Prurience is served

Coming to a public library near you


Lechers, rejoice! Your public library is working hard to make sure that your bikini-babe ogling will continue unabated:

Sports Illustrated’s bikini-filled swimsuit issue soon might show up on central Ohio library shelves after magazine executives reversed a decision to withhold it from such institutions.

The annual issue of the magazine — this year featuring "Yesica and 20 other exotic models" — was not sent to 21,000 subscribers such as libraries and schools, prompting complaints and confusion among librarians nationwide. [...]

Leslie Burger, president of the American Library Association, said in a statement that the magazine’s decision was "an infringement on the First Amendment rights of library users and an unwarranted attempt to censor the materials available in our nation’s libraries."

Sports Illustrated agreed.

"It was a bad decision made within our organization to withhold the issue," said Rick McCabe, spokesman for the magazine. "We won’t be withholding the swimsuit issue in the future."

The decision came from a group of editorial employees responsible for the routine practice of removing tobacco and alcohol ads in copies of the magazine sent to libraries and schools.

As John Ciardi once observed, the public library is the most dangerous place in town. May it be ever so.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

An Appendix That Isn't Useless

David at Orcinus has compiled an appendix to his fantastic "Eliminationism in America" series.

It's almost overwhelming, and definitely a handy resource. Take a look.

And before we get into the tiresome "liberals are just as bad!" argument that we've had a thousand times before in comments, please note the names referenced in the Appendix. I'm sure it would be possible to pull an even longer list of people "on the left" saying things that are just as bad by cherrypicking blogs and comment threads, but most of the names listed in David's work are national media figures. It's one thing to make an eliminationist statement in a blog comment thread; it's something else entirely for a well-known media figure to make a similar statement on national television or an equivalent.

Just putting out fires before they start, folks.

Open Wide...

The Groom Reaper

One of my idols, the deeply disturbed and intensely hilarious John Waters was on The Daily Show last night. He was talking about his new show, which features reenactments of spousal murders—a show he refers to as "pro-divorce." That's a good line, but like any good joke, there's some truth to it. I like to think the show is also doing its part to further undermine the idea that marriage is sacred, just so long as it's between a man and a woman.

Anyway, here's the clip, in case you missed it.

Open Wide...

O Sinnerman

Please note this video contains images of war that may be upsetting to some people, though I certainly hope that won't dissuade anyone from viewing it.



H/T Whig.

Open Wide...

Laws that Label Do Little

(Please see Part One for disclaimer.)

More band-aid legislation has been proposed to deal with the "sexual predator" problem, this time in Minnesota and 13 other states. Minnesota was also one of the states that had proposed "sex offender" license plates that RSOs would be required to have on their cars (It didn't pass.), and chemical castration. Under this current proposal, RSOs would be required to provide authorities with their e-mail addresses, as well as other online "identities:"

With children playing on the Internet as much as in the neighborhood park, lawmakers here and in at least 13 other states want to protect them from predators. They're considering bills that would make sex offenders register e-mail, instant-messaging and other addresses used to communicate on Web sites. A similar bill has been introduced in Congress.

A Minnesota House panel approved the proposal Tuesday after narrowly rejecting an attempt to require "Sexual Predator" license plates. Those who work with exploited children say that the policies won't put an end to sex crimes against children, but that they could help law enforcement agencies make cases against offenders by connecting them with their virtual identities.

A few things:

1. As I've talked about before, this bill makes no attempt to differentiate between different types of sexual offenses, once again lumping in "minor" offenses with the most dangerous sexual criminals.

2. This does nothing, once again, to address the issue that the majority of people that are sexually assaulting children are doing it to someone they know. Shows like "To Catch A Predator" are helping to perpetuate the myth that your children will be approached by a pedophile the second they go online, but never address that they're far more likely to be molested by a known, trusted adult.

3. After all is said and done, this is completely pointless. It's all too easy to create multiple online identities. Sure, you can register your email address, your IM identities, and message board IDs, then turn around and create a hundred others, while giving the illusion that you're complying with the law. And as Shakes pointed out when we were discussing this, legislation like this could backfire, making internet predators more internet savvy, and far more effective at hiding their identities.

Yes, there are pedophiles seeking victims on the internet. Yes, I believe parents and communities should take steps to ensure the safety of their children. But cranking out more "Label Laws" is not the answer. Sure, they look great for politicians, but who are they really protecting?

If you're interested, I rant more on this subject here:
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six
Part Seven

Open Wide...

Attorneygate Quickhits

The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to interview former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, her Deputy White House Counsel William Kelley, and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

WSJ's Washington Wire reports that Gonzo's singing a sad tune today, saying it's up to President Bush whether he keeps his job. Ouch. WW also provides a transcript of Gonzo's interview this morning on CNN with anchor Miles O'Brien. The AG must have been squirming as O'Brien pelted him with questions about using the passive voice and whether it's time for him to freaking resign already. The best bit, though, is this exchange:

O'BRIEN: But should you offer your resignation? Is it time for you to offer your resignation?

GONZALES: It's the decision of the president of the United States to make. I'll be focused on identifying what went wrong here and correcting those mistakes, and focused on the good for the American people.

O’BRIEN: The decision to offer your resignation is yours, is it not?

GONZALES: I’m focused on doing my job.
Wow. What a douchebag. Too busy workin' to think about what an abject fucking failure I am, Miles!

Btw, I love that he's putting it on Bush, too. I ain't leaving! That bitch will have to fire my ass! Nice one.

Open Wide...

There's methane in them thar lakes


Chevron's SS Condoleezza Rice II, en route for Titan


That gleam in the eyes of energy executives across the globe? It's the faint reflected light of a far distant moon. Titan or bust!

Scientists have discovered what appear to be sea-size bodies of liquid, probably methane or ethane, on the surface of Saturn's largest moon.

The discovery by the international Cassini spacecraft was welcomed by researchers, who have long theorized that Titan possessed hydrocarbon seas because of methane and other organic compounds in its thick, largely nitrogen atmosphere. Until now, Cassini had spotted only clusters of small lakes on the planet-size moon.

"They're very obvious. There's nothing subtle about them," said Cassini scientist Jonathan Lunine of the University of Arizona, Tucson.

There will be nothing subtle about the energy industry's coming interest in space exploration, either. Somebody page Halliburton.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

Would you like a muffin with your surrealist humor?

Sean at Cosmic Variance on The Great Muffin Joke Debate:

Our current task, as Serious Bloggers, is to pass judgment upon whether the Muffin Joke is funny. Here is the joke itself:

So there are these two muffins baking in an oven. One of them yells, "Wow, it’s hot in here!"

And the other muffin replies: "Holy cow! A talking muffin!"
John Tierney (New York Times) thinks the Muffin Joke is not funny. Brad DeLong (Berkeley) disagrees, claiming that the Muffin Joke is, in fact, funny, although he offers no argument to support his conclusion. Jack Balkin (Yale) also finds the Muffin Joke funny…

I come down on the pro-Muffin-Joke side of the debate. To me, it's quite funny. Is this some sort of Ivory-Tower Academics vs. Hard-Nosed Journalists thing?
Dunno, being neither, but I think the joke is funny, too. In fact, it reminds me of my favorite joke:

It's morning in the heart of Africa, and the sun is just beginning to beat down on the cracked earth around a precious watering hole populated by birds, reptiles, and all manner of four-legged creature. On one side, Lions slink down to the water's edge to lap at its surface with broad, pink tongues, while on the other, hesitant zebras bend their long necks to touch their lips to the water, keeping an eye on the maned predators across from them. Wildebeest gather at the far tip of the oasis' curving edge, their hooves leaving deep imprints in the mud, encircling their young in a futile attempt to protect them from the crocodiles that haunt the murky water. Long-legged cranes dip their beaks in search of tiny fish whose scales glimmer in the sunlight that penetrates the water's surface, moving about in between the flocks of smaller birds who peck at water striders scooting on the tension at the pond's top. It is still and silent, aside from the chattering of the birds, until a crocodile makes a move, rising out of the water in one lightning fast move, crashing onto the shore and fastening its jaws on the throat of a young wildebeest. The herd darts and dashes; the zebras begin to hoot in fear. Even the lions are startled from their peace and raise their heavy heads to see what's going on. As quickly as it began, it is over, and the croc slides back into the water, thrashing about until its young victim is still and the water runs red. The sun inches higher, grows hotter, and steam begins to rise steadily from the water until two hippopotami surface at once, breaking its evenness with blown spray from their gaping nostrils. One looks around lazily, turns to the other, and sighs. "It doesn’t feel like a Tuesday."

Reportedly, this was also Johnny Carson's favorite joke. I suspect he would have liked the muffin joke, too, and, if I'm right, that means it's as inarguably funny as any joke can be, dammit!

Open Wide...

Uh-Oh!

My favorite wingnut up to no good? Say it ain't so!

Open Wide...

More Purgegate

Or Attorneygate, or whatever the fuck we're calling it. My earlier post is here.

In that post, I blockquoted an excerpt that includes some discussion about one of the dismissed prosecutors, Carol Lam. Lam was tasked with the corruption investigation of the Republican former Congressman from California, Randy "Duke" Cunningham (who's now serving an eight-year prison sentence), and her probe had expanded to include Congressman Jerry Lewis, also a Republican from California. With regard to Lam, and why her "dismissal should have sounded alarm bells for everyone on day one," I want to share this post by Josh Marshall, who, with his TPM team owns this story big time, as Jon Swift so ably recounts below. The bold-faced emphasis is mine.

Lam's firing has always been at the heart of this. I've had a lot of people ask me why we devoted so much virtual ink to this story so early. But the truth is that by rights Lam's dismissal should have sounded alarm bells for everyone on day one.

What people tend to overlook is that for most White Houses, a US attorney involved in such a politically charged and ground-breaking corruption probe would have been untouchable, even if she'd run her office like a madhouse and was offering free twinkies to every illegal who made it across the border. Indeed, when you view the whole context you see that the idea she was fired for immigration enforcement is just laughable on its face. No decision about her tenure could be made without the main issue being that investigation. It's like hearing that Pat Fitzgerald was fired as Plamegate prosecutor for poor deportment or because he was running up too many air miles flying back and forth from Chicago.

Lam's investigation (and allied ones her probe spawned) were uncovering a) serious criminal wrongdoing by major Republican power players on Capitol Hill, b) corruption at the CIA—which reached back to the Hill, c) and as yet still largely hidden corrupt dealings at the heart of the intelligence operations in the Rumsfeld Pentagon.

Nothing matters unless the investigation gets to the heart of what happened there.
What we have here is an administration whose same-party majority in Congress was running hogwild with unmitigated corruption. Criminal corruption. (See also: DeLay, Tom.) And they were pressing US attorneys to pursue voter fraud cases against Democrats for which there was no evidence, then forcing into resignation or firing US attorneys who were pursuing legitimate cases against Republicans. And, meanwhile, we can't forget that the administration intended to exploit a new Patriot Act provision that allowed them to appoint interim US attorneys for an indefinite period without Senate approval—thereby staffing the positions ad infinitum with "team players" who would, presumably, go after political opponents on the thinnest of facts and not touch political allies even in the presence of overwhelming evidence.

And they busily orchestrated this plan without the merest hint of compunction. Check out the recently-resigned AG chief of staff Kyle Sampson's email to the White House and others at the Justice Department regarding the replacement of one of the ousted prosecutors with Karl Rove's buddy J. Timothy Griffin:

"I think we should gum this to death," Mr. Sampson wrote. "Ask the [two Democratic Arkansas Senators] to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say 'no never' (and the longer we can forestall that the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All this should be done in 'good faith' of course."
Of course. Of course it should be done in "good faith"—quotes original, wink wink, nudge nudge. That's how the Bush administration operates, don'tcha know, in "good faith." Knowhatimean, knowhatimean? Wink wink, nudge nudge.

It's despicable. And more than that, it's indefensible. Republicans should be horrified by the behavior of this administration, their contempt for the law. Ignoring for a moment how not cool this shit is ethically no matter who's doing it, ignoring for a moment that it's bad for the entire country, at minimum Republicans should be well and truly tired of the Bush administration making their party look like the shady, unprincipled, unethical, scumbag criminals that the Democrats are always asserting them to be. I honestly can't for a moment imagine how or why at this point there is left a single person in all of America not inescapably compelled to raise a stink from here to high heaven and back again about the Bush administration.

Open Wide...

An Army of Martha Mitchells

Some bloggers just don't understand how journalism works. Back in mid-January TPM Muckraker an offshoot of Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo began writing that U. S. attorneys were being fired by the Bush Administration and tried to make a big deal out of it. Although most journalists paid no attention to the hysteria the bloggers were trying to whip up about what Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would later call an "overblown personnel matter," Time magazine's Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Jay Carney took time out of his busy day to patiently mock Marshall.

"Of course! It all makes perfect conspiratorial sense!" Carney wrote. "Except for one thing: in this case some liberals are seeing broad partisan conspiracies where none likely exist." Though Carney admitted, "It's all very suspicious sounding," he pointed out that Marshall had no proof. Marshall was basing his claims on the complaints of one disgruntled district attorney, Carol Lam, who claimed her firing jeopardized investigations into the Duke Cunningham scandal, and the vague charges of Senator Dianne Feinstein who is clearly a partisan. Besides nothing about the story had appeared in the Drudge Report and journalists are bound by the rules of journalistic ethics to ignore rumors unless they appear there first.

Of course, journalists don't have the time or resources to investigate every suspicious rumor. If they did that, they wouldn't have time to report the news. And if their confidential sources in the White House thought that journalists were looking into something that might make them look bad, they would stop leaking to journalists, which would make reporting the news impossible.

But Marshall and his reporters, who apparently don't have anything better to do and may be slightly unstable, kept pushing this story until another U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias, went public with his suspicions about why he was fired. But even then Carney remained steadfast, writing skeptically, "If Iglesias names names, and others tell similar stories, I will take my hat off to Marshall and others in the blogosphere and congratulate them for having been right in their suspicions about this story from the beginning." Of course, he still wasn't prepared to waste his valuable time looking into the matter himself and he couldn't resist getting in a little dig at bloggers, pointing out that "Suspicions aren't facts," which bloggers apparently don't realize because they didn't go to journalism school.

Now Gonzales has been forced to admit that "mistakes were made" although he didn't know anything about them. He pointed out that there are 110,000 people working in the Justice Department and he can't possibly know what they are all up to. Unlike bloggers, Attorneys General and Time correspondents have real jobs and they can't be expected to know everything.

Nevertheless, Carney made good on his promise to take his hat off to Marshall, no doubt relieved that he didn't say that he would eat his hat. Just in case anyone thought that Carney just sat on his hands and let bloggers do all the work, he also revealed that he actually made a few calls. "I called some Democrats on the Hill; they were 'concerned,' but this was not a priority." Without the cover of being able to report that Democrats were suspicious and looking into the allegations, Carney knew that he couldn't take the risk of looking into them himself so he was forced to publicly doubt they were true so that Time's reputation wouldn't be damaged. "The blogosphere was the engine on this story, pulling the Hill and the MSM along. As the document dump proves, what happened was much worse than I'd first thought. I was wrong. Very nice work, and thanks for holding my feet to the fire," Carney admitted magnanimously.

Now because of one blog and despite the determined efforts of Jay Carney and other mainstream journalists, the Justice Department is in disarray. I don't need to tell you how dangerous it is to have resources diverted to defending the embattled Attorney General and away from fighting terrorists. I hope that Marshall and other bloggers will realize how reckless their actions have been and will learn some valuable lessons from this episode. They need to learn how journalism really works and to understand what drives modern journalism you have to go all the way back to the Watergate scandal, which many bloggers are too young to remember.

After Richard Nixon was forced to resign the presidency because of the Watergate scandal, he told David Frost in an interview, "If it hadn't been for Martha Mitchell, there'd have been no Watergate." Martha Mitchell was the wife of Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell. Before the Watergate scandal broke, she began calling reporters late at night and telling them that her husband was engaged in illegal activities. Reporters, of course, didn't believe anything she said and tried to help her by telling her husband what she was doing. He had her locked away and leaked a story to the press that she had a "drinking problem." The character of Martha Logan in the television series 24 is based on her so you can see why no one believed her and why she was so dangerous.

Although some blame for Watergate must also go to Mark Felt, the disgruntled FBI employee who has since been revealed as Woodward and Bernstein's source Deep Throat, it was Mitchell's indiscretions that first put the poisonous idea in the heads of reporters that our own government can't be trusted, which ultimately weakened our country. Just as people working for Gonzales tried to stop U.S. attorneys from talking to reporters by threatening to release damaging information about them, John Mitchell tried to stop The Washington Post from writing about Watergate by warning, "[Post Publisher] Katie Graham's gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer if that's published."

Regrettably, The Washington Post went ahead with the story anyway. In the wake of Watergate laws were passed limiting what the government could do. Because of these laws government officials were barred from using all of the resources necessary to protect our country. So Mitchell was partly responsible not only for damaging the credibility and the power of the U.S. government for years to come but possibly even 9/11. It has taken years of painstaking work by the Bush Administration to restore some of the credibility and power the government lost after Watergate through laws like the Patriot Act. If one delusional, alcoholic woman, who just happened to be right in this one instance, can do so much damage despite the concerted effort of many reporters not to believe her, think what damage an army of Martha Mitchells could do. To journalists that's what bloggers are--an army of Martha Mitchells.

The idea of an army of Martha Mitchells is terrifying to reporters. Sure, Josh Marshall and other bloggers happened to be right on this one story, just as Martha Mitchell turned out to be correct despite the fact that she was a delusional drunken gossip. But that shouldn't tempt the Jay Carneys of the world to pick up the phone the next time one of these Martha Mitchells calls and tries to put subversive ideas in their heads. I think Carney and other reporters realize the damage Watergate did to this country and they are trying to undo it by returning journalism back to where it was before Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein ruined it. Unfortunately, there is an army of Martha Mitchells out there constantly ringing up journalists in the middle of the night, waking them up when they are trying to sleep.

Crossposted at Jon Swift

Open Wide...

Submitted Without Comment

But one bit of emphasis:

The Army Corps of Engineers, rushing to meet President Bush's promise to protect New Orleans by the start of the 2006 hurricane season, installed defective flood-control pumps last year despite warnings from its own expert that the equipment would fail during a storm, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The 2006 hurricane season turned out to be mild, and the new pumps were never pressed into action. But the Corps and the politically connected manufacturer of the equipment are still struggling to get the 34 heavy-duty pumps working properly.

The pumps are now being pulled out and overhauled because of excessive vibration, Corps officials said. Other problems have included overheated engines, broken hoses and blown gaskets, according to the documents obtained by the AP.

Col. Jeffrey Bedey, who is overseeing levee reconstruction, insisted the pumps would have worked last year and the city was never in danger. Bedey gave assurances that the pumps should be ready for the coming hurricane season, which begins June 1.

… The drainage-canal pumps were custom-designed and built under a $26.6 million contract awarded after competitive bidding to Moving Water Industries Corp. of Deerfield Beach, Fla. It was founded in 1926 and supplies flood-control and irrigation pumps all over the world.

MWI is owned by J. David Eller and his sons. Eller was once a business partner of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in a venture called Bush-El that marketed MWI pumps. And Eller has donated about $128,000 to politicians, the vast majority of it to the Republican Party, since 1996, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

MWI has run into trouble before. The U.S. Justice Department sued the company in 2002, accusing it of fraudulently helping Nigeria obtain $74 million in taxpayer-backed loans for overpriced and unnecessary water-pump equipment. The case has yet to be resolved.

Open Wide...

Purgegate Update

Hillary Clinton is now calling for Gonzales' resignation, too: "The buck should stop somewhere, and the attorney general—who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president's personal attorney with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country—should resign."

* * *

Dana Milbank has a great recap of Gonzo's presser yesterday, and describes the AG as managing "to contradict himself at least four times as he fought off calls to resign over the firing of U.S. attorneys." Heh.

Ruth Marcus was equally unimpressed with the presser, and wants to know "Is there anyone left—seriously, is there a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee—who has confidence in Gonzales's capacity to fix this mess? Is there anyone who accepts Gonzales's CEO analogy—and thinks that a sentient board of directors wouldn't have fired him long ago?" Good questions.

* * *

It seems like GOP interest in pressuring US attorneys regarding voter fraud was—coincidentally, I'm sure, ahem—rather widespread:

A former chairman of the Washington state Republican Party said Tuesday he talked with the GOP-appointed U.S. attorney in Seattle during the agonizing recounts in the 2004 governor's race.

Chris Vance said then-U.S. Attorney John McKay made it clear he would not discuss whether his office was investigating allegations of voter fraud in the election. He said McKay cut off the conversation.

"I thought it was part of my job, to be a conduit," Vance, who now operates a consulting business, said in a telephone interview. "We had a Republican secretary of state, a Republican prosecutor in King County and a Republican U.S. attorney, and no one was doing anything."
McKay was one of the eight US attorneys who were fired in January.

I'm not sure how much clearer it can get that the GOP was sending an orchestrated message—straight on down from the White House—that if federal prosecutors didn't go after Democrats at their bidding, they'd be shit-canned. This is just pure partisan shite, and they've been doing it so long (and getting away with it) that all of them, like Vance, are taking this "What's the BFD?" attitude about it. "I thought it was part of my job." I bet you did.

* * *

The cavalier posture also went all the way to the White House, from where, the NY Times reports, there are yet more emails making clear how this whole thing went down: "Late in the afternoon on Dec. 4, a deputy to Harriet E. Miers, then the White House counsel and one of President Bush's most trusted aides, sent a two-line e-mail message to a top Justice Department aide. 'We're a go,' it said, approving a long-brewing plan to remove seven federal prosecutors considered weak or not team players. The message, from William K. Kelley of the White House counsel's office to D. Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, put in motion a plan to fire United States attorneys that had been hatched 22 months earlier by Ms. Miers. Three days later, the seven prosecutors were summarily dismissed. An eighth had been forced out in the summer."

And an email from Sampson, describing how they settled on the eight they fired, rated various US attorneys on whether they "exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general."

In one e-mail message, Mr. Sampson questioned a colleague about the record of the federal prosecutor in San Diego, Carol C. Lam. Referring to the office of the deputy attorney general, Mr. Sampson wrote: “Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?” Ms. Lam was one of the seven fired prosecutors.

Two others, Paul K. Charlton in Arizona and Daniel K. Bogden in Nevada, were faulted as being “unwilling to take good cases we have presented to them,” according to another e-mail message to Mr. Sampson, referring to pornography prosecutions.

Another United States attorney, David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, was added to the hit list in the fall of 2006 after criticism from his home state, including a demand by Senator Pete V. Domenici, a Republican, to meet with the attorney general to discuss the performance of Mr. Iglesias’s office.
It just goes on and on, right down to the choreographed phone calls made to the prosecutors to tell them they were outta there.

* * *

And finally, a NY Times editorial deems the whole mess Politics, Pure and Cynical. It begins: "We wish we'd been surprised to learn that the White House was deeply involved in the politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, but the news had the unmistakable whiff of inevitability. This disaster is just part of the Bush administration’s sordid history of waving the bloody bullhorn of 9/11 for the basest of motives: the perpetuation of power for power's sake."

And it ends: "In mid-December 2006, Mr. Gonzales’s aide, Mr. Sampson, wrote to a White House counterpart that using the Patriot Act to fire the Arkansas prosecutor and replace him with Mr. Rove's man was risky—Congress could revoke the authority. But, he wrote, 'if we don’t ever exercise it, then what’s the point of having it?' If that sounds cynical, it is. It is also an accurate summary of the governing philosophy of this administration: What's the point of having power if you don't use it to get more power?"

Right on. Oh, and thanks for finally noticing.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Super Friends

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What's the worst movie you've seen in the last couple of months?

Mr. Shakes and I rented The Celestine Prophecy for a laugh (don't judge us—we have a once-a-week Shitty Movie Night), and that shit was so gawdawful it made Battlefield Earth look like Shakespeare. I mean, The Celestine Prophecy sucked so hardcore, we could barely even make sense of it, no less make fun of it, proving once again that finding the perfect movie for Shitty Movie Night is just as hard as finding the perfect movie for a night you're jonesing for a good film.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"Appearances are troubling. This has not been handled well. But in Texas we believe in having a fair trial and then the hanging." — John Cornyn, R-Texas, on his support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Open Wide...

Your Moment of Zen



That shit is hot.

Open Wide...

Pop Quiz

Constant Comment just sent this to me in an email, and I'm posting it exactly as she sent it. By way of background, in case you hadn't heard, former President George H.W. Bush collapsed from dehydration this weekend (probably from all the crying about his awesome son), but he's fine now. Anyway, Constant Comment says:

"What's the most disturbing thing about this article?

"The next thing I remember ... I fainted and I was on the floor," he told the crowd.

He joked: "The ugliest part was my dear friend from Las Vegas (a male friend) was giving me mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. We had about six beautiful girls there and there was (my friend) doing his part."
a) that he had to make an anti-gay comment
b) that he’d prefer Babs to his male friend
c) that there were 'six beautiful girls there.'

You decide."

That's a tough one. I'm going to have to go with A, though—with the added caveat that I also find it disturbing his comment was reported, of course, as a "joke."

And personally, I thought this bit from the same story was the fucking joke:

Bush addressed a crowd of about 200 people as part of a speaker series at the Music Center of Los Angeles. He received a standing ovation when he came out and a warm reception throughout his speech. But later, during a question and answer period, he was heckled by a man who criticized Bush's son, President George W. Bush, for his handling of the war in Iraq.

Security personnel descended on the heckler, but Bush told them not to remove the man.

In a testy exchange with the heckler, the elder Bush said of his son: "He's an honest and decent man and he calls them as he sees them, contrary to what you read in these left-wing tabloids."
Good one.

Open Wide...

Edwards Calls for Gonzo's Resignation

He led the way last week on pulling out of the Nevada debate which was to be aired on Fox, and now John Edwards is the first Democratic presidential candidate to call on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign in the wake of the prosecutor purge scandal. From a just-issued statement released by the campaign:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales betrayed his public trust by playing politics when his job is to enforce and uphold the law. By violating that trust, he's done a great disservice to his office. If White House officials ordered this purge, he should have refused them. If they insisted, he should have resigned in protest. Attorney General Gonzales should certainly resign now.
Right on. He had some harsh words for Don Bush, too:

Today's news is only the latest and most disturbing sign of the politicization of justice under President Bush. From the abuse of investigative authority under the Patriot Act to the unconstitutional imprisonment of the Guantanamo Bay detainees and illegal torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base, this president has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law.
Uh-huh. I wish the Dems would start calling for his resignation.

Hey—a girl's gotta dream, okay?

Open Wide...

Johnny Appleseed

It's amazing how frequently misogyny manages to offend me on both a philosophical and linguistic level—and this story not only takes the proverbial cake, but chews it up, swallows it, digests it, and poops it out all over my last good nerve.

Ricky Lackey has six children on the way.

Just don’t call them sextuplets – they're all with different women.

When Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Melba Marsh asked Lackey during sentencing Friday on a charge of attempted theft how many children he had, the 25-year-old said, "None, but I have six on the way."

A stunned Marsh tried to clarify. "Are you marrying a woman with six children?" she asked.

"No, I be concubining," he said.
I be concubining. Are you fucking shitting me?

If I were any one of the six women pregnant with one of this daft jackass' six impending offspring, all due between August and October, I'd be "frying panning" him upside his witless head.

Open Wide...