War: Memorial Day

Read the whole thing [link].

In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.

Misc: Carpal Tunnel Threat

Awesome. Go checkthis out. And, then, someone buy me one of these. Black sleeves, size "L" please.

Every time I see one of those Hummers, I mutter "Jackass." to myself. Now, instead of just cursing, I'll be able to crash my Jetta as I try to photograph my finger along with the Hummer with my camera-phone... good times.

[Link courtesy of a good, serious post at the Carpetbagger Report.]

Blogs: Big Time

Hoo-Ha. I've made somebody's blogroll.

"Reasonable" Rightie John Cole of Balloon Juice added me to his "To My Left" listings. He's been listed and linked here for a while now, and I should reiterate that since the Schiavo fiasco, and his slow turn against his Party, his site has been among my favorites. While we still disagree on some issues, I find myself battling his wingnut readers alongside him more often than not. He's one of the Republicans who has truly seen the ugly side of what his Party's leadership is up to, and ain't afraid to point it out.

His site is worth checking out, and be sure to enter the comment threads, it's a much more stimulating debate than you'll find at many lefty sites, which tend to be echo chambers.

I'm curious if it will lead to actual readers here... one can dream...

Politics: Snowballs and Re-districting

Sigh... The Carpetbagger, Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) and I can dream about it...

Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.), a leading Blue Dog Democrat who saw several of his Texas colleagues lose in November because of redistricting, will launch his legislation this week. The veteran Member is seeking to create national standards for redistricting that include the creation of nonpartisan commissions in each state to redraw Congressional district lines just once every 10 years.

...but, alas, the first district effected by this legislation will be the frozen section of Hell.

Politics: Put Up or Shut Up

From BlondeSense:

Are You Opposed to Embryonic Stem Cell Research? Put It in Writing

Are you opposed to embryonic stem cell research? If so, I challenge you to draw up a directive similar to a living will. Please create a form and sign it. This form would direct all medical personnel to deny you or your family any medication or treatment derived from embryonic stem cell research whether developed in this country or any other country. Please have your wishes witnessed and notarized. Give a copy to your lawyer and to several friends and family members whom you trust.

The first person I would ask to do this would be George W. Bush, the President of the United States. I would then ask all Senators and Representatives who vote against embryonic stem cell research to do the same thing. This way they may display their sincere dedication and free their conscience of any guilt. They may protect themselves and their families from benefiting from something they say creates life to destroy life, something they condemn as morally wrong. Unless and until they do this, they must allow the research to continue.

To profess to be against embryonic stem cell research but to refuse to sign such a form would display the ultimate hypocrisy.

Submitted by Pissed_Off_Patricia @ 10:00 AM

Damn straight.

Politics: Nuclear Disarmament

Well, it looks like there'll be no mushroom cloud over D.C. tomorrow. Kos (and a few others) are announcing a backroom deal averting the showdown that was set to unfold tomorrow in the Senate.

I've got to say, I'm surprised. I came online to find out about Reid's televised address, and now with the fallout from the deal, I don't even know if he actually even made the address... I'm not shocked, after all, everyone knew there was a group of moderates from each side going back and forth on this. But I thought that effort was too little, too late.

Before I go further, let me give Harry Reid tremendous props. I'm not sure what role, if any, he had in this compromise, but up until this moment, he completely outplayed Bill Frist in every way imaginable. Based on this deal I don't know what the future has in store for the Dems, the Republicans, or the Courts, but I know one thing -- Bill Frist is done. Put a fucking fork in him as an effective Majority Leader and his White House chances in '08.

There hasn't been a lot of analysis written on this yet, and I don't pretend to know all the particulars, but my immediate reaction is disappointment. Not "the sky is falling", "they sold us out" outrage spewing from the fringes on both sides, but I'm disappointed nonetheless. First, I really was looking forward to the drama. This was going to be exciting no matter what happened, and now this seems completely anti-climactic. But I'm also disappointed because I think we snatched a lesser defeat from the jaws of an uncertain victory.

Hunh?

Let me explain what I mean by that. There is no question Harry Reid was holding a really weak hand. He is outnumbered by ten seats and was depending on not only holding all of the Democrats in line, but peeling off several Republicans to actually win this showdown. Relying on the goodness (or conscience) of Republicans was definitely a risky gambit. The whole reason this compromise ever came about is because the vote was truly too close to call. Senators on both sides were afraid to go on the record voting for or against this thing if they couldn't gauge how it would go down. It has more to do with that than any high-ground bullshit you'll hear from them, don't forget it.

The probelm with this and every compromise floated before it, is that the Dems have to give something up right off the bat, while the Republicans are merely agreeing to the status quo. Sort of. The Republicans agree (for now) not to try and eliminate the filibuster if the Democrats (for now) agree not to use it except in extreme (?) circumstances.

What did it take to reach that agreement? The three worst judges get up or down votes (Brown, Owen, Pryor) now, and Saad and Myers get pseudo-bustered 'til their nominations are dead. That still leaves two other judges not specifically mentioned. Lindsay Graham (can I like this guy or not?) hints that one of the up or down vote judges will "probably" go down, whatever that means... Oh, and it appears that new nominees have to get a once-over from these "moderates" before they'll get fair consideration. Let's see how that goes over...

So it seems like we effectively stopped half of these judges and retained the ability to filibuster a Supreme court nominee. Since the filibuster of Supreme Court nominees is the ultimate prize, we win here. It was never really about these particular judges for the White House. This was all about picking this fight, and provoking the nuclear option vote. They were counting on it, and counting on winning it. That's why the stakes were so high for the religious fundamentalists. It's all about Rehnquist's seat. If they won, they would have set the stage for ramming a true idealogue onto the Supreme Court.

So why am I lukewarm on this? Well, I think we might still have won. If that happened, it would really have split the Republican party, the White House would have tremendous black eye, and the fundamentalist religious right would have been dealt a big blow. Now, we'll never know. Doing that kind of damage was worth the risk.

And if we didn't have the votes to win? I liked Reid's plan for retaliation -- to abandon the Senate comity rules. This was mischaracterized as "the Democrats will shut down the Senate." Not true. Unlike Gingrich, the Democrats wouldn't literally close anything down, they'd just start offering up their own agenda. It is a courtesy that the majority party is allowed to set the agenda, and if the majority is going to toss all tradition and comity out the window, why should we oblige them further? Reid had tremendous legislation lined up and would have forced the Republicans to go on record voting it down. I liked that plan.

As it is now, the DEmocrats will be forced to filibuster someone down the road, for the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court. Bush will make sure of it. And then, the Republicans, Fox and Rush will cry that the Democrats are renegging on their deal, and we are back where we started. Except the worst of these judges will already be comfortably on the bench, and we'll have let the Republicans off the hook—public opinion was with us on this, next time, I don't think we'll be so lucky.

This deal was probably the prudent move. But once in a while I want go for something more than prudent, I want to go for the throat.

Sports: Stadium Scam

Mayor Bloomberg in NYC is pushing for a new stadium for the Jets on the West Side of Manhattan. There are a million 2.2 billion reasons why this is a bad idea logistically and financially, but the best, clearest argument I've read regarding this particular project is this [via Steve G]:

...hardly any of the ordinary taxpayers and transit riders subsidizing this glittering playground on the Hudson will be able to see the Jets play there. This is not like Yankee Stadium, where you can actually go to a game. Unless you've already got season tickets (or unless you're wealthy and can afford one of the staggeringly expensive luxury suites), you're out of luck.

The Jets' Web site couldn't be clearer about this. Under the heading "Waitlist Policy," it says: "The New York Jets are sold out on a season ticket basis. There are NO individual game tickets available. If you are not a season ticket holder, you may join our Waitlist. There are currently over 10,000 people on our Waitlist."

You have to pay $50 a year just to be on the waiting list. The wait is approximately 10 years. And after waiting 10 years, the maximum number of tickets you can buy is four. Does this sound like a good deal for a stadium that you're helping to pay for? [link]

I think pretty much all publicly-financed stadiums are a crock of shit, but this one is by far the worst. People's eyes tend to glaze over when the numbers get tossed around, and once you're talking in the hundreds of millions, it becomes too abstract for the layman. Pointing out that the average Jet fan will likely never see the inside of this place ought to drive it home to everyone in NYC that Bloomberg's chasing a complete boondoggle.

Idiots: Evacuation Caused by Two Complete Dumbasses

After reading this it is my determination that these two imbeciles, threat or no, should have been shot out the sky if not on principle, but to spare innocent bystanders from their inevitible Darwin Award-winning airplane related catastrophe.

How is it that you are allowed to fly a fucking plane around with the radio off, without maps, common sense, or the ability to identify common landmarks like the goddamn Washington monument or U.S. Capitol??!! These rubes are too stupid for their day jobs (truck driver and vacuum salesman), never mind granting them a license to fly a plane.

If you read the course of events, it is almost unbelievable that these guys were spared a fiery air-to-air demise. They were intercepted by a Blackhawk helicopter, a Border patrol jet and eventually two Air Force F-16s had to fire flares at them to get them to wake up and change course. I guess if you're that dumb, you have to be pretty lucky to live to be 69.

Outrage: Give Him the Finger

[via Kevin Drum] Not just another one of those "there was a finger in my chili" stories, this one's real, and it unfolded quickly enough that something could have been done about it. Except the guy who found the finger is an unbelievable dick...

[link] ...Soon after [Clarence] Stowers found [a] finger in a mouthful of chocolate soft-serve he bought Sunday at Kohl's Frozen Custard in Wilmington, he put it in his freezer at home, taking it out only occasionally to show to television cameras.

He refused to give it to the shop's owner, and refused to give it to a doctor who was treating Fizer, who accidentally stuck his hand in a mixing machine and had his right index finger lopped off at the first knuckle.

Medical experts say an attempt to reattach a severed finger can generally be made within six hours.

But according to the shop's management, Stowers wouldn't give it back when he was in the store 30 minutes after the accident.

"The general manager attempted to retrieve it and rush it to the hospital," reads a statement posted Thursday on Kohl's Web site. "Unfortunately, the customer refused to give it to her and declared that he would be calling the TV stations and an attorney as he exited the store."

Officials at Cape Fear Hospital said their efforts to retrieve the finger also failed.

And aside from the obvious motivation of pure greed, what is this asshole's excuse?

Stowers' attorney, Lee Andrews of Greensboro, wouldn't say if a lawsuit against Kohl's is planned, saying he needed "to get some more facts."

But Andrews said his client is concerned about possible disease in the fingertip and kept it because he wanted someone to test it for "all the diseases that are out here now."

"He's upset to the point that he's been debilitated to some degree," Andrews said. "Emotionally, it's been very upsetting to him."

Are you kidding me? What is "debiltating" and "emotionally upsetting" is having your goddamn finger torn off before your eyes and then having to watch your client drive off with it!!! And the "concern" about having the finger tested is total crap. You know who's finger it is, get a blood sample from him and test that, but give the guy a chance to have his finger reattached.

This jackass Stowers deserves some Biblical justice -- a fingertip for a fingertip, I say. Barring that, for the rest of his misbegotten life, he should be forced to wear a hat/drive a car that announces what a dick he is and what he did, so every food service worker that ever has to serve him is given motive and opportunity to do nasty shit to his food first. And that goes double for his lawyer.

Finally, what kind of a House of Horrors is this custard shop? This was the second finger incident in that mixer. And how exactly did this event unfold that someone can lose a finger in the food being produced and it continues to be served? None of the clowns running that place should ever be allowed in the food-service industry again. I'm not quite sure what that leaves them qualified for, but it's more along the lines of handling the products leaving the body.

[UPDATE]: More info and a better timeline of the event, here. It should be pointed out that the guy who gave his finger so that others could enjoy custard, was fired for his trouble. Sue the living hell out of that place, young man, you deserve it.

TV: Too Much of a Good Thing?

[via Atrios] Stephen Colbert is getting his own show spun-off of "The Daily Show."

'Daily Show' Personality Gets His Own Platform

Stephen Colbert, who plays a phony correspondent on the fake-news program "The Daily Show," is getting a real promotion.

Comedy Central said yesterday that it was giving Mr. Colbert his own show: a half-hour that is expected to follow "The Daily Show" on weeknights and will lampoon those cable-news shows that are dominated by the personality and sensibility of a single host. Think, he said, of Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity.

Where "The Daily Show" and its host, Jon Stewart, generally spoof the headlines of the day (and the anchors and reporters who deliver them), Mr. Colbert's program will send up those hosts who have become household names doing interviews and offering analyses each night on the 24-hour cable news channels.

[...] "In the way 'The Daily Show' is kind of a goof on the structure of news, this is more of a goof on the cult of personality-type shows," Mr. Stewart said in an interview.

[...] That "The Daily Show" has reached the point that it is considered ripe for a spinoff is something of a milestone for the program and for Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom. But in moving Mr. Colbert off "The Daily Show" - he is expected to make only intermittent return visits - the network is also risking diluting a recipe that has made it so popular.

To that end, Comedy Central is considering ripping an actual page from the cable news networks it so often mocks, and having Mr. Stewart, at the end of his half-hour show, share a split-screen with Mr. Colbert, in what is known in the news business as a "throw" or "toss."

"It could be kind of seamless," said Doug Herzog, president of Comedy Central and Spike TV, who presided over the debut of "The Daily Show" in 1996. "It would have the effect of extending 'The Daily Show' to a full hour."

At least they're not all quitting for movie careers... I'm not sure how successful this formula will be. They've mocked the O'Reilly's with some funny fake promos for "The Colbert Report" before. Those loudmouth shows are ripe for the mockin' and deserve it. It has the potential to be hilarious. But it also has the potential to be the last half-hour of Saturday Night Live -- you know the not-funny-enough skit that never ends...

Here's hoping it's hilarious, and that the pompous blowhards they lampoon cry themselves to sleep every night.

BS: Kristol meth

On the Diane Rehm Show a while back, Bill Kristol defended the record of the Bush Administration, and John Bolton in particular, saying, "Everyone, even liberals would agree, [the work on] proliferation has been a tremendous success."

Exactly how does Bill Kristol define "success"? By what measure has the anti-proliferation efforts of the first Bush term been a success? Pakistan was running a weapons Wal-Mart. Iraq? North Korea? Two of the three Axis of Evil countires have made significant progress on weapons programs. Iran is actively working on them, and NK is already sweeping up the lab for the night and ready to test 'em. And the other Axis of Evil member? The very motivation for invading Iraq, prevention of proliferation, has turned out to be a joke/lie. Either the weapons weren't there, or we allowed them ALL to escape into dangerous hands. Where is the success?

WFT?: "Mr. Fox, here's your henhouse..."

[via Ezra who saw it at Atrios']

Yesterday the new Iraqi parliament approved a Cabinet of Ministers. Most of the Ministries were filled, but a few key positions will be manned by temporary "acting" Ministers pending a final selection. Ahmed Chalabi is going to be the acting Oil Minister of Iraq. One of the other temporary positions is Minister of Defense. Why not just name Curveball to that post...?

The Oil Ministry was the only building protected by the troops against looting during the invasion, so much for that now...

Politics: The Professor

I always enjoy Paul Krugman, and usually think he's right. This time I can only hope he's right...

The Oblivious Right

...Since November's election, the victors have managed to be on the wrong side of public opinion on one issue after another: the economy, Social Security privatization, Terri Schiavo, Tom DeLay. By large margins, Americans say that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and Mr. Bush is the least popular second-term president on record.

What's going on? Actually, it's quite simple: Mr. Bush and his party talk only to their base - corporate interests and the religious right - and are oblivious to everyone else's concerns.

[...] the great majority of Americans, who live off their wages, not dividends or capital gains, and aren't doing well at all. Over the past three years, wage and salary income grew less than in any other postwar recovery - less than a tenth as fast as profits. But wage-earning Americans aren't part of the base.

[...] It all makes you wonder how these people ever ended up running the country in the first place. But remember that in 2000, Mr. Bush pretended to be a moderate, and that in the next two elections he used the Iraq war as a wedge to divide and perplex the Democrats.

[...] But Americans are feeling a sense of dread: they're worried about a weak job market, soaring health care costs, rising oil prices and a war that seems to have no end. And they're starting to notice that nobody in power is even trying to deal with these problems, because the people in charge are too busy catering to a base that has other priorities.

Let's hope so. But the Democrats cannot sit around hoping this stuff continues to sink in. The media has shown that it will not do it's job, so they have to delier the message and they have to offer a positive agenda as an alternative. I think we are poised to do well in the mid-terms if we take advantage. [Krugman's full column posted in comments]

[FOLLOW-UP]: Now, I'm not happy that regular Americans are suffering or wishing for bad economic news... the fact is, it's true, and Bush doesn't give a shit -- he and his are doing fine, and always will be. What I'm hoping is that Bush and the Republicans in Congress are forced to pay consequences for what they're doing, and that Democrats will benefit as a result.

Politics: No Quarter

There are rumors afoot about a Democratic compromise on the filibuster showdown. I can only hope they are groundless, because the Dems would complete fools to offer anything to the Republicans on this. Ezra says "no way." The Carpetbagger is amenable to the "Drum Compomise," barely. George T in the Carpetbagger comments thread has more:

This is the time to take the stand, and it makes me angry that we, the Dems, are still using the old mind-set that comity and reason stand for something in our political environment. That mind-set is dead until at least the time that the Dems take back the White House and the Congress. Until then, we are morons of the lowest order to turn our backs on these thugs and believe we won’t get fucked. Give in or fight, those are the choices. Just like on the school yard, those who give in to Bully may be pitied but never respected or followed; at least get bloodied in a fight with the Bully, you get respected and, even if you lose today, tomorrow you may have some followers who are tired of being the Bully’s victims, too, and feel encouraged to maybe join with you in the next fight.

I'm with George. No compromise. Not before a vote anyway. The Dem position is looking pretty good right now, and I'd say Frist is reaching the point of an empty bluff pretty soon. If somehow he and Cheney wrangle the numbers, he calls for a vote, gets the rule change, we shut down the Senate. Then with legislation languishing, we offer something like the Drum Compromise. Not before.

Politics: Do Republicans Lose Sleep?

Once again, the brilliant Digby does what he does best. He prefectly crystallizes what I have been unable precisely put a finger on or put into words...

I Know You Are But What Am I

Matt Yglesias [link] wonders why the Republicans have been so blase about nominees lying outright to the Senate during their confirmation hearings when they may very well be at the mercy of Democrats in the future. Yesterday, Bill Frist righteously rebutted the argument set forth by some Republicans that the nuclear option would leave them powerless when Democrats came into power, by saying that if it was wrong for Democrats today it would be wrong for Republicans tomorrow. In truth it doesn't matter.

[...] There is absolutely no reason for the Republicans to fear that they will be held to the same standard as they hold Democrats, ever. These lies by Bush appointees are not going to be investigated and they will always remain in the realm of he said/she said, old news, whyareyoubringingthisupnow. Fuggedaboudit.

For instance, Matt brings up the fact that the Bush administration has hired convicted congressional liars from the Iran Contra era. But, one must also remember that those same convicted liars were all pardoned by George Bush Sr at a time when he was personally under investigation by a special prosecutor, thus effectively ending the probe. Immediately after Senior left office, however, there began a relentless series of demands by Republicans for special prosecutors investigating a list of shockingly trivial charges that eventually led to the impeachment of the president. The Republicans didn't worry that someone would make comparisons that would embarrass them. They are unembarrassable because they have found that they can ignore the prinicples of relevant difference, the universality principle, the golden rule or whatever you want to call it, and there will be no repercussions.

[...] In other words, there are no rules --- only actions that will keep them in power or strip them from it. They fight each battle separately and don't worry about the one they are going to fight tomorrow. And when the worm has turned and Democrats gain power again, everything will go back to square one and all of the the crimes that we spent that last five years screaming to get covered and investigated will be turned by the Republicans into indictments of Democrats.

Yesterday, James Dobson, alleged arbiter of moral standards, came to a ringing defense of Tom DeLay. Using the approved right wing talking points, he claimed that DeLay was the subject of a witchhunt financed by liberal millionaires. This is, of course, exactly what they did to Bill Clinton for eight long years. They have no sense of embarrassment at this; no sense of irony; not even a little bit of shame for unoriginality. No, it is as if these arguments have never been uttered before and have the full force of moral righteousness even though it is, to our eyes, infuriatingly absurd.

[...] The Republicans are rejecting reason in science, economics, rhetoric and governance and therefore we cannot expect that rules based upon a rational assumption that they will be applied to both sides equally are even relevant. We fight each battle anew. It's never over. Nothing is settled. This is why they hate the courts. Reason and finality are their enemy. These are the "I Know You Are But What Am I" Republicans and they have taken us into a new world of post enlightenment reality. We'd better get used to it.

Lack of a conscience and blind ideology means no guilt, never having to say your sorry, complete disregard for hypocisy, no worry about future consequences, and an expectation of absolute and total loyalty.

Must be nice to be a Republican in a vacuum. It's up to us to poke enough holes in this that they get sucked out into space and explode...

Politics: More Bolton

Even Tony Blair wants nothing to do with this guy.

[MSNBC] ...On several occasions, America's closest ally in the war on terror, Britain, was irked by what U.S. and British sources say were efforts by Bolton to undermine promising diplomatic openings. Perhaps the most dramatic instance took place early in the U.S.-British talks in 2003 to force Libya to surrender its nuclear program, NEWSWEEK has learned. The Libya deal succeeded only after British officials "at the highest level" persuaded the White House to keep Bolton off the negotiating team. A crucial issue, according to sources involved in the affair, was Muammar Kaddafi's demand that if Libya abandoned its WMD program, the U.S. in turn would drop its goal of regime change. But Bolton was unwilling to support this compromise. The White House agreed to keep Bolton "out of the loop," as one source puts it. A deal was struck only after Kaddafi was reassured that Bush would settle for "policy change"—surrendering his WMD.

So, one of Bolton's alleged "successes" as the guy in charge of anti-proliferation actually occured in spite of his efforts not due to them. And as we all know, he pretty much blew it on all other non-proliferation issues (N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, loose nukes...) as well.

Politics: Good Republicans

I've already commended Connecticut's Republican Gov. Jodi Rell for her (seemingly) enthusiastic signing of Civil Unions Legislation yesterday. The other Republican of the Week (and believe me, this is not a weekly award) is Senator George Vionovich of Ohio. Voinovich single-handedly stopped the fast-track nomination approval of maniac John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador. After all the negative testimony on this matter, the other Republicans were ready to rubber-stamp and move Bolton out of Committee and onto an up or down vote, even to the point of adjourning the Senate for the whole day until 4:30 so Democrats couldn't speak out on the floor.

In the face of what was surely blistering pressure from his Party, Voinovich stood up and said "Wait a second! These are some serious allegations, I'm not comfortable voting on this yet. We need to further examine this candidate." [or words to that effect]

Well, of course, he is now subject to smears and campaigns from the wingnut right. All for the crime of taking his job seriously instead of merely serving as rubber-stamp for the President. From MovingAmercaForward.org's ad [my emphasis added]:

Wife: "Honey, were you watching C-SPAN today?  Did you hear how disloyal Senator Voinovich was to Republicans and President Bush?  Voinovich stood with the Democrats and refused to vote for John Bolton, the man President Bush has chosen to fight for the United States at the UN."

[...] "but then shows up at the last minute and stabs the President and Republicans right in the back."

[...] "how could Voinovich side with the Democrats in smearing John Bolton?

Husband:  It seems like Senator Voinovich has become a traitor to the Republican Party."

Jesus. Can you believe that crap? A traitor? It's not like Voinovich voted Bolton down, he just wants further analysis. Well, the Republicans can have none of that, it gets in the way of running a theocratic dictatorship.

The site then asks for donations to run the ad, and supplies links to contact Voinovich's staff. Fortunately, in their mad dash of slander, the links they put up are bad, so hopefully it will spare the Senator's office some of the vitriol. I went over to Voinovich's site and sent along a little "thank you" for his efforts.

I am not a constituent, not even a Republican, but I owe you my gratitude, Senator. You exhibited great courage in doing the right thing by asking for further debate on the nomination of John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador. Facing great pressure from your Party, you did this country a great service. I wish both Parties had more members of such character.

I hope you decide to oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination after closer examination of his record and reputation. Mr. Bolton is not worthy of this nomination. His record as a bureaucrat is incompatible with the position of U.N. Ambassador, and his reputation as a person is unbecoming of any higher office at all.

Thank you for your courage and consideration.

Bolton will now have to appear before the panel again in mid-May, by which time more and more dirt will surely surface, lessening his chances of confirmation. Bush has gotten greedy and cocky with power, but cracks are beginning to show among his supporters in Congress. Like the Kerik nomination, it's beginning to look like he can't just snap his fingers and get what he wants. At least not every time...

Misc: Life at BJU

This is great. Look over these rules for life on campus at Bob Jones University. Hilarious. Now I obviously expect some strict religious stuff, but they even require you to keep your dorm room clean! Highlights:

• Students are required to be in their own rooms and quiet at 11 pm. All lights must be out by midnight.

• Students are required to keep their rooms clean and neat. Rooms are inspected daily.

• All wireless access to the Internet is forbidden since all Internet use must go through the University's filtered access.

• Music must be compatible with the University's music standards: New Age, jazz, rock, and country music is not permitted. [Even] Contemporary Christian music is not permitted (e.g., Michael W. Smith, Stephen Curtis Chapman, WOW Worship, and so forth).

• Residence hall students may not watch videos above a G rating when visiting homes in town and may not attend movie theaters.

Oh, and you can bring your handgun to school, but it needs a trigger lock. But don't bring any video game that contains a gun... I love it. What kid would agree to go here?

[ADDENDUM]: I will give them this... The school has one of the nicest college/academic websites I've seen. Really. It's terrific. Easy to use and gorgeous. Maybe I should convert and go for my Masters in Graphic Design...

Politics: Connecticut Pride

Civil Unions Approved

Connecticut on Wednesday became the second state to recognize same-sex civil unions, and the first to do so without court pressure.

About an hour after the state Senate sent the legislation to her desk, Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed a bill that will allow thousands of gay and lesbian couples in Connecticut to be given the same rights and obligations as heterosexual couples, but not an actual marriage license. [...]

"I have said all along that I believe in no discrimination of any kind and I think that this bill accomplishes that, while at the same time preserving the traditional language that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Rell said after signing the bill into law.

Good for Rell. She's a Republican who will have to run for office in a little while and she did what was right for a change. If I still lived in CT, I'd say she's earned my vote with this one act.

It's been thirteen years since I lived in Connecticut, but it's where I grew up, and where I feel like I'm "from." Today I wish I could say I still called it home. Instead I live in Michigan. Home of last November's draconian gay-hating initiative that enshrines descrimination into the state constitution, and a Republican legislature passing a law allowing EMTs to refuse to answer a call from a gay household. Ugh. It sometimes feels like Ann Arbor might as well be in Kansas or Alabama...

Certainly I'd like to see Connecticut go for full-on gay marriage instead of civil unions, but if all things are equal but the name, what's the difference? Howard Dean was right on that one...let states do civil rights (and unions) and churches do marriage.

Politics: Bolton

The Rude Pundit sums up thusly:

John Bolton, Crazy Man:
Has anyone actually come up with a reason to vote for John Bolton for the United States Ambassador to the U.N.? Other than, you know, he was nominated by President Bush, whose popularity is sinking so fast that Hell can't get his shit room built fast enough for his inevitable coke-driven murder/suicide rampage. And Bolton apparently once or twice didn't piss on the heads of foreign leaders. The Rude Pundit is no wise and true Republican Senator, but isn't it kind of an insult to be told to support someone who, at minimum, is mean, aggressive, and egomaniacal, or, to be really honest, is as crazy as a shithouse rat? In fact, a shithouse rat would be a more sensible choice for the U.N.

Frankly, I can't get all that worked up about Bolton. I know he's an undeserving loyalist completely unprepared/unqualified for his nominated position, but I'm used to that with Bush... Beating him back will just lead to Bush choosing some other fucker from the bowels of the Reagan or Nixon Administration to take his place. If Bolton goes down in flames, great. But right now, the Democrats have bigger fights on heir hands and/or reasons to keep their powder dry.

UPDATE: Here is the best piece I've read on Bolton. Highlight:

Ambassadors practice diplomacy, and one part of diplomacy is getting people to do what you want them to do. There are, in general, three ways to do this. The first is pure persuasion: convincing the other party that they should do what you want them to do. The second is to offer them inducements for doing what you want. The third is to threaten bad consequences if they don't do what you want.

John Bolton would have a much more difficult time than most people engaging in pure persuasion. He has, after all, said that the UN doesn't really exist, that its actions should be largely dictated by the US, that no other country should have a seat at the Security Council, and that the US should use it when it suits our purposes and otherwise ignore it. [...]

Inducements are out: Bolton has said "I don't do carrots", and his record suggests that we should take him at his word. But that leaves only threats in his diplomatic repertoire; and working with only one of the three available tools of diplomacy is like wrestling with all but one of your limbs tied behind your back. [...] There are times when we should use threats, but the idea of having no other means at our disposal is really not a good one.

Politics: 2008

I'm done with Kerry. Edwards was underwhelming as Veep candidate, Hillary cannot win, Granholm cannot run (and I'm less and less enamored with her anyway), Dean has promised not to run as DNC Chair. I don't see any other player coming up from the ranks of the Senate, House or Governors. Biden? Bayh? I can't see any of these guys breaking free of the same things that undid Kerry. Out of touch Washington liberal elite, who's a Senate Dem and the Dems are weak on Defense.

The answer? Wesley Clark. I guess there was a convention in California this weekend, and Clark spoke. And by all accounts he kicked some ass. And he was on Bill Maher's HBO show, mopping the floor with David Frum. Today everybody's talking about Clark in 2008, and I'm joining right in. I love the guy. He had, to me, only one weakness in '04--inexperience as a campaigner. In many ways that can be a strength, but he was outclassed but some of the other candidates on TV and simply entered the race too late to get acclimated. If he can hold his own on a stage, in a debate and in an interview, there is simply no way to take him down. Where is the Republican line of attacK? I don't see it. He is the total package: Southern, former bad-ass general / Commander of NATO, Rhodes Scholar, first in his calss at West Point, progressive domestic policy, foriegn policy savvy, good looking, charming...and perhaps most importantly, no Washington baggage. No voting record to distort, no flip flops. Oh, and he will take no shit. If they try to Swift Boat Clark, he will level them.

Carpetbagger, Ezra, Armondo at kos, Yglesias, and MyDD have more, or at least a good thread of comments.

A follow-up to something I wrote above...Obviously the Republicans will attack Clark. And I'm sure there are actually weaknesses in his armor. Even Maximus from "Gladiator" would face the "Democrat pussy can't keep you safe" catcalls from the right. My point is that Clark is in a better position (and a better personality) to deflect those criticisms.

Politics: Bankruptcy Abomination Passes

It's official, the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act" (a.k.a. "The Credit Card Industry Corporate Giveaway and Consumer Sodomy Act") passed the house 302-126. Every single Republican voted for it, so it was going to pass anyway, but 73 fucking sell-out Democrats crossed over and joined them, giving the real sponsors and patrons of this Republican-originated and dominated piece-of-shit legislation the cover of "bipartisanship." You can bet your ass that the word "bipartisan" will be in the very first sentence uttered by the Boy King when he signs this thing next week.

There was no good reason for any Democrat to support this. Period. There was nothing "bipartisan" about this Bill. Republicans struck down every single possible amendment offered by the Dems that could have taken some of the edge off this horrendous bill. Often by a party-line vote. As result, the Democrats should have banded together and said, "Fine. We don't want our names on this thing, it's all yours." Why? Because there is not one single Democrat or potential Democrat voter in this country supporting this thing. In fact, I'd bet there aren't too many Republicans either. The only people who wanted this were the lending industries. It is bad for everybody else. Medical disaster? Lost your job? Sent to Iraq? You're fucked. You can never get out from under your debt now.

In 2006 it would have been nice to hang this anvil around the necks of the "Republicans who choose big business over regular Americans", but that can't happen as a nation-wide, Party message thanks to these 73 corporate whores. Thanks a lot for making defining our Party versus the Republicans a near impossibility. Fuck.

Lies: The Continuing Demonization of Michael Moore

Normally rational, if not agreeable (lately, at least) rightie John Cole's got his panties in a bunch and his readers all fired up about the latest "lies" from that big, fat, lying anti-American scumbag Michael Moore*. Those on the right are always belowing about how Moore is a certified wacko and "Fahrenheit 9/11" is full of lies. In fact, Moore is such a liar, he couldn't even help lying about the film's success way back when...

LIES MICHAEL MOORE TOLD ME

Apparently the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11 were not enough, and Michael Moore had to tell lies ABOUT the movie's popularity:

As publicity for Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore himself could not have written better stories. And he did seem to write some of them. “It sold out in Fayetteville, North Carolina, home of Fort Bragg,” he told the group at the MoveOn town meeting. “It sold out in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It got a standing ovation in Greensboro, North Carolina.” In a matter of hours, those quotes found their way into news reports, feeding the impression that Fahrenheit 9/11 was exciting audiences everywhere... that the movie was a phenomenon sweeping the country.

But was that really true? Certainly the picture had a spectacular opening weekend for a documentary. But Moore always claimed a special status for the movie, that it was much more than a documentary. (He withdrew it from Academy Award consideration in the documentary category, opting instead to position it unsuccessfully, as it turned out — for a Best Picture nomination.) [...York fails to note that this was done so that Moore could release the film on video in time for the election, not for the award...] And as a film phenomenon, Fahrenheit 9/11’s opening was not nearly as spectacular as Moore claimed.

To make a comparison: Which film had a better opening weekend, Fahrenheit 9/11 or Barbershop 2: Back in Business? The correct answer is Barbershop. [...York gleefully lists several more films...] In the end, Fahrenheit 9/11 had the 32nd-best opening weekend of 2004, taking in $23,920,637 in its first days.

Cole's source is an excerpt from Byron York's The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. York's "evidence" is such crap I cannot believe that an idiot like me can rip it apart and debunk it so easily. First of all, the film had the 32nd best opening weekend out of what (I presume) are 52 weekends, and hundreds of films released on those weekends. Not too shabby. For a fucking documentary that was probably shown on one-tenth the screens of Spider-Man 2. On this alone, York has to be a jackass to advance his argument, but he's got a ace up his sleeve...see, Moore bragged that even red-staters were flocking to the film, and York's got the goods on that angle...

Overall, Fahrenheit 9/11 did extremely well in North America’s top eight markets, according to the numbers compiled by Nielsen EDI. The film actually underperformed slightly in the largest market, Los Angeles...but it overperformed in the next seven largest markets. In New York it overperformed by nearly 43 percent; Fahrenheit 9/11 took in 11.12 percent of its total box office in that city alone...[blah, blah, blah]

That’s the upside of the story. The downside revealed by the Nielsen EDI numbers is that Fahrenheit 9/11, far from being the runaway nationwide hit that Moore claimed, underperformed in dozens of markets throughout red states...Dallas/Fort Worth, the ninth-largest movie market, accounts for 2.07 percent of North American box office but made up just 1.21 percent of Fahrenheit 9/11 box office, for an underperformance of nearly 42 percent... In Houston, ranked twelfth for movies, it underperformed by 38 percent...

That's your evidence of Moore's lies and the vast left-wing conspiracy? It's complete bullshit. Looking after-the-fact at the total recepts for a movie a year later, hyperanalyzing the breakdowns, and then declaring that it "underperformed" in certain areas? And based on this ridiculous extrapolation, that makes Moore a liar?

The film may very well have done all the things Moore claims (sell-out, ovations, etc) and York offers no evidence to the contrary. Even if the film did "underperform" over the long run (according to the averages for normal feature films, BTW), this is not a measure of opening weekend, which is what Moore was talking about. And the dramatic "overperformance" in the top markets would drag the other numbers down over the film's run. In other words, just because people in NYC flocked to the film and boosted the numbers, it doesn't mean less people saw it in Dallas, it just means less of a percentage did.

Oh, speaking of Moore's "lies" and could one of you asshats on the right point me to an accurate list of the film's "lies", I keep hearing about them, but once again, none of you guys (York, Cole and his readers) are giving any examples...

* I'll concede, Moore is fat, could use a shave, and could pick a better tux, but he's no scumbag, liar (until someone proves to me otherwise), nor does he hate America.

[UPDATE] Over in Cole's comment thread, someone directed me to this site for a catalog of the film's "lies." It's pretty tedious reading and in an awkward format. I will have to follow up later after I have some time to check it out.

On a final note, do they have nothing better to rant about after all this time?

Bush: Our Beloved President

Recent polls have Bush's numbers are a new low for his presidency, as well as historically for any second term President ever this soon after re-election. Well, it only gets worse for the Boy King when he ventures outside his bubble. At the Pope's funeral in Rome [via The Talent Show]...

He remarked on how affected he was by the services, particularly the music and the sight of the plain casket being carried out with the sun pouring down on it. As he viewed the pope's body, Bush said, he felt "very much at peace" and "much more in touch with his spirit."

[...] When Mr. Bush's face appeared on giant screen TVs showing the ceremony, many in the crowds outside St. Peter's Square booed and whistled.

Booed at the Pope's funeral. Ouch.

Ahh, makes me think of a story that only unforgiving and bitter sports fans will understand...

Back in the early 90s, Boston signed over-the-hill slugger/whiffer Jack Clark. He sucked for two years in a Sox uniform and then retired. His big contract and poor performance made him an unpopular figure with fans.

One day (the year after he retired) I was sitting through a rain delay at Fenway, and the scoreboard screen was showing an episode of "This Week In Baseball." There was a pre-game interview with some random Sox player on the show, and in the background of the shot, Jack Clark walked by to get into the batting cage. The rain-soaked Fenway faithful erupted in boos. That's right, a year after retiring, they booed the guy because he walked by onscreen. That is the toughest sports town...

Politics: Can Spock Solve the SS Crisis?

Jesse at Pandagon deftly dismantles the Bush Social Security rhetoric and their use of "infinity" to calculate the SS shortfalls:

The infinite horizon is a bad number because it tells us absolutely nothing. We do not and cannot have enough information about Social Security, about anything in 2500 to make any projection that has any meaning whatsoever. According to Star Trek, we can buy machines that replicate food for free by the mid-25th century. According to any number of bad Mad Max ripoffs, we'll be lucky if we aren't eating rats stewed in expired chicken broth while lame ass punk-wannabes ride around on motorcycles taunting us.

You can't make a projection without information, and we don't have information.

Then in the comments:

Post-apocalyptic biker-punks need to stop their partisan sniping and present their own plan for Social Security's future.

Somehow I don't think they have this much fun on the other side...