Two Tales of Edwards

John Edwards: Shakes, are you finding any
excuse to repost this adorable picture of me now?

Shakes: Yes.
The WaPo offers us two articles about John Edwards today, a front-pager that seeks to turn, by way of vague innuendo, a routine house sale into Real Estategate, and a page A19 op-ed by E.J. Dionne who discusses Edwards' admission he is "prepared to disappoint voters who make a balanced budget their top priority," because his priorities—healthcare and energy reform—cost money, period.

There are two interesting things to note about these two articles: One is about Edwards' supposed shadiness, whereas the other is about his refreshing honesty—and you'll never guess which one appears to be utter horseshit. (Funny how that seems to happen every time John Solomon writes a story about a Democrat. Ahem.) And I'll turn it over to Ezra for the other notable bit:

In [the front-page] article heavy on insinuation and light on, well, anything, we learn that Edwards' real estate agent has, after 18 months, sold his Georgetown home below its asking price to a corporate executive who's engaged in union busting and possible stock fraud. At no point does it appear, or is it said, or is it even suggested that the buyer knew Edwards, that Edwards knew the buyer, or that anything occurred between these two men save for their real estate intermediaries conducting a property sale.

…EJ notes that Edwards is the only Democrat offering honest analysis of the tradeoffs between deficit reduction and social investment.

…Now, which of these articles is a straightforward reporting of fact and which, at its base, is an opinion piece?

Solomon's piece is so craptacular that even his colleagues can't defend it. It would be laughable if, you know, it hadn't been published on the front page of the Washington Post.

Leaving aside Solomon's hit piece for a substantive discussion of Dionne's, I'm quite pleased not only with Edwards' willingness to be balls-out honest about what his hypothetical administration will be able to deliver. You can have a balanced budget and deficit reduction, or you can have healthcare and energy reform, but you can't have it all—a completely fair thing to say that most politicians refuse to say to the giant whining two-year-old the American electorate has collectively become. Forget Mommy Party v. Daddy Party—we'd all be better off with someone who just knows how to say no once in awhile.

Better yet, Edwards is "willing to say which taxes he would raise to keep the deficit from going through the roof" in the meantime.

He would start by eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2 percent of income earners, which he defines roughly as those earning more than $180,000 to $200,000 a year.

He wants to increase the capital gains tax for an interesting reason: In an interview this week, he argued that it's wrong to tax income from work at a higher rate than income from capital -- an extension of his long-standing theme that the country should not value "wealth over work." He also favors a windfall-profits tax on oil companies.

Compare to "a president who campaigned on a balanced-budget pledge, then dug the country hundreds of billions of dollars deeper into debt with huge tax cuts and an unpaid-for war, and now promises a balanced budget four years after he leaves office." My sense that Edwards is, truly, the antithesis and hence antidote to Bush deepens every day.

732 days left with the disease.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Someone Call Tony Snow

He might need another example of how racism is still a pretty big fucking deal in this country, contrary to his beliefs.

I will simply leave you with your Jaw-Dropper of the Week, brought to you by genuine crazy person Michael Savage.

On the January 15 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, in a monologue about Martin Luther King Day, Michael Savage called "civil rights" a "con" and asserted: "It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it." Savage then said, "Take a guess out of whose hide all of these rights are coming. ... [T]here is only one group that is targeted, and that group are white, heterosexual males." He added: "They are the new witches being hunted by the illiberal left using the guise of civil rights and fairness to women and whatnot."

Yes, you read that right. The "birthright" of those poor, oppressed, white, heterosexual males.

There is a very simple reason I don't just shrug and say, "Well, what do you expect? It's Michael Savage!"

This is a nationally syndicated radio program.

He has an estimated 8 million listeners.

The FCC, who have crawled all over Howard Stern, have never issued Savage a fine.

He continues to have sponsors.

I find that a little hard to shrug off.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

"It's unusual in that it has two really wonderful parts for women."

That was one of Geena Davis' first impressions about Thelma and Louise, said, sadly, with genuine pleasant surprise. The dearth of women's roles in film is certainly not a new subject, nor is the particular issue of the absence of female characters in children's entertainment—something we've discussed here before, as I lamented that "even though Leia and Eowyn were both great heroines, it seemed to me as though girls who were smart and tough were always segregated away from other women." Even when we're there, we're there alone.

Davis recently spoke to the National Conference for Media Reform about female images in children's programming, and it is a powerful 22 minutes that I highly recommend. For those who can't view the video, I transcribed a bit below. Consider, as you watch/read, my oft-repeated refrain: Telling a girl since birth that she is equal matters little if she travels within a culture that consistently sends signals to the contrary.

"The very first thing [See Jane] did was to raise enough funds to sponsor the largest content analysis study ever done of G-rated movies…because we thought that, without the hard facts, it's going to be hard to convince people. We don't want to go in to the people who make these programs and movies and say, 'Our impression is that there are fewer female characters.' We wanted the results and the data, and the results we stunning, in fact.

"Three out of four characters in G-rated movies are male. We studied the top 100 movies released from 1990 to 2005. Of characters shown in groups, only 17% were female, and, of the few female characters that were in these movies, most of them were highly stereotyped. And, by the way, during this 15-year period, there was zero improvement as far as the percentage of female characters. So you have to think: 'What message is our culture still sending to kids?' That women and girls are worth less, and their worth is different than men and boys.

"What if, partly because the media children are seeing from the very beginning, programming that's aimed at our very youngest kids, have this huge imbalance, it's affecting them when they're adults?

"…Frankly, my dream is, in five years, that if a movie came out with only one female character, every reviewer would notice. … We've got to start noticing the absence of girls."

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Friday Cat Blogging

Matilda: "Somebody play with me! NOW!"



Olivia: "I'm about to jump, scattering papers
everywhere and making a BIG mess! Yay!"

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

I Can't Stop, I Don't Know How it Works! Goodbye, Folks!

You know, even though I feel much caution about jumping on the Obama bandwagon, I do have to say that I'm simply adoring how much he's throwing the Right into a tizzy. You of course know about the "accidental" picture mixups, and the "accidental" association with child molesters, but now they're getting even more desperate.

First, we have your friend and mine, Ann Coulter, who, in racing the charge the Democrats with racism for being "stunned to find a black man who can walk and talk," failed to consider that disregarding the existence of every prominent black member of the Democratic Party isn't exactly a shining beacon of cultural awareness.

But let's leave Ann to eat Play-Doh and turn to Rush Limbaugh, who's problems with Obama seem to be a bit more, uh, personal.

LIMBAUGH: Gibson says, "Obama's dirty little secret: He's ... a cigarette smoker. ... [Q]uestion is: Would you vote for a smoker as president? John, is that kind ... of an impediment" for him?

I'm absolutely loving this new Wingnut talking point that Obama would be a lousy President because he *gasp* smokes! Oh, the humanity! I think Americans might be a little more willing to vote for a smoker than someone who, oh, I don't know, guzzles Oxycontin like Pez. Or hides prescriptions of Viagra for his own, ahem, "impediment." But hey, you've got to do something with all these strawmen handed to you on a daily basis, right?

Limbaugh continues, and here's where we see another point of contention the Right has for Obama: He'd be easier to destroy if he weren't so damn good looking!

He's saying there's something vaguely sexy about cigarettes. You've got fire in your hand. And now that's -- what he's saying is Obama can make smoking sexy. What If Obama is seen smoking in public, and it is said because no one wants to criticize him because, he's above criticism, because he's a godlike figure to the godless. Now, you don't criticize gods or godlike figures. What if the whole anti-smoking bunch has to come out, 'cause they're a bunch of libs too, has to find a way to justify Obama's coolness? Because he's got fire. If he's got fire in his hands, what has he got in his pants? You're gonna hear all of these things.

A "godlike figure to the godless?" First of all, kudos on finding a way to plug Coulter's book. Second, the only people acting as if Obama were a deity that's beyond criticism is the Right. Democrats are dazzled, to be sure, but it seems to be the Right that's acting as if he's a deity that cannot be toppled. Oh, and speaking of treating a politician as a godlike figure beyond criticism:



Ahem.

Rush does seem to be frightened about people wondering what's in Obama's pants, doesn't he? Well, at least Rush seems to be awfully interested in the contents of Obama's trousers. Let's make it simple, shall we?

Now, you don't criticize gods or godlike figures. What if the whole anti-smoking bunch has to come out, 'cause they're a bunch of libs too, has to find a way to justify Obama's coolness? Because he's got fire. If he's got fire in his hands, what has he got in his pants?

Translation:

Sweet merciful Christ, please don't let people think that Barack Obama is a virile man with a cock the size of a zeppelin. Suddenly, I feel the urge to buy a Hummer.

And Rush isn't the only one with transparently thin skin. In responding to the admittedly silly swooning over the photo showing Obama at the beach, News Busters harrumphs:

What is it with the mainstream media's disproportionate interest in the way their liberal heroes look? Last October Washington Post staff writer Shailagh Murray reported:

"By a combination of luck and design, Democrats seem to be fielding an uncommonly high number of uncommonly good-looking candidates."

Now we read of Obama's well-defined pecs as though they're of national significance.

Yes, goddamn it... why aren't we hearing more about how good Denny Hastert looks in a pair of 2(x)ist boxer briefs? Why aren't they showing photos of Tom Delay, shirtless and oiled up in the summer sun? Where's all the MSM swooning over Rick Santorum in a wet speedo? Goddamn liberal media bias! We Republicans would never stoop to commenting on a politician's looks! *cough*whitehousedog*cough*

You're gonna hear all of these things.

Apparently, only from you, thumbdick.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

I'm Petitioning the Olympic Committee

Because victim-blaming is such a popular international sport, but no one's getting any medals.

Coming on the heels of O'Reilly's jackassery blaming a child for his own captivity, which followed quite a flurry of recent articles blaming rape victims for getting themselves raped, now comes, via Pam, the Reverend Charles Sylvestre, convicted of molesting 47 girls over three decades, who blames the girls for seducing him.

When speaking to [Ontario Crown Paul Bailey] of the young girls he molested, Sylvestre talked as though the children conspired to have him abuse them.

"These girls that came over there every day, they planned it," Sylvestre told Mr. Bailey. "I could hear them talking and they'd come in and sit on a chair and their skirt would be up to their crotch. Well, it was kind of attracting."

When a principal of a school accused Sylvestre of improperly touching the girls, the priest turned the blame on the principal and the little girls. "The principal ... came over and accused me of touching them," Sylvestre told Mr. Bailey. "I said, 'Why are they here? Aren't they supposed to stay in the schoolyard? Get them out of here.'"

Like rapists and rape apologists who suggest that rapes happen because of what rape victims are wearing/not wearing, doing/not doing, saying/not saying, drinking, smoking, thinking, and/or implying, Sylvestre believes the girls he molested were responsible for their own victimization. But I bet there won't be nearly as much "Well, maybe those girls should have been more careful about how they sat in their skirts" as there would be for adult victims.

That attire can be a justification for sexual abuse is a disgusting suggestion, whether we're talking about a child or an adult victim, but somehow it's deemed appropriate when talking about adult women, because, as opposed to an eight-year-old child, she is presumed to want sex. Time and again, in arguing this issue with people, I have had my assertion that a woman's attire does not matter met with an eye roll or a snort or an exhortation to admit that a woman dressed "a certain way" probably wants to get laid, as if I am being deliberately obtuse about what message is typically being sent by a short skirt and a low-cut blouse. Of course I'm not ignorant of these particular cultural cues. I am, however, intractably resistant to the notion that a woman who wants to get laid is giving explicit consent to anyone who wants to fuck her. I have this crazy notion that a woman has a choice about who gets access to her body, and that men have to respect it. Zany!

It's reminiscent of the scene that all of us have seen played out in bars, clubs, in the office, on the sidewalk, and in countless films in which a provocatively dressed woman refuses the advances of a man who then angrily demands to know why she's dressed "like she wants it" if she doesn't. Naturally, she may very well want "it," but perhaps not from him. The idea appears to be that any man should do—a sentiment also built into the attitude that a provocatively dressed woman shouldn't expect to have the right to choose with whom she has sex.

In the end, blaming a rape victim's attire is no different than Sylvestre's blaming his young victims for attracting him with their hiked-up skirts. He violated them against their will, and there's no excuse. If you believe a woman has the right to choose with whom she has sex, then irrespective of what she's wearing, doing, drinking, or anything else, violating her against her will also has no excuse.

I'll also point out, yet again, that tasking victims with being the gatekeepers of rape and sexual abuse, rather than the perpetrators, is predicated upon the fallacious assumption that any man is capable of such ugliness, given the right circumstances. That's precisely the lie with which rape apologists continually charge feminists who have the temerity to point out that the only thing that causes sexual abuse is sexual abusers. It isn't saying "Only rapists cause rape" that impugns all men. It's saying "How could he help himself when she was dressed like that?"

Enough blaming the victims. Enough.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The truth will out, always

All that's missing is George Allen

As the sad and inevitable decline of the GOP accelerates over the coming months, look for many more examples of the seamy underside of the party coming to light and frightening even Republicans. Take it away, Ted Nugent!

Hours after Gov. Rick Perry kicked off his second full term in office, Ted Nugent helped him celebrate at a black-tie gala, but not all attendees were pleased by the rocker's performance.

Using machine guns as props, Nugent, 58, appeared onstage as the final act of the inaugural ball wearing a cutoff T-shirt emblazoned with the Confederate flag and shouting offensive remarks about non-English speakers, according to people who were in attendance.

Perry's spokesman, Robert Black, downplayed the Tuesday-night incident.

"Ted Nugent is a good friend of the governor's. He asked him if he would play at the inaugural. He didn't put any stipulation of what he would play," Black said.

Others said the appearance was inappropriate.

"I think it was a horrible choice," GOP strategist Royal Masset said. "I hope nobody approved it."

Mr. Masett is shocked, shocked at Nugent's intolerant rantings - as though everyone and his mother hasn't known for years all about the "Motor City Madman" and what he stands for. And it was the office of Nugent's good friend, Governor Perry, that approved the choice of the hate-spewing alleged musician. So let's just fold away the protestations of innocence.

And some people thought George "Macaca" Allen was an aberration.

Rick Perry, Republican governor, is the proudly admitted good buddy of a documented racist. That's the story; all the rest is commentary.

(Burning cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Laura Mallory...or Lucius Malfoy?

This woman really hates Harry. Ugh, she's like a case of genital warts--just doesn't really go away.

A Loganville mother who claims Harry Potter books promote wickedness and witchcraft said she will appeal the state's decision to allow the best-selling books to remain in Gwinnett school libraries.

Laura Mallory, who has three children in elementary school, said Wednesday she has requested an appeal of her case to Gwinnett Superior Court.

[...]

"I really feel like they haven't addressed all the issues that I've raised," Mallory said after the state board decision in December.

Let's recall what those "issues" are that she raised:

"There are so many problems facing our children today — drugs, alcohol, violence and the growth of the occult, too. These books are helping to mainstream witchcraft. These books are dangerous and harmful to our children."

"I am a Christian. I feel that Christian rights are being abolished in this country. Everyone talks about our views being pushed on them. But what about our beliefs? Don't we have any rights at all?"

[T]hey be replaced by C.S. Lewis’s “Chronicles of Narnia” series or Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind: the Kids” series.

Yep. Anyway, she's all hyped up (from the first article):

Mallory said Wednesday she's ready for a legal fight. She said she's contacted a potential expert witness to lend support to her case. And she said supporters who urged her to press on have sent her "significant donations" to help pay legal fees.

An expert witness? Oh really? This should be interesting indeed.

This woman is like a literary dementor trying to suck the joy out of reading.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

News from Shakes Manor

On the Phone With My Londoner Andy Edition

Andy: What are you eating?

Shakes: Nothing.

Andy: It sounds like you're eating.

Shakes: I was picking something out of my teeth.

Andy: That's put a horrible image in my head now.

Shakes: Good.

[Approximately five minutes of shouting "Curb Your Enthusiasm" lines at one another and howling with laughter.]

Andy: Did you know that the new leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, loves The Smiths?

Shakes: Does he? I guess we're getting to that point. Politicians will be attempting cred by liking The Smiths instead of the Stones.

Andy: Yeah. One of these days, the Secretary-General of NATO is going to say his favorite band is Alien Sex Fiend.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

O'Reilly Hosts Colbert

Crooks and Liars has the video. What would we do without them?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

It's Alive! It's Alive!!

I see the wingnuts simply can't help themselves. A little time in the minority status, and they immediately rush to their laboratories, eager to create new Wankenstein monsters.

Our Wankenstein Monster of the day is indeed lumbering and dumb as a sack of hammers, my friends.

Let me introduce you to Patrick Ruffini, who has a gripe with the Democrats. See, he's a little upset about this "First 100 Hours" thing. The Democrats fully completed their 100 Hour Agenda, and Ruffini has nothing but scorn for them.

Why, you ask? Well, because they completed it early, of course!

Consider this a lesson in how not to make news.

So, it was going to be the First 100 Hours.

Then it was going to be the first 100 legislative hours. It’s been 342 hours since the Democrats took over — plenty of time to squeeze in those 100 hours.

But no. It turns out we are actually in the 42nd hour of the Democrat 100 Hours — with all the agenda items complete.

Is it 100 hours? 342? Or 42? I’m thoroughly confused.

Talk about a monumentally mismanaged rollout. First, come up with a benchmark that means something different than it says. Then show people how little grasp you have of Congress by actually working less than half as hard as you promised over the “100 Hours” period.

And the 100 342 42 Hours is supposed to get people all excited and singing “Happy Days Are Here Again?”

You really have to wonder what's going through the head of a person that's upset because the Democrats kept their promises, finished in less than half the time they said it would take, and he's quibbling that they didn't take long enough.

Oh, that's right. Absolutely nothing.

I suppose when you're used to seeing the people you elected into Congress and your President do absolutely nothing to help Americans for the last six years, seeing something accomplished might be just a little baffling.

Update: Because this graphic is simply too perfect to not use, Shakes and I award Patrick Ruffini the coveted Shakespeare's Sister Wankstain Award, given to sparkling examples of true wankers that can't help but stain the internet with their sticky leavings.

Y'all get some, just don't get any on ya!

(For the record, I'm not exactly dancing a jig over the completion of the agenda; the Democrats have a lot of hard work ahead of them, and there's still the possibility of veto, etc. I think "celebrating" is slightly silly... they're doing their jobs, after all. However, I do applaud them for keeping their word and accomplishing this; keep it up, Dems! Tip of the Energy Dome to Oliver.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Friday Blogrollin'

Stop by and say hi to:

NewCritics

Daily Darfur

Tiny Cat Pants

Transadvocate Blog

11,000 Species of Relatively Simple Animals

A Rational Animal

The View From (Ab)Normal Heights

Dante and the Lobster

Diary of a Heretic

Pop Culture Gadabout

As always, if your blog should be on Ye Olde Blogroll, let me know in comments.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Colbert Hosts O'Reilly

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Before The Daily Show, there was...

Not Necessarily the News



Best bit at 3:20. Nothing changes.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Question of the Day

What culture from anywhere on the globe do you not know much about, but has always fascinated you? Either current cultures or past, like the Picts.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Caption This Photo

A young Highland cow covered in snow at Carronbridge, Scotland, Thursday, Jan. 18, 2007, after heavy snow fell overnight. Ferocious storms continue to hit Britain... (AP Photo/Andrew Millian/PA)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

He's sooooo dreamy!

In which Dennis Kucinich trades on my inability to resist swooning for any man or woman who wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Smoke and mirrors

So round, so firm, so fully packed

The famous and almost certainly apocryphal quote by Mark Twain about quitting smoking maintained that it was easy; after all, he'd done it a thousand times. Whether he actually said it or not, that meme (established long before the word 'meme' itself) is highly resonant: what smoker hasn't felt that way? It's also attractive for two reasons: it's self-deprecatory - we are imperfect creatures, after all - and it allows one to go right on smoking.

Now you have to admit: that's one cool meme.

It also seems to serve as an effective psychological barrier to even trying to break the habit. It certainly worked that way for me, though I have to admit that I hadn't genuinely tried to quit smoking all that often. Maybe five or six times, I'm thinking, far short of the proverbial thousand. I always came back, the way many smokers do, because the memory of smoking was so damned pleasant. That is, I remembered cigarettes as tasting and feeling sooooooo good...much better, in fact, than they actually taste and feel.

The ten-dollar word for this, of course, is addiction. Once you strip away the usual cultural baggage about victimhood and the like, that's just what you're left with: addiction, born in chemistry, rooted in physiology, maintained by psychology, supported by habit and culture...and, lest we forget, the principle of pleasure. No one joneses for something that doesn't make them feel good - even if the actual end result is, well, horrible. Perception is everything, and for years I perceived cigs as being better than ham and swiss on rye.

It was only recently that I began entertaining thoughts on smoking that were somewhat more reality-based (sweet Virginia cigarette, so on, so forth), but I was finding it even more difficult to pull the trigger on quitting than in previous attempts. That didn't seem to jibe with my previous experience - or Twain's, based on the quote - but I had a pretty good sense of what was going on, and have seen it borne out in recent news. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Big Tobacco has had its thumb on the scale:

Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health say they have confirmed a study by the state that found nicotine levels in cigarettes increased from 1997 until 2005.

The analysis, based on data submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health by cigarette manufacturers, found that increases in smoke nicotine yield per cigarette averaged 1.6 percent each year, for a total of about 11 percent over a seven-year period.

"Cigarettes are finely tuned drug delivery devices, designed to perpetuate a tobacco pandemic," said Howard Koh, an associate dean for public health practice who worked on the analysis. "Yet precise information about these products remains shrouded in secrecy, hidden from the public."

The health department study released last October examined nicotine levels in more than 100 brands over a six-year period. The study showed a steady climb in the amount of nicotine delivered to the lungs of smokers.

So even while tobacco companies make public noises advising parents to educate their kids about smoking - following the letter of the law as dictated by government regulations and court dictates - they work to bury the hook ever more deeply into the throats and lungs of every existing addict.

That's one hell of a customer retention policy.

Returning to the personal, by your leave: I can look at this thoroughly unsurprising news from a more healthful vantage point, as I haven't touched a cigarette since December 4 - a bit of a jump on the old New Year's resolve. Why, I don't even burn with the expected bitterness of withdrawal...which isn't to say that I don't miss smoking, because I surely do. It's just that I'm working with another meme these days, based on a flawed recollection of a line by actor Robin Williams in the Kenneth Brannagh film Dead Again:

Someone is either a smoker or a non-smoker, there's no in-between. The trick is to find out which one you are and be that.

The imperfection here is that I always recall Williams as having said this instead:

The trick is to decide which one you are and be that.

Imperfection, I've found, can occasionally be one's ally.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

McCain: For Lobbyist Disclosure Before He Was Against It

You might think that removing a key provision of a lobbying bill you authored which requires the "disclosure of grassroots activities by paid lobbyists," because conservatives you're trying to court oppose it, is indicative of a lack of integrity. That's what I used to think, too. But now I think of it this way: What good is one shoe all by itself?

What the heck am I supposed to do with this?
You can't get very far with only one shoe, people. You need to have a whole pair, especially when you're trying to navigate the long, hard trek to the Oval Office. So when McCain appears to be changing his position on lobbying, including his own legislation, or leaders of the religious right, or how easy the war would be, or tax cuts, or abortion, or intelligent design, or the confederate flag, or torture, or campaigning at racist institutions, or ethanol, or Henry Kissinger, or any one of a very large number of issues, it's not that McCain is—what's a good term for it?—opportunistically substituting one position for another with no regard for the merest appearance of integrity; he's just making sure you've got a whole set of shoes.

"[I]n the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

"I've never agreed with Roe v. Wade so it wouldn't bother me any [if it were overturned]."

Together, those seemingly contradictory statements mean that no matter how you feel about Roe v. Wade, John McCain agrees with you. That's a complete set of shoes, my friends—and you can take that to the bank. Or could, if banks accepted shoe deposits.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Efficiency, Bitchez

They're crankin'.

WASHINGTON - House Democrats sprinting to finish six bills on terrorism, the minimum wage, drug prices and other issues are well ahead of the 100-hour deadline they gave themselves to do it.

By new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's clock, they began Thursday morning with more than 60 hours remaining and only one measure left: an energy bill with $15 billion in new fees, royalties and taxes for the oil industry. A celebration was planned later Thursday once it's passed.

On Wednesday, seven hours ticked off the Democrats' 100-hour clock for passing an agenda the party had told voters they would enact after sweeping to victory in November.

According to Pelosi's count, it has taken just over 34 hours to pass the first five bills, including a measure Wednesday to lower interest rates on some student loans.

I'm particularly happy to see that student loans bill. Bush has threatened to veto it, but I'm glad to see that the Dems are keeping higher education in mind.

It's nice to see something getting done in Congress for a change... well, something done that isn't designed to screw us all, and make the rich richer. I'm just hoping the Dems won't decide they can just sit back once the first 100 hours have ended. Have your little party, then get back to work, folks.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!