Thanks to a broken laptop computer, Oral Roberts University is finding itself in trouble for misappropriation of funds, improper use of university assets, and lavish personal spending by the school's president, Richard Roberts, son of the founder, now-retired evangelist Oral Roberts.
It has all the makings of the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker scandal of the 1980's, plus a nod to the hijinks of Congressman Mark Foley with late-night cellphone text messaging to "underage males" by Mr. Roberts's wife.Richard Roberts is accused of illegal involvement in a local political campaign and lavish spending at donors' expense, including numerous home remodeling projects, use of the university jet for his daughter's senior trip to the Bahamas, and a red Mercedes convertible and a Lexus SUV for his wife, Lindsay.
This isn't the first time Oral Roberts University has been in the news. Twenty years ago, the senior Rev. Roberts told the world that unless he raised $8 million, God would "call him home." It apparently worked...the university is still in business... for now. (I also remember there was a groundswell of waggish commentary wondering how much would be needed to be raised to send Mr. Roberts on his journey home.)
She is accused of dropping tens of thousands of dollars on clothes, awarding nonacademic scholarships to friends of her children and sending scores of text messages on university-issued cell phones to people described in the lawsuit as "underage males."
[...]
The allegations are contained in a lawsuit filed Tuesday by three former professors. They sued ORU and Roberts, alleging they were wrongfully dismissed after reporting the school's involvement in a local political race.
Richard Roberts, according to the suit, asked a professor in 2005 to use his students and university resources to aid a county commissioner's bid for Tulsa mayor. Such involvement would violate state and federal law because of the university's nonprofit status. Up to 50 students are alleged to have worked on the campaign.
The professors also said their dismissals came after they turned over to the board of regents a copy of a report documenting moral and ethical lapses on the part of Roberts and his family. The internal document was prepared by Stephanie Cantese, Richard Roberts' sister-in-law, according to the lawsuit.
An ORU student repairing Cantese's laptop discovered the document and later provided a copy to one of the professors.
It details dozens of alleged instances of misconduct. Among them:
• A longtime maintenance employee was fired so that an underage male friend of Mrs. Roberts could have his position.
• Mrs. Roberts — who is a member of the board of regents and is referred to as ORU's "first lady" on the university's Web site — frequently had cell-phone bills of more than $800 per month, with hundreds of text messages sent between 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. to "underage males who had been provided phones at university expense."
• The university jet was used to take one daughter and several friends on a senior trip to Orlando, Fla., and the Bahamas. The $29,411 trip was billed to the ministry as an "evangelistic function of the president."
• Mrs. Roberts spent more than $39,000 at one Chico's clothing store alone in less than a year, and had other accounts in Texas and California. She also repeatedly said, "As long as I wear it once on TV, we can charge it off." The document cites inconsistencies in clothing purchases and actual usage on TV.
• Mrs. Roberts was given a white Lexus SUV and a red Mercedes convertible by ministry donors.
• University and ministry employees are regularly summoned to the Roberts' home to do the daughters' homework.
• The university and ministry maintain a stable of horses for exclusive use by the Roberts' children.
• The Roberts' home has been remodeled 11 times in the past 14 years.
How ironic is it that this all happened because God called a laptop computer home. Who says that technology doesn't improve the world? And if this means the end of yet another charlatan's empire, three cheers for the Blue Screen of Death.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
Oral Roberts University Faces the Blue Screen of Death
The Virtual Pub Is Open
Happy Third Blogiversary, Shakers!
TFIF, WTP, and other acronyms.
Belly up to the bar and name your poison.
The champagne is flowing like a very flowy thing tonight!
From the You've Got to Be Shitting Me Files
The male escort responsible for the downfall of Christian evangelist leader Ted Haggard is now alleging that embattled Senator Larry Craig also came to see him.Craig's office—shocker!—denies the allegations, calling them "completely false." The linked article helpfully reminds us: "Christian evangelist Ted Haggard originally denied Jones' allegations of sexual relations in 2006." Heh.
…Feingold asked whether the Senator had seen [Mike Jones] in a hotel room.
Jones responded, "No, he came to see me."
Jones then added, "His travel records to Denver have been documented. That's what I wanted to say."
Via Atrios, who appears to believe this "harmonic convergence" is too good to be true, and I have to agree. But, then again, stranger things have happened than the possibility that every closeted conservative west of the Mississippi was sharing notes on the Best Little Whorehouse in Denver.
UPDATE: Mike Rogers thinks Jones is lying. Thanks, Blogenfreude.
Bush: Compassionate To A (speaking) Fault
Zuzu found an interesting nugget in today's op-ed from Paul Krugman:
Mark Crispin Miller, the author of “The Bush Dyslexicon,” once made a striking observation: all of the famous Bush malapropisms — “I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family,” and so on — have involved occasions when Mr. Bush was trying to sound caring and compassionate.Let's see if our friends at DubyaSpeak have anything in their catalog to support this.
As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured.Sure, I could always throw the contents of the whole site up here, but that would take up a wee bit of room.
-- New York, New York, Sep. 26, 2007
Yes, that's a -- first of all, Mom, you're doing -- that's tough. But it's -- I appreciate that. I appreciate the idea of you wanting to give your children the education from you and the mom.
-- Springfield, Missouri, Feb. 9, 2004
The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope -- an ideology of hate -- excuse me -- with an ideology of hope.
-- Fort Benning, Georgia, Jan. 11, 2007Listen, I, I, I wanna thank, uhh, leaders of the -- in the faith, and uhh -- faith-based and community-based community for being here, we've got people who represent thousands of volunteers who are in the midst of helping save lives.
-- White House, Sep. 6, 2005
Were you the only black man in Salt Lake City?
-- To a Hurricane Katrina survivor who had survived for days on canned goods before being evacuated to Utah, New Orleans, Louisiana, Mar. 8, 2006
We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country.
-- Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Sep. 6, 2004
Rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?
-- Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000
Quote of the Day
Morrissey shows at the Hollywood Palladium were canceled this week due to a ruptured water pipe at the venue. Announcements were posted in the area to notify ticket-holders:
LAist staffer Bobby Solomon, already "deeply disturbed by the cancellation," made an excellent point about the announcement.
"AND they wrote those signs in Comic Sans, those assholes," Solomon said.Ha!
Thanks, Larry
If the DNC went out and spent millions of dollars to develop an effective ad campaign and come up with a picture-perfect poster boy for right-wing hypocrisy and gay-bashing, they couldn't have done better than the free ride they're getting from Sen. Larry Craig. Fresh from a judge's ruling in Minnesota who with barely-concealed scorn rejected the not-gay lawmaker's petition to withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct in a men's room in the Minneapolis airport, Mr. Craig has decided not to resign from the Senate and will serve out the rest of his term.
Thanks, Larry. That gives us fourteen months to remind voters that the same political party that impeached a president for consensual sex in private can't even get one of their own to gracefully take his leave, and it's driving them nuts. At least one GOP senator -- John Ensign of Nevada -- is vigorously working to get Mr. Craig to go, but Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is supporting Mr. Craig, so they can have a lively debate about whether or not a guy with a misdemeanor on his rap sheet should serve in the Senate. Now the ethics committee of the Senate is planning on having hearings on Mr. Craig's conduct. This is an apparent attempt to shame him into leaving, but as he has already demonstrated, the gentleman from Idaho has very little shame left. I wonder if they've booked a brass band for the hearings, because that's all that's missing from the circus that will ensue... and I'm getting the popcorn.
It's interesting to note that a year ago when Mark Foley was rushed out of town because of his behavior towards underage male pages in the Capitol, there was no question of the fact that Mr. Foley was gay. He did not come out and proclaim that he's not gay and never has been, and in spite of the fact that his conduct was most assuredly inappropriate -- not to mention reinforcing the stereotypical lie that gay men can't be trusted around teenaged boys -- there were no criminal charges pending against Mr. Foley, and he was never accused of a crime. But he was gay and that was enough to send him packing without a defender to be found among his colleagues in the House. Mr. Craig has staunchly -- if not credibly -- proclaimed his heterosexuality, and therefore he will stay in office regardless of the harm he does to his own party. That's a subversive way of undermining gay rights: as long as you don't admit to being gay, you can be convicted of a misdemeanor for a charge related to sex in a public place with another man and still be a senator. But if Larry Craig had done what James McGreevy, the former governor of New Jersey did -- admit in public to being a gay American -- he'd be back in Idaho trolling for hookups on the internet. It's the GOP version of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and it's working just about as well for them as it is for the military.
Well, as much as I'm grateful for the heartburn Mr. Craig's lingering presence will give the RNC and the Religious Reich, I can't help but think he's not doing the gay movement any favors other than providing the country with a rich source of scorn and double entendres on late-night TV. Having a self-loathing and in-denial senator as the most visible icon of the gay community isn't exactly what we need.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
Me and Mrs. Jones
"There is nothing stopping me... except me." - Marion Jones
The thing that I remember first, always, is that crooked little smile.
Such a discordant note. A little goofy, frankly, a kid's artless grin. The smile of Marion Jones was so completely unlike the rest of her: the relentless athletic machine; the crafted and classic beauty; the hard-eyed embodiment of ambition; the ubiquitous agent of consumerism. The rest of the Image. And Jones was indeed ubiquity personified in the months leading up to the 2000 Games in Sydney; you couldn't turn around without seeing her somewhere, everywhere.
Magazine covers, advertisements, television. She was outsized and omnipresent - and even that in itself came to be seen as epochally important:
To some, the fact that Nike created a big budget campaign before Jones even competed in her first Olympics is of great significance. It showed that society is at last ready to revere and reward female jocks as much as their male counterparts."It's the final validation for women sports," says Ron Rapoport, a veteran sports reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times and author of Jones' new biography, See How She Runs (Algonquin Books, 2000). "It used to be parents didn't encourage their daughters to participate in sports," Rapoport says. "Girls did girl things, boys did boy things. All that has changed during Marion's [career]. Both the public and corporate America is waiting for someone like her. We're ready for this. We're hungry for this."
You don't really talk about individual people like this, do you? This is the kind of superlative language reserved for Berlin Walls falling or apartheids ending, not for one person, one athlete. And yet, this is just how we described Marion Jones - larger than life - because this is how she was described to us by the media, and how she described herself.
I didn't want any part of it, thanks. I scoffed at the advertising, the megalomania, the Image. I sneered at the blatant orchestration, the push to follow the quest that would "play like a miniseries on NBC." It was all empty, of course, all in vain; I was hopelessly smitten with Mrs. Jones. How could I resist? She was beautiful - Good Lord, did you see her? - and she was determined and she was all but inevitable and she was Every. Fucking. Where.
The Image triumphed; the outcome was never in doubt, really.
And the rest of the story, the plummet from grace, just seemed to write itself after that. First the allegations of steroid use against her husband (somehow immediately believable), then similar allegations against Jones herself - also believable, damnably so, not just in spite of her righteous and vehement denials but in some way because of them. I can't explain how that works; I only know what I knew bone-deep and right away about Marion Jones, just as I knew it about my town's Mark McGuire once I read that first inconvenient report of androstenedione in his locker. I knew it was true, and I knew there was more to come. And every subsequent joy or sadness or vicarious thrill associated with McGuire, with Jones, would be tainted by that knowledge.
So the big news about Marion Jones isn't news, not to me. Increasingly, this is how these stories end. And the world just gets a little smaller, and being jaded is the best defense, and trust is a suckers game, and so on and so forth.
But I still feel a little sorry for Mrs. Jones. I have to, precisely because I feel a little sorry for myself, left with nothing but the Image...which is really all I ever had, come to think of it.
(Cross-posted.)
Why Don't Ya Just Go Die, Fatty?
by Shaker C
Diana Golobay, a print journalism junior and a columnist for the University of Texas at Arlington's school paper, The Shorthorn, doesn't think fat girls should be using elevators as if they are normal people and all, especially when a real normal person is tardy for class. (Emphasis mine.)
The solution to the crowded elevator predicament often has nothing to do with the newcomer trying to catch a lift. Instead, it has everything to do with a few questionable characters already on board: the morbidly obese girl in the back, the guy hauling a tuba conspicuously under one arm and whoever that is who smells like sweaty feet and ammonia.After all, fat people…wait, wait…no, fat women should just know that if their very existence is in the way of tardy "pretty" people, they should just cease doing that—at least while in an elevator. They can continue to exist in the stairwell, but not where she might have to share space with them.
It is the responsibility of all— but particularly of these three — to understand and practice elevator etiquette.
In times of heavy elevator traffic, some students in a hurry to class can’t escape a brief and unpleasant appointment with the stairwell. Those most eligible for a workout include anyone bound for the lower floors, people who fear elevators spontaneously plummeting to the basement and our three squatters.
The overweight girl could use the cardiovascular exercise of climbing a few flights to get to class.
At least it's not just fat women with whom Ms. Golobay takes umbrage. Tuba players, smelly people, and folks who actually do some schoolwork at the university and so have large backpacks all get in her crosshairs.
It seems anyone who would have the unmitigated gall to get in her way and not immediately understand that the world really does revolve around her are in for a taste of her ire. Yet the solution to the entire issue is right in the very first two statements of her article.
The common student with a 9 a.m. class on the fourth floor of the Fine Arts Building often faces the same dilemma every morning.If this student faces the "same dilemma every morning" and it's a university—parking is always atrocious—said student really ought to set his/her alarm 30 minutes earlier and…now, this might be a shocking idea but bear with me…get to class on time. Maybe even early! I know, I know, that's just crazy talk.
Parking was atrocious, and the student is running late to class. The professor took roll two minutes ago, and the student knows his mild tardiness might be overlooked if he makes the next elevator ride.
Memo to Pregnant Women and People with HIV: Lose Weight, Tubbies
I'm not sure which one of these recent stories infuriates me more:
1.A new study says obese women shouldn't necessarily gain weight while pregnant -- and it's even okay if they lose.
2.We're now supposed to be upset about obesity among people living with HIV -- because it's "overtaken 'wasting syndrome' as the top concern."
Seriously, you guys. We are now supposed to be worried about teh fat in pregnant women and people with HIV.
Sandy at Junkfood Science has covered both of these subjects in the last day, and Rachel at The F Word wrote an excellent post on the HIV story. I don't really have much to add to their critiques of this bullshit, but that's not gonna shut me up.
So, the study on pregnant women broke down the category "obese" into 3 subcategories: BMI 30-34.9, BMI 35-39.9, and BMI 40+. You'll note, however, that the headlines do not take into account that breakdown -- which actually shows that only those with a BMI over 40 gained any benefits (according to their criteria) from losing weight, and women in the lower BMI categories had the best outcomes when they gained weight.
About 3 percent of the population has a BMI over 40. That includes men. So even if we take this study at face value, the advice to lose or not gain weight applies only to a tiny, tiny fraction of the population at any given time. The headlines don't tell us that. I have to get 11 paragraphs into the AP article to learn that for obese women in the same BMI range as me (i.e., most obese women), "the best outcomes came with a weight gain of 10 to 25 pounds." Which, as far as I know, is consistent with the existing recommendations for obese women anyway -- although interestingly, the American Pregnancy Association's guidelines only address "underweight," "normal," and "overweight" women. We all know really fat chicks can't get laid, so I guess it makes sense that they wouldn't be included.
Anyway. What are these complications we're supposed to avoid by eating for less than one instead of two? High blood pressure, Caesarean deliveries, and having something other than a "normal weight" baby. On that last point, they don't tell us if that means the babies are too big or too small -- but check this out:The Missouri study found that the least-heavy obese women [again, that's BMI 30-34.9] who lost weight were at somewhat higher risk to have a low birth-weight baby. However, they still benefited by having fewer other complications.
So most obese women (presuming the incidence of obesity among pregnant women reflects the general population) who lose weight during pregnancy are at a higher risk of low birth-weight babies, yet the thrust of this article is about how it's okay for fatties to lose weight while pregnant? The risk of, say, delivering by C-section is still considered a noteworthy benefit in the face of a low birth-weight baby? Are you fucking kidding me?
And that refusal to acknowledge that being underweight is in fact far more dangerous, in both babies and adults, than being fat brings us to the HIV story.
People with HIV are now living much longer than ever before. Far fewer of them than ever before are suffering from wasting syndrome, an unexplained loss of 10 percent or more of one's body weight -- alongside super fun symptoms like diarrhea, fever, weakness, and increased susceptibility to illness. Which, you know, is kinda the last thing you want when you've got HIV.
And yet, somehow this is not perfectly awesome fucking news? Because why?
Because they've gone and turned into fatty boombahs.
Turns out, people with HIV now have rates of overweight and obesity similar to the general population. The general healthy population. This is a problem, evidently. Heaven forbid people with HIV start to look just like everyone else, instead of being unable to maintain a body weight high enough to keep their energy and resistance to illness up.
And what does this mean in terms of pounds gained, by the way?When patients gained weight, they tended to put on an average of 13 pounds over a decade.
13 pounds over a decade. Among a group of people who used to be at risk of quite literally wasting away. I'm sorry, but WHY ARE WE NOT DANCING IN THE STREETS ABOUT THIS?"It would be very sad to survive HIV and die of something else that was preventable," said [Dr. John T.] Brooks of the CDC.
Oh, I see. Yes, I can imagine how surviving HIV and finding out you're still mortal anyway would be a major bummer.
Also, don't even get me fucking started on how the researchers blithely assume all these people gaining an average of 13 lbs. over a decade must be eating crap and never exercising. Because that's the only possible explanation for gaining weight, ever. And don't you love how the fact that people with HIV are now surviving long enough for their weight to be tracked over decades is just casually pushed aside, because ZOMG THEY'RE GETTING FAT?
And of course there's absolutely no chance that the weight gain has anything to do with the increased survival rates. Here, for once, obesity researchers actually seem to remember that correlation doesn't equal causation. So clearly, that's not even worth looking into.
I don't even know how to wrap this one up. All I can think to do is cry, "Where does it end?" or some shit like that. We are at the point where pregnant women and people with HIV are being told to lose weight. If you had any doubt that the obesity panic is indeed a panic, and that it's way the fuck out of control, there you go.
Random YouTubery: Tori Amos
One of my faves Tori Amos performs "Bouncing Off the Clouds," from her new album American Doll Posse, on The Tonight Show last Monday.
One year for Mothers' Day, Todd and I got our mums tickets to go see Tori Amos in concert with us. The show was too loud, even to my half-deaf-and-further-inured-by-about-500-concerts ears, and Mama Shakes was toiling to enjoy the show. So, being both ingenious and not easily defeated, she bought some popcorn and tore off the spongy bits to use as earplugs. Problem solved! From there on out it was nothing but grins and swaying hips and Northern Lads.
Sounds Like Quite a Party!
Via Memeorandum, I find this item about Chris Matthews waxing candid about the Bush administration at Hardball's 10th anniversary party last night. Reportedly, he claimed the Bush administration has put pressure on his bosses to "silence" him, exclaimed "They've finally been caught in their criminality!" without referring to anything specific, and launched an arrow over Cheney's bow as well: "God help us if we had Cheney during the Cuban missile crisis. We’d all be under a parking lot."
No word on whether he punctuated that with "HA!" although I'd bet cash money that he did.
I'll also bet that the anonymous party attendee who huffily sniffed in response, "I find it hard to believe that Republican candidates will feel as if they're being given a fair shot at Tuesday's debate [being co-moderated by Matthews] given the partisan pot-shots lobbed by Matthews this evening," is a total dunderhead, and I'll go on record now saying that any conservative who picks up that "concern" is likewise a total dunderhead, evidently incapable of discerning that Matthews, who gushes about how Republican candidate Fred Thompson smells, clearly draws distinctions between "the Bush administration" and "every Republican in America."
Anyway…
The real show-stopper for me in the article was this bit:On a side note: Matthews was overheard discussing his Tuesday appearance on "The Daily Show," which featured a heated exchange with host Jon Stewart. According to one source, Matthews was steadfast in his belief that the debate left Stewart crestfallen, and Matthews victorious.
Zuh?! Let's go to the tape!
Nope. Stewart pretty much made Matthews look like a crazy-assed authoritarian nutbag.
Somebody's well and truly lost the plot, and for the Chris Matthewses among us, here's a hint about who it is: It's Chris Matthews.
Happy Third Blogiversary to Us!
Three years ago today, young bones groaned and Shakesville was born.
It was originally christened as Shakespeare's Sister, which was not an allusion to delusions of grandeur, but the name of one of my favorite Smiths' songs, which contains a line that stuck me—and strikes me still—as being beautifully apposite to my feelings about blogging: "I thought that if you had / An acoustic guitar / Then it meant that you were / A protest singer." Whatever clever old Mozza actually intended with that lyric, it suggests to me something about authenticity; having the accessories and tools of someone who does something meaningful doesn’t make you someone who does something meaningful. Calling this blog Shakespeare's Sister was meant to remind me, always, that I started it to try to make some kind of difference in this world and that only what I put into it could make it so.
And so it has reminded me, and so I have tried to make it meaningful.
I don't know if I believe that blogs can change the world, but I do believe most fervently that even a single blog has the capacity to change the world for individual people in big and small ways. A blog can turn people on to and connect them with a global community, can simply offer a much-needed laugh on a bad day, can provide support and validation from like-minded people, can open its readers' minds to new ideas and persuade them to let go of prejudices and give them a new way of understanding and loving themselves. That's what I thought when I started, anyway. And I haven't changed my mind yet.
In the intervening three years, a truly wonderful community has grown up around this blog, including nearly two dozen contributors and an amazing group of commenters, all of whom seem to share my desire to make this little bus stop in the blogosphere a meaningful place—and informative, interesting, and fun to boot. The Shakers are a great lot. That's about the long and the short of it. Thank you, everyone.
And thanks to Mr. Shakes, who first suggested I start a blog, who is nothing but light and support and encouragement, who makes this blog possible in every conceivable way.
Onward…
Equality for Me, Not for Thee
Dear John Aravosis:
I must say that I wholeheartedly disagree with your recent temper tantrum which could have resulted in a post like this:
Shorter John Aravosis:However, if I had chosen to take the "shorter" route, I would have lost the opportunity to say this:
Mine! Mine! MINE!!!!
As a gay man, actually, as a white gay man, I would never think of throwing my Trans allies under the bus simply so I could further my own already privileged existence.
Frankly, I'm amazed that you are considered by many to be the biggest name in the "gay blogosphere." Apparently, hits speak louder than words, and your words turn my stomach. Our allies are our allies, and you don't get to pick and choose who gets civil rights on the basis of whether they happen to fall into the category of someone you'd like to fuck. As Sarah in Chicago pointed out in comments, if a drag queen (And who knows? Perhaps trans person) hadn't fought back against the police several decades ago, you'd probably still be in the goddamned closet. Oh, and try not to think about the fact that most of us also place a "Q" at the end of "LGBT." It might make your head explode.
Apparently, you feel that the gay flag should consist of one stripe. I am thankful that every queer person I know doesn't conform to your narrow way of thinking. Oh, and one more thing:
People are simply afraid to ask any questions about this issue, and those unresolved conflicts are coming home to roost. I know I was afraid to write about this issue, and still am. I thought long and hard about even weighing in on this issue last week. Did I really want to have to deal with people screaming and calling me a bigot? And I've got gay journalist friends and gay political friends who have sent me private "atta boy"s supporting my public essays, while refusing to go public themselves.This doesn't make you brave.
Can't Believe You Actually Typed "I've got gay friends,"
Paul the Spud
(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to the very fierce Shakes.)
Pin THIS, Motherfuckers!
Dear Preposterously Stupid Douchehounds Masquerading as the American Media:
I DO NOT GIVE THE TINIEST WEE INFINITESIMAL MICROSCOPIC SHIT IF BARACK OBAMA DOESN'T WEAR AN AMERICAN FLAG PIN ON HIS GODDAMNED LAPEL!
And, no, the scandalously absent lapel pin is not indicative of a lack of patriotism, you silly, ninny-brained twits.
I know the pathetic, barely functioning, atrophied globs of gray matter sitting in your thick fucking skulls aren't particularly adept at dealing with nuance or complex concepts, but try, I beg you, please try to activate the sleepy pair of cells still knocking around in your cobwebbed belfries and retain this very valuable piece of advice: If you're trying to spy unpatriotic interlopers in the general Beltway area, keep your eyes peeled for a collection of despicable miscreants who have launched two failed wars, robbed the country blind, devastated via neglect and incompetence the national infrastructure, let an American city drown, flagrantly disregarded the Geneva Conventions to torture enemy combatants, engaged in extraordinary rendition, tossed out habeas corpus like day-old bread, illegally spied on American citizens, tried to codify discrimination into the Constitution, celebrated unfunded educational mandates, sent soldiers with no body armor to fight in unprotected vehicles, let energy companies write the national energy policy, continually sniffed at an unprecedented number of uninsured Americans, increased both the teen pregnancy and abortion rates by an intractable insistence on abstinence-only sex education, equated dissent with treason, and, among a nonillion other things I could mention, spent the last six+ years exploiting a tragic terrorist attack on American soil for political gain.
If you have any trouble finding them, they're the ones with the flag lapel pins, wrapped in the flag, waving a flag in one hand and furiously masturbating with a flag in the other, coming in red, white, and blue while farting Battle Hymn of the Republic.
And they hate this country and everything for which it's meant to stand with every fiber of their flag-clad beings.
I'll be here if you've got any questions, dipshits.
Love,
Liss
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
(Which had like a 10-second intro, so here's
a clip instead: Pats and Eddy take a drive.)
Question of the Day
Teeing off on somewaterytart's post about irritating movie constructs, I got to thinking about all the other cinematic plot gimmicks that drive me crazy. Therefore...
What's your nominee for the most annoying movie cliché?Mine's below the fold.
They range from aforementioned race to the hospital with the pregnant woman and everyone acting like she's having the World's First Baby to the sexist woman-being-chased and twisting-her-ankle and endangering-the-mission. But the one I hate the most is the Tom Cruise scenario. He plays a cocky young guy who's full of himself. He's got a cranky seen-it-all mentor who teaches him the ropes of a certain profession and lets him get his ass kicked by a stern-jawed rival with a kick-ass haircut (i.e. Val Kilmer) so that he learns some deep lessons about Life. Along the way he meets a girl who's not at all impressed with his attitude but likes his ass so they end up having steamy slow-motion sex while a Top 40 song written just for the movie plays in the background. For a subplot there's a smart-ass best friend who ends up dead by page 57. This makes Tom squint and look Determined to Win. In the end, he and the girl drive off in his classic car to a reprise of the song. Examples: All the Right Moves, Top Gun, Cocktail, Days of Thunder, The Color of Money, and even A Few Good Men and Rainman to a degree.
Aside from the cut-and-paste plot, what gets me is in all those films Tom Cruise always played Tom Cruise. Different character name, different profession, different girl, different song, but he was always the same character. And what's also interesting is that his co-star, the craggy sage, was played by actors who just plain blew him off the screen: Paul Newman, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Duvall, Jack Nicholson...each in their own way made it glaringly obvious that Tom Cruise -- both the actor and the character -- were so one-dimensional by comparison that it was like he wasn't even there.
But the pay was good and he got laid a lot, and to some people, that's all that matters.
Caption This Photo
"Does this lipstick clash with my decorative violin?"
A model presents a creation by Dutch designers Viktor and Rolf as part of their Spring/Summer 2008 ready-to-wear fashion collection in Paris October 2, 2007. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier (FRANCE)
Craig-o-Rama!
A judge has ruled that Totally Not Gay Republican Senator Larry Craig's guilty plea stands.
Insert your own wide stance joke here.
Craig says he won't resign. That cracking sound you hear is a massive, Cheshire Cat-like grin spreading across the face of Totally In Love With His Wife Wendy and Not the Prostitute Wendy Who Looks Just Like His Wife Wendy Republican Senator David Vitter. The tearing sound you hear is the GOP leadership ripping its hair out by the fucking roots.
UPDATE: I asked our resident legal eagle Nightshift if he could explain the decision behind the ruling to me, and I thought I'd pass it on in case anyone else was interested: "Legally, the Senator was always fighting an uphill battle; guilty pleas are ONLY accepted after the judge, on the record and in open court, questions the defendant, who must repeatedly affirm that he understands the charges, his rights, that there are no guaranteed sentences (only guaranteed recommendations by the DA), and so forth. The official record should therefore be full of Craig saying repeatedly that he wants to plead guilty and waives his rights, all of which are painstakingly spelled out. At least, that's how a felony charge would work. At the misdemeanor level, it could be less stringent, but there is no question that Craig 'voluntarily' entered his plea by the legal definition. Allowing a withdrawal is very rare, to my knowledge."
The White House Responds to Torture
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino responded to questions today about the New York Times story on torture. The transcript has been edited for clarity.QUESTION: The New York Times has a piece today about legal opinions from the Justice Department authorizing harsh interrogation techniques. Do you challenge the accuracy of that report at all?
Any questions?
PERINO: 9/11.
QUESTION: Well, how about the central points, about the legal opinions?
PERINO: 9/11.
QUESTION: Shortly ... shortly after Alberto Gonzales got there, did the Justice Department issue a legal opinion that ...
PERINO: 9/11.
QUESTION: Well, it says for ... that the February one authorized things like head-slapping, simulated drowning, and ...
PERINO: 9/11.
QUESTION: But that would not deny ... that wouldn't deny what the Times is reporting.
PERINO: 9/11.
QUESTION: You're being specific to applications.
PERINO: 9/11.
QUESTION: The New York Times also says that the U.S. is still using black sites for prisoners, to interrogate them. Is that accurate?
PERINO: 9/11.
QUESTION: Have you heard whether any other ... they've started holding prisoners again?
PERINO: 9/11.
QUESTION: Does the administration still assert that it does not engage or authorize torture?
PERINO: 9/11.
QUESTION: You maintain that the administration still does not torture?
PERINO: Correct. Oh, and 9/11.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
Yes, This Makes Perfect Sense
1. Priests rape children.
2. Families sue.
3. Church goes broke.
4. Kicks out nuns.
