<$BlogRSDURL$>

6.24.2004

70 Minutes 

So U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald interviewed Bush in the Oval for 70 WHOLE MINUTES. Although I know I don't have to remind (the two of) you, this is the same guy who had Dickie hold his hand while they testified for the 9/11 Commission and pitched a fit about whether or not he had an hour available to do so.

So, his willingness to spend that much time with a prosecutor certainly tells me that someone takes this seriously, (as opposed to this jerk), but I wonder why?

Listen carefully to Scott McClellan...sound familiar???
McClellan noted that Bush has urged anyone with information about the case to come forward.
Um, okay, Johnnie, we'll be sure and do that.

ETA: Interesting that I came across this similar comparison.

|

6.23.2004

Heh, heh. They said "wad." 

Mary kindly pointed out this article in Washington Monthly magazine about subversive cartoons and the most-recently-popular incarnation of such, the Cartoon Network's Adult Swim.

But did we really need him to tell us why "Stripperella" failed?

|

As long as there's not something else I should know... 

...this is a positive step, although in the context of $15 BILLION, it's not much.

|

Dude! I'm getting a Dell! 

(Seriously, anyone who wants to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms can totally shoot me in the thigh with a pellet gun for that.) I am, though, and it's pretty sweet. Luckily, this means various things will be significantly easier, including blogging.

Right now, my pathetic, slow, old dinosaur of a machine at home won't recognize mouse clicks and I can't remove the viruses to save my life. Plus, it's time for a new one anyway, and I'm trying to downsize my life, hence, a laptop.

So in about a week or so, expect heavier and better-researched blogging...it'll be easier to do if page loads don't remind me of my first year of college, when 14.4 kbps was considered smokin' fast.

Goody.

|

What is he trying to do? 

The walking ego that Ralph Nader has become continues to mystify me. I really, really can't fathom what is is he might have replied to her:
Shouts could be heard from inside the meeting in the basement of the U.S. Capitol with more than a dozen Congressional Black Caucus (news - web sites) members, including Nader's voice, in what proved to be a rancorous session. One female shouted, "You can't win," to which Nader shot back an inaudible response.
Damn.

I know people have said it before me, but how exactly is appealing to leftist voters going to help defeat Bush? How???


|

Why "Kerryisms" aren't funny, and how Michiko Kakutani missed the point. 

Brad DeLong has some good examples of how some media are married to the idea that only gossip is interesting, and that substance is gray and dull.
I have not yet figured out why so much of our elite press is so... what should I call it? Feckless. Corrupt (in the sense of well-rotted). Decadent. Why does William Saletan find it funny that Kerry tries hard to give nuanced, reasonably-complete answers to questions about issues with nuances? Why do Weston Kosova and Michael Isikoff cover the government--rather than, say, cover something like advances in bartending--if they find debates over policy the equivalent of crossing the Gedrosian Desert? Why does Michiko Kakutani think it pointless and boring to wake up early to watch the inauguration of the first democratically-elected president in sixteen years in a country of 130 million people?
I think these are relevant questions, but what's more relevant is asking, "who cares?" Sadly, those who at least want to know, even if they don't yet know as much as they'd like about policy appear to be the (miniscule) minority. The majority paid for and attended this wedding, and even though they didn't like the bride (she was a bit too liberal for their tastes), they figured once they got hitched, she'd see the reasonableness of the groom's purple tie and silver-sequined boots. I personally thought we should have married the media off to some nicer, more serious idea. All this guy thinks about is sex.

In a way, it's a chicken and egg question - did the media focus on sensationalism and the attendant pooh-poohing of anything that smacks of intellectualism (i.e., policy) before people stopped giving a shit about how policy affects their lives and the lives of peoples around the globe, or was it the other way around? I'm not convinced that any of these people don't understand how fatuous it sounds to pick on, say, Nigeria under the guise of "Clinton's obsessed with meaningless personal detail!", or to treat policy as the geeky younger brother of the news equivalent of the high school cheerleader, or to ignore Kerry's potential Supreme Court nominee deal-breaker position so that it sounds like his position is "let's kill babies!" Is this "unintentional self-parody" as Brad says, or is it self-conscious pandering? Either way, I find it repulsive.

Also, I'm not an idiot, but WTF is the Gedrosian Desert, and am I really the only person who doesn't get this reference? Did I just go to the least academically challenging university ever? Dammit. That's so fucking frustrating for me. Did no one else have to have a full-time job to supplement their full scholarship, or what?

|

6.21.2004

Department of Banging My Head Against a Wall 

Yes, you may have read a post by this name.

I deleted it.

Paranoia? Maybe.

Suffice to say, it boiled down to this:

Don't, under the guise of "trying to explain your position," call people who agree with me asshats and expect me to not be offended when I take it to mean that you think I'm an asshat, too.

Even if you have the power to do that without fear of retribution.

|

What is he talking about? 

I need help -

My boss came in today for his twice weekly (ish) rant on what's really bothering him about Democrats, as usual prefacing it with "Now, if John Kerry wins, it's not the end of the world," (his alternate opening to any "discussion" of this type, the original being "I've looked at Kerry's platform, and I can't really find anything to take issue with...BUT").

Today, it's Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, and Al Franken. The usual stuff about Hollywood types using their celebrity blah blah blah...then he says something about (and I'm paraphrasing here) how it's widely known that Moore's, well, a liar, is what I'm guessing he meant.

I'm nowhere NEAR too proud to admit when I'm uninformed. So, what, specifically, has Moore said / written / etc. that is so "universally" erroneous? He referred to "Bowling for Columbine" and, naturally, I'm assuming he's referring to "Fahrenheit 911" as well.

Any thoughts, or is this just more Moore-bashing because he's loud and obnoxious (which, by the way, won't stop me from showing up this Friday at my local theater)? Is there anything to this?

ETA: Found this post from over at Suburban Guerrilla. I've started to read the Hitchens article, but damn, is this spot on:
I read the silly Hitchens attack on "Farenheit 9/11" this morning. (I must say, Christopher says less with more...)
(emphasis mine - hee.)

|

Music, just in case your ears are bored. 

Check out Snow Patrol.

Don't forget Keane.

Lightning Seeds have a new album out as well. Haven't heard it, but I like some of their old stuff.

|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com