Check out our bloggrrl Kate—along with other familiar names you'll recognize—being all fat and fab in the New York Times health section! Woot!
(And check out Big Media Shark-fu if you haven't yet!)
Update: Now I'm not going to be on, because I was bumped for coverage of Heath Ledger's death.
Liss just beat me to posting about the New York Times article I was featured in today, but I've still got some own-horn tooting to do...
I'm going to be on the fucking Today show tomorrow. WHAT SHOULD I WEAR?
Fred Thompson is reportedly dropping out of the presidential race, and will make some kind of sleepy, indifferent announcement by the end of business today.
When reached for comment, prominent Thompson supporter and Shakesville contributor Deeky McDeeksalot fell to his knees and, with a great clenching of fists and gnashing of teeth, screamed at the heavens: "Noooooooooooo!"
Part Eighteen in an evidently never-ending series. Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen.
Nothing makes for a better practical joke on your daughter—especially one on a televised prank show—than pretending you're being raped in your own kitchen! Ha ha ha! (Warning: Potentially triggering.)
The competition's most popular topic was, believe it or not, rape. The first comic told two rape jokes. Another said he could never be a rapist because he likes to sleep after sex. Yet another said he would call his victim the next morning because he's such a nice guy.The author of the article was a dude. He must be one of those pees-sitting-down, mangina-sporting dudes like Jeff Fecke, though, if he doesn't find jokes about rape funny. What a pussy.
Er, ha.
Later one of the competitors began his act by promising the audience that he wouldn't tell any rape jokes. He broke that promise two minutes later with a one-liner about using "ropes and formaldehyde" to solve his romantic problems.
Ha again.
Today, on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, NARAL is asking pro-choice bloggers: Why is it important to vote pro-choice?
Other bloggers and feminists are already doing a splendid job of covering all the various and sundry reasons why it's important to vote pro-choice, and I haven't much to add. I vote pro-choice because I believe reproductive choice is a fundamental component of my full equality as a citizen of this country. It's just that important—and just that simple.
Speaking of voting pro-choice, here's what my candidate had to say today on the 35th anniversary of Roe:
Roe v. Wade was an important step on the road to full equality, opportunity and dignity for women. On the 35th anniversary, it is important to reflect how far we've come as a nation, but more importantly how far we still have to go.Right on. That's what I'm talking about.
I strongly support a woman's right to privacy and reproductive choices. That right has been under attack though -- by President Bush and his anti-choice agenda and by the Supreme Court, which has been moving the right-wing's agenda faster than we've seen in decades . The hard right turn of the Supreme Court is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with a woman's right to choose.
As President, I will guarantee the right to choose and ensure that women can make choices in their lives with dignity and can participate in our society fully, as equals.
Oh yeah. Remember this?
The federal investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys could jolt the political landscape ahead of the November elections, according to several people close to the inquiry.Well, that'd be cool. I won't be holding my breath, though.
Washington’s attention has been diverted from the scandal since the August resignation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, and has focused instead on Democrats’ efforts to hold White House officials in contempt for ignoring congressional subpoenas to testify on Capitol Hill about the firings.
But recent behind-the-scenes activity in several investigations suggests that the issue that roiled Congress in 2007 could re-emerge in the heat of the election year.
Happy Blog for Choice Day!
I wanted to hip y'all to Salon.com’s feature on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
It was a privilege to be asked to offer my thoughts and they are featured along with those of several amazing feminists.
Enjoy!
I'm a progressive voter. That means, for a start, that I'm not well-represented by either of the two major parties, but I'm hell and gone better represented by the Democrats than by the Republicans; I've no illusions about perfect candidates, and I plan to (and want to) stand firmly behind any one of the Democratic candidates in the general election. Being a progressive voter who has decided to support the Democrats also means that I have a vested interest in making sure the Demcratic nominee knows how to successfully communicate ideas and defend him/herself.
Which is why I'm having problems with Obama at the moment.
Despite increasingly frequent charges to the contrary, I don't have it in for Obama. In fact, I have defended him against everything from not wearing a lapel pin to media smear jobs and commended him on everything from sponsoring good legislation to snappy comebacks. There is much to admire about him, and plenty to criticize, just as there is about Clinton and Edwards. Like I said, no illusions about perfect candidates. And though I have made no secret of my support for Edwards, I have spent a good deal of time criticizing and a good deal of time defending all three of the leading Democrats. But I'm having a hard time getting past Obama's communication problem, and his (and his supporters') admonitions to trust him. Have faith; he knows what he's doing.
But let me back up for a moment.
Josh Marshall elucidates the problem in his debate post mortem:One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. But whatever you think of those attacks, Obama isn't very good at defending himself. And that's hard for me to ignore when thinking of him as a general election candidate.
It is hard to ignore—and it serves no purpose to ignore it when we're trying to find the best candidate to win this thing.
In most of these cases — such as the Reagan issue — I think Obama's remarks have been unobjectionable but ambiguous and certainly susceptible to both misunderstanding and intentional misrepresentation. And if you're going to talk like that — nuance, as we used to say — be able to defend it when people play with your words. And I don't see it.
While Josh notes Obama's problems defending himself against Hillary, Edwards hammered him, too; when he went after Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois state legislature, Obama's hommina hommina was painful to watch. Here's the transcript of the relevant section of the debate:EDWARDS: ...I do think it's important, and I mentioned this about Senator Clinton earlier, to be fair, about Social Security. I do think it's important whether you are willing to take hard positions.
Eventually, he mananged to recover a bit, but it's flatly not good enough for a one-on-one presidential debate. And it's indicative of that tin ear again: Obama blows by giving a serious answer like the question doesn't even matter, or shouldn't. "Just a strategy in the Illinois legislature. But let's talk about something else." No, let's talk about that—because it's an issue that is of concern to the people who are considering whether to make you their nominee.
I mean, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are sitting in front of me right know they have to go to the floor of the House every day and vote on hard issues. And they have to vote up or down or not show up to vote -- one of those three choices. What I didn't hear was an explanation for why over 100 times you voted present instead of yes or no when you had a choice to vote up or down.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: I'll be happy to answer it. Because in Illinois – in Illinois, oftentimes you vote present in order to indicate that you had problems with a bill that otherwise you might be willing to vote for. And oftentimes you would have a strategy that would help move the thing forward.
Keep in mind, John, I voted for 4,000 bills. And if you want to know whether or not I worked on tough stuff, I passed the first racial...
EDWARDS: I don't question whether you worked on tough stuff.
OBAMA: No, no, no. Hold on a second.
EDWARDS: I don't question whether you worked on tough stuff.
OBAMA: No, no. But you...
EDWARDS: The question is, why would you over 100 times vote present? I mean, every one of us -- every one -- you've criticized Hillary. You've criticized me for our votes.
OBAMA: Right.
EDWARDS: We've cast hundreds and hundreds of votes. What you're criticizing her for, by the way, you've done to us, which is you pick this vote and that vote out of the hundreds that we've cast.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: No.
EDWARDS: And what -- all I'm saying is, what's fair is fair. You have every right to defend any vote. You do.
OBAMA: Right.
EDWARDS: And I respect your right to do that on any -- on any substantive issue. It does not make sense to me -- and what if I had just not shown up...
OBAMA: John -- John, Illinois...
EDWARDS: Wait, wait, wait. Wait, let me finish.
OBAMA: Hold on a second.
EDWARDS: What if I had just not shown up to vote on things that really mattered to this country? It would have been safe for me politically. It would have been the careful and cautious thing to do, but I have a responsibility to take a position...
OBAMA: John, you...
EDWARDS: ... even when it has political consequences for me.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: You asked for the -- most of these did not have political consequences. This -- most of these were technical problems with a piece of legislation that ended up getting modified.
But let's talk about taking on tough votes. I mean, I am somebody who led on reforming a death penalty system that was broken in Illinois, that nobody thought was good politics, but was the right thing to do.Not only does [Obama] hesitate to lead; he also regularly avoids votes on important issues, presumably lest his stand prove unpopular down the line one day in the future and come back to haunt him. (Either that, or he's too busy campaigning to be an effective senator for the state of Illinois—still an indictment of his leadership ability, though a different one.)
That's something that deserves an answer, not an impatient glossing-over with an implicit exhortation to trust him; he knows what he's doing.
To wit—Obama's decidedly unimpressed constituent Paul the Spud compiled this list of recent votes that his senator has missed, in a frustrated email to me:No vote on SCHIP (Although he did vote to reauthorize before)
Ouch.
No vote on No Confidence for Gonzo (Come on! How easy would that be?)
No vote on Student Loans and grants
No vote on Guantanamo Bay detainees
No vote on the implementation of recommendations of the 9/11 commission
No abortion votes, nothing on stopping the drum beat towards Iran, no vote on the ridiculous Border Fence legislation, no vote on bridge repair funding (!) ...
Remind me again why I should want to vote for this guy?
Susie Madrak notes in her post-debate piece (emphasis hers):It's still a sad reality of modern politics that black politicians rise through the upper ranks when they're considered "reasonable" and non-threatening. Reason may be the only tool Obama has - and as we've seen with Al Gore and John Kerry, it's almost useless against the Republican attack machine.
"Trust me; take my word for it" is the same response to concerns raised about his supposed strategy to win the presidency by obliquely (or overtly) courting the right, at which point he'll covertly usher in a progressive agenda. Drum addressed the problems with this strategy yesterday:
I'm not familiar with Obama's statehouse record, I don't know if he's ever been the target of a sustained opposition or media attack. But he sounds downright pissy if anyone dares to criticize him. That doesn't bode well for the general election campaign because (as it did with Gore and Kerry) it translates as an exasperated "I'm so much smarter than you, you'll just have to take my word for it."Obama has clearly chosen his course, and there's really no way for him to give a wink and a nudge to folks like Matt and me to let us know that he's just kidding about all this kumbaya stuff. After all, it's part of his whole appeal to both independents and moderate conservatives, and his candidacy depends on that. So if you're a liberal in Obama's camp, you just have to cross your fingers and trust him.
Supporting a candidate shouldn't have to be a faith-based initiative, but blind faith is exactly what my support of Obama requires. I have to ignore that he voted to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State, that his reflexive framing to appeal to moderates alienates progressives, that he endorsed Lieberman, that he supports McCain's immigration plan, that he punted when asked about Pace's bigotry against gays, that he opposes impeachment because he doesn't think Bush has gravely breached his authority (despite claims to the contrary in letters to his constituents), that he has gotten muddled in softball interviews to terrible effect, that he shared a stage with an anti-gay bigot, that he's on the wrong side of the Social Security debate, that he's used sexist attacks (as have his surrogates) against Hillary, that he hasn't been rigorously vetted, that he sloppily invokes ideological opponents despite assertions that he doesn't like their policies, and that he calls for reconciliation without balance. That's a tall order for faith, friends.
And there's something else, tangentially related, that undermines my faith. Obama positions himself as transcending the ugliness of partisanship, but I like knowing that Edwards and Hillary hate the goddamned Republicans as much as I do. I love it when Edwards gets into his zone and talks about corporate greed with fury at the anti-American fatcats seething so clearly just below the surface. I love it when Hils talks about the GOP through gritted teeth and hides a snarl behind a smile when the name Bush passes her lips. I trust that. And I trust it because I can't imagine anyone who believes the things I do isn't that. fucking. angry. at the Republicans at this point. I want to see that anger. I want to feel it. I want to recognize and connect with it.
I want to see Obama at least as angry about Bush as he is about being questioned on his own voting record.
The ostensibly transcendent, politics-of-hope stuff is good, but I believe you can be optimistic and angry. My faith is pretty much built around exactly that.
I want evidence that Obama is the guy I keep hearing he is.
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards met privately backstage following a very contentious Democratic presidential debate in this coastal city, sources with both campaigns confirm to CNN.Hot.
The meeting took place in the Edwards campaign green room.
One of the sources said the meeting happened by chance and the conversation consisted of light chatter. The source added that Clinton did jokingly take a jab at Edwards about his beating up on her during the debate. In fact, the real fireworks were between Clinton and Barack Obama.
An Edwards source noted that it was not surprising the two senators met backstage.
"That happens back there," said the source, who said it has happened "more often" with Obama. "It's tight quarters – we're all on top of each other."
David Brooks looks at the Republican field and the conservative orthodoxy and discovers something:
The voters are revolting.To which comes the inevitable Mel Brooks response: "You said it! They stink on ice!"
The fact is, this has been a bad year for the conservative establishment. Fred Thompson was supposed to embody the party line, but he has fizzled (despite being a good campaigner the past month). Rudy Giuliani proposes deep tax cuts that do not seem to excite. Mitt Romney ran as the movement candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire and grossly underperformed. Now he’s running as a nonideological business pragmatist for the exurban office parks, and his campaign has possibilities.That last part's a little hard to digest, given that Limbaugh, Norquist, and Dobson have pretty much run the GOP since Ronald Reagan left office, and to hear them tell it, they are the last bastion against the gays, the immigrants, and presidential candidates with vaginas, and Mr. Brooks has gone along with them without a whole lot of objection. Only now when he smells the stench of the rotting corpse of the New Conservative Majority does he decide that John McCain is the one.
The lesson is not that the conservative establishment is headed for the ash heap. The lesson is that the Republican Party, even in its shrunken state, is diverse. Regular Republican voters don’t seem to mind independent thinking. There’s room for moderates as well as orthodox conservatives. Limbaugh, Grover Norquist and James Dobson have influence, but they are not arbiters of conservative doctrine. [Emphasis added.]
In his South Carolina victory speech, McCain defined a more inclusive conservatism: “We want government to do its job, not your job; to do it better and to do it with less of your money; to defend our nation’s security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us; to respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; to enforce the rule of law that is the first defense of freedom; to keep the promises it makes to us and not make promises it will not keep.”That sounds a lot like what they used to call "compassionate conservatism." And it tells you something when the candidate has to go out of his way to reassure the voters that "Hey, we're not as bad as you think we are."
Nothing exciting happened. Nope. Nothing at all. Just another boring evening of the top three Democratic candidates trying to shiv each other in the exercise yard.
My prediction? Mike Gravel takes South Carolina.
All I know for sure is that I am more convinced than ever that Wolf Blitzer is a robot made from leftover Teddy Ruxpin parts.
After reading that we are facing yet another Congressional resolution telling us that "We are too, we are too, we are too a Christian Nation!" (despite a Constitution and a First Amendment that clearly indicates that we are not, we are not, we are NOT!) -- after weathering National Bible Week, and Huckabee's Xtian asshattery, and then re-reading Obama's "Call to Renewal" speech in which he says that a "sense of proportion" is needed from "both sides" when talking about "faith and democratic pluralism" (Really, Senator? Cuz I always thought that "proportion" meant "balance among the parts of something" -- which would require that the Religious Right do some serious catch-up in the tolerance department before we could attain a "sense of proportion") -- after all this, I find my previous aversion to fundie Xtianity blossoming into a full-fledged, mouth-foaming rage.
Which is probably exactly what they want -- so that they can validate their perfectly ridiculous projection that queers, atheists, fem'nists, lib'ruls, etc. ad nauseum, are out to destroy them.
Two things I've noticed about Xtianists:
1) They constantly project the worst of their own excesses onto others (homophobic ministers who preach against the depravity of drug use while snorting meth with gay hookers, screeching fiends who insist that their religion is under attack as they simultaneously legislate for the eradication of alternative religion or absence of religion in others, youth pastors who denounce the immorality of sex before marriage while they molest teenagers).
2) They are paranoid to a degree that I think would warrant institutionalization in any other context.
I can resonate with some of Jesus' messages (Love your fellow man, don't be judgmental, etc.) -- and in some respects, he seems like a real fun guy (too bad the Xtianists keep turning him into a real fungi).
However, I think there is a two-headed fly in the soup of Christianity (even in most of its more "liberal" forms) that is bound to be problematic in a pluralistic society:
Head #1 says: "No one comes to the father, except through me." ~ John 14:6
AND
Head #2 says: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." ~ Mark 16:15 "Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations" ~ Matthew 28:19
I've never been comfortable with anyone who claims to have The One-And-Only Real, True Answer to Everything, so Head #1 immediately sets off my alarm bells as a potential enemy of inclusive democracy -- I believe that this is why the founding fathers specifically prohibited government from passing any law that establishes religion.
And, as to Head #2 -- Well, that's kind of a problem for a pluralistic society, isn't it? Especially once you combine it with Head #1.
When they bring these two heads together, Xtians have the One True Path to heaven, PLUS a handy, dandy mandate to bring every single fucking creature on the planet to their way of believing -- whether they like it or not.
I believe that this mutated fly is at the heart of the massive projection and paranoia that Xtianists demonstrate -- they know that they are out to convert the entire world (or subjugate/execute those who won't convert). It's a time-honored tradition, as well as current custom for nearly all Christian sects, with a very few exceptions (Can you say missionary? I thought you could).
So of course they would think someone like me (lesbian, feminist, progressive, non-Christian) is just aching to destroy their "way of life" -- because that's what they are focused on -- suppressing and/or erasing everyone and everything that is NOT LIKE THEM.
It never occurs to them that I might be too involved with my own life to spend weeks and months planning to eradicate their religion -- they're too busy planning to eradicate people like me.
It's their "Christian Duty" to do so.
Unfortunately, this Christian Duty of Proselytizing the One True Faith has a long, ugly history as the motivator of heinous acts. The early Catholics instituted the destruction of pagan temples in Greece around 400 AD, Charlemagne beheaded 4,500 Saxons who got "caught" practicing paganism, thousands of Muslims were slaughtered during the Crusades, tens of thousands tortured and executed during the Inquisition, Hindus and Buddhists were persecuted and killed in Portugal, the Albigensians were eliminated . . . . the list goes on and on.
And then came the Reformation!
You'd think the Protestants (since they were "protesters") would have given some thought to whether this whole "convert or die" thing was something they really wanted in their "new and improved" version of Christianity -- but no -- now, since there were two (count 'em TWO!) kinds of Christians, it just meant double the converting (or double the dying).
Protestants joined in with fervor, killing 600,000 Catholics in Ireland in the space of a few years, burning whole bundles of "witches", and agreeing on one thing with their Catholic enemies -- that all Native American peoples must be "saved" -- or face the consequences. (Although they often seemed to have decided that once the "savages" were "salvaged", they might just need to be slaughtered anyway -- many of the Cherokee people who died on the Trail of Tears identified as Christian.)
I haven't even touched on the Bible Riots, abortion clinic bombings . . . . or the Holocaust"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ..." ~ Adolf Hitler
What a fun bunch! I bet you're just dying to have a beer with the lot of them.
My chief problem with all these feebly-veiled attempts at establishing a theocracy in this county is that this is the reality of "Religious History, Xtian Style" : Convert or Be Eradicated.
Plus the fact that Xtians seem excruciatingly unaware of how they project this agenda onto others.
OK -- my two chief problems are: Convert or Die, Unconscious Projection . . . and
the toxic synthesis of arrogant privilege and abject paranoia . . . .
Amongst my problems with Xtianity are such elements as . . . . Wait -- I'll come in again . . . .
Some years ago, I was walking through Home Depot. There was this guy who kept following me around. At first I thought he might be store security, but after about 20 minutes, I started to have a slightly creepier sense about who he was and what he might be up to. After visiting six or seven different departments, only to look up and find him lingering a few yards behind me, I finally turned and fixed him with a heavy dose of stink-eye -- at which point, he blurted out: "Why are you following me?!"
I'll bet he was a Xtian.
[Note to allies who identify as Christian: I have no problem with what you believe . . . for you . . . which you probably already know -- so no need to go there, OK?]
[Cross-posted]
What was the best film of 2007?
Mr. Shakes just took me to see Atonement, and it's certainly a contender. I'll have to think about this one a bit (not to mention see There Will Be Blood, which still isn't playing near us yet) before giving a definitive answer, though...
Mike Huckabee has deftly made his faith the cornerstone of his campaign; talking about his background as a Baptist preacher, saying that it "defines him," sending subtle (and not so subtle) signals to his followers that he is a Christian, not to mention his Old Testament views of "traditional" family values and his stated desire to bring the Constitution up to God's standards, whatever that means and whatever God he's talking about.
Naturally this has attracted the attention and the ire of a lot of people. So, what would they say if a Democrat put out a flier that touted him as a "committed Christian" and posing in a pulpit with big white cross in the background?
Granted, the circumstances are different for Barack Obama. He's not been campaigning on his faith, and he's also been the victim of a vicious smear campaign against him, claiming that he's secretly a Muslim and that he went to a Muslim school when he lived in Indonesia as a child. Also notice that this flier is being handed out in South Carolina, and if there is a state that has more fundamentalists per square mile than South Carolina, even in the Democratic party, I've not heard of it. So it's understandable that the Obama campaign would take on the accoutrements of the region and talk to the voters in terms they understand.
I also think that the difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee is pretty stark. When Mr. Huckabee speaks to a crowd about his desire to reshape the Constitution to reflect God's will, we know he means it. I have yet to hear that Mr. Obama wants to slip the Ten Commandments into the Bill of Rights, and he hasn't voiced support for the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Human Life Amendment. This flier is more his attempt to make it clear to the voters that in spite of all the rumors and the middle name that speaks of Islam, he's really one of them, too.
Fine, but this is just one more sign that religion has become far too big an issue in this campaign, and it's creeping me out.
(H/T to Melissa.)
[Over dinner…]
Mr. Shakes: What Loost character dae ye think yer moost like?
Liss: Umm…Hurley.
Mr. S: Hurley?! Yer noothing like Hurley! Why Hurley?
Liss: Uh, because he tries to make the best of things and he says "dude" a lot. And we're both fat.
Mr. S: Aaaaand that's where the similarity ends.
Liss: Also he knows that hope and joy are important to daily survival, not just frivolous things.
Mr. S: Woow, yer practically twins!
Liss: Well, who else would I be?
Mr. S: Yer soo Jack it's noot even foony.
Liss: Jack?! I'm not Jack! Why am I Jack?
Mr. S: Because yer a natural leader. People always toorn tae ye in times oof crisis because yer clever and dependable. They gravitate tooward ye.
Liss: But that makes me uncomfortable. I'm always worried about letting people down.
Mr. S: Just like Jack.
Liss: I'd be very reluctant to assume the responsibility for people's lives when I wasn't sure what I was doing.
Mr. S: Just like Jack.
Liss: I'm not Jack!
Mr. S: Ye walk amoong oos, boot ye are noot oone oof oos.
Liss: Shut up! No one likes Jack!
Mr. S: I like Jack. Ye like Jack, too. He's a good person. And he's complex and interesting, the moore ye get tae knoo him.
Liss: No one else likes him!
Mr. S: Yes they dae!
Liss: He's an emotional juggernaut who tries to hold shit in and then it comes pouring out anyway. He's a big crybaby.
Mr. S: Same as ye are, bloobs.
Liss: I don't want to be Jack!
Mr. S: Too bad. Ye tootally are.
Liss: I'm not.
Mr. S: Ye are.
Liss: Not!
Mr. S: Are. Knoo hoo ye can tell yer Jack? Because oonly a Jack coold be a tootal Jack and noot want tae be Jack.
Liss: Wev! Who are you, then?
Mr. S: Dinnae. Charlie, maybe?
Liss: Charlie? What are you smoking? You can't even sing.
Mr. S: Who then? I want tae be Sawyer.
Liss: You might want to be Sawyer, but you're totally Desmond, brootha.
Mr. S: Desmoond?
Liss: Yeah. Because he's kind of old-fashioned in that he feels like he has to achieve certain things in his life to be a good man.
Mr. S: That's true.
Liss: He was always worries that he had he be more, do more, provide more—worries that he isn't enough for Penny as a starving artist, even though she totally loves him unconditionally. You always worry about stuff like that.
Mr. S: Aye.
Liss: And you're both whiskey drinkers!
Mr. S: Yeah, I suppoose yer right. But Desmoond's nicer than I am. I'd dae anything to soorvive. Moore like Juliet.
Liss: Dude, when they blew the hatch, he ran out of there like a bat out of hell. He didn't give a fuck if they ever pushed that button again.
Mr. S: Ha! True enoogh!
Liss: And anyway, if you started having visions that the little English rock star was 'goona die,' you'd save him, too.
Mr. S: I'd think aboot it, cheeky.
Liss: You’d totally do it. You're so Desmond.
Mr. S: All right, I guess I am Desmoond. Goo figure I'd be the Scootish blooke.
Liss: Yeah, what a stretch.
Mr. S: I want to be Sawyer, though.
Liss: Ha.
Mr. S: Who dae ye want tae be?
Liss: Hurley.
Mr. S: Ye want tae be Hurley—boot ye are Jack.
Liss: I'm not Jack.
Mr. S: Ye are. Jack with wee apple cheeks.
[Screenshots via Rachel.]
In case you missed it, there was lots of hot Scientology blogging here over the weekend.
It kicked off with my answering a selection of the Church of Scientology's auditing questionnaire in I Want to Be a Scientologist! (Sample Question: "Have you ever exterminated a species?")
Bill followed it up with Warning: Mocking this Tom Cruise video could lead to Scientologists murdering you.
Petulant then provided us with a fine selection from a 1978 People magazine on "The Bizarre Cult of Scientology."
And then Jeff wrapped it up with Scientology A-Go-Go!
All of this has inspired me to make Fucktology a reality, damn the consequences.
