Riding In Cars With Weiners, Part 2 of 2
“Hey, man,” I yelped, “I’m not one of those crazy liberals. Those guys suck!”
“LIBERALISM,” he screamed, spittle flying, “Like a backed up toilet, offends me!”
Oh shit I thought. He’s going to kill me.
“Your Nazi liberal friends will tell you that if only the Jew would die, the world would be a better place!”
“Actually, Mike, I don’t-”
“Hitler is alive and well!” There was no stopping him. “Only he speaks Arabic and wears a headscarf! And this time, he has the American liberal media on his side. They don’t know it…Or do they?!?”
The music wasn’t helping. I turned it off, and Michael grew calm again. In a quiet voice, he told me that the liberals were everywhere.
I stopped at a red light, and he turned his head to scan the area, as though some liberals might jump out at him at any moment. After a few seconds, he nudged me, and nodded towards a group of pretty girls who were walking down the street.
“On February 14, 2002,” he began, sounding disgusted, “Secretary of State Colin Powell trotted out a line from the liberal playbook, telling an audience of teenagers on MTV to use condoms!”
The fact that Michael Savage prefers bareback is not something I wanted to know.
After whispering something that sounded like “little sluts” under his breath towards the girls, he went on.
“Women are afraid of angry men,” he said bitterly, “Particularly in this homosexualized, feminized America. An angry man frightens a woman. If a boyfriend can’t be like a girlfriend – with the exception of a male appendage,” here he grabbed himself for emphasis, “she doesn’t want him. If a boyfriend can’t be like a sister putting on nails with her, she’s offended by him.
“I can’t help but have a fantasy…”
Internally, I started screaming.
“I imagine that women like those three little swingers are sent to one of the Muslim Fundamentalist countries, where they’re taught some of the sobering, Old Testament truths about their behavior.”
He was sounding way too excited about this. I tried to put a few more inches between us.
Desperate, I tried to change the subject again.
“Man, how about those Bulls? Do they suck or what?”
He ignored me and continued gazing longingly at the girls.
Queasily, I noticed his hand hadn’t moved away from his crotch.
Dreamily, his eyes half lidded, he whispered, “You can masturbate in public.”
I froze. Nothing moved but my eyes as I searched the street for someone, anyone, who could save me.
Dear Lord, I mentally prayed, Please kill me now.
“You can rub against a sheep in public.”
Nevermind, Lord. Kill him.
Then the light turned green, and I automatically punched the gas.
“NO!” shouted Savage, the spell broken. He started slapping his own wrists and babbling about being a bad boy. He kept saying he was sorry, that he wasn’t really going to do it.
“I’m a very good writer. A very good writer!” He grabbed my shirt, pleading for me to understand, to forgive.
“My chicken is no Bill Clinton!” he whined, “My chicken is mine!”
After a few minutes of this, he got a hold of himself, and reverted back to his arrogant, worldly façade.
“Don’t get me wrong,” he chortled, “I’m all for dating, and I know how young guys always want to know how to pick up women.”
He continued on as though the last five minutes hadn’t happened.
“But with the changes in the culture, you’ll need an old fox like Michael Savage to give you some tips.”
I would rather stick my penis in the cigarette-lighter socket.
“There are a lot of little sex shops around, and I’ve poked my head into a few of them from time to time.” I nearly swerved off the road. “Remember, I’m a social commentator!” he quickly added.
Apparently, he decided to change the subject.
“My book is selling big in Nevada.”
We drove in silence for a while then. Eventually, driving south from the Loop, we came upon a rather unpleasant section of town. Unfamiliar with the area, Savage started talking about the different people he saw walking around. I kept trying to turn around, but he was having none of it.
We hit another traffic light. I looked around, and noticed that several young men wearing similarly-colored clothing were approaching the car. One of them pulled out a gun.
Savage didn’t quite seem to grasp what was going on.
“I want to see kids running around with guns going ‘B-b-b-b-bang, you’re dead’!” The young men seemed momentarily taken aback by this.
He continued, “You know, instead of putting on a dress and an earring.” Several of the young men reached up to touch their earrings, and their expressions darkened. “For ten years, kids were told to be sensitive, you know, come to school in a dress.”
At this point, I realized that I had to do something fast.
While Savage was looking the other way, I grabbed the tire iron from him, and in one smooth motion opened his door and shoved him out.
With a roar, he started yelling at everyone in sight, accusing them all of being liberals and red diaper doper babies.
I slammed the door shut, and started screaming at him, “I’m not sharing my ride with a dirty Vice cop! Damn undercover bastard! Cop! Cop cop cop!”
Like magic, everyone’s gaze focused on Savage. They did not look happy.
Finally realizing the gravity of the situation, Savage got on his knees and started shaking his folded hands at everyone.
“Back!” he screamed, “Prayer frightens the Lefties!”
Fuck this, I decided, and hit the gas, watching Savage shrink to a tiny, insignificant speck in the rearview mirror.
Just the way he should.
* Every line attributed to Savage is an actual quote taken directly from either his radio show or his ridiculously poorly-written book, The Savage Nation. Some lines may have been taken slightly out of context. Possibly.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Monday, June 23, 2003
The Dean Post
Why Dean?
Well, it's still early, so I of course reserve the right to alter/modify/completely reverse any position I lay out in this post, but here are the ups and downs of it:
Guns - Dean's position on second amendment issues puts him in the strongest position a Democrat can hope to be in regarding this issue. While it would be naive to think that the NRA is going to endorse him and campaign for him, it is possible -- given Dean's stance and just a touch of luck -- that rural, single-issue gun voters won't be scared into a massive turnout on election day. The Governor is not coming for their guns, and so hopefully a good portion of them will sit this one out. While this obviously isn't going to turn Red states like Nebraska and Alabama Blue, it can help a lot in retaining big number Blues like Michigan and Illinois and gaining Reds like Ohio, all nominally industrial states with large rural populations that prevent Democratic dominance.
Gay Rights- After several months, Kevin Drum has won me over to his side in thinking that gay rights can be an effective stick with which to hit Bush. Civil Unions, which will, in this campaign at least, be strongly associated with Dean, are the perfect tool for both ensuring proper rights for ten percent of the population that has traditionally been neglected or actively oppressed, and for making the far Right look extremely bad.
Like Kevin, I say force Bush into a corner by making him either support Civil Unions, enraging his base, or oppose them and alienate the swing voters who, even if they aren't big fans of homosexuality, can at least appreciate the granting of equal rights to fellow citizens.
Like I said, framing is critical on this issue, but if it can be done right, it can be a winner.
Energy - Dean has it, and in much higher quantities than Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt. I'm willing to cut Kerry some slack here, as he is still recovering, to some degree, from major surgery. But, from what I've seen, even at full strength, he can't match Dean here.
In a time when Americans are looking for a strong (dare I say "bold"?) leader, perceived vitality will be key, and I just don't see anyone besides Dean and Edwards putting out enough wattage to beat Bush.
Straight Talk - The quality that made McCain the darling of the media in 2000, and one of the primary qualities that makes me favor Dean over Edwards. While Dean hasn't so far been quite as accessible to the media as McCain was, that can (and should) change. Also, this is where the conventional wisdom "Dean has chronic foot-in-mouth disease" comes in. While a lot of Democrats seem to view this as a weakness, I see it as a strength.
After all, he hasn't said anything offensive. At worst, he's been mildly insulting to his opponents, and this many months before the Primaries, nobody really cares that much. So there's really not much downside to it. On the other hand, this tendency of his is the perfect remedy to the single most harmful perception of the major Democrats: that they are phony.
A lot of reasons can be cited for Gore's loss in 2000, but I don't think there's much disagreement that the storyline of "Al Gore: Liar" was particularly devastating. As we've heard so many times before, that's why people liked Bush so much- he's a straight talkin' dude (a meticulously maintained perception).
What those of us who are paying attention now view as an inability to shut his mouth, a lot of people during the general election will view as Dean speaking his mind without artifice.
This is so critical, I cannot emphasize it enough. If the Democratic nominee is seen as fake and manufactured, he will lose. It's that simple. It's not fair, but the reality we have to face is that the Democratic nominee automatically is at a disadvantage in the "genuine" category, and Howard Dean seems to be the best equipped to deal with that.
Grass Roots - Of all the candidates, Howard Dean has so far been the most successful at developing a grassroots following, and has been most effective in using the web as a campaign tool. While this does not guarantee victory (remember that McGovern had a spectacular grassroots operation in '72), it certainly helps fill a gap that Gore had in 2000. "Gore Meetups" would have been a joke, and a very bad one at that.
The key is passion; Gore did not inspire it, Dean does. And far from being a liability, a legion of passionate Dean supporters can create a very good storyline in the media. I am firmly convinced that Dean's fortunes will increase dramatically once a critical mass of journalists see Dean pack house after house with fervent supporters. Once that becomes a storyline, it has the potential to snowball into something big.
Good Looks - This shouldn't be a factor, but because of the way the media works, it is, and Dean's only rival here is Edwards. The other contenders look old (Kerry, Lieberman, Graham) or plastic (Gephardt).
I'm not saying that the election will be decided on sex appeal, but being a good looking guy certainly can't hurt.
***
So, what about Dean's biggest perceived weakness, national security?
Again, this is a weakness that I think can be turned to his advantage, primarily by selecting Wesley Clark as his running mate (and Gary Hart for National Security Advisor, perhaps...). This way, he has the advantage of having a decorated General to fill in any perceived gaps in national security expertise, while at the same time avoiding the "opportunism" label that the GOP is already hurling at any Democrat who voted for, or otherwise supported, the Iraq war but is now demanding an accounting of the WMDs.
All of these issues are, of course, a lot more complex than I've indicated. Each one of them could, in fact, be the subject of its own post. There are also a few other reasons I like Dean that I want to look into a little more carefully before I write about them like I know what I'm talking about. For now, though, this will do.
The floor is now open for dissenting opinions.
Update: I should make clear that, of the six candidates who have even a microscopic chance of winning the nomination (Kerry, Dean, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt, Graham), the only ones I am actively against are Lieberman and Gephardt; Lieberman because he is too indebted to his corporate masters (whatever did end up happening with that silly little Enron investigation, eh Joe?), Gephardt because unless the sun rises at midnight and the lion lays down with the lamb, he will not beat George Bush.
Unless Graham does something really spectacular really soon -- something like making public concrete proof that Bush lied about Iraq -- he will remain the marginal candidate that he currently is, so I'm writing him off.
Also, contrary to what a previous post may have implied, I actually like John Kerry. I just don't think he can win. Right now, his public persona is way too reminiscent of Bob Dole, and unless he does something spectacular to change that, I think it's going to sink him; if not in the Primaries, than in the general election for sure.
So, for me, it's Dean or Edwards. As I've stated before, I think Edwards needs to establish some heftier credentials before he can make a serious run, so Dean it is. If Edwards has a fantastic summer, that may change.
But I guess we'll see, won't we?
Why Dean?
Well, it's still early, so I of course reserve the right to alter/modify/completely reverse any position I lay out in this post, but here are the ups and downs of it:
Guns - Dean's position on second amendment issues puts him in the strongest position a Democrat can hope to be in regarding this issue. While it would be naive to think that the NRA is going to endorse him and campaign for him, it is possible -- given Dean's stance and just a touch of luck -- that rural, single-issue gun voters won't be scared into a massive turnout on election day. The Governor is not coming for their guns, and so hopefully a good portion of them will sit this one out. While this obviously isn't going to turn Red states like Nebraska and Alabama Blue, it can help a lot in retaining big number Blues like Michigan and Illinois and gaining Reds like Ohio, all nominally industrial states with large rural populations that prevent Democratic dominance.
Gay Rights- After several months, Kevin Drum has won me over to his side in thinking that gay rights can be an effective stick with which to hit Bush. Civil Unions, which will, in this campaign at least, be strongly associated with Dean, are the perfect tool for both ensuring proper rights for ten percent of the population that has traditionally been neglected or actively oppressed, and for making the far Right look extremely bad.
Like Kevin, I say force Bush into a corner by making him either support Civil Unions, enraging his base, or oppose them and alienate the swing voters who, even if they aren't big fans of homosexuality, can at least appreciate the granting of equal rights to fellow citizens.
Like I said, framing is critical on this issue, but if it can be done right, it can be a winner.
Energy - Dean has it, and in much higher quantities than Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt. I'm willing to cut Kerry some slack here, as he is still recovering, to some degree, from major surgery. But, from what I've seen, even at full strength, he can't match Dean here.
In a time when Americans are looking for a strong (dare I say "bold"?) leader, perceived vitality will be key, and I just don't see anyone besides Dean and Edwards putting out enough wattage to beat Bush.
Straight Talk - The quality that made McCain the darling of the media in 2000, and one of the primary qualities that makes me favor Dean over Edwards. While Dean hasn't so far been quite as accessible to the media as McCain was, that can (and should) change. Also, this is where the conventional wisdom "Dean has chronic foot-in-mouth disease" comes in. While a lot of Democrats seem to view this as a weakness, I see it as a strength.
After all, he hasn't said anything offensive. At worst, he's been mildly insulting to his opponents, and this many months before the Primaries, nobody really cares that much. So there's really not much downside to it. On the other hand, this tendency of his is the perfect remedy to the single most harmful perception of the major Democrats: that they are phony.
A lot of reasons can be cited for Gore's loss in 2000, but I don't think there's much disagreement that the storyline of "Al Gore: Liar" was particularly devastating. As we've heard so many times before, that's why people liked Bush so much- he's a straight talkin' dude (a meticulously maintained perception).
What those of us who are paying attention now view as an inability to shut his mouth, a lot of people during the general election will view as Dean speaking his mind without artifice.
This is so critical, I cannot emphasize it enough. If the Democratic nominee is seen as fake and manufactured, he will lose. It's that simple. It's not fair, but the reality we have to face is that the Democratic nominee automatically is at a disadvantage in the "genuine" category, and Howard Dean seems to be the best equipped to deal with that.
Grass Roots - Of all the candidates, Howard Dean has so far been the most successful at developing a grassroots following, and has been most effective in using the web as a campaign tool. While this does not guarantee victory (remember that McGovern had a spectacular grassroots operation in '72), it certainly helps fill a gap that Gore had in 2000. "Gore Meetups" would have been a joke, and a very bad one at that.
The key is passion; Gore did not inspire it, Dean does. And far from being a liability, a legion of passionate Dean supporters can create a very good storyline in the media. I am firmly convinced that Dean's fortunes will increase dramatically once a critical mass of journalists see Dean pack house after house with fervent supporters. Once that becomes a storyline, it has the potential to snowball into something big.
Good Looks - This shouldn't be a factor, but because of the way the media works, it is, and Dean's only rival here is Edwards. The other contenders look old (Kerry, Lieberman, Graham) or plastic (Gephardt).
I'm not saying that the election will be decided on sex appeal, but being a good looking guy certainly can't hurt.
***
So, what about Dean's biggest perceived weakness, national security?
Again, this is a weakness that I think can be turned to his advantage, primarily by selecting Wesley Clark as his running mate (and Gary Hart for National Security Advisor, perhaps...). This way, he has the advantage of having a decorated General to fill in any perceived gaps in national security expertise, while at the same time avoiding the "opportunism" label that the GOP is already hurling at any Democrat who voted for, or otherwise supported, the Iraq war but is now demanding an accounting of the WMDs.
All of these issues are, of course, a lot more complex than I've indicated. Each one of them could, in fact, be the subject of its own post. There are also a few other reasons I like Dean that I want to look into a little more carefully before I write about them like I know what I'm talking about. For now, though, this will do.
The floor is now open for dissenting opinions.
Update: I should make clear that, of the six candidates who have even a microscopic chance of winning the nomination (Kerry, Dean, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt, Graham), the only ones I am actively against are Lieberman and Gephardt; Lieberman because he is too indebted to his corporate masters (whatever did end up happening with that silly little Enron investigation, eh Joe?), Gephardt because unless the sun rises at midnight and the lion lays down with the lamb, he will not beat George Bush.
Unless Graham does something really spectacular really soon -- something like making public concrete proof that Bush lied about Iraq -- he will remain the marginal candidate that he currently is, so I'm writing him off.
Also, contrary to what a previous post may have implied, I actually like John Kerry. I just don't think he can win. Right now, his public persona is way too reminiscent of Bob Dole, and unless he does something spectacular to change that, I think it's going to sink him; if not in the Primaries, than in the general election for sure.
So, for me, it's Dean or Edwards. As I've stated before, I think Edwards needs to establish some heftier credentials before he can make a serious run, so Dean it is. If Edwards has a fantastic summer, that may change.
But I guess we'll see, won't we?
Sunday, June 22, 2003
Passion
I'm doing yardwork today, and so I will have to write my promised Howard Dean post later tonight. However, before I do that, I wanted to address an ugly phenomenon that I've noticed in regards to Howard Dean's detractors.
It seems like any time one enters into a discussion here in the blogosphere about Dean, you get a lot of people who accuse Dean supporters of a fanaticism that turns people off and blinds them to "reality."
I want to settle this right now, before I get written off in some people's minds as a witless Dean supporter.
I am not blindly, passionately devoted to Howard Dean. I am not blindly devoted to any candidate, nor will I be.
What I am passionate about is removing George Bush from the White House. What I am passionate about is regaining a Democratic majority in Congress. What I am passionate about is preventing the Federal Judiciary from becoming a franchise of the Federalist Society. What I am passionate about is moving the Democratic Party, not to the far Left, but away from their current quasi-Republicanism. What I am passionate about is a politics that does not cater to the whims of "dumb brutes and rich people," in Hunter Thompson's words. And what I am passionate about is returning the word "liberal" to its roots as a label worn with pride, rather than the derogatory epithet it has become.
Therefore, I will support whichever candidate I think has the best chance of either achieving these goals, or making significant progress towards them. Right now, for various reasons, I think Howard Dean is that man. That might change, and it might not. If I thought Kerry could do that, I'd support him. If I thought Lieberman could do it, I'd support him. If I thought Sharpton could do it, I'd support him. Hell, if by some strange practical joke of the gods, Jesse Helms looked to be in a position to do it, I'd support that old son of a bitch.
So, by all means, let's all have a discussion about which candidates have the best chance to achieve our goals. That's the whole damned point of the Primaries. But the lashing out and the evil rhetoric against Dean supporters for displaying passion, an absolutely critical quality that has largely disappeared from the modern Democratic Party -- and one that the Republicans, for reasons fair and foul, have in spades -- is wrong-headed and needs to stop.
Update: With the news that Strom Thurmond has died, I changed an offhand reference to him in this post. Speaking ill of the dead and all.
I'm doing yardwork today, and so I will have to write my promised Howard Dean post later tonight. However, before I do that, I wanted to address an ugly phenomenon that I've noticed in regards to Howard Dean's detractors.
It seems like any time one enters into a discussion here in the blogosphere about Dean, you get a lot of people who accuse Dean supporters of a fanaticism that turns people off and blinds them to "reality."
I want to settle this right now, before I get written off in some people's minds as a witless Dean supporter.
I am not blindly, passionately devoted to Howard Dean. I am not blindly devoted to any candidate, nor will I be.
What I am passionate about is removing George Bush from the White House. What I am passionate about is regaining a Democratic majority in Congress. What I am passionate about is preventing the Federal Judiciary from becoming a franchise of the Federalist Society. What I am passionate about is moving the Democratic Party, not to the far Left, but away from their current quasi-Republicanism. What I am passionate about is a politics that does not cater to the whims of "dumb brutes and rich people," in Hunter Thompson's words. And what I am passionate about is returning the word "liberal" to its roots as a label worn with pride, rather than the derogatory epithet it has become.
Therefore, I will support whichever candidate I think has the best chance of either achieving these goals, or making significant progress towards them. Right now, for various reasons, I think Howard Dean is that man. That might change, and it might not. If I thought Kerry could do that, I'd support him. If I thought Lieberman could do it, I'd support him. If I thought Sharpton could do it, I'd support him. Hell, if by some strange practical joke of the gods, Jesse Helms looked to be in a position to do it, I'd support that old son of a bitch.
So, by all means, let's all have a discussion about which candidates have the best chance to achieve our goals. That's the whole damned point of the Primaries. But the lashing out and the evil rhetoric against Dean supporters for displaying passion, an absolutely critical quality that has largely disappeared from the modern Democratic Party -- and one that the Republicans, for reasons fair and foul, have in spades -- is wrong-headed and needs to stop.
Update: With the news that Strom Thurmond has died, I changed an offhand reference to him in this post. Speaking ill of the dead and all.
Friday, June 20, 2003
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Son. Of. A. Bitch.
Rick Perry has called for a special session on redistricting.
He says that "The recently completed regular session clearly demonstrates that legislators -- regardless of political party affiliation and philosophy -- can work together to address issues important to Texans."
Uh huh. That's why the Democrats had to leave the state to keep from getting screwed with their pants on.
Me and Texas are no longer friends.
Rick Perry has called for a special session on redistricting.
He says that "The recently completed regular session clearly demonstrates that legislators -- regardless of political party affiliation and philosophy -- can work together to address issues important to Texans."
Uh huh. That's why the Democrats had to leave the state to keep from getting screwed with their pants on.
Me and Texas are no longer friends.
We Have Money But Give Us More!
Why, exactly, is NRO soliciting contributions? Don't they realize that real conservative publications get their funding from Richard Mellon-Scaife?
Did someone piss off one of their sugar daddies, or does Jonah need a new transmission for his car, or what?
Or perhaps it's a sort of high-concept electronic word art piece. Maybe they already have plenty of money, but are saying they deserve more, at the expense of regular people who don't have as much, in which case it's a brilliant illustration of conservative tax-cut ideology.
Genius!
I bet it was Kathryn Jean's idea...
Why, exactly, is NRO soliciting contributions? Don't they realize that real conservative publications get their funding from Richard Mellon-Scaife?
Did someone piss off one of their sugar daddies, or does Jonah need a new transmission for his car, or what?
Or perhaps it's a sort of high-concept electronic word art piece. Maybe they already have plenty of money, but are saying they deserve more, at the expense of regular people who don't have as much, in which case it's a brilliant illustration of conservative tax-cut ideology.
Genius!
I bet it was Kathryn Jean's idea...
Conspiracies
I was greatly amused by the list of things people in America believe that Bob Harris currently has posted up at Tom Tomorrow's site. There are some real crazies living amongst us. But we knew that.
However, one number actually disturbed me quite a bit. According to the numbers Harris cites, only 10% of the population believes that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
Let's think about that for a minute. That means that 90% of us think that Oswald didn't act alone. The Warren Report, however, which was the result of the official government investigation, says he did.
9 out of ten people don't believe the government's official version of the assasination of a democratically elected President. For fuck's sake, more people believe OJ's version of Nicole's murder than believe the government's version of Kennedy's.
My question is, if so many people think the official version is wrong, why is it that anyone who talks about anyone other than Oswald being involved is automatically accused of conspiracy theorizing?
I'm not going to get into the assasination right now, because it's late and I'll just end up driving myself crazy, but make no mistake- Kennedy's assasination, coming as it did during a critical point in the balancing game that was the Cold War and arguably being a major cause of the social upheaval of the late 60's, was one of the most significant events of the 20th century, with ripple effects that will continue to be felt, at least indirectly, for a long time to come.
So if none of us believe what we are told about it, why aren't more people concerned about getting the full truth? Is it fatigue? After so many years of so many different theories, different versions of evidence, and different suspects, we all just say "Fuck it" and ignore it?
I'm just as guilty of saying "fuck it" on this subject as anyone, but doesn't that strike you as extraordinarily dangerous?
I was greatly amused by the list of things people in America believe that Bob Harris currently has posted up at Tom Tomorrow's site. There are some real crazies living amongst us. But we knew that.
However, one number actually disturbed me quite a bit. According to the numbers Harris cites, only 10% of the population believes that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
Let's think about that for a minute. That means that 90% of us think that Oswald didn't act alone. The Warren Report, however, which was the result of the official government investigation, says he did.
9 out of ten people don't believe the government's official version of the assasination of a democratically elected President. For fuck's sake, more people believe OJ's version of Nicole's murder than believe the government's version of Kennedy's.
My question is, if so many people think the official version is wrong, why is it that anyone who talks about anyone other than Oswald being involved is automatically accused of conspiracy theorizing?
I'm not going to get into the assasination right now, because it's late and I'll just end up driving myself crazy, but make no mistake- Kennedy's assasination, coming as it did during a critical point in the balancing game that was the Cold War and arguably being a major cause of the social upheaval of the late 60's, was one of the most significant events of the 20th century, with ripple effects that will continue to be felt, at least indirectly, for a long time to come.
So if none of us believe what we are told about it, why aren't more people concerned about getting the full truth? Is it fatigue? After so many years of so many different theories, different versions of evidence, and different suspects, we all just say "Fuck it" and ignore it?
I'm just as guilty of saying "fuck it" on this subject as anyone, but doesn't that strike you as extraordinarily dangerous?
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
VeryVeryHappy Poetry Corner
Kevin Drum has decided to tweak D2 Digest's angry post about the many flaws of haiku as an English poetry form.
As I always appreciate a good tweaking between friends, I approve.
D2's post is a stunning example of intellectual elitism, and is also completely correct. I approve of it, too!
And so, to show my admiration, I present two politically themed poems - a haiku for Kevin, and a limmerick for D2 (a form which he suggests is much more challenging):
Bright sun before rain.
Deceiving us all, we're wet.
Republicans suck.
There once was a rich man named Bush.
His election was akin to a putsch.
He now screws all the poor folk,
His reign's like a quick poke
From a sharp stick straight to the tush.
I. Am. Awesome.
Kevin Drum has decided to tweak D2 Digest's angry post about the many flaws of haiku as an English poetry form.
As I always appreciate a good tweaking between friends, I approve.
D2's post is a stunning example of intellectual elitism, and is also completely correct. I approve of it, too!
And so, to show my admiration, I present two politically themed poems - a haiku for Kevin, and a limmerick for D2 (a form which he suggests is much more challenging):
Bright sun before rain.
Deceiving us all, we're wet.
Republicans suck.
There once was a rich man named Bush.
His election was akin to a putsch.
He now screws all the poor folk,
His reign's like a quick poke
From a sharp stick straight to the tush.
I. Am. Awesome.
Presidential Issues
Uh oh. I let slip that I am in favor of the (admittedly far-fetched) Dean/Clark ticket.
So let's take a closer look at that, eh?
First, in this post, a rundown of candidates whose names are not Howard Dean:
John Kerry- Can't win. Sorry. He very well might win the nomination, but if he does, I will be digging a very deep hole -- filled with cheap booze and old science fiction novels -- in which to spend the next four years, because George Bush will reign until 2008.
Why? For one very simple reason - John Kerry is boring and looks too damn old.
Simplistic, juvenile analysis? Yes. But it is absolutely correct.
Say what you will about Bush, the man is quite the young buck, as Presidents go, and his handlers are very careful to present him in small, easy-to-swallow bites to keep him seeming fresh, interesting, and exciting. You and I thought the carrier landing was excessive, but a good chunk of the populace loved it, and not just the die hard Republicans.
Kerry just cannot win against Bush’s vitality.
It's too bad, then, that Kerry, as the pseudo-front runner, is wrapping up a lot of the big campaign guns - particularly Rand Beers, who could potentially do a lot of damage to Bush while bolstering Democratic National Security Street Cred (DNSSC).
Hopefully, Kerry will get bounced out of the primaries and gracefully hand off all his weaponry to the nominee.
Joe Lieberman- Can't win. Same problems as Kerry, with the additional stench of loser carrying over from 2000. The only Democrat less trusted by the base is Zell Miller, and Lieberman's handling of the Enron investigation makes that distinction deserved.
John Edwards- The way I see it, Edwards is the only guy besides Dean who has a chance at beating Bush. Unfortunately, he has, up to this point, been a disappointment. As Kos has noted in the past, he has occasional brilliant moments followed by a week or so of mediocrity. This is no good.
Actually, for a young guy who's a relative newcomer to national politics, he's done pretty well. Unfortunately, all of the "next Clinton" talk has led to over inflated hopes – both on his part and the media’s -- which have in turn made his actual performance to date a failure in terms of expectations. Bad. Bad. Bad.
Another big chink in Edwards' armor is the fact that he was a trial lawyer only a few years ago. Now, you and I know that that does not necessarily make him a bad guy; in fact, given his record of going after major corporations on behalf of wronged individuals, it can be a big plus. The problem, though, is that people dislike lawyers, especially ones that sue. Yes, the perception of trial lawyers all being greedy thugs who help lazy good-for-nothings get rich with frivolous lawsuits is manufactured by the tort "reform" crowd, but that doesn't make it go away. Basically, in order for Edwards' previous career to be a factor in his favor, he needs to continue to "fight for the little guy" in the Senate for a few more years, so that journalists and other storyline-makers can draw a parralel between his two careers, with fighting people who take advantage of others as an overarching theme. Otherwise, the GOP can just point to him and say “trial lawyer,” and the jig is up; go home, no White House for you.
I like John Edwards. I think that, given a bit more experience and a more extensive Senate record, he could be a real contender. In fact, I'm looking at him a little like Gary Hart in '84- a young guy with good ideas and charisma who just needs a few more years of experience and a higher national profile (assuming Edwards avoids any Monkey Business-type flameouts).
So this run is good for him. Let him learn the ins and outs of national campaigning, and let him build up that all-important name-recognition. He's one of the few national figures in the Democratic party who's young enough to still be in his political prime in 2012 if another Democrat wins the Presidency next year. On the other hand, if the gods throw tomatoes at us and Bush wins next year, then Edwards will be ready to roll in 2008. Either way, this is a practice run for him.
Dick Gephardt- Can't win. Unions like him, he has a lot of legislative experience, blah blah blah. So did Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, and those two got beaten like the family mule.
The fact is, any Democrat smart enough to know who he is is also smart enough to know that he was the top Democrat in the House during a time when the Republicans ruled the House with an iron fist. Dick couldn’t keep the GOP from growing in power in the 90's (save for that little hiccup in '98 when the country decided it hated Newt), and everyone knows it. More than that, he presided over the 2002 midterms which, in terms of the House, were quite a drubbing for the Democrats. And no matter what The Note says, he still gives off a faint whiff of Loser from that election.
Yes, he has a nifty health plan, yes he is raising some good money, yes he has good support in midwestern blue states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois.
Doesn't matter. He has too much baggage, too little personality, and the unions simply can't get out the vote like they used to. God help us if he wins the nomination.
Bob Graham- Who?
Al Sharpton- Can't win without help from extra-terrestrials, and only then if they have death rays and are willing to use them.
But so what? Al certainly talks a good game, and my initial fears of the Republicans accusing the Democrats of racism for discounting him as a contender in the primaries have mostly faded away.
He's an entertaining guy, and from what I've seen and read of his speeches, he manages to make interesting some of the larger messages the Democrats have been trying to push (the Kool-Aide line about Bush’s tax cuts was classic). He is able to phrase things in a funny, memorable, sound-bite way, a skill that seems to be sorely lacking among Democrats.
He will never be President, but I say let him bash Bush to his heart's content. A few funny lines, if picked up by the media, can be devastating, and if they come from Al, the nominee can avoid any blowback that might result from negative reaction to what he says.
Al can be our wrecking ball.
Carol Mosley-Braun- Can't win. She's simply too marginal a figure. Honestly, I don't know what possessed her to declare, unless perhaps she is trying to score some points and raise her profile for another run down the road.
Dennis Kucinich- Can't win. I'm going to get flack for this, but someone needs to state the obvious.
He's too damn funny looking to win.
Again, it's a stupid, juvenile thing to say, but it's true. Compared to someone of Bush's good looks and vitality, Kucinich doesn't stand a chance.
Even if he was the most brilliant candidate imaginable, with a platform that could win over the entire country, he would still lose. For good or ill, television is a critical component of any modern campaign, and Dennis does not look good under the lights. You think they made fun of Dukakis for looking a little strange? You ain't seen nothing.
***
Having gone through all that, I'll talk about Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, and why I believe they could be a winning combination in my next post after I get home from class tonight.
Uh oh. I let slip that I am in favor of the (admittedly far-fetched) Dean/Clark ticket.
So let's take a closer look at that, eh?
First, in this post, a rundown of candidates whose names are not Howard Dean:
John Kerry- Can't win. Sorry. He very well might win the nomination, but if he does, I will be digging a very deep hole -- filled with cheap booze and old science fiction novels -- in which to spend the next four years, because George Bush will reign until 2008.
Why? For one very simple reason - John Kerry is boring and looks too damn old.
Simplistic, juvenile analysis? Yes. But it is absolutely correct.
Say what you will about Bush, the man is quite the young buck, as Presidents go, and his handlers are very careful to present him in small, easy-to-swallow bites to keep him seeming fresh, interesting, and exciting. You and I thought the carrier landing was excessive, but a good chunk of the populace loved it, and not just the die hard Republicans.
Kerry just cannot win against Bush’s vitality.
It's too bad, then, that Kerry, as the pseudo-front runner, is wrapping up a lot of the big campaign guns - particularly Rand Beers, who could potentially do a lot of damage to Bush while bolstering Democratic National Security Street Cred (DNSSC).
Hopefully, Kerry will get bounced out of the primaries and gracefully hand off all his weaponry to the nominee.
Joe Lieberman- Can't win. Same problems as Kerry, with the additional stench of loser carrying over from 2000. The only Democrat less trusted by the base is Zell Miller, and Lieberman's handling of the Enron investigation makes that distinction deserved.
John Edwards- The way I see it, Edwards is the only guy besides Dean who has a chance at beating Bush. Unfortunately, he has, up to this point, been a disappointment. As Kos has noted in the past, he has occasional brilliant moments followed by a week or so of mediocrity. This is no good.
Actually, for a young guy who's a relative newcomer to national politics, he's done pretty well. Unfortunately, all of the "next Clinton" talk has led to over inflated hopes – both on his part and the media’s -- which have in turn made his actual performance to date a failure in terms of expectations. Bad. Bad. Bad.
Another big chink in Edwards' armor is the fact that he was a trial lawyer only a few years ago. Now, you and I know that that does not necessarily make him a bad guy; in fact, given his record of going after major corporations on behalf of wronged individuals, it can be a big plus. The problem, though, is that people dislike lawyers, especially ones that sue. Yes, the perception of trial lawyers all being greedy thugs who help lazy good-for-nothings get rich with frivolous lawsuits is manufactured by the tort "reform" crowd, but that doesn't make it go away. Basically, in order for Edwards' previous career to be a factor in his favor, he needs to continue to "fight for the little guy" in the Senate for a few more years, so that journalists and other storyline-makers can draw a parralel between his two careers, with fighting people who take advantage of others as an overarching theme. Otherwise, the GOP can just point to him and say “trial lawyer,” and the jig is up; go home, no White House for you.
I like John Edwards. I think that, given a bit more experience and a more extensive Senate record, he could be a real contender. In fact, I'm looking at him a little like Gary Hart in '84- a young guy with good ideas and charisma who just needs a few more years of experience and a higher national profile (assuming Edwards avoids any Monkey Business-type flameouts).
So this run is good for him. Let him learn the ins and outs of national campaigning, and let him build up that all-important name-recognition. He's one of the few national figures in the Democratic party who's young enough to still be in his political prime in 2012 if another Democrat wins the Presidency next year. On the other hand, if the gods throw tomatoes at us and Bush wins next year, then Edwards will be ready to roll in 2008. Either way, this is a practice run for him.
Dick Gephardt- Can't win. Unions like him, he has a lot of legislative experience, blah blah blah. So did Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, and those two got beaten like the family mule.
The fact is, any Democrat smart enough to know who he is is also smart enough to know that he was the top Democrat in the House during a time when the Republicans ruled the House with an iron fist. Dick couldn’t keep the GOP from growing in power in the 90's (save for that little hiccup in '98 when the country decided it hated Newt), and everyone knows it. More than that, he presided over the 2002 midterms which, in terms of the House, were quite a drubbing for the Democrats. And no matter what The Note says, he still gives off a faint whiff of Loser from that election.
Yes, he has a nifty health plan, yes he is raising some good money, yes he has good support in midwestern blue states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois.
Doesn't matter. He has too much baggage, too little personality, and the unions simply can't get out the vote like they used to. God help us if he wins the nomination.
Bob Graham- Who?
Al Sharpton- Can't win without help from extra-terrestrials, and only then if they have death rays and are willing to use them.
But so what? Al certainly talks a good game, and my initial fears of the Republicans accusing the Democrats of racism for discounting him as a contender in the primaries have mostly faded away.
He's an entertaining guy, and from what I've seen and read of his speeches, he manages to make interesting some of the larger messages the Democrats have been trying to push (the Kool-Aide line about Bush’s tax cuts was classic). He is able to phrase things in a funny, memorable, sound-bite way, a skill that seems to be sorely lacking among Democrats.
He will never be President, but I say let him bash Bush to his heart's content. A few funny lines, if picked up by the media, can be devastating, and if they come from Al, the nominee can avoid any blowback that might result from negative reaction to what he says.
Al can be our wrecking ball.
Carol Mosley-Braun- Can't win. She's simply too marginal a figure. Honestly, I don't know what possessed her to declare, unless perhaps she is trying to score some points and raise her profile for another run down the road.
Dennis Kucinich- Can't win. I'm going to get flack for this, but someone needs to state the obvious.
He's too damn funny looking to win.
Again, it's a stupid, juvenile thing to say, but it's true. Compared to someone of Bush's good looks and vitality, Kucinich doesn't stand a chance.
Even if he was the most brilliant candidate imaginable, with a platform that could win over the entire country, he would still lose. For good or ill, television is a critical component of any modern campaign, and Dennis does not look good under the lights. You think they made fun of Dukakis for looking a little strange? You ain't seen nothing.
***
Having gone through all that, I'll talk about Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, and why I believe they could be a winning combination in my next post after I get home from class tonight.
Monday, June 16, 2003
Security Issues
I'll go over my currently-preferred Democratic ticket in another post (it's Dean/Clark), but first I want to try out an idea I've been kicking around since January.
Whoever gets the nomination should quickly snap up Gary Hart and tell everyone that he will be their National Security Advisor if they win.
Now, granted, National Security Advisor is not an office you usually see a Presidential candidate talk about filling on the campaign trail; it certainly is never a major campaign theme. If they give any thought to it at all, people usually rely on the perceived national security credentials of the candidate, and assume that they will fill the various government posts with like-minded people.
However, for an election that will be as much about national security and terrorism as it will be about anything else (and let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it will be all about the economy, eh? Played that game in 2002. Didn't go so well), it seems like it would not be a bad idea to shove every bit of security street cred the Democrats can muster in everyone's face.
Even though I never mentioned it in this space, I actually like Gary Hart a lot. Unlike other Hart supporters, though, I didn't actually want to see him make a Presidential run (I'm looking at you, Ezra). Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to a friend of mine discussing Hart's potential candidacy:
But Gary Hart's biggest strength this time around -- national security and anti-terrorism -- is both a desperately sought-after commodity in the Democratic party, and something that, in the proper office, can be divorced from an ancient character scandal. Nobody cares about the National Security Advisor's sex life.
For the nominee, making Hart the visible architect of their national security platform would be an ideal theme-crafting move.
We all learned in 2000 that the prevailing themes among journalists can make or break a candidate (Al Gore and the internet, anyone?). By bringing Hart onboard as an important side-figure, the Democrats can capitalize on the media's perception of him as a terrorism-psychic and a national security guru without being weighed down by his baggage.
I'll go over my currently-preferred Democratic ticket in another post (it's Dean/Clark), but first I want to try out an idea I've been kicking around since January.
Whoever gets the nomination should quickly snap up Gary Hart and tell everyone that he will be their National Security Advisor if they win.
Now, granted, National Security Advisor is not an office you usually see a Presidential candidate talk about filling on the campaign trail; it certainly is never a major campaign theme. If they give any thought to it at all, people usually rely on the perceived national security credentials of the candidate, and assume that they will fill the various government posts with like-minded people.
However, for an election that will be as much about national security and terrorism as it will be about anything else (and let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it will be all about the economy, eh? Played that game in 2002. Didn't go so well), it seems like it would not be a bad idea to shove every bit of security street cred the Democrats can muster in everyone's face.
Even though I never mentioned it in this space, I actually like Gary Hart a lot. Unlike other Hart supporters, though, I didn't actually want to see him make a Presidential run (I'm looking at you, Ezra). Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to a friend of mine discussing Hart's potential candidacy:
If I were a Republican, I couldn't pick a better Democratic candidate. Not because his ideas are worse than those of the GOP. They're better. Not because the majority, if they understood, wouldn't support Gary Hart in a second over any Republican. They would. But because the GOP political apparatus is geared primarily toward massive smear campaigns and character assassination, and Hart has a giant bullseye on his chest. This is what these people do. Take, as only one example, Bill Clinton. A man who I have mixed feelings about, but, regardless, was a brilliant and very competent President, with a relatively minor character flaw. Over the years, the GOP has succeeded in painting him as a cesspool of immorality and vice, who set a "moral tone" which caused everything from the Columbine shootings to the Enron-led fraud epidemic. I am not making this up: They blamed Enron on Bill Clinton getting a blowjob.Fortunately, Hart decided against a run at the Presidency. When he did, though, he made sure to emphasize the fact that he still had a great desire to serve the American people in some capacity. Some people have suggested that he should run for the Senate again- an interesting possibility that would ultimately be doomed, for much the same reason as a Presidential run. People care where politicians stick their widgets, even if it was 16 years ago.
Clinton at least had the courtesy to try and hide the fact of his adultery. Hart paraded it in the country's face, a particularly brilliant move given the power of the various televangelist empires at the time.
But Gary Hart's biggest strength this time around -- national security and anti-terrorism -- is both a desperately sought-after commodity in the Democratic party, and something that, in the proper office, can be divorced from an ancient character scandal. Nobody cares about the National Security Advisor's sex life.
For the nominee, making Hart the visible architect of their national security platform would be an ideal theme-crafting move.
We all learned in 2000 that the prevailing themes among journalists can make or break a candidate (Al Gore and the internet, anyone?). By bringing Hart onboard as an important side-figure, the Democrats can capitalize on the media's perception of him as a terrorism-psychic and a national security guru without being weighed down by his baggage.
Saturday, June 14, 2003
Zell Redux
I don't know why I didn't know mention this before (I guess I never really thought about it), but let us all take a second to remember that Zell Miller voted to confirm Ted Olsen as Solicitor General.
Every bad thing I said about Miller in this post?
Double it.
I don't know why I didn't know mention this before (I guess I never really thought about it), but let us all take a second to remember that Zell Miller voted to confirm Ted Olsen as Solicitor General.
Every bad thing I said about Miller in this post?
Double it.
Even Their Ads Don't Work Right
Thank God American Express is sponsoring Salon today, because I nearly killed someone last week when Microsoft was sponsoring the "Day Pass." The damn thing absolutely would not play for me, instead popping up a little window that said "the designated file needs a codec to run, but does not specify which one." And so, there was no way to proceed, because the damn thing wouldn't play without the codec, and wouldn't continue without playing. Extremely frustrating, but so very typical of the boys in Redmond.
Thank God American Express is sponsoring Salon today, because I nearly killed someone last week when Microsoft was sponsoring the "Day Pass." The damn thing absolutely would not play for me, instead popping up a little window that said "the designated file needs a codec to run, but does not specify which one." And so, there was no way to proceed, because the damn thing wouldn't play without the codec, and wouldn't continue without playing. Extremely frustrating, but so very typical of the boys in Redmond.
Caught
Talking to my mother today-
Mom: Your father tells me you have a website now.
Me: Well, it's really not particularly exciting. I just yell about politics and such on an irregular basis.
Mom: You aren't swearing on it are you?
Me: Um...
Mom: Christian! You weren't raised that way!
Me: Okay, mom, seriously-
Mom: I'm telling the Pastor! You'll be kicked out of the church and go to hell!
Me: Well, fair enough.
Talking to my mother today-
Mom: Your father tells me you have a website now.
Me: Well, it's really not particularly exciting. I just yell about politics and such on an irregular basis.
Mom: You aren't swearing on it are you?
Me: Um...
Mom: Christian! You weren't raised that way!
Me: Okay, mom, seriously-
Mom: I'm telling the Pastor! You'll be kicked out of the church and go to hell!
Me: Well, fair enough.
It Must Be Nice To Be The InstaPundit
Calling the French troops in the Congo cowards on his deck via wireless, while sipping a Redhook IPA and grilling steaks.
What an asshole.
Calling the French troops in the Congo cowards on his deck via wireless, while sipping a Redhook IPA and grilling steaks.
What an asshole.
Thursday, June 12, 2003
President Zell Miller
That three-word phrase, if it ever became true, would be unquestionable proof that God does not exist.
Via the Wyeth Wire, I see that the Senator from Georgia is putting out feelers for a Presidential run.
Let's just clear this out of the way right now:
If the Democratic Party nominates Zell Miller, it means that the Party is well and truly dead, with no hope of revival. It's over, go home; or better yet, go to Canada, because the Right has won and will reign supreme forever and ever, Amen.
Why? Because he's a Republican. While technically not one of those bastard Blue Dog Democrats, he is just as far Right as any of them, and he has betrayed the Democrats more times than I can count. And when I say betrayed, I mean betrayed. As in sold out, cheated on, stabbed in the back.
Zell Miller's brand of "bipartisanship" fits Grover Norquist's definition of it. How many times has Miller voted not just with the GOP but against the Democrats?
It's not just that he is a conservative. Joe Lieberman is a conservative. Zell Miller is Judas.
A particularly egregious example of this is the Estrada filibuster.
Not only did Miller join Majority Leader Bill Frist in attempting to rejigger the judicial nomination process so as to prevent a filibuster like the one the Democrats are still carrying out, but he submitted an amendment to the Senate Rules which would effectively end the filibuster as a parliamentary tool by reducing the number of votes neccessary for cloture upon each successive cloture motion.
These two actions were directly aimed at screwing the Democratic leadership -- not to mention the Left in general -- by dealing them a huge blow in their struggle against the administration and the Republican majority's attempts to pack the judiciary with Rightwing idealogues who will warp the judicial landscape for generations to come.
The only good thing about Senator Zell Miller is that he is leaving the Senate when his current term comes to an end.
I don't really have any fear that Miller would get the nomination even if he was deluded enough to run. The base hates him too much - Joe Lieberman looks like a shining example of liberalism and party loyalty next to him.
But just the idea is enough to give me shivers...though remote, the possibility is just too horrible to contemplate.
Go home, Zell. No one wants you here.
That three-word phrase, if it ever became true, would be unquestionable proof that God does not exist.
Via the Wyeth Wire, I see that the Senator from Georgia is putting out feelers for a Presidential run.
Let's just clear this out of the way right now:
If the Democratic Party nominates Zell Miller, it means that the Party is well and truly dead, with no hope of revival. It's over, go home; or better yet, go to Canada, because the Right has won and will reign supreme forever and ever, Amen.
Why? Because he's a Republican. While technically not one of those bastard Blue Dog Democrats, he is just as far Right as any of them, and he has betrayed the Democrats more times than I can count. And when I say betrayed, I mean betrayed. As in sold out, cheated on, stabbed in the back.
Zell Miller's brand of "bipartisanship" fits Grover Norquist's definition of it. How many times has Miller voted not just with the GOP but against the Democrats?
It's not just that he is a conservative. Joe Lieberman is a conservative. Zell Miller is Judas.
A particularly egregious example of this is the Estrada filibuster.
Not only did Miller join Majority Leader Bill Frist in attempting to rejigger the judicial nomination process so as to prevent a filibuster like the one the Democrats are still carrying out, but he submitted an amendment to the Senate Rules which would effectively end the filibuster as a parliamentary tool by reducing the number of votes neccessary for cloture upon each successive cloture motion.
These two actions were directly aimed at screwing the Democratic leadership -- not to mention the Left in general -- by dealing them a huge blow in their struggle against the administration and the Republican majority's attempts to pack the judiciary with Rightwing idealogues who will warp the judicial landscape for generations to come.
The only good thing about Senator Zell Miller is that he is leaving the Senate when his current term comes to an end.
I don't really have any fear that Miller would get the nomination even if he was deluded enough to run. The base hates him too much - Joe Lieberman looks like a shining example of liberalism and party loyalty next to him.
But just the idea is enough to give me shivers...though remote, the possibility is just too horrible to contemplate.
Go home, Zell. No one wants you here.
Shite
Well, it seems that the nice people who were hosting my images finally decided that since I wasn't using their (free) service for online auctions, I suck and deserve to have my account disabled.
Oh well. I'm grateful they allowed me to use it as long as they did.
Unfortunately, I now have to find someplace else that will host my (very small) images. I don't really care about the picture of myself (although I do think that a small pic on one's blog is a nice touch...an added bit of familiarity, yes?), but I do want to get the email address back on the site (in case you never noticed, my email address was displayed as a tiny .gif file, to keep it from being snagged by spamcrawlers). Also, my FAQ was a tiny HTML document that was hosted at the same place.
So, does anyone out there have any suggestions as to where I can host a few small files (at least 20K, preferably 150K so I can [very rarely] use an image or two in a post) for free? By my rough calculations, I use about 250 megs of bandwidth per month (although as readership increases, that will of course get bigger).
Ideas?
Well, it seems that the nice people who were hosting my images finally decided that since I wasn't using their (free) service for online auctions, I suck and deserve to have my account disabled.
Oh well. I'm grateful they allowed me to use it as long as they did.
Unfortunately, I now have to find someplace else that will host my (very small) images. I don't really care about the picture of myself (although I do think that a small pic on one's blog is a nice touch...an added bit of familiarity, yes?), but I do want to get the email address back on the site (in case you never noticed, my email address was displayed as a tiny .gif file, to keep it from being snagged by spamcrawlers). Also, my FAQ was a tiny HTML document that was hosted at the same place.
So, does anyone out there have any suggestions as to where I can host a few small files (at least 20K, preferably 150K so I can [very rarely] use an image or two in a post) for free? By my rough calculations, I use about 250 megs of bandwidth per month (although as readership increases, that will of course get bigger).
Ideas?
A Suggestion
Go check out Terry Pinder's site, The Storm.
When I first stumbled over his corner of the internet, I thought to myself, "My, he's an angry young man."
Then I realized that, hey, so am I! We could be twins!
Well, fraternal twins anyway. We don't look exactly alike...
Recently, he's been keeping a close watch on events in the Congo, a region that gets largely ignored by both politicians and the media despite conditions that make Iraq under Saddam look good.
It's important to remember that, despite the fact that we've capturedOsama Bin Laden Saddam Hussein Hussein's sons Mullah Omar Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we haven't quite eliminated evil from the world.
Go check out Terry Pinder's site, The Storm.
When I first stumbled over his corner of the internet, I thought to myself, "My, he's an angry young man."
Then I realized that, hey, so am I! We could be twins!
Well, fraternal twins anyway. We don't look exactly alike...
Recently, he's been keeping a close watch on events in the Congo, a region that gets largely ignored by both politicians and the media despite conditions that make Iraq under Saddam look good.
It's important to remember that, despite the fact that we've captured
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
We Are Most Certainly Less Crazy Than Them
Like all the cool kids, I've been reading The Clinton Wars, and the effect it has had on me is very similar to that of Blinded By The Right.
I was never really a huge Clinton fan. To this day, I'm somewhat ambivalent about him and his presidency. He did good things, and he did bad things. He was undeniably brilliant but he did some really stupid things. He was a liberal, but he made too many concessions to corporate interests. He was a big kick-ass Democrat who brought the party out of the doldrums of the Reagan/Bush years, but his name is a bigger liability than it is a strength in large portions of the country.
What's funny is the fact that the more I read about the years of his presidency, and the years immediately preceding it, the more I like Mr. Bill.
There is some merit to the idea of judging a man by his enemies, and going by that standard, Bill Clinton was a truly great man - after all, if charlatans and scumbags, liars and thieves hate you, you can't be all bad.
There have been a lot of attempts in recent weeks to compare the behavior of the GOP during the Clinton years to that of the Democratic Party since Bush took over (most notably Jane Galt's reasonable-sounding but ultimately self-serving Jane's Law: "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane"). A lot of these attempts have been by Righties who, in light of information emerging about those years during the 90s, cannot with a straight face deny that the GOP and its allies perpetrated some astounding abuses of power and resorted to the dirtiest tactics since -- maybe -- Nixon. In order, then, to distance themselves from "that element" and allay whatever guilt supporting such a Party entails, they try to muddle the issue by saying, in effect, "Hey, both Parties do it, get over it and move on."
Aside from snarky comments about "moral equivalence", the idea that the Democrats have been equally devious in attacking Bush is ridiculous on its face.
Until a Left-leaning Supreme Court Justice clears the way for a viciously partisan Democratic Special Prosecutor to take control of a high-profile, endlessly-funded investigation that has already cleared Bush of wrong-doing and extend said investigation into areas that aren't covered by its mandate (and are, indeed, being manufactured and promoted by Hard Left lawyers with funding from wealthy Leftist crackpots) in order to force Bush to perjure himself so that the inherently totalitarian House of Representatives -- controlled by insanely partisan Democrats -- can draft and pass embarrassingly weak Articles of Impeachment (but only after illegally presenting waffling moderates, outside of the House chamber in a Democratic headquarters, with "evidence" that wouldn't hold up in any court that Bush was a rapist) - all enabled by some of the most factually-impaired reporting since Hearst's heyday and a television pundit corps that skews heavily to the Left, I think we can safely say that the "Devious Shit" award goes to the reigning champion GOP.
"But Hillary is a bitch!"
Mm-hmm.
Like all the cool kids, I've been reading The Clinton Wars, and the effect it has had on me is very similar to that of Blinded By The Right.
I was never really a huge Clinton fan. To this day, I'm somewhat ambivalent about him and his presidency. He did good things, and he did bad things. He was undeniably brilliant but he did some really stupid things. He was a liberal, but he made too many concessions to corporate interests. He was a big kick-ass Democrat who brought the party out of the doldrums of the Reagan/Bush years, but his name is a bigger liability than it is a strength in large portions of the country.
What's funny is the fact that the more I read about the years of his presidency, and the years immediately preceding it, the more I like Mr. Bill.
There is some merit to the idea of judging a man by his enemies, and going by that standard, Bill Clinton was a truly great man - after all, if charlatans and scumbags, liars and thieves hate you, you can't be all bad.
There have been a lot of attempts in recent weeks to compare the behavior of the GOP during the Clinton years to that of the Democratic Party since Bush took over (most notably Jane Galt's reasonable-sounding but ultimately self-serving Jane's Law: "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane"). A lot of these attempts have been by Righties who, in light of information emerging about those years during the 90s, cannot with a straight face deny that the GOP and its allies perpetrated some astounding abuses of power and resorted to the dirtiest tactics since -- maybe -- Nixon. In order, then, to distance themselves from "that element" and allay whatever guilt supporting such a Party entails, they try to muddle the issue by saying, in effect, "Hey, both Parties do it, get over it and move on."
Aside from snarky comments about "moral equivalence", the idea that the Democrats have been equally devious in attacking Bush is ridiculous on its face.
Until a Left-leaning Supreme Court Justice clears the way for a viciously partisan Democratic Special Prosecutor to take control of a high-profile, endlessly-funded investigation that has already cleared Bush of wrong-doing and extend said investigation into areas that aren't covered by its mandate (and are, indeed, being manufactured and promoted by Hard Left lawyers with funding from wealthy Leftist crackpots) in order to force Bush to perjure himself so that the inherently totalitarian House of Representatives -- controlled by insanely partisan Democrats -- can draft and pass embarrassingly weak Articles of Impeachment (but only after illegally presenting waffling moderates, outside of the House chamber in a Democratic headquarters, with "evidence" that wouldn't hold up in any court that Bush was a rapist) - all enabled by some of the most factually-impaired reporting since Hearst's heyday and a television pundit corps that skews heavily to the Left, I think we can safely say that the "Devious Shit" award goes to the reigning champion GOP.
"But Hillary is a bitch!"
Mm-hmm.
France Is Our Enemy
Those bastards are helping unarmed American civilians make a cowardly retreat from the civil war-wracked capital of Liberia.
Will their villainous behavior never end?
Those bastards are helping unarmed American civilians make a cowardly retreat from the civil war-wracked capital of Liberia.
Will their villainous behavior never end?
Hillary Clinton Is A Paragon Of Virtue, And A Luscious Babe To Boot
Actually, I don't really care much about her one way or another. But the way I see it, if that sentence can thin out the GOP electorate by causing a few heart attacks and perhaps a cranial implosion or two, it is my Solemn Duty to write it.
Actually, I don't really care much about her one way or another. But the way I see it, if that sentence can thin out the GOP electorate by causing a few heart attacks and perhaps a cranial implosion or two, it is my Solemn Duty to write it.
Random Thought
What is Al Gore doing these days? We haven't heard much from him since he declared himself a non-candidate.
Also, it occurs to me that one of the most important things he can do over the next year is get whatever political networks he has in Tennesee working overtime. I'm not sure how helpful he can be on the national scene next year, campaigning for the Democratic nominee, but he damn sure still has pull in the Volunteer State, and those eleven electoral votes are going to be very, very important.
It's going to be a close one next year...
What is Al Gore doing these days? We haven't heard much from him since he declared himself a non-candidate.
Also, it occurs to me that one of the most important things he can do over the next year is get whatever political networks he has in Tennesee working overtime. I'm not sure how helpful he can be on the national scene next year, campaigning for the Democratic nominee, but he damn sure still has pull in the Volunteer State, and those eleven electoral votes are going to be very, very important.
It's going to be a close one next year...
Thursday, June 05, 2003
It's Over, Go Home; Andrew Has Slain His Dragon
I really didn't want to write three posts about Sullivan in one week; it feels distastefully Luskin-esque. But as soon as I heard on the radio today that Howell Raines had resigned, I knew that Andrew would inevitably have a self-congratulatory orgasm in public, and that I, just as inevitably, would be compelled to say unkind things about him because of it.
For as long as I have been reading his work, Andrew Sullivan has been a dutiful little soldier in the Right's campaign to bend public opinion to its will by discrediting any source at odds with the Talking Points for any given week.
Of the many columnists, talkshow hosts, and think-tank hacks that have been waging this campaign, Sullivan has not been the most dishonest; nor has he been the most vicious.
He has, however, been the bitchiest, and that is saying quite a lot.
When a person is drummed out of their job, particularly if the reason for the drumming-out is their constant public belittling of the people in charge, they are expected to say horrid things about their ex-employer to their friends. It is also reasonable to expect them to constantly complain about said employer to their family on a regular basis, possibly for years - although that depends on the general tolerance of the family in question.
Disgruntlement is a perfectly normal reaction to events one perceives to be unfair.
However, a reasonable adult with some sense of propriety does not constantly stand in front of their former workplace with a large sign saying "My ex-boss sucks!"
This is essentially what Sullivan has been doing on his website for quite some time now, and it is tacky, juvenile, and annoying as hell.
From the Raines Watches to the Times Watches to the jihad against an editorial page he thinks he deserves to have a spot in, Andrew has made war on the New York Times in general and its now-former editor-in-chief in specific, magnifying not only minor errors but any facts which do not agree with Sully's worldview into indications of fraud, bias, and general maliciousness on the part of the Times.
In an increasingly partisan atmosphere where large portions of a major Party regarded the Washington Times and Fox News as "fair and balanced" while dismissing CNN, major network news, and the Washington Post as Left-wing propaganda machines, Andrew kept jousting away at the news organization for which he was not good enough, and used his increasing voice on the web to rally the troops against his nemesis.
As he accused Democrats of wanting America to lose a war, so he himself fervently waited for a journalistic scandal to befall the Times; the difference being, of course, that those supposed Democratic desires were a Right-wing hallucination.
Jayson Blair, then, was the answer to his very-public prayers. To Andrew, Blair was not a liar and a crooked reporter; he was Monica Lewinski with alternate genitalia and a darker skin tone, the perceived perfect weapon to use against the man he so hated yet was so unable to affect.
Now, with the ripple-effects of the Blair scandal finally having brought Raines down, just as the ripple effects of the Lewinski scandal led to Bill Clinton's impeachment, Sullivan is dancing with joy and claiming a personal victory over his foe, whom he thinks he knocked out through his own efforts, mano-y-mano, a hero in his own eyes. Newt Gingrich and his crew felt much the same way, and, just as with Sullivan now, their inflated perception of their own Cojones & Righteousness kept them from realizing the simple truth that, despite their best efforts, what actually led to their victory was a foolish mistake on the part of their enemy, without which their impotence would have continued unabated.
Andrew Sullivan did not bring Howell Raines down; Howell Raines did. He may have booed him until he was knocked from his pedestal, but I booed the Lakers until they were knocked off of theirs, and I am not vain enough to think that my efforts meant anything to anyone but me.
So, in the end, I am not angry at Andrew. Let him have his little cheers for himself and his enabling audience. There are more important things in the world than who runs the Times, as long as it isn't Roger Ailes.
I do not hate Sullivan; at least, not in the sense that I want him to be unhappy and despise himself as a failure. If it makes him happy, let him believe what he wants to believe. Besides, it gives us all a chance to laugh at his foolish self-importance, which makes me happy as well.
Andrew Sullivan has slain his dragon, and I am a happy man because of it.
Who would have guessed?
I really didn't want to write three posts about Sullivan in one week; it feels distastefully Luskin-esque. But as soon as I heard on the radio today that Howell Raines had resigned, I knew that Andrew would inevitably have a self-congratulatory orgasm in public, and that I, just as inevitably, would be compelled to say unkind things about him because of it.
For as long as I have been reading his work, Andrew Sullivan has been a dutiful little soldier in the Right's campaign to bend public opinion to its will by discrediting any source at odds with the Talking Points for any given week.
Of the many columnists, talkshow hosts, and think-tank hacks that have been waging this campaign, Sullivan has not been the most dishonest; nor has he been the most vicious.
He has, however, been the bitchiest, and that is saying quite a lot.
When a person is drummed out of their job, particularly if the reason for the drumming-out is their constant public belittling of the people in charge, they are expected to say horrid things about their ex-employer to their friends. It is also reasonable to expect them to constantly complain about said employer to their family on a regular basis, possibly for years - although that depends on the general tolerance of the family in question.
Disgruntlement is a perfectly normal reaction to events one perceives to be unfair.
However, a reasonable adult with some sense of propriety does not constantly stand in front of their former workplace with a large sign saying "My ex-boss sucks!"
This is essentially what Sullivan has been doing on his website for quite some time now, and it is tacky, juvenile, and annoying as hell.
From the Raines Watches to the Times Watches to the jihad against an editorial page he thinks he deserves to have a spot in, Andrew has made war on the New York Times in general and its now-former editor-in-chief in specific, magnifying not only minor errors but any facts which do not agree with Sully's worldview into indications of fraud, bias, and general maliciousness on the part of the Times.
In an increasingly partisan atmosphere where large portions of a major Party regarded the Washington Times and Fox News as "fair and balanced" while dismissing CNN, major network news, and the Washington Post as Left-wing propaganda machines, Andrew kept jousting away at the news organization for which he was not good enough, and used his increasing voice on the web to rally the troops against his nemesis.
As he accused Democrats of wanting America to lose a war, so he himself fervently waited for a journalistic scandal to befall the Times; the difference being, of course, that those supposed Democratic desires were a Right-wing hallucination.
Jayson Blair, then, was the answer to his very-public prayers. To Andrew, Blair was not a liar and a crooked reporter; he was Monica Lewinski with alternate genitalia and a darker skin tone, the perceived perfect weapon to use against the man he so hated yet was so unable to affect.
Now, with the ripple-effects of the Blair scandal finally having brought Raines down, just as the ripple effects of the Lewinski scandal led to Bill Clinton's impeachment, Sullivan is dancing with joy and claiming a personal victory over his foe, whom he thinks he knocked out through his own efforts, mano-y-mano, a hero in his own eyes. Newt Gingrich and his crew felt much the same way, and, just as with Sullivan now, their inflated perception of their own Cojones & Righteousness kept them from realizing the simple truth that, despite their best efforts, what actually led to their victory was a foolish mistake on the part of their enemy, without which their impotence would have continued unabated.
Andrew Sullivan did not bring Howell Raines down; Howell Raines did. He may have booed him until he was knocked from his pedestal, but I booed the Lakers until they were knocked off of theirs, and I am not vain enough to think that my efforts meant anything to anyone but me.
So, in the end, I am not angry at Andrew. Let him have his little cheers for himself and his enabling audience. There are more important things in the world than who runs the Times, as long as it isn't Roger Ailes.
I do not hate Sullivan; at least, not in the sense that I want him to be unhappy and despise himself as a failure. If it makes him happy, let him believe what he wants to believe. Besides, it gives us all a chance to laugh at his foolish self-importance, which makes me happy as well.
Andrew Sullivan has slain his dragon, and I am a happy man because of it.
Who would have guessed?
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
Crazy People With Microphones
It's been a while since we here at VeryVeryHappy have checked in on our mascot Michael Savage, so the entire staff drew straws and, when that didn't go according to the wishes of the senior editors, the interns were sent out to listen to Mikey's show.
They came back with the most tangible proof yet that Savage's constant description of liberalism as a mental disorder is in fact a case of massive projection.
According to our intrepid interns, Mike was talking about...well, whatever lunatic thing was passing through his mind at the time. Needing some validation, he then decided to take some calls.
The rather one-sided conversation proceeded as follows:
Michael Savage is truly a wonder to behold, and the sooner he is put in a cage and carted from town to town so small children can laugh at him and poke him with sticks, the better.
It's been a while since we here at VeryVeryHappy have checked in on our mascot Michael Savage, so the entire staff drew straws and, when that didn't go according to the wishes of the senior editors, the interns were sent out to listen to Mikey's show.
They came back with the most tangible proof yet that Savage's constant description of liberalism as a mental disorder is in fact a case of massive projection.
According to our intrepid interns, Mike was talking about...well, whatever lunatic thing was passing through his mind at the time. Needing some validation, he then decided to take some calls.
The rather one-sided conversation proceeded as follows:
Savage- Okay, [whoever] from [wherever], you're on the air.I don't have the words to describe how bent this man is.
Caller- Hey, Michael, I've heard from several media sources-
Savage- What's your real name? Dickhead? Are you a member of the Nazi Party? Is your name Goebbels? Or dickhead? You want me to drop my pants so you can inspect my circumcision? Go die somewhere, you Nazi. You Nazi. Go gargle with Rogaine, you Nazi.
[some lines from Savage's harangue omitted because, well, it was coming pretty fast, and one can only write so quickly. However, every word the caller said is shown]
Michael Savage is truly a wonder to behold, and the sooner he is put in a cage and carted from town to town so small children can laugh at him and poke him with sticks, the better.
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
If Sullivan Believes Bush Then So Do I!
When Andrew Sullivan writes a post entitled "Reality Check," smart people watch their wallets (in a metaphorical sense, of course; I don't actually think that Sullivan is a pickpocket- although, if I shared his sense of journalistic ethics, I would rephrase that as: "While nothing has been confirmed yet, several people in the know have recently been talking about the long list of people accusing Sullivan of petty theft").
He says:
In contrast, it is exceedingly clear who Sullivan is trying to stick it to with that second poll result. Actually, it reeks of desperation. With the weeks going by without any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, the administration is coming under increasingly heavy fire for deceiving the country on the road to war. For the first time since Enron, it seems that there is a seriously damaging story that is not going to go away in a week or two. As more and more people are realizing (some to their joy, others to their horror), this one has legs.
And so, the ridiculously fraudulent ex post facto explanation angle being covering in other corners of the Right-wing media, Andrew decides to rely on the good ol' common sense wisdom of the American people, a huge chunk of whom believe that some or all of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi.
Well, shit, if the American people plus Andrew Sullivan believe it, it must be true!
The funniest part about his post, however, is the obligatory shot at Paul Krugman. This man simply cannot get past his little jihad against PK. From the weeks and weeks of postings about Krugman's extremely minor but fully-disclosed dealings with Enron, to favorably citing Krugman-stalker Donald Luskin (who has turned into an embarrassment even to Krugman-haters), Andrew simply cannot stand to go even short periods of time without trying to discredit Bush's most consistent critic in the major media. At this point, it seems necessary to create some version of Godwin's Law specifically for Sullivan - whenever he mentions Krugman, he is automatically Wrong About Whatever He Is Talking About.
When Andrew Sullivan writes a post entitled "Reality Check," smart people watch their wallets (in a metaphorical sense, of course; I don't actually think that Sullivan is a pickpocket- although, if I shared his sense of journalistic ethics, I would rephrase that as: "While nothing has been confirmed yet, several people in the know have recently been talking about the long list of people accusing Sullivan of petty theft").
He says:
"REALITY CHECK: Interesting poll in USA Today: 70 percent think things are going moderately well or very well in Iraq; and 67 percent believe that the administration did not deliberately deceive anyone about the WMD threat from Saddam. If I were to poll my own brain, I'd come up with similar results. Sorry, Paul. Try harder."I'm not really sure who Andy's trying to stick it to with that first poll result. I think that things are going moderately well in Iraq. The war is over, the Iraqi people are experiencing more freedom than they have in a generation, and the only people still shooting at us are coming in groups of ones, twos, and threes. For a formerly totalitarian country a large portion of whose population hates our guts, that's not too bad. No, what concerns me, and lot of other liberals, is the fact that more and more of the evidence is pointing towards a lukewarm commitment to rebuilding Iraq on the part of the administration, and the not-insignificant possibility of a hostile (or at the very least, corrupt as hell) government replacing Saddam's regime. It is not the current state of Iraq that I'm worried about; it's the future that concerns me.
In contrast, it is exceedingly clear who Sullivan is trying to stick it to with that second poll result. Actually, it reeks of desperation. With the weeks going by without any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, the administration is coming under increasingly heavy fire for deceiving the country on the road to war. For the first time since Enron, it seems that there is a seriously damaging story that is not going to go away in a week or two. As more and more people are realizing (some to their joy, others to their horror), this one has legs.
And so, the ridiculously fraudulent ex post facto explanation angle being covering in other corners of the Right-wing media, Andrew decides to rely on the good ol' common sense wisdom of the American people, a huge chunk of whom believe that some or all of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi.
Well, shit, if the American people plus Andrew Sullivan believe it, it must be true!
The funniest part about his post, however, is the obligatory shot at Paul Krugman. This man simply cannot get past his little jihad against PK. From the weeks and weeks of postings about Krugman's extremely minor but fully-disclosed dealings with Enron, to favorably citing Krugman-stalker Donald Luskin (who has turned into an embarrassment even to Krugman-haters), Andrew simply cannot stand to go even short periods of time without trying to discredit Bush's most consistent critic in the major media. At this point, it seems necessary to create some version of Godwin's Law specifically for Sullivan - whenever he mentions Krugman, he is automatically Wrong About Whatever He Is Talking About.
Rhetorical Bullying Triumphant, or If It Makes Andrew Sullivan Happy, It Must Be Bad For You And Me
Sully says:
Consequently, the apparent decision on the part of BBC officials to "focus on whether viewers and listeners believe the BBC is biased" is a terrible turn of events. You'll notice that the focus is on viewers' beliefs about bias, something that is easily manipulated by sources outside the actual content of the BBC- like, say, one of Murdoch's rags, or people like Sullivan.
It's bad enough that the Right has succeeded in intimidating most major media sources here in the US, something that was made painfully obvious during the war when a good chunk of the population turned to the BBC for their war coverage. If people who think like Sullivan succeed in muzzling the BBC as well, it will be a dark day indeed.
So yeah. Three cheers for...well, nothing. There is no cheer here today.
Update: Via SullyWatch, who does on a daily basis what I only have the stomach to do every once in a while, we find this wonderful quote from Sullivan on journalistic objectivity: "But a certain amount of B.S. is necessary for any vaguely successful retrenchment of government power in an insatiable entitlement state ... a rhetorical smoke screen is sometimes necessary."
Now, perhaps my reading comprehension skills have atrophied during my long semi-hiatus from VVH, but isn't that just a way of saying "We need to lie to get what we want" using an extra twenty words?
Sully says:
"The BBC's governors have decided they now need to monitorthe national radio and television service each quarter to detect and keep an eye on bias. That may well be a result of the protests that this blog and many, many others helped frame and coordinate. Three cheers for the "second superpower" of the web."Like anyone else who has read Eric Alterman's book without being an utterly blind ideologue, I agree that the Right's obsession with "liberal bias" is an effort to work the refs of the media in order to actually move the press to the Right and discredit any coverage that is not kind to the Right and its views.
Consequently, the apparent decision on the part of BBC officials to "focus on whether viewers and listeners believe the BBC is biased" is a terrible turn of events. You'll notice that the focus is on viewers' beliefs about bias, something that is easily manipulated by sources outside the actual content of the BBC- like, say, one of Murdoch's rags, or people like Sullivan.
It's bad enough that the Right has succeeded in intimidating most major media sources here in the US, something that was made painfully obvious during the war when a good chunk of the population turned to the BBC for their war coverage. If people who think like Sullivan succeed in muzzling the BBC as well, it will be a dark day indeed.
So yeah. Three cheers for...well, nothing. There is no cheer here today.
Update: Via SullyWatch, who does on a daily basis what I only have the stomach to do every once in a while, we find this wonderful quote from Sullivan on journalistic objectivity: "But a certain amount of B.S. is necessary for any vaguely successful retrenchment of government power in an insatiable entitlement state ... a rhetorical smoke screen is sometimes necessary."
Now, perhaps my reading comprehension skills have atrophied during my long semi-hiatus from VVH, but isn't that just a way of saying "We need to lie to get what we want" using an extra twenty words?
Monday, June 02, 2003
Governor Perry of Texas:
He may occasionally have protestors in wheelchairs arrested, but at least he also sends cops to the neonatal intensive care ward to harass the family of political opponents!
Anyone know where to submit an application to get a job writing campaign slogans for the Texas GOP? I think I'd be good at that job.
He may occasionally have protestors in wheelchairs arrested, but at least he also sends cops to the neonatal intensive care ward to harass the family of political opponents!
Anyone know where to submit an application to get a job writing campaign slogans for the Texas GOP? I think I'd be good at that job.
The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name
I know that by writing this, I am going to piss off everyone who agrees with me about anything (except, perhaps, TBogg), but I just saw Peggy Noonan live on TV for the first time (until today, I've only seen photographs and read her writing), and I'm sorry, but subtract fifteen years to make the age difference palatable, and she'd be pretty hot.
My God, you are saying to yourself, Christian has lost his mind. He has finally gone over to the Dark Side, seduced like one of those little pervert Tory boys in the eighties who fantasized about paddlings and Maggie Thatcher.
Ho ho. Not so fast. I simply state that the lady has nicely-shaped eyes, a pretty smile, and decent cheekbones. I said nothing about personality or ideology.
In fact, I now know exactly why whenever Noonan is mentioned, someone inevitably makes a crack about Peggy being off her meds and out of the padded room. Through her entire back and forth with Chris Matthews, I counted five separate times when I was almost certain she was about to break down. Not that she seemed excessively emotional, but the way her voice quavers when she tries to make a point, and the unpredictable on-off-on-off of her smile makes me very definitely uncomfortable.
So, I guess my question is...
Is her problem genetic, or perhaps the result of coming of age with a flawed ideology among characters of questionable sincerity and negligible ethics?
And if it's the latter, does she have a daughter? Perhaps one that's been raised by normal people? Or, failing that, wolves?
If so, someone pass her along my URL, eh? Think about it; Peggy's daughter and I- talking, meeting, falling in love. And someday, Peggy as my mother-in-law!
Oh what fun,
Oh what fun,
Oh what fun indeed.
I know that by writing this, I am going to piss off everyone who agrees with me about anything (except, perhaps, TBogg), but I just saw Peggy Noonan live on TV for the first time (until today, I've only seen photographs and read her writing), and I'm sorry, but subtract fifteen years to make the age difference palatable, and she'd be pretty hot.
My God, you are saying to yourself, Christian has lost his mind. He has finally gone over to the Dark Side, seduced like one of those little pervert Tory boys in the eighties who fantasized about paddlings and Maggie Thatcher.
Ho ho. Not so fast. I simply state that the lady has nicely-shaped eyes, a pretty smile, and decent cheekbones. I said nothing about personality or ideology.
In fact, I now know exactly why whenever Noonan is mentioned, someone inevitably makes a crack about Peggy being off her meds and out of the padded room. Through her entire back and forth with Chris Matthews, I counted five separate times when I was almost certain she was about to break down. Not that she seemed excessively emotional, but the way her voice quavers when she tries to make a point, and the unpredictable on-off-on-off of her smile makes me very definitely uncomfortable.
So, I guess my question is...
Is her problem genetic, or perhaps the result of coming of age with a flawed ideology among characters of questionable sincerity and negligible ethics?
And if it's the latter, does she have a daughter? Perhaps one that's been raised by normal people? Or, failing that, wolves?
If so, someone pass her along my URL, eh? Think about it; Peggy's daughter and I- talking, meeting, falling in love. And someday, Peggy as my mother-in-law!
Oh what fun,
Oh what fun,
Oh what fun indeed.
Funny Like A Boot To The Skull
Does anyone else find it amusing that MSNBC's editor-in-chief is on MSNBC's Hardball right now adamantly denouncing all of the "liberal bias" in the media?
And for bonus points, he's arguing against abortion rights activists and talking about why his "friends" dislike affirmative action.
Let's just think about the irony here for a minute, shall we?
Does anyone else find it amusing that MSNBC's editor-in-chief is on MSNBC's Hardball right now adamantly denouncing all of the "liberal bias" in the media?
And for bonus points, he's arguing against abortion rights activists and talking about why his "friends" dislike affirmative action.
Let's just think about the irony here for a minute, shall we?
God Obviously Hates Me
Because I just heard this closing line from one of Fox's Interchangable Aryan Princess Anchorettes (IAPAs):
"The network America trusts for real journalism, Fox." (emphasis hers)
I dearly hope this is not a new Fox slogan, but I think I may be out of luck on this one. It's just too perfect an example of Murdochian straight-faced bullshit.
And I was having a good day...
Because I just heard this closing line from one of Fox's Interchangable Aryan Princess Anchorettes (IAPAs):
"The network America trusts for real journalism, Fox." (emphasis hers)
I dearly hope this is not a new Fox slogan, but I think I may be out of luck on this one. It's just too perfect an example of Murdochian straight-faced bullshit.
And I was having a good day...
Sunday, June 01, 2003
It Is By No Means Wrong
...for a guy in his twenties to really want to see Finding Nemo. Everything that's come out of Pixar so far has been brilliant (Monsters, Inc. is a G-rated masterpiece), and with those guys pushing the envelope (both technology-wise and revenue-wise), the rest of the CGI industry can only get better.
And better, cheaper CGI means the possibility of more imaginative movies (can anyone envision Disney laying out the cash for a muppet-type Toy Story? Would anybody want to actually see the undoubtedly creepy-as-hell result? Remember The Country Bears?) Where's the downside?
...for a guy in his twenties to really want to see Finding Nemo. Everything that's come out of Pixar so far has been brilliant (Monsters, Inc. is a G-rated masterpiece), and with those guys pushing the envelope (both technology-wise and revenue-wise), the rest of the CGI industry can only get better.
And better, cheaper CGI means the possibility of more imaginative movies (can anyone envision Disney laying out the cash for a muppet-type Toy Story? Would anybody want to actually see the undoubtedly creepy-as-hell result? Remember The Country Bears?) Where's the downside?
$5,000
Is the number being proposed as a financial incentive to donate the organs of deceased family members.
I'll write more on this later, after I've had the chance to think about the issue some more, but my intial reaction is quite negative.
I understand that there is a critical need for donated organs in this country, and I absolutely support efforts to a) convince more people to donate organs and b) develop alternatives to human organ donation (genetically modified animals bred for organ harvesting, therapeutic cloning, stem cell research).
However, there is something deeply disturbing about putting a price tag on someone's internal organs- not for some abstract philosophical reason, but for the very concrete reason that people do vile and horrible things for money.
Maybe I'm being an alarmist, but the idea of someone killing their spouse for five grand does not seem incredibly far-fetched to me.
Of course, that rather small possibility would probably mean a lot less to me if I or someone I loved needed a liver.
There's just not a simple answer to this one, and now it's going to bother me...
Is the number being proposed as a financial incentive to donate the organs of deceased family members.
I'll write more on this later, after I've had the chance to think about the issue some more, but my intial reaction is quite negative.
I understand that there is a critical need for donated organs in this country, and I absolutely support efforts to a) convince more people to donate organs and b) develop alternatives to human organ donation (genetically modified animals bred for organ harvesting, therapeutic cloning, stem cell research).
However, there is something deeply disturbing about putting a price tag on someone's internal organs- not for some abstract philosophical reason, but for the very concrete reason that people do vile and horrible things for money.
Maybe I'm being an alarmist, but the idea of someone killing their spouse for five grand does not seem incredibly far-fetched to me.
Of course, that rather small possibility would probably mean a lot less to me if I or someone I loved needed a liver.
There's just not a simple answer to this one, and now it's going to bother me...
The Good Kind of Terrorist
The captured kind.
Is there some sort of handbook that requires reclusive mad-bomber types to have stupid-looking facial hair?
But seriously, it may seem rather insignificant after 9/11, but I remember watching the Olympics live when that bomb went off, and it was scary as hell to see the genuine confusion and concern on the faces of the people on the screen, knowing that what I was watching was actually happening at that very moment.
I also remember being glad that, while over a hundred people were injured, only one person had died. It wasn't until years later that I realized that some of the ugliest stories come from the ranks of those listed in the papers as merely "injured." As anyone who has seen shrapnel/gunshot/burn injuries -- in person or in photographs -- knows, there's a large range between healthy and dead, and the things that a bunch of nails wrapped around an explosive can do to a human body are truly horrific.
I'm glad they caught the bastard.
The captured kind.
Is there some sort of handbook that requires reclusive mad-bomber types to have stupid-looking facial hair?
But seriously, it may seem rather insignificant after 9/11, but I remember watching the Olympics live when that bomb went off, and it was scary as hell to see the genuine confusion and concern on the faces of the people on the screen, knowing that what I was watching was actually happening at that very moment.
I also remember being glad that, while over a hundred people were injured, only one person had died. It wasn't until years later that I realized that some of the ugliest stories come from the ranks of those listed in the papers as merely "injured." As anyone who has seen shrapnel/gunshot/burn injuries -- in person or in photographs -- knows, there's a large range between healthy and dead, and the things that a bunch of nails wrapped around an explosive can do to a human body are truly horrific.
I'm glad they caught the bastard.
Friday, May 30, 2003
Nonsense
In order for me to believe this far-fetched story, I would have to be one of those crazy people who believes that there is someone in the current administration who has both a motivation to divert huge government contracts to Halliburton, and a vested interest in keeping the magnitude of those contracts hidden from the public.
I simply can't twist my brain enough to give such ideas credit.
In order for me to believe this far-fetched story, I would have to be one of those crazy people who believes that there is someone in the current administration who has both a motivation to divert huge government contracts to Halliburton, and a vested interest in keeping the magnitude of those contracts hidden from the public.
I simply can't twist my brain enough to give such ideas credit.
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Non-Sequitur
You don't appreciate just how agile your own tongue is, and the very complex little dance it does to keep food in position to be chewed while at the same time avoiding being chewed itself until you lose the ability feel it and it becomes a rogue agent, possibly obeying your commands but with no way to know for sure. Like, say, when your dentist decides that there's no such thing as too much novocaine, and the lower half of your face ceases to exist for five hours.
If you ever find yourself in this situation, my advice is that you not attempt to drink a brightly colored liquid in public.
And if you feel compelled to constantly check your tongue with your finger in order to determine whether or not you've bitten it off in the last ten minutes, make sure that there aren't any cute blondes sitting at the table across from you at Barnes & Noble who will look up from their book as you stick your finger in your mouth and check it for blood, necessitating an explanation of "I jutht goth back fromth the denthitht."
Not that I know anyone to whom that happened recently...
You don't appreciate just how agile your own tongue is, and the very complex little dance it does to keep food in position to be chewed while at the same time avoiding being chewed itself until you lose the ability feel it and it becomes a rogue agent, possibly obeying your commands but with no way to know for sure. Like, say, when your dentist decides that there's no such thing as too much novocaine, and the lower half of your face ceases to exist for five hours.
If you ever find yourself in this situation, my advice is that you not attempt to drink a brightly colored liquid in public.
And if you feel compelled to constantly check your tongue with your finger in order to determine whether or not you've bitten it off in the last ten minutes, make sure that there aren't any cute blondes sitting at the table across from you at Barnes & Noble who will look up from their book as you stick your finger in your mouth and check it for blood, necessitating an explanation of "I jutht goth back fromth the denthitht."
Not that I know anyone to whom that happened recently...
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Bad Genes
For the last year or so I've lived five minutes away from my grandparents, and so I often stop by to say hello and steal some cookies. Almost every time I do, we exchange a couple shots back and forth about politics- all in good fun, course, as they have given up on trying to actually convert me to the GOP, and the odds are rather poor that I will be able to convince to vote Democratic two people who lived through the Depression and yet still think Herbert Hoover was a better President than Franklin Roosevelt.
Today, though, I thought that my constant shots against Bush and the modern Republican Party had actually had some effect. We were discussing the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and Grandma said, "You know, I will admit, I don't know why so many people hate Tom Daschle so much. He seems like a very polite man, and I like that he is so soft spoken when so many other people in Washington are loud and rude. I like Tom Daschle. And I think I'm going to vote Democratic next year."
And the sky turned black at noon; and the rivers ran red with blood; and the lion laid down with the lamb.
"But only if Tom Daschle gets the nomination."
Evil Grandma. Evil Grandma.
Evil. Evil. Evil.
For the last year or so I've lived five minutes away from my grandparents, and so I often stop by to say hello and steal some cookies. Almost every time I do, we exchange a couple shots back and forth about politics- all in good fun, course, as they have given up on trying to actually convert me to the GOP, and the odds are rather poor that I will be able to convince to vote Democratic two people who lived through the Depression and yet still think Herbert Hoover was a better President than Franklin Roosevelt.
Today, though, I thought that my constant shots against Bush and the modern Republican Party had actually had some effect. We were discussing the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and Grandma said, "You know, I will admit, I don't know why so many people hate Tom Daschle so much. He seems like a very polite man, and I like that he is so soft spoken when so many other people in Washington are loud and rude. I like Tom Daschle. And I think I'm going to vote Democratic next year."
And the sky turned black at noon; and the rivers ran red with blood; and the lion laid down with the lamb.
"But only if Tom Daschle gets the nomination."
Evil Grandma. Evil Grandma.
Evil. Evil. Evil.
Friday, May 23, 2003
Goodbye Earl Ari
With the announcement of Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's resignation, everyone on the Left side of the blogosphere has been composing lists of his most egregious spinjobs, mischaracterizations, and outright lies. The notable exception, from what I've seen, is the one that most likely lost him his job (what, you thought perhaps he had simply up and decided he no longer wanted to be Press Secretary?): the assertion that President Bush had flown out to the USS Lincoln on a jet because the aircraft carrier was too far out to sea for Marine One to reach it.
As such things go, and especially in the context of this administration, it was really a rather minor lie, almost a fib. The remarkable thing about it, though, and the reason why it most likely cost Ari his job, is that it was so amazingly blatant.
Granted, Mr. Fleischer has told more than a few blatant lies in the past. The difference, in this case, is that it was so easy to discredit. No amount of spin or partisan rhetoric can alter the basic math of it:
Marine One has a range of x miles.
The Lincoln was y miles out from the coast.
y is much less than x.
Even the dullest can grasp this, and in so doing recognize Ari's claim as a lie. Not a mix up. Not a misstatement. A lie. The fact that the lie was exposed within a day or so only made it worse; had it taken a month or so for reporters to prove that it was a lie, the impact would have been negligible.
Perhaps Ari simply got cocky; after smacking the White House press corps around for so long, maybe he just figured that he could push anything on them without worry.
Whatever the reason, that lie was the proverbial straw on the camel's back. After three years, the distrust that the press corps has accumulated for Fleischer has reached toxic levels. Even with the understanding that a Press Secretary's job is to bend the truth to make the President look good, there is only so much that even the lapdogs in the White House press room can take.
But more importantly, it is bad policy indeed to go into an election year with a Press Secretary that even an idiot can recognize is a bald-faced liar. When one considers the fact that the safest bet in Washington is that the GOP apparatus will be doing its damnedest next year to paint the Democratic nominee as a liar (the feared "Gore-ing"), it is easy to see that Ari has become a liability.
And so Uncle Karl pulled the eject lever, and WHOOSH! goes Ari, quickly becoming an insignificant speck in the distance to whom no one will pay any attention as he floats to earth on whatever private sector parachute has been arranged for him.
How do I feel about the whole situation?
Frankly, I'm pissed off.
While his departure means that Bush is losing Satan's gift to flackdom, given the fact that no one believes a word that comes out of Fleischer's mouth anymore, it is a net gain for the administration. After using Ari to throw so much garbage into the political atmosphere, the White House will receive a get-out-of-jail-free card- a brand new Press Secretary able to lie his ass off without the accumulated baggage of his predecessor.
And, as should be obvious to anyone reading more than two posts here at VeryVeryHappy, I view a net gain for George Bush as a net loss for the country.
So, good riddance Ari. You were and are a liar, and as such you deserve the scorn of good people everywhere. Because your filthy reputation will no longer tar the people who so gleefully employed your talents, you have lost your one redeeming quality. You will rightfully be remembered as a man who excelled at a job that, now more than ever, requires one to lie to one's fellow citizens with a straight face.
Good people will not think of Fleischer very often, but when they do, it will be with disgust, and of everything that has resulted from his time as a public figure, that is the one thing that brings me a small measure of satisfaction.
With the announcement of Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's resignation, everyone on the Left side of the blogosphere has been composing lists of his most egregious spinjobs, mischaracterizations, and outright lies. The notable exception, from what I've seen, is the one that most likely lost him his job (what, you thought perhaps he had simply up and decided he no longer wanted to be Press Secretary?): the assertion that President Bush had flown out to the USS Lincoln on a jet because the aircraft carrier was too far out to sea for Marine One to reach it.
As such things go, and especially in the context of this administration, it was really a rather minor lie, almost a fib. The remarkable thing about it, though, and the reason why it most likely cost Ari his job, is that it was so amazingly blatant.
Granted, Mr. Fleischer has told more than a few blatant lies in the past. The difference, in this case, is that it was so easy to discredit. No amount of spin or partisan rhetoric can alter the basic math of it:
Marine One has a range of x miles.
The Lincoln was y miles out from the coast.
y is much less than x.
Even the dullest can grasp this, and in so doing recognize Ari's claim as a lie. Not a mix up. Not a misstatement. A lie. The fact that the lie was exposed within a day or so only made it worse; had it taken a month or so for reporters to prove that it was a lie, the impact would have been negligible.
Perhaps Ari simply got cocky; after smacking the White House press corps around for so long, maybe he just figured that he could push anything on them without worry.
Whatever the reason, that lie was the proverbial straw on the camel's back. After three years, the distrust that the press corps has accumulated for Fleischer has reached toxic levels. Even with the understanding that a Press Secretary's job is to bend the truth to make the President look good, there is only so much that even the lapdogs in the White House press room can take.
But more importantly, it is bad policy indeed to go into an election year with a Press Secretary that even an idiot can recognize is a bald-faced liar. When one considers the fact that the safest bet in Washington is that the GOP apparatus will be doing its damnedest next year to paint the Democratic nominee as a liar (the feared "Gore-ing"), it is easy to see that Ari has become a liability.
And so Uncle Karl pulled the eject lever, and WHOOSH! goes Ari, quickly becoming an insignificant speck in the distance to whom no one will pay any attention as he floats to earth on whatever private sector parachute has been arranged for him.
How do I feel about the whole situation?
Frankly, I'm pissed off.
While his departure means that Bush is losing Satan's gift to flackdom, given the fact that no one believes a word that comes out of Fleischer's mouth anymore, it is a net gain for the administration. After using Ari to throw so much garbage into the political atmosphere, the White House will receive a get-out-of-jail-free card- a brand new Press Secretary able to lie his ass off without the accumulated baggage of his predecessor.
And, as should be obvious to anyone reading more than two posts here at VeryVeryHappy, I view a net gain for George Bush as a net loss for the country.
So, good riddance Ari. You were and are a liar, and as such you deserve the scorn of good people everywhere. Because your filthy reputation will no longer tar the people who so gleefully employed your talents, you have lost your one redeeming quality. You will rightfully be remembered as a man who excelled at a job that, now more than ever, requires one to lie to one's fellow citizens with a straight face.
Good people will not think of Fleischer very often, but when they do, it will be with disgust, and of everything that has resulted from his time as a public figure, that is the one thing that brings me a small measure of satisfaction.
Thursday, May 15, 2003
Mr. Cavuto's Neighborhood
Via the Horse, Neil Cavuto today on Paul Krugman's latest column:
I wanted this post to be focused on ridiculing Mr. Cavuto for his unintentional confirmation of Krugman's assertion that Neil might be slightly less than fair and more than a little unbalanced, but I trust the above excerpt speaks for itself.
Instead, I want to talk about how much I hate the word twit.
It's an ugly and childish synonym of idiot, the most popular usage of which, as far as I can ascertain, is in old Garfield cartoons. Which, I suppose, makes it horribly out of style as well. Now, perhaps Mr. Cavuto fancies himself a daring artist whose medium is language, unafraid to go against popular linguistic trends, brilliantly mixing modern usage with paleo-juvenile scrawlings.
If this is the case, then consider me rebuked. Instead, now, I say Mr. Cavuto is to be commended. After all, an artist is an artist, and what right have we to judge him merely on the basis of professionalism and grammar? What need has an artist/journalist for such trivialities?
Won't we all feel quite silly when history looks back at this piece of his as the origin of a whole new movement, the literary equivalent of cubism?
I for one, am taking a stand in support of this innovator, this trend-breaker, this literary giant of a man. When the revolution comes, and the literary proletariat are rightly thrown out of the temple, it will be those of us on Neil's side who will be spared, while those who would mock his daring and maturity are subjected to scorn and ridicule.
See? I'm funny.
Cavuto is such a tool.
Via the Horse, Neil Cavuto today on Paul Krugman's latest column:
"And by the way, you sanctimonious twit, no one -- no one -- tells me what to say. I say it. And I write it. And no one lectures me on it. Save you, you pretentious charlatan ... Now may I suggest you take your column and shove it?"Ho, ho. Why don't you hit him with your purse, Neil?
I wanted this post to be focused on ridiculing Mr. Cavuto for his unintentional confirmation of Krugman's assertion that Neil might be slightly less than fair and more than a little unbalanced, but I trust the above excerpt speaks for itself.
Instead, I want to talk about how much I hate the word twit.
It's an ugly and childish synonym of idiot, the most popular usage of which, as far as I can ascertain, is in old Garfield cartoons. Which, I suppose, makes it horribly out of style as well. Now, perhaps Mr. Cavuto fancies himself a daring artist whose medium is language, unafraid to go against popular linguistic trends, brilliantly mixing modern usage with paleo-juvenile scrawlings.
If this is the case, then consider me rebuked. Instead, now, I say Mr. Cavuto is to be commended. After all, an artist is an artist, and what right have we to judge him merely on the basis of professionalism and grammar? What need has an artist/journalist for such trivialities?
Won't we all feel quite silly when history looks back at this piece of his as the origin of a whole new movement, the literary equivalent of cubism?
I for one, am taking a stand in support of this innovator, this trend-breaker, this literary giant of a man. When the revolution comes, and the literary proletariat are rightly thrown out of the temple, it will be those of us on Neil's side who will be spared, while those who would mock his daring and maturity are subjected to scorn and ridicule.
See? I'm funny.
Cavuto is such a tool.
Reloaded
We begin our new legislative session here at VeryVeryHappy with a four word review of The Matrix Reloaded:
It's better than sex.
Well, all right, perhaps not quite (unless you're doing it wrong, of course), but I certainly needed a cigarette when I got out of the theater. Since most of you haven't seen it yet (I was one of those obsessives who bought a ticket for the ten o'clock showing on Wednesday night), I won't get into a discussion of the particulars, but, suffice to say, what The Matrix did for movie gunfights, The Matrix Reloaded does for hand-to-hand combat and car chase scenes. While watching this movie, I set a new personal record for number of utterances of "Holy shit."
There is no fucking spoon.
We begin our new legislative session here at VeryVeryHappy with a four word review of The Matrix Reloaded:
It's better than sex.
Well, all right, perhaps not quite (unless you're doing it wrong, of course), but I certainly needed a cigarette when I got out of the theater. Since most of you haven't seen it yet (I was one of those obsessives who bought a ticket for the ten o'clock showing on Wednesday night), I won't get into a discussion of the particulars, but, suffice to say, what The Matrix did for movie gunfights, The Matrix Reloaded does for hand-to-hand combat and car chase scenes. While watching this movie, I set a new personal record for number of utterances of "Holy shit."
There is no fucking spoon.
Monday, May 05, 2003
Conventional Antics
Since everyone else seems to be talking about next year's Republican convention, I suppose I will as well. I'm a follower like that.
The Republicans have scheduled themselves into a bit of a dilemma, as this Chicago Tribune story points out (via Wampum). Apparently, because they have scheduled the convention so late, Bush may not be able to be on the ballot in Alabama, California, and West Virginia.
It is quite obvious (and has in fact been tacitly admitted) that the purpose of such a late convention is to coincide with the September 11th anniversary. The other major reason, one which hasn't been admitted to, but is equally obvious, is that Karl Rove knows that he needs to keep Bush off the campaign trail as long as possible so as to minimize the possibility that Bush will do or say something stupid.
Bush isn't going to win California, so, technically, having to conduct a write-in campaign there isn't going to hurt him, and Alabama's 9 electoral votes aren't likely to be the margin of victory (besides, is there any chance in hell Alabama would go to the Democratic candidate, even if voters had to write in Bush's name?).
The main problem stemming from the "Bush not on the ballot" issue is that it makes the Republicans look foolish and disorganized.
Which means that it isn't a problem at all, because the President does a more than adequate job of that himself.
That isn't going to stop the GOP from trying to use this issue against the Democrats, however. There will be a lot of accusations (especially in California, where the Democrats control the state legislature) of "unfairness", as if it's the Democrats' fault that the convention was scheduled so late.
So, the smart Democratic response should be, in nice convenient sound-bite form, "Reschedule the convention."
Anytime the issue comes up, that should be the answer, over and over again. In fact, if we can get someone to rig a small speaker to constantly whisper that phrase under Peggy Noonan's pillow, we'll start seeing columns in the Wall Street Journal editorial page under her byline that consist of nothing but variations on that theme.
The two reasons for this are:
1) It tosses the blame for the foul up right back in the GOP's lap.
2) It gives the GOP a solution that seems reasonable to average people, but is in fact virtually impossible. The way reservations for major venues work, you have to reserve them way in advance. If the GOP wanted to schedule the convention earlier, they would almost certainly have to hold it in a different city, which would void their entire reason for holding it in New York.
Whatever happens, this isn't going to be a major issue in and of itself. The only thing about the scheduling of the convention that could really hurt the GOP is the (correct! Correct Goddamnit!) perception that they're using the events of 9/11 for political gain.
But, until someone in the Liberal Media makes that exploitation a big issue:
Reschedule the convention.
Since everyone else seems to be talking about next year's Republican convention, I suppose I will as well. I'm a follower like that.
The Republicans have scheduled themselves into a bit of a dilemma, as this Chicago Tribune story points out (via Wampum). Apparently, because they have scheduled the convention so late, Bush may not be able to be on the ballot in Alabama, California, and West Virginia.
It is quite obvious (and has in fact been tacitly admitted) that the purpose of such a late convention is to coincide with the September 11th anniversary. The other major reason, one which hasn't been admitted to, but is equally obvious, is that Karl Rove knows that he needs to keep Bush off the campaign trail as long as possible so as to minimize the possibility that Bush will do or say something stupid.
Bush isn't going to win California, so, technically, having to conduct a write-in campaign there isn't going to hurt him, and Alabama's 9 electoral votes aren't likely to be the margin of victory (besides, is there any chance in hell Alabama would go to the Democratic candidate, even if voters had to write in Bush's name?).
The main problem stemming from the "Bush not on the ballot" issue is that it makes the Republicans look foolish and disorganized.
Which means that it isn't a problem at all, because the President does a more than adequate job of that himself.
That isn't going to stop the GOP from trying to use this issue against the Democrats, however. There will be a lot of accusations (especially in California, where the Democrats control the state legislature) of "unfairness", as if it's the Democrats' fault that the convention was scheduled so late.
So, the smart Democratic response should be, in nice convenient sound-bite form, "Reschedule the convention."
Anytime the issue comes up, that should be the answer, over and over again. In fact, if we can get someone to rig a small speaker to constantly whisper that phrase under Peggy Noonan's pillow, we'll start seeing columns in the Wall Street Journal editorial page under her byline that consist of nothing but variations on that theme.
The two reasons for this are:
1) It tosses the blame for the foul up right back in the GOP's lap.
2) It gives the GOP a solution that seems reasonable to average people, but is in fact virtually impossible. The way reservations for major venues work, you have to reserve them way in advance. If the GOP wanted to schedule the convention earlier, they would almost certainly have to hold it in a different city, which would void their entire reason for holding it in New York.
Whatever happens, this isn't going to be a major issue in and of itself. The only thing about the scheduling of the convention that could really hurt the GOP is the (correct! Correct Goddamnit!) perception that they're using the events of 9/11 for political gain.
But, until someone in the Liberal Media makes that exploitation a big issue:
Reschedule the convention.
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
Newt Pile-On: Everyone Get Your Piece!
It has been with tremendous amusement and satisfaction that I have watched, over the last week, one of the rarest things in Washington take place: True bipartisan agreement.
What does everyone agree on? Newt Gingrich is an asshole!
Woo-hoo! Count me in!
It really is a beautiful thing to see "Gingrich" and "idiot" in the same headline.
And "It's clear that Mr. Gingrich is off his meds and out of therapy"? Music to my ears (although I think a nice addition would have been "Shouldn't he be off finding women with whom to cheat on his wife?").
But all insults aside, what, exactly, is the deal here?
Gingrich last week viciously attacked the State Department from the bowels of the AEI, which is one of the primary Neocon strongholds. But then, alongside the expected State rebuttals, the entire Republican Party, apparently at the behest of Karl Rove, started whacking Newt in the press. Even Neocon-oriented Defense Department officials, whose eternal War On State has intensified by orders of magnitude over the last six months, took a swipe.
End result? Gingrich suddenly treats the spotlight like a slug treats salt. Good news, right? Go back to your hole, Newt, no one wants you here.
But why did it happen in the first place? Why did Gingrich give his little presentation?
The way I see it, it comes down to the following possibilities:
1. Newt, like Sullivan, saw the cool kids yelling about something, and wanting the spotlight, went a little too far. The speech was made on his own initiative.
2. Neocon/DoD-types had him make the speech as a continuation of their War On State, but didn't realize what an ass he would make of himself. Neocon/DoD tactical error.
3. Neocon/DoD-types had him make the speech as a continuation of their War On State, and knew exactly how big of an ass Gingrich would make of himself. They set him up; this way, some really bad things are said about State in the press, but the Neocon/DoD hands are clean, and they even score points (with the public and with Bush) by denouncing Gingrich. Neocon/DoD devious plan.
4. Someone who wants to hurt the former Speaker for their own reasons convinced him to make the speech. Pissing off Rumsfeld is a bad move for Newt, whose consulting business apparently relies heavily on his access to the Defense Secretary and his lackeys. In making DoD look bad, I think we can safely assume that Gingrich has pissed off Don. Also, getting smacked down by pretty much all of Washington doesn't help one's credibility. Newt was set up.
5. Dissent among the Neocons. Some of them want to declare all out war on State, and sent Newt to lead the charge. When that didn't go so well, the more level-headed Neocons had to put him back into place to keep him from derailing their own plans. The hotheads are having a hard time controlling their own hotheads.
6. Aliens.
Personally, I favor 1, 2, and 5, but am paranoid enough to think that there's a good chance that number 3 is the case.
It has been with tremendous amusement and satisfaction that I have watched, over the last week, one of the rarest things in Washington take place: True bipartisan agreement.
What does everyone agree on? Newt Gingrich is an asshole!
Woo-hoo! Count me in!
It really is a beautiful thing to see "Gingrich" and "idiot" in the same headline.
And "It's clear that Mr. Gingrich is off his meds and out of therapy"? Music to my ears (although I think a nice addition would have been "Shouldn't he be off finding women with whom to cheat on his wife?").
But all insults aside, what, exactly, is the deal here?
Gingrich last week viciously attacked the State Department from the bowels of the AEI, which is one of the primary Neocon strongholds. But then, alongside the expected State rebuttals, the entire Republican Party, apparently at the behest of Karl Rove, started whacking Newt in the press. Even Neocon-oriented Defense Department officials, whose eternal War On State has intensified by orders of magnitude over the last six months, took a swipe.
End result? Gingrich suddenly treats the spotlight like a slug treats salt. Good news, right? Go back to your hole, Newt, no one wants you here.
But why did it happen in the first place? Why did Gingrich give his little presentation?
The way I see it, it comes down to the following possibilities:
1. Newt, like Sullivan, saw the cool kids yelling about something, and wanting the spotlight, went a little too far. The speech was made on his own initiative.
2. Neocon/DoD-types had him make the speech as a continuation of their War On State, but didn't realize what an ass he would make of himself. Neocon/DoD tactical error.
3. Neocon/DoD-types had him make the speech as a continuation of their War On State, and knew exactly how big of an ass Gingrich would make of himself. They set him up; this way, some really bad things are said about State in the press, but the Neocon/DoD hands are clean, and they even score points (with the public and with Bush) by denouncing Gingrich. Neocon/DoD devious plan.
4. Someone who wants to hurt the former Speaker for their own reasons convinced him to make the speech. Pissing off Rumsfeld is a bad move for Newt, whose consulting business apparently relies heavily on his access to the Defense Secretary and his lackeys. In making DoD look bad, I think we can safely assume that Gingrich has pissed off Don. Also, getting smacked down by pretty much all of Washington doesn't help one's credibility. Newt was set up.
5. Dissent among the Neocons. Some of them want to declare all out war on State, and sent Newt to lead the charge. When that didn't go so well, the more level-headed Neocons had to put him back into place to keep him from derailing their own plans. The hotheads are having a hard time controlling their own hotheads.
6. Aliens.
Personally, I favor 1, 2, and 5, but am paranoid enough to think that there's a good chance that number 3 is the case.
Thursday, April 24, 2003
Good News
Something that I'm sure a lot of people have noticed is that good news is hard to come by, both in Big Media and the blogosphere.
The reasons for this are understandable (CNN gets much better ratings for "Three Killed In Horrific Ice Cream Truck Explosion" than for "Faulty Fuel Line Valve Replaced On Ice Cream Trucks Nationwide"), but it's still unfortunate.
So, it's nice to see a short item like this tucked away in this month's issue of Popular Mechanics:
Something that I'm sure a lot of people have noticed is that good news is hard to come by, both in Big Media and the blogosphere.
The reasons for this are understandable (CNN gets much better ratings for "Three Killed In Horrific Ice Cream Truck Explosion" than for "Faulty Fuel Line Valve Replaced On Ice Cream Trucks Nationwide"), but it's still unfortunate.
So, it's nice to see a short item like this tucked away in this month's issue of Popular Mechanics:
"Using throwaway items, Saul Griffith, a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has built a low-cost injection molding machine that makes inexpensive eyeglasses. The lens-molding device...is intended for use in poor countries, where Griffith estimates 1 billion people need but cannot afford eyeglasses. Today, these individuals rely chiefly on hand-me-downs collected by civics groups such as the Lions Club. Griffith won the $20,000 Collegiate Inventors Competition prize for his idea. He plans to use part of the money to create a self-sustaining company that brings inexpensive eyeglasses to children in India. 'I'll make my money someplace else,' he says."
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Does Anyone Else Find It Depressing...
...that an eleven year old is more mature than various high-ranking government officials?
Sidenote: And isn't it doubly depressing that Colin Powell is now threatening retaliation? Isn't he supposed to be the rational one?
...that an eleven year old is more mature than various high-ranking government officials?
"A lot of people are mad at France, because of what’s happening in today’s world. Personally I am not mad at France. Although I do not agree with their decision, I do not think they have done anything wrong."That's the most adult thing I've heard about France in six months.
Sidenote: And isn't it doubly depressing that Colin Powell is now threatening retaliation? Isn't he supposed to be the rational one?
TV Cops
For no real reason at all, I've composed a list of the best television cops in the history of the human race (well, all right...the reason is that I was sick in bed last night and had nothing to do but watch Law & Order and NYPD Blue reruns). The list is limited to cops, as opposed to FBI agents (sorry, Mulder) and government agents (sorry, Kiefer).
1) Andy Sipowicz, NYPD Blue
2) Lennie Briscoe, Law & Order
3) Vic Mackey, The Shield
4) Munch, Homicide
5) Pembleton, Homicide
6) Bobby Simone, NYPD Blue
7) Barney Miller, Barney Miller
8) Columbo, Columbo
9) Hercule Poirot, (technically not a cop, and technically not a part of a television show, just a number of made-for-TV movies based on Agatha Chritie's books. But screw it. I like him.)
10) Mike Logan Law & Order
One of these days, I might expand on my reasoning for ranking them this way; for now, consider this list both authoritative and non-negotiable (I'm looking at you, Benjamin Bratt fans).
For no real reason at all, I've composed a list of the best television cops in the history of the human race (well, all right...the reason is that I was sick in bed last night and had nothing to do but watch Law & Order and NYPD Blue reruns). The list is limited to cops, as opposed to FBI agents (sorry, Mulder) and government agents (sorry, Kiefer).
1) Andy Sipowicz, NYPD Blue
2) Lennie Briscoe, Law & Order
3) Vic Mackey, The Shield
4) Munch, Homicide
5) Pembleton, Homicide
6) Bobby Simone, NYPD Blue
7) Barney Miller, Barney Miller
8) Columbo, Columbo
9) Hercule Poirot, (technically not a cop, and technically not a part of a television show, just a number of made-for-TV movies based on Agatha Chritie's books. But screw it. I like him.)
10) Mike Logan Law & Order
One of these days, I might expand on my reasoning for ranking them this way; for now, consider this list both authoritative and non-negotiable (I'm looking at you, Benjamin Bratt fans).
Wednesday Track Listing
1. Linkin Park - Somewhere I Belong
2. Snoop Dogg - Gz and Hustlas
3. A Perfect Circle - The Hollow (Live Acoustic)
4. Red Hot Chili Peppers - Can't Stop
5. The Streets - Stay Positive
6. Stone Temple Pilots - Interstate Love Song
7. Bad Religion - I Want To Conquer The World
8. System of a Down - Snowblind
9. Sneaker Pimps - 6 Underground
10. Outkast - Rosa Parks (Wanted Dead or Alive Remix w/ Snoop Dogg & Tupac)
I feel like going into a little more detail today, so here we go:
1. I know a lot of people that don't like Linkin Park, dismissing them as an MTV-friendly rap-metal band. In fact, when my family moved from where they lived before to where they live now, my brother told me that most people in his new highschool hate Linkin Park, preferring instead bands like P.O.D. and Puddle Of Mudd.
These people are, of course, idiots. Linkin Park is the only band that consistently does the rap-metal thing well. Beyond that, their lead singer manages to actually sound good when he screams, something that only a select few singers can do (although I have already made several bets with my friends that he's going to blow his voice out within the next three years). The only downside to Linkin Park is that every song is basically about the same thing: "Some girl hurt me, but I'm determined that it won't ruin my life. In fact, I will grow stronger, and be triumphant." If they're not careful, they'll wind up as a higher-energy version of Staind ("My parents fucked me up and I can never be happy").
2. There is no doubt in my mind that Snoop is the best MC out there today, and very possibly the best ever. Where so many hip-hop artists work really hard to look like badasses, Snoop makes everything seem effortless. How many other MCs can you picture delivering their lines while relaxing in a big leather chair with a cigar in one hand? Not many.
A prime example of this is the Welcome To Atlanta remix, that has some of the more popular MCs from across the country on it. The last verse is Snoop's, and he absolutely puts the rest of them to shame. He's been better than all of them since before any of them started, and he'll continue to be better long after they fade into obscurity.
As a side note, Snoop is one of the only MCs that I can crank up on the car stereo without feeling like a stupid white boy.
3. Maynard is God. We all know this; I don't need to get into why. I just want to point out that, while I like his Tool stuff better than Pefect Circle, The Hollow being played on a piano with Maynard using his crooning voice (as opposed to his angry "I hate you" voice, or his "I'm better and smarter than you" voice) is something that no one who cares for Tool even a little bit should miss. You can definitely see the influence of Tori Amos (who he is good friends with) on this one.
4. Four years ago, when Californication came out, I nearly shit myself when the Scar Tissue video came on one day and my brother asked, "Who are those guys?"
I just couldn't comprehend the fact that people existed who didn't know who the Chili Peppers are -- and my brother is not music-illiterate.
It was this that impressed on me more than anything just how big a come-back they made with that album. While By The Way isn't quite as good as Californication (I still can't decide whether Californication is better than Blood Sugar Sex Magik...they're both awe-inspiring), it's still one of the best albums (along with the White Stripes' White Blood Cells, Eminem's The Eminem Show, and The Streets' Original Pirate Material) released in the last year.
5. I don't know who the hell this guy is, but he's one of the coolest people I've ever heard in my life. The Streets received a touch of popularity a few months ago with Let's Push Things Forward, but I think that's pretty much played out now. The novelty of a British semi-rapper seems to have worn off, which is unfortunate, because the other tracks on Original Pirate Material are just as good, if not better than, Let's Push Things Forward. Stay Positive is my favorite, because it has so many good lines in it ("I ain't no preaching fucker and I ain't no do-goodie goodie either. This about when shit goes pear-shaped. And if you aren't or never have been at rock-bottom, then good luck to you in the big wide world. But remember that one day shit might just start crumbling- Your bird might fuck off or you might lose your job.")
The way this guy combines good mixing skills with Cake-style spoken lyrics is absolutely brilliant. Go buy this album now.
6. Anyone who doesn't like Stone Temple Pilots is either older than 35 or has no soul. Intersate Love Song, one of their best-known songs, is also one of their best. Every road trip I go on absolutely must begin with this song blaring...it's very much "driving into the sunset with the windows down" music.
7. The chorus says it all:
8. I'm not a huge Sytem Of A Down fan, but my brother got me into them a little bit -- enough to discover this cover of one of my favorite Black Sabbath songs. I didn't like it at first (I am extremely defensive about Black Sabbath. It is extremely rare that I find a cover of one of their songs that I think does justice to the original), but after listening to it a few times, I realized that it's actually a damn good modernization of the song. It's also just twisted enough to do justice to the original spirit of Sabbath. I think Ozzy/Iommi/Butler/Ward would approve of it.
9. One of those songs that just makes you feel cool when you're walking down the street listening to it. Don't ask me to explain. It's just the way it works.
10. A remix I found on the net a while ago. One of my favorite Outkast songs, combined with a king-hell cool collaboration between 2pac and Snoop. One of the problems with a lot of third-party remixes is that a lot of times the lyric track doesn't quite fit with the beat track; some lines are out of rhythm, the transition between the original score and the added lyrics is too abrupt, that kind of thing. But this is one of those almost magical mixes that takes two good songs, and combines them in such a way that the result is a song with the best parts of each that sounds like it could be an original. Good times.
1. Linkin Park - Somewhere I Belong
2. Snoop Dogg - Gz and Hustlas
3. A Perfect Circle - The Hollow (Live Acoustic)
4. Red Hot Chili Peppers - Can't Stop
5. The Streets - Stay Positive
6. Stone Temple Pilots - Interstate Love Song
7. Bad Religion - I Want To Conquer The World
8. System of a Down - Snowblind
9. Sneaker Pimps - 6 Underground
10. Outkast - Rosa Parks (Wanted Dead or Alive Remix w/ Snoop Dogg & Tupac)
I feel like going into a little more detail today, so here we go:
1. I know a lot of people that don't like Linkin Park, dismissing them as an MTV-friendly rap-metal band. In fact, when my family moved from where they lived before to where they live now, my brother told me that most people in his new highschool hate Linkin Park, preferring instead bands like P.O.D. and Puddle Of Mudd.
These people are, of course, idiots. Linkin Park is the only band that consistently does the rap-metal thing well. Beyond that, their lead singer manages to actually sound good when he screams, something that only a select few singers can do (although I have already made several bets with my friends that he's going to blow his voice out within the next three years). The only downside to Linkin Park is that every song is basically about the same thing: "Some girl hurt me, but I'm determined that it won't ruin my life. In fact, I will grow stronger, and be triumphant." If they're not careful, they'll wind up as a higher-energy version of Staind ("My parents fucked me up and I can never be happy").
2. There is no doubt in my mind that Snoop is the best MC out there today, and very possibly the best ever. Where so many hip-hop artists work really hard to look like badasses, Snoop makes everything seem effortless. How many other MCs can you picture delivering their lines while relaxing in a big leather chair with a cigar in one hand? Not many.
A prime example of this is the Welcome To Atlanta remix, that has some of the more popular MCs from across the country on it. The last verse is Snoop's, and he absolutely puts the rest of them to shame. He's been better than all of them since before any of them started, and he'll continue to be better long after they fade into obscurity.
As a side note, Snoop is one of the only MCs that I can crank up on the car stereo without feeling like a stupid white boy.
3. Maynard is God. We all know this; I don't need to get into why. I just want to point out that, while I like his Tool stuff better than Pefect Circle, The Hollow being played on a piano with Maynard using his crooning voice (as opposed to his angry "I hate you" voice, or his "I'm better and smarter than you" voice) is something that no one who cares for Tool even a little bit should miss. You can definitely see the influence of Tori Amos (who he is good friends with) on this one.
4. Four years ago, when Californication came out, I nearly shit myself when the Scar Tissue video came on one day and my brother asked, "Who are those guys?"
I just couldn't comprehend the fact that people existed who didn't know who the Chili Peppers are -- and my brother is not music-illiterate.
It was this that impressed on me more than anything just how big a come-back they made with that album. While By The Way isn't quite as good as Californication (I still can't decide whether Californication is better than Blood Sugar Sex Magik...they're both awe-inspiring), it's still one of the best albums (along with the White Stripes' White Blood Cells, Eminem's The Eminem Show, and The Streets' Original Pirate Material) released in the last year.
5. I don't know who the hell this guy is, but he's one of the coolest people I've ever heard in my life. The Streets received a touch of popularity a few months ago with Let's Push Things Forward, but I think that's pretty much played out now. The novelty of a British semi-rapper seems to have worn off, which is unfortunate, because the other tracks on Original Pirate Material are just as good, if not better than, Let's Push Things Forward. Stay Positive is my favorite, because it has so many good lines in it ("I ain't no preaching fucker and I ain't no do-goodie goodie either. This about when shit goes pear-shaped. And if you aren't or never have been at rock-bottom, then good luck to you in the big wide world. But remember that one day shit might just start crumbling- Your bird might fuck off or you might lose your job.")
The way this guy combines good mixing skills with Cake-style spoken lyrics is absolutely brilliant. Go buy this album now.
6. Anyone who doesn't like Stone Temple Pilots is either older than 35 or has no soul. Intersate Love Song, one of their best-known songs, is also one of their best. Every road trip I go on absolutely must begin with this song blaring...it's very much "driving into the sunset with the windows down" music.
7. The chorus says it all:
"I want to conquer the world,Yes, I know. He's being semi-ironic in a mid-eighties punk sort of way. I know the song is about the futility of such hopes...but so what. It's still a hell of a lot of fun to scream along with.
Give all the idiots a brand new religion,
Do away with poverty uncleanliness and toil,
Promote equality in all our decisions,
I want to conquer the world,
Expose the culprits and feed them to the children,
Do away with air pollution and then I'll save the whales,
Well have peace on Earth and global communion,
I want to conquer the world. "
8. I'm not a huge Sytem Of A Down fan, but my brother got me into them a little bit -- enough to discover this cover of one of my favorite Black Sabbath songs. I didn't like it at first (I am extremely defensive about Black Sabbath. It is extremely rare that I find a cover of one of their songs that I think does justice to the original), but after listening to it a few times, I realized that it's actually a damn good modernization of the song. It's also just twisted enough to do justice to the original spirit of Sabbath. I think Ozzy/Iommi/Butler/Ward would approve of it.
9. One of those songs that just makes you feel cool when you're walking down the street listening to it. Don't ask me to explain. It's just the way it works.
10. A remix I found on the net a while ago. One of my favorite Outkast songs, combined with a king-hell cool collaboration between 2pac and Snoop. One of the problems with a lot of third-party remixes is that a lot of times the lyric track doesn't quite fit with the beat track; some lines are out of rhythm, the transition between the original score and the added lyrics is too abrupt, that kind of thing. But this is one of those almost magical mixes that takes two good songs, and combines them in such a way that the result is a song with the best parts of each that sounds like it could be an original. Good times.
Still Alive
So, yeah. I've been busy, and sick, and pissed off at my computer. So I just didn't do anything that involved the use of this damn thing on my desk, including VeryVeryHappy.
For those of you that have been good enough to check in regularly, sorry. I'm back now, and I intend to stay for a while.
I have to take my dog to the vet this afternoon, but I have two non-political posts that I scratched out this morning as proof that I'm not dead. I'll get back to regularly scheduled posting tonight.
So, yeah. I've been busy, and sick, and pissed off at my computer. So I just didn't do anything that involved the use of this damn thing on my desk, including VeryVeryHappy.
For those of you that have been good enough to check in regularly, sorry. I'm back now, and I intend to stay for a while.
I have to take my dog to the vet this afternoon, but I have two non-political posts that I scratched out this morning as proof that I'm not dead. I'll get back to regularly scheduled posting tonight.
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Vindication, Of A Sort
Last week, I wrote a post about pro-war and anti-war songs. One of the things I said was:
You'll excuse me if I don't feel particularly good about being right on this one, though.
Last week, I wrote a post about pro-war and anti-war songs. One of the things I said was:
"...there are a lot of artists much more popular than Darryl Worley who no doubt would be penning anti-war songs were it not for the fact that the company that virtually controls rock and country radio in this country seems to have the nasty habit of blackballing bands that voice any sort of significant dissent..."Today, while reading Tim Robbins' speech to the National Press Club, I happened upon this:
"A famous rock and roller called me last week to thank me for speaking out against the war only to go on to tell me that he could not speak himself because he fears repercussions from Clear Channel. 'They promote our concert appearances,' he said. 'They own most of the stations that play our music. I can't come out against this war.'"Score one for me, I guess.
You'll excuse me if I don't feel particularly good about being right on this one, though.
Holy Shit
Ronald Reagan's kid is harder on Bush than the SCLM.
He even hits the Good Doctor Frist where it hurts:
Update: Jim E. points out that Ronald Jr. has always been a liberal. While this is true, I think that it's significant that such harsh words are being thrown at the people who lay claim to the mantle of Reagan by Reagan's son. Beyond that, RR Jr. raises an issue I have always thought should be given a higher profile: the fact that so many Reagan-worshippers are opposed to stem-cell research, the very research that could one day provide a cure for the disease that has afflicted their hero.
I just don't get that.
Ronald Reagan's kid is harder on Bush than the SCLM.
He even hits the Good Doctor Frist where it hurts:
"Reagan says his family feels particularly alienated from the Republican Party over its opposition to embryonic stem cell research, which could have significant benefit for Alzheimer patients like his father. "Now ignorance is one thing, ignorance can be cured. But many of the Republican leaders opposing this research know better, people like [Senate Majority Leader] Bill Frist, who's a doctor, for God's sake. People like him are blocking it to pander to the 20 percent of their base who are mouth-breathers. And that's unconscionable -- there are lives at stake here. Stem cell research can revolutionize medicine, more than anything since antibiotics."I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry.
Update: Jim E. points out that Ronald Jr. has always been a liberal. While this is true, I think that it's significant that such harsh words are being thrown at the people who lay claim to the mantle of Reagan by Reagan's son. Beyond that, RR Jr. raises an issue I have always thought should be given a higher profile: the fact that so many Reagan-worshippers are opposed to stem-cell research, the very research that could one day provide a cure for the disease that has afflicted their hero.
I just don't get that.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
That's Cute
Mr. Reynolds has started referring to CNN's admission that some stories were spiked to prevent sources from being killed by Hussein's government as "CNN's journalistic Enron Scandal."
That's funny. I missed the part where CNN had massive ties to the Bush administration, screwed everyone involved with the company who wasn't an executive of some sort, and defrauded Californians out of large sums of money.
Mr. Reynolds has started referring to CNN's admission that some stories were spiked to prevent sources from being killed by Hussein's government as "CNN's journalistic Enron Scandal."
That's funny. I missed the part where CNN had massive ties to the Bush administration, screwed everyone involved with the company who wasn't an executive of some sort, and defrauded Californians out of large sums of money.
Monday, April 14, 2003
Onward Christian Soldiers
The BBC:
Link via Atrios, for a different story
The BBC:
1645:US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accuses Syria of conducting a chemical weapons test "over the past 12, 15 months".
Link via Atrios, for a different story
Bad Omens
All right, it was bad enough when Rumsfeld was shooting his mouth off (or "taking a 'Damn kids! Get off my lawn!' approach to foreign policy, in the immortal words of John Stewart), but now that the President himself is saying the same kinds of things, I'm starting to get a little nervous.
I think I'm going to start a pool to see how long it takes for at least 40% of the US population to believe that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Syrian.
Come on, July 13-19! Daddy needs a new pair of shoes.
All right, it was bad enough when Rumsfeld was shooting his mouth off (or "taking a 'Damn kids! Get off my lawn!' approach to foreign policy, in the immortal words of John Stewart), but now that the President himself is saying the same kinds of things, I'm starting to get a little nervous.
I think I'm going to start a pool to see how long it takes for at least 40% of the US population to believe that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Syrian.
Come on, July 13-19! Daddy needs a new pair of shoes.
Sunday, April 13, 2003
Bailing Out
MyDD points out that Jose Aznar of Spain is no longer being held up as a prominent member of the Iraqi war coalition, and ties this fact to his likely defeat in next month's elections.
While it makes sense that the Bush administration would choose to distance itself from a prominent supporter when that support is about to get said supporter thrown out of office, this raises an interesting question: since we've already established that quite a few people in the UK and Australia are pissed off at their leaders for supporting the war, what happens if Howard and Blair look like they are in imminent danger?
After all, it's easy to ditch Spain, but wouldn't it be a little harder to bail on a member of the vaunted "Anglosphere" without taking significant political heat?
Although, really, it's not a very safe bet to underestimate the brazenness of this administration. After all, they've already started slapping PM Blair around when it comes to reconstruction contracts.
Maybe it wouldn't be that hard after all.
So, come on then, leaders of the world, who wants to be our friend?
Anyone? Anyone?
MyDD points out that Jose Aznar of Spain is no longer being held up as a prominent member of the Iraqi war coalition, and ties this fact to his likely defeat in next month's elections.
While it makes sense that the Bush administration would choose to distance itself from a prominent supporter when that support is about to get said supporter thrown out of office, this raises an interesting question: since we've already established that quite a few people in the UK and Australia are pissed off at their leaders for supporting the war, what happens if Howard and Blair look like they are in imminent danger?
After all, it's easy to ditch Spain, but wouldn't it be a little harder to bail on a member of the vaunted "Anglosphere" without taking significant political heat?
Although, really, it's not a very safe bet to underestimate the brazenness of this administration. After all, they've already started slapping PM Blair around when it comes to reconstruction contracts.
Maybe it wouldn't be that hard after all.
So, come on then, leaders of the world, who wants to be our friend?
Anyone? Anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
