We haven't done a "desert island" question in ages, so here we go… As always, the desert comes equipped with a power source and kickass entertainment system.
Were you to be stranded for an indefinite period of time, which one book, one album, and one film would you want to have with you?
Book: The Complete Works of Shakespeare
Album: "Strangeways, Here We Come" by The Smiths
Film: Harold and Maude
Question of the Day
Attorneygate Quickies
And that dog will fuck. you. up.
Forbes Joins the Giuliani Campaign
So Steve Forbes—erstwhile one-issue presidential candidate and president, CEO, and editor-in-chief of Forbes magazine—has joined Rudy Giuliani's campaign as his National Campaign Co-Chair and Senior Policy Advisor. They're both supply-siders, anti-taxers, and alleged believers in conservative federal spending, so it makes sense that Forbes would be an economic advisor to Giuliani, but his National Campaign Co-Chair?! Well, what you might not realize is how many other things these two wild and crazy guys have in common.
They both like making funny faces.
They both look scary on TV.
They both sometimes just look scary.
They both like bold prints.
They both like wearing gowns.
And, while Forbes likes hanging out with his brothers…
…Rudy likes hanging out with his sistahs!
It's a match made in bloody heaven, I tells ya!
Watch out, D.C. The Rudy Train's coming to town—toot toot!
Speaking
Time managing editor Rick Stengel speaks: Dems should be wary of aggressively probing Karl Rove, lest they be seen as "obsessively concerned with settling scores."Huh.
Shakespeare's Sister managing editor Melissa McEwan speaks: Rick Stengel should shut the fuck up, lest he reinforce the antidemocratic and dangerous notion that politics is merely a game with consequences that don't really matter.
(She then searches out the nearest toilet to puke out everything she's eaten in the last six years thanks to the phrase "aggressively probing Karl Rove.")
Elections Have Consequences: Investigations-a-Go-Go Edition
Probably.
Background on this hearing here. Sorry—no transcript yet.
More from TPM, Think Progress, and Arlen.
Superpooch
[Debbie Parkhurst, 45] said she was home alone with the dogs Friday afternoon when she decided to snack on an apple. Suddenly, she said, a chunk of the fruit became wedged in her windpipe. "It was lodged pretty tight because I couldn’t breathe," she said. "I tried to do the thing where you lean over a chair and give yourself the Heimlich, but it didn’t work."The only thing that could possibly make this story even better? Debbie and her husband Kevin rescued Toby from a dumpster.
Parkhurst said she then began beating her chest, an action that might have attracted [2-year-old golden retriever] Toby’s attention. "The next thing I know, Toby’s up on his hind feet and he’s got his front paws on my shoulders," she recalled. "He pushed me to the ground, and once I was on my back, he began jumping up and down on my chest."
Toby’s jumping apparently managed to dislodge the apple from Parkhurst’s windpipe.
…"I, literally, have pawprint-shaped bruises on my chest," Parkhurst said. "I’m still a little hoarse, but otherwise, I’m OK. … I know it sounds a little weird, but I think he had a sense of what was happening. Of all the dogs in the world, I never would have expected this goofy one here to know the Heimlich."
[H/T to Bint.]
Caption this Photo
"Don't think of them draped over coffins... don't think of them draped over coffins... don't think of them draped over coffins..."
Not So Fast There, Murphy McFingers...
Remember that scandal that brought the House down? The one involving the guy who was caught one-handed while turning on the mojo to some teenage Congressional pages? Last we recall, he made his way to rehab for a few months so that other things could grab our attention away from him. Now, he's back from rehab and seems to be enjoying the nice weather:
I guess rehab isn't as magical as he thought.
(Tip'o'the hat to RawStory; cross-posted at Pure and Easy.)
He was seen last week bicycling along South Ocean Boulevard wearing a helmet and bike racing outfit.I guess he's enjoying it while he can. You see, Mr. Foley has to deal with the possibility of answering to state charges, since "the Florida statute makes it a crime simply to use lewd or explicit language that is 'harmful to minors'." Throw in the fact that some messages were sent from Pensacola, and you've got yourself another great popcorn night.
I guess rehab isn't as magical as he thought.
(Tip'o'the hat to RawStory; cross-posted at Pure and Easy.)
Turd Blossoming
1972: Dan Rather reports on the Nixon campaign, and the Boy Genius shows up, talking about getting young people excited about the Republican Party.
Via Echidne, who says: "It is an interesting video to watch if you like the history of politics in general, too. And note the strict gender division of labor."
I nicked the title of the post from Cliff Schecter, who accuses Rove of looking like Skippy from Family Ties. Heh.
He was my worst nightmare before I was even born.
Richardson has self-esteem issues
For any self-respecting presidential campaign, this is really kind of pathetic:
Richardson Seeks Clinton ScrapsAccording to the New York Observer, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) is pursuing a second choice strategy in his presidential campaign fundraising.
Said Richardson: "I appeal to funders that say, 'I’m for Senator Clinton,' and I say, 'O.K., that’s fine. But make me your second choice. Help me out too.'"
A more generous viewpoint might see this pitch as frank and realistic, or even engagingly self-deprecating in a Richard Lewis kind of way...but where's the appeal for cash-flush donors in bankrolling a candidate who declares himself second-rate? Governor Richardson needs a crash-course in selling that touted resume of his.
(Cross-posted in first-rate fashion.)
Pull up a Chairy
Yeah. Although, I would replace "the Howard Stern Show" with "the unholy spawn of Twin Peaks and Pee-Wee's Playhouse set to a Morrissey soundtrack" for this blog.
Elections Have Consequences: Equal Rights Amendment Edition
Oh. Mah. Gawd. Twenty-five-years after it failed to be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures to become a Constitutional Amendment (and eighty-four years after it was first introduced in Congress), the Equal Rights Amendment—now known as the Women's Equality Amendment—is having a resurgence.
Yesterday, House and Senate Democrats reintroduced the measure … and vowed to bring it to a vote in both chambers by the end of the session.
…"Elections have consequences, and isn't it true those consequences are good right now?" Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asked a mostly female crowd yesterday at a news conference, as the audience cheered. "We are turning this country around, bit by bit, to put it in a more progressive direction."
The amendment consists of 52 words and has one key line: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
I'm crying. I'm honestly sitting here crying, reading that line and thinking that it may finally make its way into the Constitution in my lifetime.
That sentence would subject legal claims of gender discrimination to the same strict scrutiny given by courts to allegations of racial discrimination.Yeah, I've heard that once or twice myself. Probably because most Americans are fucking amazed that it isn't.
…"I think we've made a lot of people think about this and say, 'Yes, this is the right thing to do,' " said Arkansas state Rep. Lindsley Smith (D), who sponsored the ERA and has vowed to bring it up again when the legislature reconvenes in 2009. "The question I get most frequently is 'Lindsley, I thought this already was in the Constitution.' "
It remains unclear whether the amendment -- which has 194 House co-sponsors and 10 Senate co-sponsors and no longer includes a deadline for ratification -- can get a two-thirds vote in Congress. [Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)], who chairs the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties, said the bill will receive its first hearing in more than two decades and "is going to be one of the items at the top of the agenda."
Okay, crying again. I just feel deliriously happy at the mere possibility of the ERA at long last being ratified under the leadership of the first ever female Speaker.
Of course, the usual suspects are reemerging to fight it, just like they did last time: "In the 1970s, Schlafly and others argued that the ERA would lead to women being drafted by the military and to public unisex bathrooms. Today, she warns lawmakers that its passage would compel courts to approve same-sex marriages and deny Social Security benefits for housewives and widows." The real issue buried in all that nonsense is, of course, "same-sex marriages." Other opponents are all fidgety "because courts in two states have ruled that equal-rights amendments in state constitutions justify state funding for abortion." Said Arkansas state Rep. Dan Greenberg (R): "The more general language you have in a constitutional amendment, the more unpredictable the policy impact will be."
Yeah, who knows what will happen when we finally recognize women as equals?! Maybe frogs will fall from the fucking sky!
Opponents of the WEA are so tired. Their arguments against it are so tired. Waaaaah! Same-sex marriage! Waaaaah! Abortion! They're willing to deny my equality under the law just because it might open the door to other battles they're eventually going to lose, anyway. Brave culture warriors, my fat arse.
Britain Rattles a Saber
Six days ago, Iran captured 15 members of the British Royal Navy who were apparently on a routine anti-smuggling patrol authorized by the United Nations and the Iraqi government. Now Iran holds them hostage, refusing to say where they are being held and disallowing British officials from visiting them. (Breaking: Iran supposedly to release the female soldier today or tomorrow.) According to Vice Admiral Charles Style, the Iranians first claimed the sailors were taken from Iraqi waters, then claimed they were taken from Iranian waters. Britain has now made public "details of what it said was the sailors’ position when they were apprehended," which places them in Iraqi waters, and Prime Minister Tony Blair is getting threatening.
"It is now time to ratchet up international and diplomatic pressure" on Iran to demonstrate its "total isolation," Prime Minister Tony Blair told parliament after the Royal Navy made public details of what it said was the sailors’ position when they were apprehended.Um, yeah. It is.
The Royal Navy rejected two sets of coordinates provided by Iran as evidence of Tehran's claim that the British sailors had strayed into its territorial waters.
…In diplomatic contacts, Iran had provided Britain with an initial set of coordinates for the position of the boats that placed the incident in Iraqi waters.
"We pointed this out to them on Sunday in diplomatic contacts," Vice Admiral Style said. "After we did this they then provided a second set of coordinates that places the incident in Iranian waters" over two nautical miles away from where they were said to be by Britain, he said.
"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," he said.
Of course, I don't trust the Blair administration any more than I trust the Bush administration. Following days of dispute over whether the soldiers were seized from the Iraqi or Iranian territory of a highly contested waterway—the median of which was demarcated by buoys until recent years—Britain has now produced satellite tracking data "proving" the "boat carrying the Britons was 'clearly' 3.1 kilometers (1.7 nautical miles) inside Iraqi waters and that they were 'ambushed' by the Iranian forces." Here's the picture the British Ministry of Defense has released:
Oh, great. Well, that settles it for me. It's the same thing even at the BBC. Evidently, we're meant—as per usual—to take the word of "the good guys" at face value, without thinking about it too much or questioning whether the "proof" they're offering might be something we'd, you know, even want to see in some kind of readable detail. Call me cynical, but blind faith in Blair's government was one of the things that got us into the war those soldiers were fighting when they were taken. Or have we all forgotten the Downing Street Memos already?
Suffice it to say, I'm getting nervous hearing Bush's best bud Blair talking about the dispute entering a "different phase" if the sailors are not released. (Especially when American neocon's dicks are getting all hard again.) I really hope that Iran's decision to release the female soldier is a sign that this will be diffused in short order.
This Needs to Stop
Apparently, women who blog about politics aren't the only ones that need to worry about death and rape threats. Tech blogger Kathy Sierra has been so frightened by the threats, sexual harassment and hate directed towards her that she's canceled upcoming speaking engagements and is literally afraid to leave her home. (Examples of the threats she received and some appalling graphics created using her picture are further down the page; prepare yourself.) I'm not familiar with Kathy's blog; I know she primarily blogs about tech issues, so I'm not quite sure why she's being threatened. (Not that there is any excuse for threats.) To me, this simply stinks of putting a woman "back in her place."
Sheelzebub and Zuzu do an excellent job of tearing this crap to shreds; particularly the people that have the gall to scream "freedom of speech!" when they're justifiably slammed for threatening women. Stalking and threatening are not freedom of speech issues, folks. It's called breaking the law. And in case anyone forgets, not only did our own Melissa deal with online threats, she had other terrifying things happen while she was being smeared on national television, like someone blocking her driveway and pounding on her door. How long before something similar happens to Kathy? What if it's happening right now?
Nothing ever happens to the perpetrators, does it? Other bloggers say they "don't approve" of such behavior, if they can be bothered to comment at all, except for the ones too busy suggesting that the recipients of the threats grow a spine. Why is it that a woman has to live in fear because of something she blogged, and people threatening her life do so without the slightest worry that their sorry ass might end up in prison? I'm not trying to say that the women receiving these threats aren't doing enough to protect themselves or pursue the people that have targeted them; online anonymity, tech gadgets like IP masks, and laws that don't keep up with technology don't always make it easy. My point is, people feel perfectly safe making threats online that would land them in trouble if they snail-mailed them or said them over the phone.
This is exactly what Coulter-esqe "it was just a joke" excuses get you.
The blogosphere is growing and gaining more influence as time goes on, and shit like this is becoming more commonplace. The nasty thing is, it's going to continue and get worse unless someone faces consequences for this behavior. It's high time someone is arrested for making online threats. These scumbags need to be dragged away from their keyboards, frogmarched to a squad car in view of the media, and thrown in a cell with other criminals.
Because they are criminals. Only when we begin to see consequences for online threats will we see them begin to ebb.
(Updated: Blogger ate some changes I had made.)
Bring on the Veto Pen
Senate signals support for Iraq timeline:
The Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March, triggering an instant veto threat from the White House in a deepening dispute between Congress and commander in chief. Republican attempts to scuttle the non-binding timeline failed, 50-48, largely along party lines.Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NB) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) voted with the Democrats. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) voted with Republicans.
The vote marked the Senate's most forceful challenge to date of the administration's handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops. It came days after the House approved a binding withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008.
After weeks of setbacks on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid said the moment was at hand to "send a message to President Bush that the time has come to find a new way forward in this intractable war."
Once Bush vetoes, as he has promised, it will put the onus back on the Dems to either continue this battle of wills or concede that it's Bush's goddamned war and therefore his war to end, because they simply don't have the votes to override his veto. Continuing to fight would mean facing "increasingly urgent statements from the administration that the money is needed for troops in the war zone," as well as taking additional time away from dealing with other issues of urgency on the domestic front. I'm not sure that's the wisest course of action. I'm also not sure it isn't.
When Bush vetoes, by the way, it will be his second, the first being against the bill seeking to expand funding for embryonic stem cell research. Support Bush's Culture of Life: Just say no to curing diseases and ending wars!
Why it matters…
…when a senior aide to the nation's top law enforcement official takes the 5th.
UPDATE: TPM:
Monica Goodling does have a good faith basis for pleading the Fifth Amendment - just not the ones in her lawyer's letter that are getting all the attention.And Atrios reports: "On Hardball Shuster is basically confirming this, that McNulty told Schumer he messed up because Gooding fed him some horseshit."
Under the federal False Statements statute, 18 USC 1001, it is a felony to cause another person to make a false statement to Congress. Since McNulty has allegedly told Senator Schumer that he made a false statement to Congress based on information provided to him by Monica Goodling, Goodling could very well be prosecuted for a Section 1001 violation.
All the rest of the crap in her lawyer's letter is intended to sooth as much as possible WH anger at her for invoking the Fifth.
Update: Gonzo Rabbits
Wow. Gonzo almost made it through three whole minutes of his appearance in Chicago today before turning tail and running out.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dashed out of a Chicago news conference this afternoon in just two and a half minutes, ducking questions about how his office gave U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald a subpar rating.As noted in the Think Progress post, Gonzo made a similar appearance in Denver yesterday, where reporters weren't allowed to ask any questions.
Gonzales, who increasingly faces calls for his resignation, was here to promote a new ad campaign and had planned a 15-minute press availability. He left after taking just three questions over a firing scandal consuming his administration.
Before leaving, Gonzales said he wanted to “reassure the American people that nothing improper happened here.”
Really, this is just getting embarrassing.
America 
NY
The WSJ's Washington Wire reports the latest poll results under the headline New York Candidates Stay in Front, which made me consider how improbable it is, even this far out, that the current leaders of both parties are from New York (any charges of carpetbagging notwithstanding). The two Big Apples of our collective eye, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, are still leading even their closest competitors by double digits (or nearly) in most polls, even as both have yielded some ground.
Clearly, of the two, Giuliani is presumed to be less likely to maintain his lead and snag his party's nomination, but such presumptions may be premature—since, as I've said before, it's best never to underestimate the Right's ability to march in jackbooted lockstep with whatever candidate is given them, particularly if he's got the authoritarian credentials Rudy brings to the bash. So, it's not entirely inconceivable we could end up with a battle of the NY all-stars, which would just be zany, considering the silly but widely accepted belief that New York the state, and particularly the city with which it shares its name, is wildly unrepresentative of the country as a whole.
Also interesting is that the most viable Midwestern candidate is a Democrat (Barack Obama) and the most viable Southern candidate is a Democrat (John Edwards).
Still early. Things could (and likely will) change. But weird field this time. So far.
