisco have seen decreases, while the number of homeless in Washington, D.C., has increased, Roman said.I don't know if your city is like mine, but Chicago has been exploding with new construction condos. New construction definitely picked up once it seemed that all the worthwhile vintage buildings had been gutted for condos; then it was time to build new buildings!
[...]
California was the state with most homeless people in 2005, about 170,000, followed by New York, Florida, Texas and Georgia, according to the report.
Nevada had the highest share of its population homeless, about 0.68 percent. It was followed by Rhode Island, Colorado, California and Hawaii.
"The driver in homelessness is the affordable housing crisis," Roman said. "If we don't do something to address the crisis in affordable housing we are not going to solve homelessness."
As all of this has been going on, more and more buildings going up, I keep thinking, who's going to live in these things? Because as they keep going up, there is one thing in common. They are all "luxury" condos. Meaning the tiniest studios start out at least at $250K. That's with no upgrades. And usually, with no parking... a space will set you back another $30K or so.
But for something really nice, maybe with a river or lake view, you can expect to start at about $1.5 million. Right around our home, they're building 20 or more multimillion dollar single-family homes; half a city block long and five stories high. They start at around $3.5 million.
The average price of a condo in Chicago seems to be around $450K and up. Now, the husband and I did recently purchase a home of our own (not paying nearly that, thank Jebus), and one thing that has really bothered me is that our building is a couple blocks away from the Cabrini Green housing project. What's left of it, that is. They're being torn down, building by building, and the awful thing is, I'm seeing no low income or "affordable" housing going up to compensate for the loss. If there is anything being built, I have no idea where it is. But it's definitely not near any of the new construction.
I wonder how much the homeless population in Chicago has jumped?
I wonder if any television news programs will report this number?
I wonder if any of them do report on the number, how many of them will have people on to discuss the problem of homelessness, rather than just mention the number in passing with grim faces?
I wonder how many of these programs will have Homeless Alliance members, Social Workers, Homeless Advocates, or hell, a homeless person on their shows to discuss the problem, rather than some pundit in a suit that's never missed a meal?
Well, I know one thing. In a country where a car company decides to sell their product with "wacky" commercials featuring a comedian living out of his car for a week, "because he can," I'm not holding my breath.
The campaign is intended to appeal to younger consumers “who live what we call the morning-to-morning lifestyle,” Mr. Schwartz said. They “get up, go to the gym, go to work, go out, and your car becomes your paradise.”Of course, after the marketing campaign, Horowitz was able to go to his home, after his "seven straight days in his Sentra."
“That gave birth to the idea, ‘Hey, what if we had the guy live his life in this car?’ ” he added.
The guy is Mr. Horowitz, described by Mr. Schwartz as “a true product of our age,” who, in his off hours, “is a creator of content, including a blog, video and T-shirts,” and displayed the “curiosity and skepticism” common to his generation.
“He said, ‘I don’t know if I want to sell out,’ and we said: ‘Dude, this isn’t selling out. It’s a product demonstration,’ ” Mr. Schwartz recalled, adding that the agency found Mr. Horowitz in a casting book.
Of course, many of the 744,000 people mentioned above, some who live in their car every day of their lives, don't get that luxury.
But, hey, it's all in good fun, right?
Thought I’d answer a few of the questions people have been asking since I finished the 7 days.Ha, ha.
Q: Was living in your car fun?
A: Yes and no. No, because people look at you like you’re a freak. Yes, because people look at you like you’re a freak.
More Signs of the Times
Like the little Spanish town of Fuenlabrada, Vienna has decided to make its signage more gender-neutral. Construction signs, exit signs, and road warning signs have all been redesigned to feature identifiably feminine forms. (As in Fuenlabrada, the accoutrements of womanhood—ponytails, skirts, high heels, and handbags—leave a bit to be desired, but it's a start.)
The prototypes designed to encourage people to rethink some of the Austrian capital's gender biases, kicked up a kerfuffle of criticism from men and women — but more from men.You know, Karl Morwald is right. Changing signs that have been familiar for decades is ridiculous. And sexism has been around for even longer, so changing that is even more ridiculous.
…In the daily newspaper Heute, which is distributed free on every subway, Karl Morwald, a Vienna resident, was quoted saying: "Politicians are really great at making themselves ridiculous … changing well-known signs that have been familiar for decades."
A man from the small town of Zwettl wrote, "some town councilors seem to be really bored and always hunting for new foolish things — at the taxpayers' expense."
Ahem.
It's always interesting that something so "foolish," something so insignificant as to not even warrant spending a tiny wee amount of taxpayers' money, nevertheless is important enough to make people write letters to the editor about it. That changing the sex of the figures on street signs generates enough interest to make the international news ought to be the first clue that it's not the inconsequential silliness its detractors would have one believe.
As I've said before, telling a girl since birth that she is equal matters little if she travels within a culture that consistently sends signals contrary to that message, which is why changing even these "little things" is ultimately, cumulatively, very important.
(H/T Autumn Sandeen.)
Dear Mr. President
I kindly request that if you're going to be a ghoulish warmonger, then do me and the rest of America the favor of looking the part. When announcing you're sending 21,500 more men and women to risk their lives for the monstrous folly of prolonging the pretense that the war in Iraq is one we can yet win, and is not a civil war from which we must extricate ourselves as soon as possible in spite of our responsibility for unleashing it, the least you can bloody do is not look scared.
That, sir, is not an expression suited to the most powerful man in the free world. It is the countenance of a man who's forgotten to purchase on his way home the toilet paper his wife requested, captured at the precise moment he tries to decide whether to just say he forgot or spin some fantastic yarn about the store being completely out of bogroll.
I trust you'll agree, sir, such a posture is a decidedly ill-suited demeanor for the Commander in Chief in a time of war, particularly as he casts more lives to the ruthless hands of fate in the bowels of a cataclysm. In future, I suggest something a little grittier, a little more appropriately macabre—something that evokes in all whose eyes fall upon you the undeniable stench of doomed fortunes conjured by an unscathed knave.
Just one possibility. Honestly, Mr. President, I don't particularly care what look you ultimately choose, just so long as it resembles a great deal less a deer caught in headlights than your choice did this evening. You see, when you could end this whole, horrible thing with the stroke of a pen, you don't get to be scared. That's for the men and women risking their lives in Iraq. That's for the Iraqis. That's for all the rest of us, who have to live in this immeasurably more dangerous world you've created, who won't have the benefit of a secret service detail for the rest of our natural lives. Frightened is just the last thing you get to be when you hold all the cards, because you're the only one who can't lose.
Best Regards,
Shakespeare's Sister
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Spudsy the Devo freak made me post this, of course.
He obviously has trouble with the word "nostalgia,"
which suggests people actually remember what
is posted.
(Ooh, snap! He's gonna whip me, whip me good!)
Question of the Day
"The Pale Man," one of the scariest film Bogeymen I've ever seen.
I saw Pan's Labyrinth last weekend, and was completely enthralled by it. You know when you go to see a movie, and the next day you can't stop thinking about it, so you start Googling all over the place to read what others have to say about it? It was one of those movies. (I'm going to try very very hard to avoid spoilers here.)
One thing that the vast majority of people point out in their discussion is the film's extreme violence. There are some scenes of viciousness that are so brutal, even I had to look away occasionally. And I'm usually the guy happily munching away on my popcorn as zombies slurp the grey matter out of the skulls of unfortunates.
The other word that usually accompanies "violence" in these opinions is "gratuitous." Many of the people that have seen this movie felt the violence was over the top, unnecessary. I disagree.
Yes, perhaps the violence wasn't necessary to the plot of the film, but it was vital to the character development (and one character in particular). The film takes place during a time of war, and as we all know, war can make people very brutal. If the real violence wasn't there, I don't think I would have been as affected by the climax of the film as I was.
In contrast, there is a film, Audition, that was recommended to me by many people. I hated this film. If you haven't seen it, (and again, trying to avoid spoilers here) there is an extended, brutal torture sequence at the end of the film that I found to be completely gratuitous. I could understand the character's justification as to why she was torturing her victim, but man, I thought the whole thing was torture for torture's sake; simple shock value. A "test of endurance" for the film-goer. Color me unimpressed.
Interestingly enough, Pan's Labyrinth has a "torture scene," but we never see it. We see the torturer taunting his captive, and then the film cuts away to another scene. Granted, we see the results later, but never do we see what the victim goes through. This, in a movie that's supposedly full of "gratuitous violence."
So... here's my long-winded means of getting to the Question of the Day. When do you think extreme violence in movies is acceptable? And I'm not really talking about horror movies here; the violence in most of them is naturally going to be pretty gonzo. When does violence become gratuitous to you?
By the way... if you go to see Pan, be prepared for the Pale Man to make an appearance in at least one nightmare. He is bone chilling.
Triumph
Here's a little something to keep you company and give you a hearty laugh tonight while you're busily ignoring the unmitigated travesty of our buffoon of a president informing the American populace that, against their will, he will be sending more troops to Iraq.
I am so one of these Star Wars nerds, it's not even funny. We didn't wear costumes, but Mr. Shakes and I did attend the premiere party for Episode II: Attack of the Clones in Edinburgh and there was much enjoyable nerdery. I will also confess that Mr. Shakes and I regularly speak to each other in 1960's robot voices.
Shakes: THE LISSIETRON 3000 IS IN URGENT NEED OF A SODA AND REQUESTS THE IAINBOT 3000 RETRIEVE ONE IMMEDIATELY.
Mr. Shakes: DOES NOT COMPUTE. THE LISSIEBOT 3000 MUST GET OFF HER FAT ARSE AND GET IT HERSELF.
And so forth. This is a habit acquired when we were staying with Mr. Furious and Mr. Curious upon our return from Scotland, and all four of us used to talk in robot voices constantly. There's no why. We did it just to amuse each other and ourselves. And because we're big nerds.
Anyway, enjoy the video, and try to avoid watching the president's speech, even though I'm sure it will be great—for me to poop on!
Dodd 4 Pres
The Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Christopher Dodd, will reportedly announce his candidacy for the 2008 presidential race tomorrow. He looks as much like a televangelist as Obama sounds like one, and he's got a decent enough record, but nothing that makes my nipples hard. Your tumescence may vary.
Blech Beck
Apropos of Paul's posts here and here on ABC's assholery, I've got a new piece up at The Guardian's Comment is Free, What America Wants.
YES.
House Passes Minimum Wage Increase
WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled House voted Wednesday to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, bringing America's lowest-paid workers a crucial step closer to their first raise in a decade.I love how they use "rule," rather than "control." Frakkin' perfect. Of course, there's the usual whinging:
The vote was 315-116, with more than 80 Republicans joining Democrats to pass it.
"You should not be relegated to poverty if you work hard and play by the rules," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md.
The bill was the second measure passed since Democrats took control of the House, ending more than a decade of Republican rule.
Business groups and other critics said it could lead to higher prices for goods and services, force small companies to pink-slip existing workers or hire fewer new ones, and crimp profits.Yeah, the Bush Administration has shown so much love to small businesses before this. Snort.
The White House issued a statement saying it opposed the bill because it "fails to provide relief to small businesses."
I think I'm beginning to like this House.
News Flash!
The MSM actually reports on the Spocko saga, and even more mind-boggling, doesn't take the side of the eliminationist hate-speech using right-wing radio hosts.
Film at eleven.
Wingnut shrieking about "the Liberal Media" any second now.
(And does anyone else find it sick that you'll "only see this on CBS 5?")
Presidenting is Hard Work
Especially speechifizing:
[Bush] spent hours Tuesday practicing in front of cameras, preparing to make his case for increasing the U.S. military commitment in Iraq in a prime-time address to the nation at 9 tonight.
"White House aides acknowledge the president faces a skeptical audience," but since there's No Such Thing as bad news for the Bush administration, "experts say Bush is protected by the upside of low approval ratings."
"His popularity is pretty low now," said presidential historian John Geer of Vanderbilt University. "It's not likely to go a lot lower."Yeah, well, that's what I thought back in May.
Now Frist and Hastert wouldn't even make it on the poster,
and Rumsfeld's a done tom turkey.
Just so you know, I'm totally not liveblogging that shit tonight. I've got better things to do...like, uh, cut mats out of Matilda's fuzz and, uh, laundry, and, uh, sit and stare at the wall.
(H/T Maru.)
The MSM: Reporting Only What We Feel Is Important
Yale Barbershop Singers Recovering After Ambush: (bolds mine)
NEW YORK (AFP) - Members of a close-harmony group from Yale University are recovering after being ambushed and beaten up while on tour in California.What the hell would cause people to beat a bunch of students that badly after singing The Star Spangled Banner? Why would singing that song cause a violent reaction? What's going on here?
Members of the a cappella Baker's Dozen were performing at a party in San Francisco at the new year when their rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner" apparently sparked taunts and threats from fellow partygoers.
As the group left the house, they were attacked by dozens of assailants, suffering scrapes, black eyes and concussions, said Connecticut's News Channel 8.
"Besides any bruising or scrapes to the face, the main injury I suffered was I broke my jaw in two places," one of the singers, 18-year-old Sharyar Aziz, was quoted as saying.
Another story:
How's this for an only-in-San Francisco story:So, what's going on with this? Did the singers use the homophobic insults, or did the "uninvited guests?" Why the vague descriptions?
Members of the Baker's Dozen, the renowned, all-male a cappella singing group from Yale, are pummeled outside a New Year's Eve party after singing "The Star-Spangled Banner."
The attackers allegedly include graduates from Sacred Heart Cathedral, one of the city's oldest and best-known private schools.
The attack happens outside the home of two prominent San Francisco police officers -- former mayoral bodyguard Reno Rapagnani, now retired, and his wife, Leanna Dawydiak -- who were both accused and later cleared of leaking internal SFPD personnel documents during the Fajitagate debacle.
[...]
As Rapagnani tells it, his 19-year-old daughter was hosting a New Year's Eve party at the family's Richmond District home for the Baker's Dozen, who were in town as part of a West Coast tour.
The 16 singers showed up late to the party wearing preppy sport jackets and ties, and launched into "The Star-Spangled Banner."
A couple of uninvited guests started mocking them, and allegedly the words "faggot" and "homo" were tossed -- and so were a couple of punches.
The loud noise drew relatives from next door, who promptly ordered the house cleared.
The Yale kids, most of whom were staying with a family a block away, began heading home.
But witnesses said one of the uninvited guests -- who happens to be the son of a prominent Pacific Heights family -- pulled out his cell phone and said, "I'm 20 deep. My boys are coming."
According to Rapagnani and others, the Yale kids barely made it around the corner when they were intercepted by a van full of young men.
But wait, there's more:
SAN FRANCISCO- There's a growing sense of outrage among some in San Francisco over a New Year's Eve fight in which members of a Yale University singing group was beaten and some ended up in the hospital.Ah, so it apparently was the "uninvited guests" that started the "taunts." Maybe. And finally, a little more detail:
As first reported by Dan Noyes of A-B-C affiliate K-G-O T-V, members of Yale's all-male a capella group -- The Baker's Dozen -- were reportedly jumped by a vehicle full of young men after they left a New Year's Eve house party in San Francisco.
One Yale student -- Sharyar Aziz -- had his jaw broken in two places during the fracas. Others in the group were bloodied and bruised as well.
The party was being held at the home of Reno Rapagnani, a retired San Francisco Police Department lawyer. The trouble started at midnight after The Baker's Dozen sang "The Star Spangled Banner."
Witnesses say some of the local men didn't appreciate the attention the Yale students were getting, called them derogatory names and made threats that they apparently followed up on.
Police continue to investigate the fight.
Channel 3 Eyewitness News reporter Erika Arias reported that while in San Francisco, the group went to a party thrown in their honor at the home of a retired police officer.So.
According to police, the group sang "The Star Spangled Banner" shortly after midnight. According to witnesses, a group of local men didn't like the attention the Baker's Dozen was receiving and began taunting them and making threats.
Aziz said a 19-year-old was the most aggressive.
"(He said) 'You're not welcome here.' He called a few members of the group, whether it was fag or homo, very, I would say, juvenile taunting," Aziz said.
As the group left the home, they were attacked. Their injuries ranged from scrapes and black eyes to concussions.
Aziz was rushed back to New York for reconstructive surgery, and his jaw will remain wired shut for eight weeks. Aziz will live the rest of his life with two titanium plates in his face.
"I can't just look back at that incident and be depressed for the next two months. I have to learn and deal with what's been given to me," Aziz said.
"I'm just surprised -- in San Francisco where you hear so much about tolerance," said Yale student Eric Beach. "I mean, I would think people would usually be more worried about something like that happening in New Haven than in San Francisco."
Four news items before this begins to make the slightest bit of sense. And there's quite a bit of important detail that's being left out of these things.
In reading the first two stories, you can understand why I was so puzzled by this. Why did this happen? There are any number of misconceptions that you can take from these items... and a lot of it has to do with the "Only in San Francisco" remark. Taking this at face value, you could read these stories and think, "Oh, a bunch of San Francisco liberals didn't like the fact that these "preppy," well-dressed young men were singing The Star Spangled Banner and beat the shit out of them. Well, that's the civility of the Left for you! Only in San Francisco!"
But by the time you get to the fourth story, it doesn't sound like a bunch of America hating, violent, San Francisco liberals anymore, does it?
Regardless of the sexual orientation of anyone in the group, this was a homophobic attack on a group of young men. Men that sing must be faggots, right? The fact that the attackers used these words is very important to the story (not to mention the fact that it's pretty goddamned important to make it clear who was slinging the insults in the first place), and it's quite telling that this information would be omitted from the story.
As Shakes has written about extensively in the past, (this is the third post in a series, with links to the others at the beginning) homophobic hate crimes are underreported or ignored by the media all the time. Ignoring this detail when reporting this story is incredibly irresponsible, as this is one of, if not the most important details in this attack. These performers weren't attacked because they were singing The Star Spangled Banner. They were attacked because they were men singing. Think about the use of "You're not welcome here." Why would the attacker use that phrase? Judging by the insults they used, it sounds an awful lot like "We don't want any of you singing queers anywhere near us." When I was in high school, a surefire way to have suspicion fall upon you that you may be a lousy queer was to join the show choir. As if men singing wasn't bad enough, they're dancing, too! They must be fags! When Eric Beach says "I would think people would usually be more worried about something like that happening in New Haven than in San Francisco," he's saying San Francisco is the last place you'd expect to be fag bashed.
This is just sloppy reporting, pure and simple. Ignoring the hate crime aspect of this story, while making it sound like your typical "San Franciscans hate America" story is completely infuriating. When I first read this story, and before I knew what the hell was going on, my first thought was, "So how long before the wingnut bloggers jump on this as another "San Francisco liberals hate America" talking point?" Because as far as I knew, that is exactly what happened.
Sharyar Aziz is going to have two titanium plates in his face for the rest of his life because he was attacked as a faggot because he sings in a choir. Is that somehow not worth reporting?
