Shakesville

But, sir, every plant in town will die. Owls will deafen us with incessant hooting. The town sun dial will be useless!

This is what happens when you watch nothing but FOX. Not only will you be less informed and fed a constant diet of Republican lies and fabrications, you may even begin believing what you see on one of their animated programs.

And that, my friends, leads to goofy shit like this:

The US government wants the world’s scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming, the Guardian has learned. It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be “important insurance” against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a major UN report on climate change, the first part of which will be published on Friday.

Yes, rather than do something simple like, oh, reduce emissions and require business to clean up their act, let's do something business friendly, like create GIANT SPACE MIRRORS! Why, I'll just bet that Halliburton already has blueprints!

To quote Steve:

Hmm, blocking sunlight… I seem to recall an episode of The Simpsons on this very subject.

Meet the administration’s new climate change czar: C. Montgomery Burns.

As if ripping off Mister Burns isn't bad enough, they're also directly cribbing from another Fox show:

All right... what else we got?

I'm amazed they didn't suggest dropping a giant ice cube in the ocean.

Quote of the Day

From "Republicans: Stop Thinking About Gay Sex:"

"It seems to me Republicans spend more time thinking about gay sex than any other group of people in the known world even more so than gay people trying to find other gay people with whom to have sex."

The rest of it ain't bad, either.

Shut Up, Crybabies

Glenn Greenwald makes the case against whiny-ass titty-babies like National Review editor Rich Lowry and erstwhile Congressional Republibot Newt Gingrich complaining that Bush and his rubberstamp GOP Congress have tarnished the good name of Conservatism:

The fabled Goldwater/Reagan small-government "conservatism of doubt" which [Andrew Sullivan] hails — like the purified, magnanimous form of Communism — exists, for better or worse, only in myth.

While it is true that Bush has presided over extraordinary growth in federal spending, so did Reagan. Though Bush's deficit spending exceeds that of Reagan's, it does so only by degree, not level. The pornography-obsessed Ed Meese and the utter lawlessness of the Iran-contra scandal were merely the Reagan precursors to the Bush excesses which Sullivan finds so "anti-conservative." The Bush presidency is an extension, an outgrowth, of the roots of political conservatism in this country, not a betrayal of them.

All of the attributes which have made the Bush presidency so disastrous are not in conflict with political conservatism as it exists in reality. Those attributes — vast expansions of federal power to implement moralistic agendas and to perpetuate political power, along with authoritarian faith in the Leader — are not violations of "conservative principles." Those have become the defining attributes of the Conservative Movement in this country.

That is why [conservatives] bred and elevated George Bush for six years, and suddenly "realized" that he was "not a conservative" only once political expediency required it.

This is largely right, and I'd add that there are non-mythical, small-government, flesh-and-blood Goldwater conservatives scattered across America, people who quite genuinely support same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, and the tax cuts—and every one of them I've met hated Bush from the get-go because they saw the Schiavo-style meddling coming from a thousand miles away. The problem for these people is the truth in what Glenn says—that a conservative movement reflective of those principles is truly nonexistent. And they know it.

They're voting Democrat these days.

Related: The Ownership Society.

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

Ladies and Gentlemen, your Liberal Media at work.

With Hillary announcing her bid for the Presidency, the Right has immediately gone into "smear all Clintons" mode. Remember "The Path to 9/11," the ABC "docu-drama" produced by Evangelical Activists, designed to blame Clinton for 9/11, that was so full of distortions and lies that even conservatives were criticizing it? Well, for some reason, Sean Hannity has decided to wave this sloppy attempt at fingerpointing in our faces again. And what better way to do this then by having the filmmaker on his show, unchallenged, to defend as truth the very misleading scene he already admitted to fabricating. (Bolds mine)

As advertised, the January 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America featured the unedited version of a scene from part one of ABC's deeply flawed "docudrama," The Path to 9/11, in which Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger is shown abandoning an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Discussing the scene, host Sean Hannity, Path to 9/11 screenwriter and producer Cyrus Nowrasteh, and CBS terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer all asserted that the unedited version was a more accurate representation of history, even though both versions of the scene depict an event that did not happen and Nowrasteh himself has acknowledged that the scene was fabricated.

As Media Matters for America noted, Fox News advertised that the January 28 Hannity's America would feature "the video Bill Clinton doesn't want you to see," adding that Clinton "forced ABC to cut out an entire scene" and that Fox News would "expose the clip at the center of the controversy." While Fox News did not specify which scene it would broadcast, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Berger scene was among the "outtakes" from the film that Fox News obtained "by taping a public talk" that Nowrasteh "gave to a World Affairs Council chapter."
Hannity aired both the edited and unedited versions of the scene, which depicted Berger refusing to authorize a raid on an isolated compound in Afghanistan, known as Tarnak Farms, to capture or kill bin Laden, even though CIA officers and Afghan fighters were in position just outside. The most dramatic difference between the two versions was a shot of Berger hanging up on then-CIA director George Tenet as he asks for authorization -- that shot was edited out at the last minute by ABC. Even with the edit, the scene still falsely portrayed Berger abandoning the opportunity to act against bin Laden. According to the 9-11 Commission report, Tenet stated that "he alone had decided" to abort the mission on May 29, 1998 -- weeks before the target date of June 23. The report further noted that both intelligence and military officials had serious doubts about the likelihood of its success. It also noted that the operation had been planned out and rehearsed, but gave no indication that CIA or Afghan personnel were in position and ready to conduct the operation when it was canceled.

So, why drag this up now? Gee, do you think it could have anything to do with trying to tie together "Clinton" and "9/11?" Could it be to help paint Clinton as a desperate bully, "forcing" ABC to make edits on scenes he doesn't want you to see? (Shriek! Scream!) Could it be that Hannity is so desperate for a smear, that he'll dredge up this crap after it didn't work the first time for another attempt to blame 9/11 on a Democrat... any Democrat? Especially a Clinton?

You know, I think it just might. Remember, America: Everything is the fault of a Clinton.

HANNITY: And for a more in-depth look at these cut clips and the truth behind the story, we're joined by the writer and producer of ABC's Path to 9/11, Cyrus Nowrasteh. And former CIA senior intelligence analyst and current CBS News terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer is with us. All right, Cyrus, let me begin with you. First of all, you know, you based this -- you felt what you had in there originally was true. Tell us about the political pressure to edit it.

NOWRASTEH: Well, you know, I wasn't privy to a lot of that pressure. I mean, it was sort of a national hysteria at the time, and I think there was just an attempt to sort of suppress history.

An attempt to "suppress history." So, in other words, pointing out intentional misrepresentation of fact is "suppressing" history.

There's more "you poor, censored boy!" bootlicking in the story, if you can stomach it.

It's bad enough that we have Americans that remain willfully ignorant of history and matters of political importance in this country. The fact that Hannity and his ilk are allowed to spread outright lies and distortions of history on a national level, completely unchallenged, is disgusting and shameful.

Shaker Gourmet!

Today's recipe comes from Maurinsky of the blog, Laughing Wild. Without further ado:

Maurinsky's Shepherd's Pie

I always wash my hands well before I start

2 lbs. ground meat (sirloin, turkey, lamb, whatever)
3 lbs. potatoes (Yukon gold is my favorite)
half & half
1 large onion chopped
2 shallots, chopped
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 big leek, chopped & carefully cleaned
petite peas, cubed carrots, pearl onions - whatever
kind of small veggies you like
fresh rosemary, pulled off the twig, roughly chopped
if you prefer
Worcestershire sauce
wine or broth, about 2 cups, divided
a cup or so of shredded sharp cheddar cheese
olive oil
2 tb butter
2 tb flour
salt & pepper

Peel potatoes and chop into smallish cubes (or don't
peel, however you like it). Clean, cover with water,
and put over high heat. Heat a large skillet over
medium heat, and add a little olive oil to the pan.
When it's hot, add the onions, leeks & shallots. (You
can leave out any one of those, I often exclude the
leeks because the price of leeks is highway robbery
around here when they aren't seasonal). When they are
soft, add the garlic. A couple of minutes later, add
the ground meat. Brown.

When the meat is brown, push everything to the side
and mix half the wine or broth with the flour and add
to the pan. Cook that for a minute or two, then add
the rest of the liquid - and you can add more than I
listed, I just eyeball everything - and bring it to a
boil. Depending on the appearance of the gravy and how
that affects you emotionally, you can add Gravy Master
to darken it up.

When it boils, add the peas, rosemary and a couple of
shots of Worcestshire sauce, lower the heat, cover and
simmer as the gravy thickens.

When the potatoes are boiled and you can pierce them
easily with a fork, drain the pot, add the butter,
half & half (or milk or skim milk, whatever floats
your boat), and cheddar cheese, salt & pepper, and
start mashing. You can replace the butter with olive
oil, you can add sour cream. Mash those spuds until
they are the desired lumpiness and consistency.

Put the meat mixture into a large casserole dish or
baking pan, cover with the potatos, and put under the
broiler for a few minutes, until the tops of the
potatoes start to golden.

When I make these with leftover mashed potatoes, I
cook the whole thing for 10 minutes or so in a 375
oven before I turn the broiler on.

If you would like to be a part of Shaker Gourmet, email me at: fire.of.psyche (at) gmail.com

Something tells me…

…Joe Francis isn't too thrilled with girls going wild when those girls are feminists.

Well... That's Different

So, I'm driving to work this morning, listening to the radio, and I hear this... unusual advertisement.

Valentine's Day is coming up, so of course we're being bombarded with ads telling us to buy this or that for our significant others; everything from handmade teddy bears to cars is fair game. Buy her a diamond ring! Buy her flowers! Even "warming" K-Y jelly is getting its time in the sun.

So, this one was a little weird.

This year, for Valentine's Day... get her a vasectomy.

Yeah, it was for a local vasectomy clinic. Now, I'm all for vasectomies. Frankly, I think the world is overpopulated enough as it is. But hearing a vasectomy advertised as a romantic gift was a little bizarre, even for me.

"If your family is complete... why not a vasectomy?"

Edit: I should have mentioned that the procedure is described in the ad as "virtually painless." Yikes.

Impeach Him. Impeach Him Now.

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
— President Bush, December 18, 2000
A president can dream—and this president can also sign an executive order that gives him "much greater control" over rules and policies regarding public health, safety, the environment, civil rights, and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

In other words, Don Bush is sending a capo to run every federal agency.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

…Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review "any significant guidance documents" before they are issued.

…Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order "achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government."

"Having lost control of Congress," Mr. Strauss said, "the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch."

Because, having lost control of Congress, it's more important than ever to have the powers of a dictator.

Impeach him. Impeach him now.

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Simon & Simon

Question of the Day

When was the last time you felt totally, absurdly pathetic?

My girlfriend Miller just sent me an email that reminded me of a sad lament I directed at the eminently patient Mr. Shakes recently. One of my wisdom teeth only ever came in halfway, and about three weeks ago, it decided to come in a wee bit more. My entire jaw radiated with pain, and I was practically drooling with an overflow of saliva. In other words, I was teething. And it had put me in precisely the same mood as it does a baby.

In a moment of great, pitiable crankiness, I whined: "I'm teething, my face is broken out, and I've got gray hair coming in. I don't think it's remotely fair that I must address the complaints of infancy, adolescence, and old age all at once."

And then I burst into tears.

Wow

Stop the Escalation from VoteVets.org:

Via C&L.

Quote of the Day

"I'm not that good at pronouncing words anyway." — President Bush, on referring to the Congressional Democratic majority as the "Democrat majority" during his State of the Union address.

Runner-up Quote of the Day:

"There is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." — Also President Bush on the same topic.

While he might not be "that good" at pronouncing words, he's fuckin' spectacular at elevating distrust.

Caption This Photo

Wanna hear the most annoying sound in the world?

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Heh heh.
President Bush walks in blustery, cold temperatures to greet supporters after landing in Cambridge, Md., Friday, Jan. 26, 2007, where he was going to make remarks to the House Republican Conference. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Oh My

Evidence of the Left's paranoid delusions? That they refuse to recognize evidence of Saddam's WMDs.

October 2004: "Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there." — President George W. Bush.

Unless Bush is suddenly part of the American Left, I think what we have here is a serious case of projection.

The. End.

Once Upon a Time…

…a man asked me to describe to him what it felt like to be a woman living in a sexist culture. I told him it felt like being constantly thudded with a plastic bat and occasionally whacked with an aluminum one.

Ow. Ow. Ow. OW!!! Ow. Ow. Ow. OW!!!

You Have GOT to be Kidding Me

Why does this article, written by an anonymous woman "whose mother helps her find dates on Match.com," even exist?! The only thing I can figure is that the WaPo is conspiring to make my bloody head explode once and for fucking all.

Jennifer Aniston. Christie Brinkley. Sheryl Crow. Teri Hatcher. Either dumped or cheated on in a most humiliating and public way.

Every woman in the dating world has thought, "If it can happen to her, it can happen to me." While he's snoring away, we think quietly at night about what we can do to make sure it doesn't happen to us.

Um, no. I haven't ever thought that. And I really should have just stopped reading this pile of honking horseshit that the WaPo tried to pass off as an "essay" right bloody there, but I didn't, because I am evidently a glutton for heaping mounds of excruciating punishment.

We respond by trying to make our stomachs flatter, our boobs bigger, our faces prettier, and our clothes tighter and more revealing. We do everything possible to please our man. You prefer French cooking? Mais oui, mon cher! You want my hair long? No problem, I'll get a hair extension. Spending part of your vacation with buddies? Go have a good time. You don't want to be with my family on Christmas? I'll see you on New Year's Eve. Is that OK or would you prefer some other time? Do you like my mani-pedi'd, spray on tanned, liposuctioned, Pilates body? Can't commit? Oh, that's right. You're just not that into me. Or her. Or her. Or her.

The only thing worse than this insecure, mindless automaton suggesting that every woman in the world is as equally void of character and independence as she apparently is, is blaming this state of affairs on "Match.com and other online dating services," which, according to her, "have given men access to thousands and thousands of women in every city who look just as great in jeans and a little black dress (the requirement in every man's profile), a smorgasbord of women each one more delicious to devour than the next."

Yet, then, almost instantly, she instead redirects the blame onto women, and provides a list of "fairly simple but self-respecting dating principles for women." This list includes such gems as "Be honest about your age and size"—not because lying is, ya know, doesn't lay the best groundwork for a trusting relationship, but because "you're simply wasting his time and yours if you lie"—and "Keep in shape and look your best but don't dress too provocatively." Okay, Meddling Granny—I'll keep that in mind.

More good advice from Anonymous Man-Seeking Missle:

If you're a giving person, give. If you're into cooking, cook. If you're busy, stay busy. If you're not into sports, don't fake it. And watch your alcohol intake.

…If you don't receive flowers by the fourth date, dump him. Poor hygiene, bad manners, or sloppy dress are also grounds for dismissal.

…Absolutely allow him to chase YOU.

Etc. etc. etc. Constantly vacillating between the sublimation of one's preferences, traits, and desires rooted in a seemingly intractable self-hatred, and a knee-jerk, condemnatory judgmentalness rooted in a deep distrust of men being masked by borderline hatred. Between the self-loathing and the man-loathing, is it any wonder this gal hasn't found a love connection? Yeesh.

It would be funny if only it weren't so pathetic.

Don't reveal too much, and certainly never ever discuss past relationships. Men love a mystery. Again, do not bring up your exes, reveal your dark secrets, constantly complain, or interrupt - simple stuff but amazingly ignored by women and men.

This sad recommendation ultimately served to remind me of one of my favorite scenes from The Office (US), which absolutely breaks my heart every time I watch it. Jim asks Pam what her fiancée Roy thinks about something that's bothering her.

Pam: "I don't know—I try not to bother him with stuff like that."

Jim: "You mean stuff like your thoughts and feelings?"

Pam: "Yeah."

So this is what they mean by "An army of one"

We are fated to live in times that are, shall we say, difficult to parody.

Fortunately for us all, America's finest news source™ is still up to the task. And no, I don't mean CNN.

Bush Commits One Additional Troop To Afghanistan
In an effort to display his administration's willingness to fight on all fronts in the War on Terror, President Bush said at a press conference Monday that American ground forces in Afghanistan will be aided by the immediate deployment of Marine Pfc. Tim Ekenberg of Camp Lejeune, NC.

"I want the American people to know that I have not forgotten that our battle for freedom began in Afghanistan, rooting out the extremists of al-Qaeda and the Taliban," Bush said. "Today, I am ordering the deployment of the 325th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Private Tim Ekenberg, to the embattled Kandahar region."

"We will take whatever measures necessary to win," Bush added. "Isn't that right, Tim?" [...]

Ekenberg's most vital assignment will be to patrol approximately 1,200 square miles of volatile territory on the Afghan–Pakistani border and conduct search-and-destroy missions on the estimated 40,000 caves where U.S. intelligence sources believe Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda operatives could be hiding.

In addition to truthiness and pointyness, great satire requires you-too-ness. Let's hear it for the loyal opposition.

Some prominent Democrats have expressed cautious support of Ekenberg's deployment. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) applauded the Bush administration for "at least meeting [our] demands 1/20,000th of the way."
"This is where we should have been sending troops all along," Clinton said. "It's a promising sign that the president is finally willing to unleash on Afghanistan the full force and military might of the United States Marine Corps Private Tim Ekenberg."

Fair and balanced. All hail The Onion!

She speaks!

Just try not to laugh or yell too loudly at the computer. Anyhow, Laura Mallory has decided to publish a piece defending her position in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution:

Today's generation faces evil like no other in history, with its bombardment by violent, sexual and occult images through our modern mass media. I think perhaps we are so desensitized, we couldn't recognize evil even if it were on the plate in front of us.

I'm pretty sure most of us can recognize abject dumbassery though. She goes on to try and offer "truth" to some "myths" about the case. First "myth" up is that she's trying to ban the books:

This case first began when we noticed the books in our son's elementary school classroom. We were then told by the school that anything in the school library may be used in the classroom. The original request of August 2005 asked that the books be removed from the classrooms and libraries due to the extreme evil and violent content, the promotion of witchcraft (Wicca) and the age-inappropriateness. We are not trying to ban Harry Potter. The books may of course be purchased in bookstores or checked out at public libraries, but need not be encouraged, assigned and read aloud in our children's schools and classrooms. Are they ready to put the Bible and prayer back in our schools and classrooms and read it aloud?

What you're saying is that you are trying to ban the books--only from schools. So this is, in fact, not a myth.

Next "myth" up is that she is the only person fighting against the books:

I have never been alone in this "fight." There are hundreds and even thousands of other parents who have stood up against the Harry Potter series and its paganization of this generation. The American Library Association reports Harry Potter books rank No. 1 on the list of most challenged books of the 21st century, having received more than 3,000 challenges nationwide. Additionally, there have been numerous people who have become dear friends who have written, called and helped with their love, encouragement, prayers and donations. Without them, I could not have continued this case.

Ok, not to be picky or anything, but we were talking about this case. So who else is fighting with you? And, by the way, saying Harry Potter is paganizing anyone just adds more proof that you are a complete and total idiot. The books have NOTHING to do with Wicca, as you seem to "think" (which is a term I use loosely). You might know this if you'd actually, you know, read the books.

Then we have some more demonizing of witchcraft and nattering on about how it's not just fantasy with some bonus craptastic grasp of history included:

This is perhaps the greatest myth of all. America's desensitization to the occult is not only sad, but dangerous. We are in serious need of revival and a return to the traditional Judeo-Christian roots upon which our blessed country was founded.

I cannot count the times I have been told that these books are "just fantasy." But if you would like to know the truth, please keep reading and do your own research.

Not only is witchcraft a real religion, subtly intriguing and luring our children and teens in unprecedented numbers, but it is also a dangerous one, often leaving its followers in darkness, depression and even suicidal. This was verified by a teenager from Lawrenceville and Mrs. Marsha McWhorter, a registered nurse and certified marriage and family therapist, both of whom testified at the Gwinnett County hearing on April 20, 2006, coincidentally, the anniversary of the tragic shootings at Columbine High School.

First, yes, she really did encourage people to read and do research. The audacity is nigh unbelievable, isn't it? Personally, I find the ignorance of our country's basic history sad. Perhaps a bit "dangerous" in that people who believe such tripe tend to be the sort to ban books and vote against civil rights for people. Then there's part where she says: "witchcraft a real religion, subtly intriguing and luring our children and teens in unprecedented numbers, but it is also a dangerous one, often leaving its followers in darkness, depression and even suicidal"--and backs it up with all of two people. Well, if a teenager and one random family counselor say so, it must be true! WTF. Yes, you did read her invoke the Columbine shootings in her self-defense. Here is why:

I had planned to read a portion of the testimony by the father of Columbine martyr, Rachel Joy Scott, but due to the hearing's time restraints, I was unable to do so. That father, Darrell Scott, spoke before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime in Washington, D.C. on May 27, 1999.

Here is a small portion of that speech, a poem and an expression of what was in his heart and is also in mine.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,

Your words are empty air.

You've stripped away our heritage,

You've outlawed simple prayer.

Now gunshots fill our classrooms,

And precious children die.

You seek for answers everywhere,

And ask the question "Why?"

You regulate restrictive laws,

Through legislative creed.

And yet you fail to understand,

That God is what we need!

Oh that's not all. She goes on to babble:

When the Bible and prayer were removed from our schools, in effect, God was expelled. So we've raised a generation not to know Him. Now our schools and society are filled with violence, drugs, gangs, addictions, perversions, and we wonder why?
We need God in America again. He's the One who says don't lie, steal or murder — for our own good. Likewise, He's the One who says witchcraft, including the casting of spells, is an "abomination," meaning: detestable, repulsive, loathsome, vile, abhorred, (Deuteronomy 18:10-13), and we call it good reading material?

Sad and dangerous, indeed.

Nice

Arlen finds out that his university, without his permission, gave his contact information to the Marines, who are now trying to recruit him.

Not News

John McCain is an short-fused and ill-tempered man. Not news, but still fun to see published as often as possible. Thanks to Oddjob for passing that along.

UPDATE: And more McCain fun passed on by Angelos. The Real McCain and the Straight Talk Express indeed. Viva la maverique!