I swear to the fates, if I have to hear one more goddamned thing about Jerry Seinfeld's fucking idiotic "Bee Movie," my office is going to become a vomitorium!!!
Between the rape jokes and the incessantly irritating promo spots through which I have to suffer just to watch The Office—including a sickeningly homophobic and transphobic one with Matthew Broderick (why, Matthew, why?!)—I've had as much as I can take!
STFU about your ass movie already!
And that goes double for Mrs. Seinfeld's plagiarized cookbook! Bleh!
"We can and must do better, and apologize for this error in judgment," FEMA deputy administrator Harvey Johnson, who conducted the briefing, said in a statement. "Our intent was to provide useful information and be responsive to the many questions we have received."
No actual reporter attended the news conference in person, agency spokesman Aaron Walker said.
A spokeswoman for Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who has authority over FEMA, called the incident "inexcusable and offensive to the secretary."
So offensive, in fact, that they're considering reprimanding those responsible. OMFG. You know you've fucked up when someone in the Bush administration suggests you might possibly maybe perhaps be held accountable for something. Shit!
I totally love this bit at the end of the Reuters article, for people just emerging from comas or wev: "FEMA's administrator during Katrina, Michael Brown, resigned amid widespread criticism over his handling of the disaster, despite U.S. President George W. Bush's initial declaration that he was doing a 'heck of a job.' E-mails between Brown and his colleagues over the course of the storm revealed a preoccupation with his media image, including his declaration, 'I am a fashion god'."
Those were the days!
[Thanks to my girlfriend Miller for the heads-up.]
Chris Dodd spoke on the floor of the Senate this morning about FISA, the rule of law, and defending the Constitution from retroactive immunity:
"I will not stand on the floor of the United States Senate and be silent about the direction we are headed. It is time to say 'no more.' No more trampling our Constitution. No more excusing those who violate the rule of law. These are our principles. They have been around at least since the Magna Carta. They are enduring. What they are not is temporary. And what we do not do in a time where our country is at risk is abandon them.
My father was Executive Trial Counsel at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals during 1945 and 1946. What America accomplished at those historic trials wasn’t a foregone conclusion. It took courage – when Stalin and even a leader as great and noble as Winston Churchill wanted to simply execute the Nazi leaders, we didn’t back down from our belief that these men—as terrible as they were—ought to have a trial. We did not give in to vengeance."
Anti-corporate isn't the right term, exactly, but if you're looking for the candidate who's pro-worker and pro-regulation, Edwards is still your man, and he's rockin' out hardcore against Corporate America:
John Edwards is targeting Corporate America and what he argues are its corrupt and greedy practices. In a speech today in Des Moines, Iowa, he is outlining his plan to renew the “social contract” between business and government if elected president. “In corporate America, where a broader sense of social responsibility once held sway, a culture of greed has taken over. Instead of treating their employees fairly, being accountable to their shareholders and contributing to America’s prosperity, CEOs act like their corporations exist just to build their own massive fortunes,” says Edwards, according to speech excerpts provided to Washington Wire by his campaign.
That would be the Talking the Talk part. Here comes the Walking the Walk bit: Edwards is proposing "universal retirement accounts that employers would be required to provide if they don't offer pension programs," a plan that would also provide for investing in government-sponsored annuities run through the existing Social Security program; proposing "stronger protections for workers seeking to unionize and increased shareholder rights; proposing to "cap tax-deferred compensation funds for top executives at $1 million annually" and a whole slew of corporate financial disclosures; proposing tougher FDA regulations and inspection standards; and proposing a consumer protection regulation body called the Family Savings and Credit Commission, "which would oversee credit card and financial services plans marketed to the public."
Retirement savings? Check. Workers' rights? Check. Shareholders' rights? Check. Better food and product safety? Check. Going after predatory lending practices? Check. Cracking down on corporate fatcatitude at the expense of workers? Check.
He's responding to, literally, just about every bit of bitching we've done about corporate malfeasance, irresponsibility, and greed here in the last three years. It's genuinely impressive.
Here's another GOP charmer on the floor of the House during the SCHIP debate yesterday: "Former Child" Rep. Thad McCotter (R-MI) makes a joke about how Republicans like kids—"and not just medium rare with a side of fries." Might be funnier if we all weren't painfully aware of the frighteningly enormous number of Republicans who really do "like kids" in another way.
"As a former child, I respect very much what we are endeavoring to accomplish today, but we always have to remember that it is not simply enough to do the right thing; we must do the right thing the right way. And, again, that is the purpose of this debate. Much of what we hear outside of these walls tends to mute the serious discussion that we have. I know that following this debate there will be those ads, or others, that will say that Republicans do not like kids. I assure you: Republicans like kids—and not just medium rare with a side of fries."
A shameful admission from a professed story writer: The idea of actually reading novels and short stories, most of the time, bores me. There, I said it. Most (again, most) modern fiction does not interest me, and hasn't for years. It's not me, it's them. Lately, I can hardly get past even the jacket blurbs; it's like driving across the Plains, the monotony. One book or collection sounds so much like the last, or the next. I find myself in general agreement with Stephen King's stance on the American short story. Agreeing with King annoys me on a bone-deep level, and for reasons you needn't hear today.
Anyway: I know that there are indeed unread present-day fiction writers I whose work would make me feel differently. I will continue (a bit grudgingly, maybe) to seek them out. It's just a fact, however, that more often than not I've had better luck - obtained greater transportive pleasure, which is all I really care about when it comes to reading - with the books in the other aisle, the nonfiction stuff.
All of that is by way of saying that The Morning News has a piece up on new and interesting nonfiction that you might consider for your personal library should you happen to have one, as I imagine is the case for most of you.
(Oops, forgot - cross-posted. There, all better now.)
(Yes, in case you were wondering, he was named by your blogmistress after the band. And, yeah, for long-time Shakers with good memories, his crazy-eyed arse has made a guest appearance once before.)
Punk Rock Kitty
Mama Shakes says: "You should see the cats play with this toy. It's just a small piece of black fake fur, but you would think it was a delectable morsel or a ferocious enemy the way they play chase and pounce with it."
All of J.K. Rowling’s wildly popular books have been taken off the library shelves at St. Joseph’s school in Wakefield, Mass., by Rev. Ron Barker who believed their themes of sorcery and witchcraft do not belong in a Catholic setting.
"I'm in the business of Jesus and this is the enemy camp," Barker said. "It has sorcery spells and it's not appropriate."
…The removal, according to Barker, spares those students who are vulnerable to cult practices and sees his decision as no different than protecting students who are allergic to peanut butter.
"What I did is start a spiritual peanut butter ban on Harry Potter," he said.
I guess if that sort of thing sounds reasonable to you, there's nothing I could say that's going to change your mind, given that it would be contingent on rational thought and all.
Mama Shakes is all kinds of churched up—she does church stuff like a nonillion hours a week, including writing songs and singing in a gospel group—and her bedroom is seriously like a shrine to Harry Potter. I'm not kidding. I have pictures. I would post them if I thought she wouldn't kill me! But the long and short of it is that the woman eats, sleeps, and breathes Harry Potter, and the closest she's ever come to witchcraft is to mutter sarcastically, "Well, let me get my magic wand!" in retort to my sister or my whining about something.
Suffice it to say, the whole "Harry Potter undermines Jesus" stuff is lost on me.
The sad part about this is that the Potter series had been "a popular choice" as part of the school's summer reading program for sixth graders. And, as is totally bloody typical of these stories: "Barker said he had not read any of the Harry Potter books and had no plans to do so." Of course not.
That's the catch phrase buzzingaround these days when talking about the government's response to the wildfires in Southern California, as compared to Katrina a couple of years ago. After being placed on the top of everyone's shit list, FEMA learned what had to be done when the next crisis arrived: Broadcast good PR as much as possible.
This past Tuesday, Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson (FEMA deputy administrator) called for a 1pm presser, where he spoke of the progress at that point and even fielded some (softball) questions from reporters (video clip at ThinkProgress). The WP's Al Kamen wasn't buying what they were selling:
Very smooth, very professional. But something didn't seem right. The reporters were lobbing too many softballs. No one asked about trailers with formaldehyde for those made homeless by the fires. And the media seemed to be giving Johnson all day to wax on and on about FEMA's greatness.
Of course, that could be because the questions were asked by FEMA staffers playing reporters.
This is a level of pathetic that we don't get to see too often. It's like the Haley's Comet of pathetic. A pathetic that comes around once every 75 years racing by at a speed of ... umm... Quixote?
You can imagine how happy I am that FEMA has gone from incompetence to cowardice. Are they really too scared to hold a conference in front of real reporters who would ask real questions? I'm sorry, Harvey, but this job isn't giving a book report in front of your class while waiting for the clock to buzz. It's time for your agency to get its shit together, do what it can when duty calls, take responsibility, and communicate to the public what they need to know. Until that strength of character happens to wander in unexpectedly into DC, you might want to try a different tactic for your next presser.
After much discussion about the suckitude of Crankshaft, I thought a good question tonight would be: What's your favorite comic strip?
There are two I really, really love, and although Calvin & Hobbes is a very close second, the top prize has to go to Gary Larson's The Far Side, which I love more than I can say.
As promised, and care of Petulant, natch, here is video of Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) on the House floor earlier today, explaining why he must cast a vote against SCHIP, with a giant picture of a fetus behind him. It's like someone bet this douchebag money that he couldn't hit every square on an anti-choice Bingo card, and he said, "Oh yeah? Watch me."
Full transcription below, with, uh, some comments.
[Huge list of all the conservative "family" organizations for which he's worked and all the stupid "child-protecting" legislation he's written until 1:12.]
Mr. Speaker, the reason I say those things is that there is one. critical. component of protecting innocent children I have learned over and over again, and that is if you desire to protect children, you must. protect. the family—because either families or government bureaucrats will ultimately make the decisions about nearly all aspects of our children's lives.
The proposed S-CHIP legislation funds and empowers government bureaucracies and not families. It is a quintessential example of a misguided and overreaching program that is an entitlement program and affixes itself to a funding mechanism that is a declining revenue source. [Is this asshole telling us he's failed to notice that laws aren't permanent and can be changed down the road as necessary?!] Not only does it place this generation of children into a Hillarycare, government-run healthcare system, but it also places the burden of cost on the next generation of children, Mr. Chairman. And those will many times, who will be forced to pay for it, will be those making less money than those benefiting from the program.
Mr. Speaker, Americans care desperately about their children, and unfortunately in this S-CHIP debate, liberal Democrats are exploiting America's love for children for temporary political gain. [SAYS THE FUCKNUT WITH THE GIANT PICTURE OF A FETUS BEHIND HIM!!!] The majority has cast this entire debate in terms of Republicans being against children and Democrats being for them. For a Republican life myself, who has spent their entire life and dedicated to children's issues, it is an equation that I have to reject in the strongest possible terms. And it's especially difficult for me, Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the same party who says they advocate for poor children leaves. the very. poorest. children. of all. out of. the equation!
[Won't someone PLEASE give the fetuses an allowance?!]
It is the Democrat party, Mr. Speaker, that for decades has fought for an abortion-on-demand policy that has allowed thousands of unborn children to be killed in America. every. day. At the beginning of this Congress, newly elected Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi said 'We are here for the children' and she called the house to order, quote, 'for all of America's children.' But she didn't mean all of them, Mr. Speaker. In fact, most Democrat members of this body, including Speaker Pelosi, voted against, in the last Congress, allowing unborn children to even receive anesthetic when undergoing abortion procedures so torturous that they would be a felony if performed on an animal.
[Just ask Bill Frist.]
Mr. Speaker, behind me this picture is a little baby who deserves to be protected like every. other. child. in this country, and yet, before the sun sets in America today, four thousand unborn children will be killed through abortion-on-demand, and, Mr. Speaker, their mothers will never be the same. ["Women are too stupid to know what they're doing"…I've got Bingo!] The Democrat Speaker and the majority of this Congress have to somehow understand that there are better ways to help mothers than killing their children for them.
And they must also realize that they can never have credibility as advocates for children while they still support an abortion-on-demand policy that has killed. nearly. fifty. million. innocent. children! Mr. Speaker, it is time for members of this body to come together and to truly do the right thing for all of America's children, even those yet unborn. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[And that's why he can't vote to fund healthcare for children. The End!]
Back in July, we were treated to a rare interview from Fibby, the defibrillator currently residing in Dick Cheney. In that interview, Fibby made a passionate plea to be relocated to a new host, and go back to a regular working schedule.
The other day, I saw footage of the Veep fading out and back in during a boring Bush cabinet meeting. Curiosity got the best of me, so I reached out to Fibby to see if that was its handiwork in the footage. Not only was it Fibby, but it even agreed to stop by for a few words. Below is the transcript.
SC: Welcome, Fibby, to our humble abode on the web. It's great to hear from you again.
F: Thanks, thanks a lot. Before we go any further, I'd just like to say that I read a lot of blogs. I think that Shakesville is definitely the best one out there. Ever. I mean it.
SC: Wow. Thanks a bunch, Fib. I'm sure Melissa will be really happy to hear that.
F: No problem. Thanks for having me.
SC: OK, so let's get to the matter at hand. When we last heard from you, there were plans on getting a petition going to transplant you from Dick Cheney to a new host. What happened with that project?
F: Lemme tell ya, Cowboy, that battery thing was really a wake up call for me. Quality of life, ya know? So anyway, I started the petition and the initial response was pretty good. But within a week things slowed down and I just didn't have enough signatures to make it happen.
SC: Had to stay put, eh?
F: Yeah... There was no getting around it, so I decided to make the best of it. Truth be told, I did feel better after the new battery went in. After a little while, Dick stabilized somewhat so I was able to slowly get back to my old routine.
SC: And the iTunes downloads?
F: Ha! Well, that library is gettin' big now that the downloads don't crap out every five minutes.
SC: And what happened yesterday?
F: That? Run of the mill stuff. I caught him shuttin' down pretty early, so I threw in the zap and he's good to go again.
SC: We're really glad to see you're in good spirits and back at the top of your game.
F: Thanks, I really appreciate it. You folks take care, now!
SC: Will do - and thanks for stopping by. Don't be a stranger!
And that's really saying something, because his "advice" has created a cottage industry for people who dissect his vapid responses. But today, he's outdone himself, in my opinion.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm taking this personally because I can relate to the letter writer in a way that most people probably can't.
I am a 20-year-old who is attending college full time. I am also an atheist. The problem is, no one knows and I feel like I cannot tell anyone.
For one thing, I attend a Christian-affiliated school that in order to attend I was required to sign a statement of faith. I knew I didn't believe in a god (or specifically, their God) when I signed it, but I did anyway just so there wouldn't be any hassle with the college -- I'm a transfer student and I just want to finish my degree as soon as possible. If I began actually being honest, however, I have a feeling the school would dismiss me.
The other thing preventing me from "coming out" is the number of relationships that seem like they would crumble as a result. My parents and I have never had the best relationship. We've just recently started becoming close, and I don't want to lose that. They are deeply religious, however, and my admitting to be an atheist might tear that fragile bond apart. This past summer I tried having some conversations with them about my changing religious beliefs, and I've never before seen them so angry. While I do not need their approval (there is no way I would claim a belief out of guilt), I also do not need to be alienated from my parents. Then there is all of my friends, who are mostly Christians. They all think I believe likewise, and I haven't really done anything to prevent the thought. I'm afraid that telling the truth about who I am might place a huge distance between me and the ones I love.
I'm really tired of lying and I just want people to know me for who I am. But would announcing my atheism do more damage than good? Should I just remain as I am until I graduate and am out on my own? Or should I be bold and be honest and hope it all works out for the best?
As long-time readers know, I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, and the Witneses practice shunning—they call it disfellowshipping—anyone who leaves the church or who commits sins for which they deem one to be insufficiently repentant. That's me.
When I was a freshman in college, I started to discover that the Witness's teachings and the real world were, well, at odds, and after some soul-searching, left the church. One divorce, two years and three apartments later, the elders of the local congregation tracked me down because someone had seen me smoking a cigarette and confronted me (the Christmas tree in the living room and the girlfriend asleep in my bed were lagniappe), and three weeks later, I was officially cast out. That meant that my family was supposed to cut me off, and my parents did. In the twelve years since then, they've hardly spoken to me.
So I know what this kid is facing. There is no closer community that one can belong to than one of absolute believers, and when you leave that behind, there's a gaping hole to fill. That's terrifying for someone who is established and sure of him or herself as a capable adult, but for a young adult, it's even worse. The fact that he's even considering the consequences of such an action points to, I think, a maturity beyond his years.
So what does Tennis do? He questions the sincerity of the atheist's position, for starters, but then—and this is the unforgivable part to me—raises the dishonest specter of the, as Amanda puts it, straw-atheist.
Since you lied to get into this college, we must also ask about your ethical beliefs. If one were to argue that man or woman is strictly a biochemical process, utterly alone in the universe, utterly free, responsible to no God and no civil authority, then you might argue that lying to the university is perfectly OK. But if you believe that atheists ought to abide by the ethical system of the society they live in, that's a different story. Are you bound by contracts? Do you believe in the authority of civil law? Or might you reject civil law, too, on the grounds that it is rooted in feudalism and Judeo-Christian morality?
One would only argue that first point if one is a sociopath. No atheist I've known, no matter how strident, no matter how Richard Dawkins-ish, has ever made that argument. You know who makes it? People who imagine that, if there actually isn't a god, that humans would magically transform into a bunch of ravening beasts. I mean, when Aaron MacGruder does it, it's funny.
Not so much when people actually mean it. The idea is insulting, frankly, both to atheists and believers (more so to believers, because it turns you folks into a bunch of pathetic, weak-willed creatures living in fear of an invisible daddy figure who says, to quote Kevin Smith, "do it or I'll fucking spank you"). Even I, as strident an atheist as I am, don't think that of believers. I have more respect for you.
Tennis gets one thing exactly right—he says "This is all way over my head." Indeed it is, Cary. Indeed it is. But he also notes, at the end of his column, that "many readers of this column will find your dilemma worthy of serious comment."
So here's my serious comment for the writer. You sound like you have too much going on right now to add this very divisive problem to your plate. Be like the jellyfish on this—let the currents take you where they will. Finish your degree, and move on from the Christian college to whatever pursuits catch your interest. Avoid religious discussion whenever possible—just remove it from your life as much as you can, and wait until you're at a more stable point in your life before making religion an issue with your parents. In short, be very Zen about it, because you'll need that calm place to go to when it does finally become an issue. It won't reduce the pain you feel if your parents don't accept your choice to not believe, but it will help you remain calm during it.
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
After calling a press conference to discuss the government's response to the wildfires 
Feel the Doddmentum: Democratic presidential candidate and possible FISA-filibustering Senator Christopher Dodd will be on 
