Don't Mess with the Unstable Folk

Sweet

2004-08-03T12:59:00.000-05:00

Dave Chappelle just signed a huge new contract with Comedy Central, bitches. We're gonna get new eps, we're gonna get new eps...

Al Franken...in the flesh.

2004-08-02T14:55:00.000-05:00

Well, sort of. Looks like the Sundance Channel is picking up Franken's Air America show , not in its entirety, but it's definitely a start!

I'm gonna do a little distribution dance. I like what Franken says about Don Imus:

"I don't know how much I'm going to make an effort to adapt the show to TV," he
added, suggesting he might follow the example of Don Imus, whose widely
syndicated radio show has been simulcast on cable's MSNBC since 1996.
"Imus
does nothing to adapt to TV but sit up straight," Franken said.

More Convention Observations...

2004-07-28T23:46:00.000-05:00

--Older gentleman – pretty obviously a vet, shaking his fist when Edwards talked about taking care of the vets who have taken care of us, then later, another shot of him, rocking out to Black Eyed Peas – I’ll damn well marry somebody like that someday.

--The children of the nominees/wives looking for all the world like Camelot Kennedys: Cate Edwards, with the Jackie O hairstyle and the beautifully tailored, 60’s Chanel-inspired suit, and sounding like every American’s Southern Belle ideal.
The Heinz brothers, almost spookily reminding me of John F. Kennedy Jr.

--Edwards’ message – blending his “Two Americas” message seamlessly with the idea that we should only have one America, and I appreciated one passage in his speech in particular.

I feel such an enormous responsibility when it comes to issues of race and equality and civil rights.

I have heard some discussions and debates about where, and in front of what audiences we should talk about race, equality, and civil rights. Well, I have an answer to that question. Everywhere.

This is not an African-American issue, not a Latino issue, not an Asian-American issue, this is an American issue. It's about who we are, what our values are, what kind of country we want to live in.

--The Alabama delegation – I was glad to finally see them on camera! Hey Jack!

--The convention secretary, coyly wishing the mayor of the District of Columbia Happy Birthday.

--Poor Mississippi: they came right after Michigan, who put Kerry over in the delegate count, and “Celebrate” just ran all over them…but he got to speak (eventually).

--Someone (I won’t name names…mostly ‘cause I can’t remember) got sort of caught up and changed Kerry’s middle name to Fitzgerald.

--Uh, calling Walter Mondale “the greatest statesman our country has every known” might be hyperbole. I’m just sayin’.

If you can't read, just shove it.

2004-07-27T23:38:00.000-05:00

From Media Matters:

In her remarks at a Massachusetts Statehouse reception July 25, Heinz Kerry had referred to "un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics." But as she pointed out, McNickle asked her afterwards what she meant by "un-American activities"; Heinz Kerry explained that there was a great deal of difference to her between saying "un-American activities" and "un-American traits." "Un-American activities," she said, "has a very different connotation. It's a political connotation of [Senator Joseph] McCarthy implications, which I would not use unless it was very specific. And I would use it if it was correct, but that's not what I was talking about."

Yes, she said "un-American" but go Cheney yourself if you really think that she didn't remember what she said. Someone said that to me today. I hate that I don't find stuff like this until after I've been challenged and only been able to come up with a line like "somehow I'm betting Fox News didn't get all their facts straight." Of course the facts weren't complete - but this kind of clarification is inconvenient to report, huh? Jerks.

Somewhere between Clinton and Obama

2004-07-27T23:06:00.000-05:00

I'm tongue-tied. I'm amazed. I'm...oh, good gravy, still feeling teary-eyed after that.

Of course Clinton, yesterday, was masterful, his usual self. I loved how he began the "send me" refrain:

Here is what I know about John Kerry. During the Vietnam War, many young men—including the current president, the vice president and me—could have gone to Vietnam but didn’t. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me.

If we want an image of strength, I'm not sure it gets better than this.

But Obama. My gracious. I can't even think of words to really get to what he made me feel. I'm so proud to be a Democrat. He articulated so clearly the things that make me passionate: real support for our troops, the idea that individuals are important but that it somehow makes us less if we only think of ourselves, that different political beliefs don't mean we don't all belong in one America. He gave me hope that that vision is achievable - he confronted head-on the overarching criticisms of ol' bleeding heart liberals, i.e., that we think government alone can solve everyone's problems - and he convinced me that he is committed and able to help our party and our country achieve it. I'm inadequate.

I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or with nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.
Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure. John Kerry believes in America. And he knows it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.
A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief-I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper-that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America-there's the United States of America.
There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States.
There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

So freaking proud. Thank you, Bill Clinton. Thank you, Barack Obama. I'm overwhelmed.

ETA: Mistyped something. Fixed it.

Now taking bets...

2004-07-20T22:35:00.000-05:00

...on how many young lefty men will be taking part in the Bush twins' live chat on Friday. I'd love to be the person who screens the questions. Four words: Pee-your-pants funny. Thanks to TBogg for the link.

Just a dumb funny.

2004-07-20T13:57:00.000-05:00

The caption on this picture of Bush & the twins. (The picture isn't very interesting, it's just the caption.)

President Bush (news - web sites), helps her twin daughters Jenna, center, and Barbara, right, board Marine One as they leave the White House for a trip to Cedar Rapids, Iowa and St. Charles, Mo., Tuesday, July 20, 2004, in Washington. Barbara and Jenna, are making joint appearances with their dad on the campaign trail, for the first time. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

(obviously, the emphasis mine) Also, what up with the grammar in the second sentence? Is that correct AP style, or is it just me that the comma splices give the willies to?

Small things, people. Small things.

Yes, Virginia, there are Two Americas

2004-07-20T10:33:00.000-05:00

John Edwards, bless his precious little heart, was right.

The WSJ reports today (on the front page, no less) on the economic recovery. They basically say what Dems have been saying all along: that the tax breaks disproportionately benefitted the wealthy.

With the U.S. economy expanding and the labor market improving, it isn't clear how well the Democrats' message of a divided America will resonate with voters this fall. But many economists believe the economic recovery has indeed taken two tracks...

Um, but if 'Murica is divided, and even you guys will put it on the front page, it'll resonate more. Thanks, WSJ!

Upper-income families, who pay the most in taxes and reaped the largest gains from the tax cuts President Bush championed, drove a surge of consumer spending a year ago that helped to rev up the recovery. Wealthier households also have been big beneficiaries of the stronger stock market, higher corporate profits, bigger dividend payments and the boom in housing.

Lower- and middle-income households have benefited from some of these trends, but not nearly as much. For them, paychecks and day-to-day living expenses have a much bigger effect. Many have been squeezed, with wages under pressure and with gasoline and food prices higher.

Okay, if gasoline and food are two of your biggest expenses as a percent of take-home pay, yep, that's right. The article quotes Bush talking about the child tax credit, and, to be fair, he's right, $2700 does mean a lot more to me than it does to someone who makes over $100k, but number one, I don't have a kid, and number two, if it means that little, why do they want to protect their precious tax cuts? I mean, if the upper crust, George, see money on a different scale from the rest of us, and if it's so much less important, let them freaking do without just a little sliver of it, huh? It'd mean so much more to those of us who aren't your "base."

Moving on.

"To date, the [recovery's] primary beneficiaries have been upper-income households," concludes Dean Maki, a J.P. Morgan Chase (and former Federal Reserve) economist who has studied the ways that changes in wealth affect spending. In research he sent to clients this month, Mr. Maki said, "Two of the main factors supporting spending over the past year, tax cuts and increases in [stock] wealth, have sharply benefited upper income households relative to others."

....

Mr. Maki of J.P. Morgan Chase estimates that in terms of dollars saved, the top 20% of households by income got 77% of the benefit of the 2003 tax cuts, and roughly 50% of the 2001 tax cuts. And of stocks held by households, roughly 75% are owned by the top 20% of those households. That made them prime beneficiaries of last year's stock-market rally, although also big sufferers from the stock carnage from 2000 to 2002.

Oh, poor stockholders. Those people who don't have any stock investments know it hurt a couple years ago and would feel sorry for you, but the good thing about the stock market is that it generally has positive returns over the long run, so really you're fine and they don't, you big, asset-owning babies. (I get company stock grants and purchase some myself, I'm a big, asset-owning baby as well, or I would be if I whined about how my poor stock portfolio went down the toilet. I'm lucky to have any at all and I'll continue to appreciate it, thanks. No whining here.)

The affluent also benefit more from stock dividends, on which the federal income-tax rate was cut last year retroactive to the start of 2003. Total dividend payments have risen 11% to $3 billion since the end of 2002, estimates Berkeley's Mr. Saez. Higher-income households also are larger beneficiaries of the surge in corporate earnings, which helps to drive dividend and stock returns. The level of corporate profits has risen 42% since the last recession, which ended in the final quarter of 2001. Wage and salary income is up just 6.3% in that time.

Ack! Did I read that right??? Just 6.3%? Versus 42% for corporate profits? Wow, well, at least we can buy more of what those companies produce, right?

Average hourly earnings have risen at just a 1.9% annual rate since the job market started improving notably last August. Meanwhile, the consumer-price index -- driven by higher food and gasoline prices -- has risen at a 3.3% annual pace. The average worker's purchasing power, in other words, has declined even as more people have been finding jobs since August.

Oh, guess I was wrong, then.

Weekly earnings for production workers and nonsupervisors at service companies, adjusted for inflation, were down 2.6% in June from a year earlier. This slip might be transitory, and it wasn't anywhere near the drops of 5% to 7.5% registered in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Still, it was the largest decline since 1991, and it is a shift from the late 1990s and even the 2001 recession, when real wages were increasing.

But if you lived on less than $300/week, you'd notice that ten bucks, wouldn't you?

As a result, after rising last year, the University of Michigan's consumer confidence index for lower-income households is off 12% so far this year. Confidence among the affluent is lower as well, but by a smaller 6.7%.

Um, duh?

The recovering job market and an easing of food- and gasoline-price increases could reverse some of today's pressures. But these aren't the only issues hanging over lower-income households. Many are also highly exposed to rising interest rates, says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, because these households were more likely to take out adjustable-rate mortgages to squeeze into an ever-pricier housing market. For those who don't own homes, the chances of buying have become more remote as house prices have soared....Many in this group are also getting squeezed as health-care costs rise and companies seek to shift the burden to workers. From 2000 to 2003, employees' average annual out-of-pocket expenses for family medical premiums rose 49% to $2,412, according to an employer survey by Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group in Menlo Park, Calif.

Sort of leaves us with a pretty clear choice, doesn't it? If you're an asset-owning baby, go give some moolah.

Arafat, schmarafat.

2004-07-20T09:01:00.000-05:00

The latest, in which Palestinian PM Qureia quits, and Arafat refuses his resignation,over the unrest following Arafat's appointment (and subsequent removal) of his cousin to head up security forces.

The Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qureia, yesterday called on Yasser Arafat to put the people before his own interests amid a growing challenge to the Palestinian leader over corruption and cronyism.
In unusually direct criticism of Mr Arafat from within the Palestinian government, Mr Qureia said he had not withdrawn the resignation letter he submitted at the weekend during a spate of kidnappings, violence and protests in the Gaza strip over high-level corruption and Mr Arafat's appointment of a close relative to a top security job.
The prime minister said that Mr Arafat, who is popularly known as Abu Amr, should recognise that "Palestinian citizens are in deep need".
"Enough, enough," he said. "Put the people's interest first. ... Oh brother Abu Amr, it is time to put the right person in the right place."
Mr Arafat attempted to quell the unrest yesterday by sacking his cousin, Moussa Arafat, two days after he appointed him security chief.

I wonder what would happen in Gaza if Arafat were not the head of the Palestinian government. Would those in his government who criticize him change the tenor of the Palestinian debate? Would corruption be less widespread, and would the first vestiges of a rational solution to the turmoil in Gaza appear? Qureia's rhetoric suggests that possibility. Thoughts?

This outrages them?

2004-07-20T08:39:00.000-05:00

Linda Ronstadt apparently dedicated a song to Michael Moore and has now been blackballed from Aladdin's casino in Vegas. The freepers can't stop talking about how fat she is, but I'm with Moore, who issued this challenge:

"I have an idea how you can make it up to her -- and to the millions of Americans you have offended," Moore wrote.
"Invite her back and I'll join her in singing America the Beautiful on your stage. Then I will show Fahrenheit 9/11 free of charge to all your guests and anyone else in Las Vegas who wants to see it."

Apparently this isn't a new thing, seeing as how she started doing this on June 30. The reviewer in the Washington Post says:

The biggest excitement of the night, by a long shot, came when Ronstadt then dedicated her encore of "Desperado" to filmmaker Michael Moore, kick-starting a boo-cheer competition throughout the venue that drowned out her singing and left grown-ups in tuxes and evening gowns yelling at each other on their way to the parking lot.

Ooh, classy.

ETA: She didn't "start" doing this on June 30 - she started it whenever the tour started. Oops.

Reasonable?

2004-07-16T09:28:00.000-05:00

I honestly think Martha Stewart's sentence seems reasonable. Five months in prison, two years of probation? I don't see how it would be possible to justify a longer stay in prison - locking up nonviolent offenders, (particularly those in good financial shape) for extended sentences strikes me as a collosal waste of taxpayer dollars, and, you know, just fucking dumb. Our prisons aren't more overcrowded and drug-infested as a result of mandatory minimum sentences or anything.

Anyway, point being that it's probably about right - I know I'm probably in the minority, but I don't particularly dislike her. I don't particularly like her either, but for this crime, I wasn't prepared to burn her at the stake. Pardon the moral relativism, but I'll wait to chortle with glee until someone who's done something really beyond the pale coughKenLaycough goes to up-the-butt prison.

I'm so proud!

2004-07-15T13:11:00.000-05:00

My favoritest cousin hosted a MoveOn.org phone party at her house last weekend to register voters in Florida. About eight people came, and she was incredibly excited - it was quite the success, and provided some good stories, too, like the woman that she had to call back, having forgotten to get some information from the woman. When she calls back, the woman tries to get her 18-year-old son to register, but he doesn't want to or something, so my cousin tells the woman that she can hear the TV and that she should tell her son that registering to vote is much more important than television, whereupon the woman puts down the phone and hollers at the kid. (Alas, he didn't register, but she sent him a blank form. We're betting his mom will make him do it.)

The people who came to this party were all other preschool moms (like my cousin) and dads who have never been involved in politics before, which really excites me. Other people she knows through her daughter's preschool are part of the group as well, and they're all really pumped. Plus, don't wanna be a starf***er or nothin', but Camryn Manheim's part of their group, which I think is totally cool.

Bogged down with work...

2004-07-15T12:57:00.000-05:00

...but I'm not in a total news vacuum. Didja see the latest Zogby Interactive Poll?

Quite honestly, I don't live and die by polls, but the WSJ Online keeps this pretty prominently displayed, and it's nice to see that Kerry's pulled ahead in all but four of the Zogby-identified "battleground" states (Tennessee is tied), but even nicer is that, in the three where Bush is leading, it's tenuous - within the margin of error.

That's good stuff. It'll swing around a bunch more and next week I'll be cursing at it, probably, but it's still nice to see.

I hate quarter-end.

2004-07-07T16:25:00.000-05:00

The time I want most to just read and read and read, and I'm reconciling investment accounts. From the NY Times:

When a questioner in Raleigh noted that Mr. Edwards had been described as charming and a "nimble campaigner" and asked Mr. Bush to compare the one-term senator to Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Bush snapped back: "Dick Cheney can be president. Next?"

Ooh, snippy. Someone sweep a wittle wough wast night? Like cornered rats.

A fine, fine line.

2004-07-01T13:54:00.000-05:00

This Washington Post story infuriates me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the law clearly prohibits tax-exempt organizations like churches from engaging in partisan politics. If this guide, and the activities it encourages, don't violate the letter of the law (I'm obviously not a tax lawyer or I'd know), they violate the spirit of the law, and to me, that's just as dangerous. Isn't it a sin, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, to have sin "in your heart", whether or not you act on it? If so, it seems that the parallels are clear. I'd encourage all Christian Democrats to stand up to this bullying in your own churches, except that I have zero influence.

That they're doing this in the face of a letter from the IRS, specifically reiterating the prohibition against even indirect participation in partisan politics further evidences their contempt for rules that don't suit them.

Also, if I were smart enough to post pictures, I would. I go into the coffee room today and there are "W '04" stickers on the counter. If they're still there when I leave, I'm swiping them.

Grrrr...

FYI

2004-07-01T11:23:00.000-05:00

Light blogging the past week on account of my cable modem is all screwed up again and then being out of town, but I'll get back on it in the next day or so. Too busy catching up at work and in my life to do too much today or tomorrow.

Wish me luck - I'm exhausted.

Quick aside: I got to sail on the Onawa on Tuesday. Wowee. More on that trip later, too.

70 Minutes

2004-06-24T13:51:00.000-05:00

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.

Heh, heh. They said "wad."

2004-06-23T12:47:00.000-05:00

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...

2004-06-23T12:25:00.000-05:00

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

Dude! I'm getting a Dell!

2004-06-23T11:01:00.000-05:00

(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?

2004-06-23T10:51:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-06-23T10:03:00.000-05:00

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?

Department of Banging My Head Against a Wall

2004-06-21T20:06:00.000-05:00

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?

2004-06-21T13:09:00.000-05:00

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.

2004-06-21T11:51:00.000-05:00

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.

Hot Young Single Women!!!

2004-06-18T11:11:00.000-05:00

Knew you'd look. It isn't so much pathetic as it is predictable (fine, you want hot, young, single (oops!) women?), but now that I've got you...

Anyway, I think I'm getting my x-number of degrees of blogging correct on this. Rox Populi will be added to the blogroll as soon as my lazy, lazy self gets around to it, but for now I was scanning and found this. Roxanne wants you to read these first, then asks:

Are single women really disengaged from the political sphere or are the demographers missing something?

If they are feeling disconnected, what can be done to re-connect these women?

(thanks for the link, Mustang Bobby!)

Single women, in my limited experience, are somewhat disengaged from the political sphere - my girlfriends either vehemently disagree with me (but that's just one case and I suspect she disagrees to be disagreeable) or are sort of apathetic about the whole thing. I can't tell if that's because, for the most part, they're white, middle-to-upper class, Protestants, and therefore their lives aren't significantly changed, in their mind, regardless of the party affiliation of the current WH occupant, or WHAT.

I suspect that it is precisely this middle-to-upper class demographic that organizations like Women Against Bush are trying to reach - women who understand that they are limited because of structural inequalities (I'd hate to compare the average starting salaries (including bonuses and benefits) of the men vs. the women that I got my MBA with), because of biological choices (wanting to have children), or for whatever reasons. I think this is a great way to get young women involved in the process, because while it satisfies a need for serious activism, it's a fun way to do it - it doesn't require that you wear sackcloth. Rather, these are women who'd spend a few hot hours registering voters in their Manolos - and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.

Stridency is a turnoff for some women, because we're conditioned differently, for the most part - Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office is not only the title of a book, but it reflects a lot of research done in recent years about gender communication styles - how women are less likely to push their own agendas, to take credit for work they did, to perceive their opinion as of equal importance to others, but are more likely to use qualifiers in our speech patterns, to defer to others' judgment, or to give credit where it isn't really due. (I'll post a link to the article I'm thinking about as soon as I get it from my former communications prof.)

In general, women are more likely to exhibit behaviors that they think will lead to being "liked" versus behaviors that strictly serve their goals. All of this, again, in support of the idea that there is yet a cultural bias towards women working with others, being non-offensive, etc., and that if they feel that being involved is likely to get them labeled a "librul" (which I personally lurve), or a "bitch" (a la Hillary), they're less likely to do it, but if they see it as a positive, non-confrontational type of involvement, it's easier to convince them to do so.

From another angle, I read a pretty interesting article about young singles in general and the extent to which they work for structural change as it adversely affects them. (The article was in USA Today, but I can't find it in their archives - check out the American Association for Single People as a resource if you're curious what some issues are for singles of lots of different stripes.) Even if the major parties were to acknowledge the concerns of young, single women (or men, really), that may be likely to make a smaller impact because many people who are single don't see themselves as part of that group voluntarily - they're only single until their "real life" begins. I know that's more broad than the original questions and posts that Roxanne linked, but these are the swing voters, and whether they think their tax burden will be fairer under a Democrat (even though they might have voted Rethug in the past) or if they see that sorority girls are Democrats, too, then whatever. I want them involved, Manolos, BMWs, and all.

I know I've totally ignored the question of whether lower-income young, single women are disengaged, and that's a topic for a whole other post. Suffice to say, they, too, need to be given a reason to sacrifice their time (which is likely in shorter supply than that of middle and upper-income women), even if that's just a few minutes to learn about an issue that might be important to them, to be politically active. It's easier for me to put myself in the shoes of women who are otherwise more similar to me, having had certain advantages, than to imagine how difficult life might be if I had not, and what it might take for me to become interested and involved. I can see where it might be very difficult for lower-income women to imagine that anyone would listen to their concerns. It's not unimportant to me, just unfamiliar. Plus, y'all are damn tired of reading right now, huh?

Holy Cow.

2004-06-17T16:26:00.000-05:00

There's so much good in this one post, from Ampersand over at Alas, a Blog (yes, I'm too lazy to update my links just now), that I'm having trouble absorbing it all.

I got stuck on:
-Discussion of UN Population Fund funding/unfunding
-Bush/ZombieReagan 2004

Enjoy.

He said it better. Yesterday.

2004-06-17T10:54:00.000-05:00

But if I could sign my name to the bottom of this, I would. Stupid Yahoo.

Sausage balls and the nature of lurrrve.

2004-06-16T20:44:00.000-05:00

If anyone ever makes you sausage and cheese balls and you aren't absolutely, 100%, never-want-to-live-without-them in love with the person who made them, run like hell.

See, they're a huge pain in the ass to make. I know, because I've just made, oh, sixty or so, and am starting on the second batch. My arms are killing me.

I won't do this again, unless it's, say, my tenth wedding anniversary and I want to do something REALLY special...something that requires effort, and perserverance, and a willingness to overcome my natural inclination against anything that makes me suicidal.

I damn sure won't repeat this exercise in a sort of cooking-based self-immolation except under the above conditions or other, similarly unlikely ones, so if anyone is willing to do this for you, ~~congratulations~~ they're psycho. At some point, you'll have to get a restraining order. Consider yourself warned.

This is really getting ridiculous.

2004-06-14T14:57:00.000-05:00

I'm telling you, my body isn't supposed to be betraying me like this yet.

I only played 9 holes on Sunday morning (I know, I'm such a ~~pagan goddess~~ heathen, but when else are you going to have the course to yourself?) and now my shoulders and my HANDS (yes, my hands) are killing me. I guess that's what they mean by novice golfers having tension in their shoulders...and obviously, I need to work on my grip if my hands hurt like this - they're just raw. Ouch.

On the plus side, Dad waited until I asked for it to give me advice (I'm wondering what he must have ruptured from holding back), and since I wasn't frustrated already, I took it well and ended up hitting some of the best on-course shots I've ever hit.

Also, if you're a woman and you play golf, don't look at Golf Magazine for Women unless you're independently wealthy. I browsed through while we were waiting on threatening weather to pass and had a few "moments" with the pretty, shiny ads...

Then, I get home yesterday and watch the Lakers lose. Again. I don't know why I'm taking so much pleasure in this.

Cheeky!

2004-06-11T12:42:00.000-05:00

I'm so amused by this WaPo article, even though I know I'm a day late. The first part is the best.

Ronald Reagan was a formal man. He would step off Marine One in a finely tailored suit, tossing a wave and a smile. Even as he cut brush at his Santa Barbara ranch, his jean jacket seemed freshly pressed, his pompadour impeccable.

The same can't be said for many of his mourners, some of whom trundled past his flag-draped coffin yesterday wearing flip-flops, cargo shorts and T-shirts, their flabby midsections exposed. Some young women wore ultra-mini skirts and halter tops. Altogether, the sweaty masses clashed with the crisp honor guard in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, perhaps America's most sacred secular site.

Bobby Golike, 20, showed up to pay his respects to the 40th president in shorts, sock-less sneakers and a black T-shirt that read, "Slackers Unite! Tomorrow."

I love the juxtaposition of the mental images of Reagan's pompadour with all the fat chicks in Britney-esque belly tops and this Bobby Golike kid. Also, the guy who's pissed that Bob Dole essentially cut ahead of him in line is funny.

I come to bury Caesar Reagan, not to praise him...

2004-06-11T09:58:00.000-05:00

Yeah, right.

Well, it seemed somber, until the only access to TV I have (Bloomberg) started interviewing the VP of the Cato Institute, David Boaz, who used the time to bitch about the Department of Energy and the Department of Education (apparently, they're useless), and to slam the ever-lovin' shit out of Jimmy Carter.

I want to slap that man. Don't mess with Jimmy Carter.

...and here he is again. Dammit. Now he's being ugly about John Kerry and throwing Jesse Jackson into the mix. Jesse Jackson!? WTF???

On the other hand, the Italian tenor singing "Ave Maria" is doing a beautiful job.

Update: Good lord, Maggie Thatcher looks good in her taped eulogy.

Maybe I scared him.

2004-06-09T00:02:00.000-05:00

***Long post alert***

A good friend of mine sent me the following:

SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Keep this going clear up through the 2004 election!!

We need to be heard!

So I did just an incredibly minimal amount of checking and found this rebuttal of the claims in that internet forward (I HATE those stupid forwards, but I couldn't resist the opportunity to expose ridiculous lies for what they are).

But, of course, I couldn't stop there, and in doing so, got quite worked up about why I'm proud to be a Democrat and because I neglected my budget long enough to scribble down some thoughts about how I felt, I thought I might as well throw it up here. Needless to say, my friend wasn't expecting this, exactly, and his response was succinct, as I am not prone to being:

What the hell brought this on? I just asked for your opinion on the Soc. Sec. email.

Poor thing. It's only Tuesday, after all. So, without further ado, my opinion on the Social Security email (which has less to do with the false claims therein and more to do with that being the last damned straw)...

Although I think the questions we should be asking this election year revolve around vastly different issues than the question of whether immigrants get Social Security benefits or whether the Vice President acting in their official capacity as President Pro-Tem of the Senate should cast a vote that is in line with his party's stance (oh, the horror!), I took a few minutes to find this, which gives concrete information (not internet-fueled partisan claptrap) about the Social Security Act and subsequent amendments to the Act. It's pretty easy to get to - it's on the Social Security website, which is run by the federal government. Considering that the Bush administration runs the federal government, if this were untrue, you'd expect it to have been taken down or modified, but oddly, it's still there.

Remember, it's easy to twist anything around to fit your purposes. You of all people know that well-reasoned arguments get my attention, but internet rumormongering in the "Democrats are evil" vein is likely untrue, and people often don't take the time to do research to see if it is true or isn't. Just because it doesn't fit your worldview doesn't make it factually inaccurate. I don't automatically assume internet stuff I get about Republicans is true, although it seems to me that less of that circulates than do the ugly lies about us evil, godless, baby-murdering Democrats...I'll leave you to speculate on why that might be. But, from a respected journalist (you don't have to agree with him to admit he might be professional enough to get his facts right), I give you this.

Give me solid reasons, backed up by non-partisan research, why he's wrong, and I'm willing to read them.

My original point, however, was that, given current domestic and international issues, some things seem less important than others. Gay marriage is already illegal in most states and will remain so for a long time to come, so what good is a Constitutional Amendment? Mainly makes those who pass it look like bigots. Nobody wants abortion to be every woman's first line of defense against unwanted pregnancy (where's the ad for the abortion clinic that reads, "Abortion: Cheaper and More Convenient than Condoms!"?), contrary to what many on the opposing side may try to get people to believe.

According to most everything I've read, Social Security is a non-issue this election, at least for the time being. People, both Democrat AND Republican, are concerned about other, more pressing issues.

There are plenty of Republicans who aren't evangelical Christians - they're concerned with their right to worship or not as they choose. I'm concerned that we've asked our armed forces for everything they offered when they signed up (i.e., their lives), and that we're not fulfilling our promises to them (pay, veterans' & survivor benefits, equipment). I'm worried that we've alienated international partners and friends to the point where we'll have to go it alone next time the wolf knocks at our door. I fear the people who use the language of last resort and call me traitorous for daring to disagree with the current administration, who tell me what I can and can't feel and have the gall to suggest that I don't love my country if I don't follow, without question, a leader whose policies I vehemently oppose and whose character I don't trust.

I'm proud to be a Democrat. I'm proud to care about someone other than myself. I'm proud of the sacrifices Democrats and Americans of every ideology have made in war abroad and at home, with their lives, and by sacrifices of both time and money to causes they believe in - equality in education, fairness in healthcare. Recognizing that we still have a hell of a long way to go, I'm proud of the strides we've made towards overcoming individual selfishness in service of a greater good. I'm proud to be the great-great-grandchild of immigrants. I'm proud that as a Democrat, I'm part of a tradition that honors our country while encouraging open and honest debate. I'm proud that Americans come in every color, religion, and experience, and I'm proud that my idealogical legacy includes John and Robert Kennedy, LBJ, FDR, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jimmy Carter, and, unapologetically, Bill Clinton. However - I'll be damned if ignorance or fundamentalism is going to take that away from me. Everyone believing the same thing and following without question isn't patriotism, it's Facism, and fear. I will not be terrorized by those who distinguish their intolerance and hate from that which inspires fundamentalists of a different stripe by the color of their skin or the name of their god. I am an American first, and this is MY country, too.

I'm not implicating you in all or indeed any of these things. I am, however, cautioning you against the cumulative effect of a variety of policies and beliefs, which is, no matter how many flags people plaster on their cars, anti-American. I do live in fear, not of terrorism from outside, but of the terrorists at home, whose mission is to spread fear until those of us who do not agree say that we do. I will resist agreeing simply for the sake of being in the majority until I die. I will not let those who have attempted to hijack my flag and my country as only theirs do so, and I will not let ANYONE tell me how "good Americans" should act or feel.

I love you dearly, and I hope you understand that the truth of that can coexist with my stupefied wonder at how certain things can take on an importance that I simply don't understand.

Shorter Ellen: Don't be a selfish bastard. Shut up about social security - don't you think it's sort of irrelevant right now? Now, help me down off this soapbox, it's kind of tall and I'd rather not twist my ankle.

If you only read one thing today

2004-06-08T15:17:00.000-05:00

Read this, from Kos.

This is why I read other people - they say what I want to say, only better and with fewer damned words.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, simply by admitting that he/the administration isn't completely infallible, Rumsfeld might qualify as partially human. Congratulations, warmonger.

Baby steps in the right direction.

2004-06-07T11:40:00.000-05:00

Even though Walden O'Dell's claim that he has "sworn off politics" strikes me as fatuous and insincere, Diebold officially banning execs from political activism is the right move.

Of course, now they just have to get the machines to work.

And, you know, they could have done this when the letter first came to light and cast a pall over the entire electronic-voting industry.

But other than that, good work!

Foul-mouthed puppets win Tony.

2004-06-07T09:03:00.000-05:00

So well-deserved.

If you don't have the soundtrack to Avenue Q, you need it. Should cut down on the therapist bills, at the very least. Snarky, quick, and if two of my decidedly non-showtunes-listening buddies can laugh their asses off (and I mean coca-cola coming out of their noses), it's probably worth a listen.

My body is giving out on me. Already.

2004-06-06T19:16:00.000-05:00

Aren't you supposed to be older to have back pain? Perhaps around forty, when I can't run around after rugrats without a little twinge, which I'll then blame, along with bad knees and depending on the situation, on:

a) Playing college football,
b) My brief career in the rodeo, or
c) All that kinky sex.

Unfortunately, my doctor will look at me over his little half glasses and say, "Is your cubicle set up ergonomically?"

If you live "Dilbert," is it pathetic or subtly trendy?

Ouch. I can't stand up.

ETA: Yay muscle relaxers. Hey, is my head heavier than it used to be?

At least it's cooler than My Little Pony.

2004-06-06T19:11:00.000-05:00

Fight Club!

What movie Do you Belong in?(many different outcomes!)
brought to you by Quizilla

I can't help wondering, though, how skewed my worldview has become to be described (albeit incompletely) as lawless, mean, tough, insecure, and broken. I chose answers that led to that??? Sheesh, maybe I do need to play with My Little Pony.

Look where it got Cameron Crowe!

2004-06-04T16:29:00.000-05:00

Oh, you kids.

"Don't do drugs!"

Solid brass, you say?

2004-06-04T14:49:00.000-05:00

It's hard to reconcile not believing in hell with being convinced some people are going.

No jury would convict Fred Goldman, either.

The blight on modern music that is Creed...

2004-06-04T14:18:00.000-05:00

...is over.

If that means there will be no new radio play for retreads of "Arms Wide Open" (which is to songwriting what "Eyes Wide Shut" was to filmmaking - and I like Stanley Kubrick), sign me up.

Good riddance.

I suck - WHY, oh WHY do I suck?!

2004-06-03T13:58:00.000-05:00

You're My Little Pony!! Sweet and innocent and
happy, you make people want to spew burrito
chunks. Even a Care Bear could kick your ass.

What childhood toy from the 80s are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Gawd, this is as much blogging as I have energy for today. I have a bunch of stuff started, but every time I try to finish an entry, I feel faint. And my boss wants to give me, you know, work. So, more stuff tonight that isn't so touchy-feely...and yes, you can verbally kick my ass in the comments if you want - after all, if a Care Bear can, why not you?

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

2004-06-02T09:07:00.000-05:00

Good: Yippee! It apparently makes the Dems' record in special elections this year 2-0, and both in strong Republican districts, to boot. Okay, it's dumb, but I'll say it again. Yippee!

Bad: It's no secret Alabama is a "red" state, all but guaranteed to back President Bush in his bid for re-election this November.

This is just irresponsible journalism - in point of fact, you can't say that with any certainty - it's an OPINION. At least now we know who to hit up for campaign contributions and who has already maxed out.

Persistent trumpeting of Alabama's supposed role as firmly entrenched in the red state by people who are otherwise supposed to be impartial is what drives people to contribute time and energy other places, to vote for candidates who can't possibly win while claiming to be fed up with the current administration, or to not vote at all.

How frustrating it is that there is a complete disconnect between the feelings of many Alabamians and the perception of them. The phrase "self-fulfilling prophecy" comes to mind, i.e. if we SAY that Alabama's a red state and therefore hopeless, it's going to come true. Argh.

I do like this, though...

What if a boss checks on his employees? For example, while Enfinger gave $500 to Clark, Sandra Steele, the head of Enfinger's development company, gave $2,000 to Bush.

Well, at least he'll know whose opinion to take with a grain of salt, huh? Oh, that's just ugly of me. Too frickin' bad.

and, as promised...

Ugly:

Most blatant lie from this article? "Suing is a possibility," said Horne, who would not divulge whether he has any political affiliation. "That's my business. This is not about me and my politics. I didn't have an 'R' stamped on my dog tags."

Um, I think it's ABSOLUTELY about politics, and about YOU, since you're the one threatening a lawsuit. Therefore, it's about you and your politics. What, you're not comfortable with logic?

Sadness.

2004-05-20T20:28:00.000-05:00

Not only does he frighten me, he's apparently not a very good dad.

Man, if I didn't have a job and stuff, I'd totally be there. Dammit. Plus, it's Baton Rouge - it'd be a good party after, no matter what.

One of these days, Jenna's gonna be in Girls Gone Wild and every liberal I've ever met is going to wake up sweaty and panting, confused because they can't decide whether they're excited about Jenna showin' it off or about GWB's imminent aneurysm.

Sigh... A girl can dream, right?

Not that our children aren't the future and all...

2004-05-20T20:23:00.000-05:00

...but someone shut this kid up.

Geez.

Why am I linking this?

2004-05-20T19:59:00.000-05:00

It's probably because I'm a raving idiot. But, Becks is staying in Spain and if, in my ideal world, there were a sequel to "Bend it Like Beckham," it might be important in that movie.

(Is it possible I liked that movie too much?)

Is't necess'ry to HAMMER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MY WALL?!

2004-05-18T15:10:00.000-05:00

I mean, really, people.

Jeez.

Legislative Business, not Monkey Business.

2004-05-18T13:52:00.000-05:00

If I wrote headlines for newspapers, I'd be so fired by now. God, I'm bad at that.

Anyway, check out how restrained the Alabama House of Representatives was yesterday. Nice to see.

Then I'm driving up to speak at a Dems club in North Alabama and what do I see on my way up? A Birmingham News headline that basically says "White House Counsel: Geneva 'Obsolete'"

Huh?! My first thought was, well, hell, if they can just declare the Geneva Conventions obsolete, why can't I declare that laws outlawing certain illegal drugs are obsolete? I mean, the law only applies if you want to follow it, right? So I find this article in Newsweek, with the following passage:

But while top White House officials publicly talked about trying Al Qaeda leaders for war crimes, the internal memos show that administration lawyers were privately concerned that they could [be] tried for war crimes themselves based on actions the administration were taking, and might have to take in the future, to combat the terrorist threat.

The issue first arises in a January 9, 2002, draft memorandum written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluding that "neither the War Crimes Act nor the Geneva Conventions" would apply to the detention conditions of Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The memo includes a lengthy discussion of the War Crimes Act, which it concludes has no binding effect on the president because it would interfere with his Commander in Chief powers to determine "how best to deploy troops in the field." (The memo, by Justice lawyers John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, also concludes—in response to a question by the Pentagon—that U.S. soldiers could not be tried for violations of the laws of war in Afghanistan because such international laws have "no binding legal effect on either the President or the military.")

I don't want to bake Al Qaeda members cookies or nothin', but I'm just so SICK of this administration's hubris.

Must go fume.

Worst. Blogger. Ever.

2004-05-18T13:32:00.000-05:00

Yes, I know. I can hear Comic Book Guy in my head, and he's full of disdain for my lackadaisical attitude for the past week. But I've been busy. So back off.

I can't decide if I'm saddened by Sonia Gandhi's decision or heartened that she put the stability of the Indian government first. Is that bowing to pressure of acting with good faith and humility? I honestly feel ambivalent about it. Will this weaken the Congress party's power or will it be seen as a step towards greater cooperation with the Hindu Nationalists? Hmm.

On the other hand, this gives me hope, and nudges me closer and closer to campaigning for Roy Moore instead of John Kerry. I'm thinking it'd help Kerry just as much.

Sticking with the religion theme...

This weekend, I'm wandering around downtown, perfectly content, eating ice cream, when I realize that the band playing on the street are actually backing up an evangelical preacher of some stripe. He starts off okay, with some comments about how he's not going to tell you to go to church and some other stuff about how he can't tell you how to be a good Christian, and I'm thinking that that's probably a better way to attract new followers instead of the whole "we're right, you're wrong" thing, but I really should have known better...The next thing he said was that it's too bad people don't get second chances, like POOR NICK BERG, WHO'LL NEVER HAVE A CHANCE NOW TO ACCEPT CHRIST AS HIS SAVIOR.

Um, WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?

Fucker.

ETA: Good thing fundies don't read the Village Voice, huh? Someone keep those evangelicals that are disenchanted from reading this.

No, you di-unt!

2004-05-11T14:00:00.000-05:00

Um, Whaaat?

"'The growing trend in cosmetic surgery reality shows, such as MTV's 'I Want a Famous Face', sends a dangerous message,' the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) said Tuesday.

'They prey on the vulnerabilities of a society increasingly obsessed with physical perfection,' it added."

Oh, for fuck's sake, shut up and give Buffy her fucking Botox. "We're so concerned," my ass.

ETA: My mother took me down a peg or two by reminding me that British plastic surgeons aren't exactly getting paid on par with Beverly Hills plastic surgeons, thanks to NHS, but it's still odd that plastic surgeons are issuing statements like this given that they're, you know, plastic surgeons. Plus, what, the NHS is going to pay for Bridget Jones' lipo? I think they're still doing better than your typical GP in Britain. Just a guess - feel free to correct me. I don't mind being wrong.

Oh, Jesus.

2004-05-11T12:59:00.000-05:00

This is indescribable.

Someone will have something intelligent to say, and I'll link it shortly, but for now, I'm just sickened.

It's the end of the world as we know it, but I don't feel fucking fine. This seems like a simplistic observation, but don't we already know what happens when two peoples endlessly retaliate against each other? (Uh, that'd be the Israelis and the Palestinians, for those of you keeping count.)

Go on, they're smarter than I anyway:

As usual, see Daily Kos for incisive commentary.

More when people get stuff up.

No politics this morning.

2004-05-08T09:57:00.000-05:00

I just wondered for a full thirty minutes why my headache hadn't gone away, only to look down and see that I haven't yet taken the ibuprofen I intended to help in that endeavor.

So, I wouldn't make much sense anyway.

Bored? Watch this.

This is all I got today, really.

2004-05-07T10:04:00.000-05:00

I'm too sad to do any more blogging after this, and no, it's not 'cause fucking Friends is over - on that front, my feelings run more to singing, dancing glee, except that you still can't escape it - now everyone's gonna talk about it for days. Holy cow, am I ready for the weekend.

My family is slowly separating themselves from the normal world. Pardon me for shamelessly co-opting an expression, but my uncle is an asshat. You know, you'd think leaving people alone and not imposing your views on them might have some mitigating effect on their need to infect you with their hateful email forwards, but no. What actually happens is that it makes them so angry that you disagree that they'll put your WORK email on their forward list and just forward away all their wingnutty ~~goodness~~ crap.

Why, why, why?! Because the whole concept of family is lost on some people? That's gotta be it. Or maybe they just think of "family" in a Sopranos kind of way. If some terrible "accident" keeps me from voting, or if I'm Suddenly Silenced (sort of like Suddenly Susan, but without Brooke Shields - sorry fellas - or Judd Nelson - I'd say sorry ladies, but if you're still pining for Judd Nelson circa "Breakfast Club", I'm just sad for you) you heard it here first.

Speaking of unstable, if this kind of stuff makes you cry, isn't it a good thing that you got paid today and therefore can rely on those damned pharmaceutical giants to help you regain some type of equilibrium? Oh, did I say too much? Happy Friday, people. Check out the interesting people who do this better than I - if you were bored enough to read this, you'll think you've hit the blog jackpot reading any one of them, or browse today's topics and discuss amongst yerselves:

Economic Data: Yeah, jobs were created, and increases in average weekly earnings coupled with a slight decrease in weekly hours worked points are consistent with a meaningful increase in jobs. Plus, temp hiring was up, which usually is a leading indicator for real hiring - reflects continued caution, which I think is well-advised. We'll see how this plays out. I'll have a busy day keeping up with the repercussions.

Alright, already: To paraphrase a recent James Bond (ooh, I just love Bond films) villain, why can't you be a good sitcom, and die?

Yipes!: I shouldn't encourage her, but this kid is even angrier than I. She's also young and misguided. I'm sure that will change as she gets older. Or not, and she'll just grow up to be Ann Coulter.

Okay, really, I'm done for today, especially since I thought I lost this entire post and came thisclose to a complete breakdown. Crawfish and beer! Crawfish and beer! (Nothing like Gonads and Strife.)

Not nice to neglect those darling Brits, now is it?

2004-05-06T21:20:00.000-05:00

Travis rocks.

Stereophonics rock harder.

This is so much better than that Nickelback shite, which, go figure, Virgin plays a lot, too.

It's so important to protect the kids...

2004-05-06T18:11:00.000-05:00

From their dumbass parents.

Because, you know, by protect, we mean get 'em all knocked up and give 'em some fun STDs and stuff.

Okay, then. What about me? I'm not a kid.

Well, those same idiots probably don't want me to have an abortion (regardless of my circumstances), but the morning-after pill, which is touted as "not an abortion" isn't cool either, because that'd encourage the kiddies to grow up too fast. Uh, dude, hate to tell you, but you're a little late to worry about those sweet, innocent kids.

Okay, fine. I'll get the damn prescription if it comes to that, but don't bitch at me about the rising cost of healthcare, and I'll just tap dance to the beat of the collective tsk-tsks of the people who really just want us wanton sluts to jump through a bunch of hoops so they can feel all morally superior to our Hester Prynne-ish selves.

Screw you - I love scarlet.

ETA: As usual, someone else didn't need to act like a petulant six year old, and had better thought-out arguments than I.

Don't stand so close to me.

2004-05-06T17:48:00.000-05:00

After reading about this, not only was I struck by how uncomfortable this young woman was, all smooshed into Bush's armpit, but something about the whole fawning nature of the original Cincinnati Enquirer story struck me as just OFF. Well, no DUH.

Rammer Jammer

2004-05-06T15:33:00.000-05:00

Stupid dawgs. Actually, I don't mind the UGA #1 call nearly as much as I mind the UT #20 call - as if UT'll get a whole hell of a lot done without Clausen.

I'd like to see another few OTs this year in the Bama / UT game - ending in misery for those damn Vols. We'll see. I almost flung myself into Peachtree Street traffic after the last meeting - hopefully, history will not repeat itself.

Worse.

2004-05-06T08:45:00.000-05:00

This gets more and more dire. I'll let Kevin Drum take this one.

It bothers me that a lot of people's first reaction is "Americans will die because of this." I find that troubling, not because I want Americans to die, but because Iraqis ARE dying because of this.

Repercussions are not the only reason this is a problem. That's like saying all your religious faith is based on your fear of going to hell (if you're a Christian). Am I the only one bothered by this?

ETA: Also check this out.

Can you see him stomping his feet?

2004-05-06T02:06:00.000-05:00

Rummy, I'm feeling angry!

Um, do I smell trouble in paradise? It's so sad when two people who were so much in love...oh, just leave me alone, I can't talk about it. [sniff]

It's good to be grown up, sometimes.

2004-05-06T01:19:00.000-05:00

Because it means you can hop in the car, drive two hours, go to a concert at which you might be the oldest person there that didn't bring their kids, rock your little heart out, dance with yourself, get back in the car, stop for fuel, get wolf whistles from a bunch of rednecks, feel good about it, and sing all the way home.

Plus, this kid (I swear, he wasn't more than 19 - did I remind him of his babysitter?!) hit on me at the concert. It was kinda cool, except he just had to do it in the middle of one of my favorite songs by this band, plus, you know, it's different for girls - I just can't get my head wrapped around why young'uns would want to hit on me. I keep thinking they've got some sort of mommy complex.

Also, since when is it OK for 13-year-old girls to wear those ruffled skirts from the 80s that barely cover your ass and sing along to some of the absolute sweatiest lyrics ever - "Remember how my body tastes," "Keep her coming every night" ???????? Yikers. My mother would be appalled.

I highly recommend doing something like that every once in a while - having a date with little ol' you is really satisfying, plus you know who's staying at whose place. ;)

Why I love college baseball.

2004-05-05T16:30:00.000-05:00

Oh, puke. And I have an MBA, so it's gotta be pretty shameless for me to be out and out disgusted.

Is this what they mean by "hat in hand"?

2004-05-05T15:15:00.000-05:00

We have enough money! No, crap, we don't.

I don't rescind a whit of my previous criticism. If Bush et. al. can brazen their way through subsequent information changing things without being called flip-floppers, fine, me, too. Dare ya.

You got served. No, oh, jeez, sorry, no, you didn't.

2004-05-05T10:23:00.000-05:00

I'm thinking that as skeptical as I am, I don't begin to appreciate the skepticism of the Arab world in anticipating Bush's remarks, especially as

"The first Bush interview to air was with Al-Hurra, a U.S.-government funded Arabic-language station.

Al-Hurra is generally viewed in the region as propaganda. Another interview with Bush was expected to air later on Al-Arabiya television, a satellite channel based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, that is popular around the Arab world."

Okay, is it a surprise that Al-Hurra seems like "Bush is great TV" to the region? Not so much.

Really, propaganda TV aside, this skepticism is pretty justified, considering I didn't actually expect him to utter an actual apology, because, you know, he doesn't do that. On the other hand, Major General Geoffrey Miller did, so bravo to him, for both the content (he actually said he personally was sorry) and the message (unacceptable, not the norm) of his statement. The message behind Bush's address was the same, the delivery made me indulge my baser nature (hey, people, I warned you) and just roll my eyes. Here's why: Bush continues to pay lip service to "bringing the perpetrators to justice". I'm as tired as I can be of hearing that damned phrase escape his lips. "Bring the guilty/perpetrators/terrorists/whothefuckever to justice." Well, how's about you ACTUALLY DO THAT? Who, exactly, has been brought to justice so far? Saddam Hussein? Well, not yet, although we have him in custody. (Not that that has anything to do with the War on Terror, but even if I stretch it, he's not going to trial anytime soon, especially if we're going to let the Iraqis try him, since it was THEY he oppressed, raped, murdered, and terrorized, and not US.) Did I miss something, and we have Osama in custody? No? So we definitely have the most current perps in custody to bring them to justice, right?

In addition, the deaths of two Iraqi prisoners already have been ruled homicides. In one case, a soldier was court-martialed, reduced in rank and discharged from the Army. In the other homicide, a CIA contract interrogator's conduct has been referred to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

Okay, so is anyone certain what we mean by that whole justice thing? Or by "swiftly and firmly," which is how Bush characterizes the justice that will be served. Ask the Guantanamo detainees how good we are at that whole "swiftly" thing. On second thought, don't.

It's like your mom threatening to turn the car around - if she ever did, you'd take her pretty seriously, but if not, well, hell, wear her out, since she won't do it anyway. (My mother turned the car around...once.) If we keep talking about justice but rarely, if ever, actually bring anyone to justice, it's pretty hollow.

Am I advocating that we treat enemy combatants with kid gloves? No, actually, I'm not. But my peculiar notion of justice is that it be served within reasonable time limits and that it comply with applicable law, (i.e., the Geneva Conventions, not to mention, you know, if the US armed forces are involved, the UCMJ) so that people know that justice was served, instead of some poor vigilante substitute, like releasing a soldier from hazardous duty in Iraq for what was ruled a HOMICIDE. (Gee, sure sucks to go back to civilian life instead of this fun war zone. Pauvre moi!!) Isn't that the point?

I'm not stupid or naive enough to think that war is anything but barbaric, but wouldn't it work better if we tried to avoid giving people more reasons to hate us, if we treated POWs or other detainees with some modicum of human dignity? For those who're interested in this particular angle, it'd have the added bonus of throwing some weight behind our arguments that we don't deserve the hatred of the Arab world, 'cause we'd have something concrete, not just empty promises of "justice" to point to.

If there's justice to be served, we're all at the damned table, and we could do with a little. But don't sit me at a table, tell me about the great meal I'm about to be served and then proceed to blend it up, put it in a glass, and make me drink it through a straw in the nose - I'm likely to mistake it for something other than what it is, and to get mighty upset.

Oh. My. Gosh.

2004-05-03T22:12:00.001-05:00

When your blog's named "Unstable Folk" and your lifelong hero is Chuck Yeager, this kind of shit is just freaky.

Ellen Mar*hman was
an Unstable Fighter Pilot
in a past life.

Discover your past lives @ Quiz Me

Thanks to Bekah.

Dammit, Vlad.

2004-05-03T22:04:00.000-05:00

Aw, man. This might be the sexiest thing in my day. Can't you just feel that ache?

It makes me want to cry. It makes me hot.

That's good dialogue.

Money money money money...MONEY!

2004-05-03T14:07:00.000-05:00

"If the tempo of combat stays like it has been since early April, they'll have to increase the troops strength and they'll need a supplemental budget of well over $75 billion,"said Representative John Murtha, 71, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee panel that approves defense spending.

Well, holy cow. That's a lot of green.

Bloomberg news reports that monthly costs of the war in Iraq are approaching $6 billion, at least $2 billion more than Bush projected two months ago."

Okay, that's interesting. What was so different two months ago that meant that Bush was $2 BILLION off in his projections of how much the war was going to cost on a monthly basis? My guess is that NOTHING was $2 billion worth of different, but if you want to get right down to it, heck, they don't mind telling you the truth (in a nifty little bit of honesty):

Bush, 57, won approval from Congress to spend $87.5 billion this fiscal year and $62.6 billion in 2003, mostly for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq. This year's funding from Congress included $69 billion specifically for military operations. White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten said in February the administration wants to wait until January before making a request for as much as $50 billion more.

Oh, well, DUH. That might not be the most insightful comment of the day, but it's just appalling that this administration is so convinced of it's own teflon-like powers that they'll tell you straight out that they
1) Need the money, but
2) Don't dare ask for it until after the election.

What's so great (uh, for them) is that, as long as they just stick to this brilliant strategy, they won't take ANY HEAT for it whatsoever, simply because they ~~used the Jedi mind trick~~...uh, actually, why won't they take heat for it, exactly? My boss would have my toes for breakfast if I were that bad at budgeting. But maybe if I told him I'd just engage in a little sleight of hand whereby we scoot some costs out to the next year and - wait a minute, aren't they buddies with those Enron folks? Mmm-hmm. I see. Nevermind.

The Bush administration wants to avoid ``the political embarrassment of having to come forward and admit that this venture is costing a lot more than they ever represented at the outset,'' said Representative John Spratt, 61, from South Carolina, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

Well, no offense, Rep. Spratt, but I don't think they can even conceive of "political embarrassment." Heck, if they're that concerned about political embarrassment, why is W their ~~official spokesboob~~ standard-bearer?

Oh, you know it gets better.

``We have no alternative, we have to pay,'' said Murtha, the first combat veteran of the Vietnam War elected to Congress and a recipient of two purple hearts for being wounded in battle and the Bronze Star for valor. Denying troops the funding they need would ``be an absolute, complete disaster.''

Hey, you'll get no argument from me about paying up. My question is this: why haven't you already declared this an "absolute, complete disaster"? More U.S. casualties in the last month than in any other month since the original invasion? I think that probably spells disaster pretty convincingly for those military families who were told that major combat operations were over.

But what about the dirtiest, low-downest (license, people), nastiest thing you can talk about - REPEALING THE TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY - ohthehorror. (You repealed the tax cuts! You bastards!) I mean, that would really be an "absolute, complete disaster" the scope and misery of which underpaid soldiers without proper equipment, operating in a country where they're not welcome couldn't BEGIN to imagine, huh? Gosh, I'm sure they're mighty concerned about whether or not Bush has to repeal some tax cuts to pay for ongoing operations in Iraq.

To secure more money from Congress, Bush may have to sacrifice part of his 10-year, $1.7-trillion package of tax cuts that he wants to be made permanent, Chafee said in an interview.

Murtha, a member of Congress from Pennsylvania since 1974, Chafee and other lawmakers said they are concerned Bush intends to delay a funding request until after the Nov. 2 election. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, 55, a Republican from California, said he plans to seek Congressional approval for at least $20 billion as a ``bridge'' between the end of the 2004 fiscal year and early January.

Okay, so at least I'm not the only one concerned about sacrificing our troops' needs for political expediency. Except for the Bush administration already said they were gonna do that. Okay, here, I'll give it to you again.

Bush, 57, won approval from Congress to spend $87.5 billion this fiscal year and $62.6 billion in 2003, mostly for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq. This year's funding from Congress included $69 billion specifically for military operations. White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten said in February the administration wants to wait until January before making a request for as much as $50 billion more.

Grrr...

My favorite conservative (oh, kiss it, he is) even took time to give me a little somethin' somethin' (as if I'd expect less!) Wait for it...Go, you crazy Arizonan, go!

McCain, who ran against Bush to be the Republican party's presidential candidate in 2000, called on the president to acknowledge the rising war costs.

``The fundamental truth is we face the security task mostly alone,'' McCain said in an April 22 speech in Washington. The president ``needs to be perfectly frank -- bringing peace and democracy to Iraq is an enormous endeavor that will be very expensive, difficult and long.''

There are some things GWB could say to gain him more of my respect than the common sea urchin. Dropping the bogus coalition-speak in favor of more plain talk about how it's really just our soldiers' lives on the line, now and for the foreseeable future, might be one of them. Unfortunately, he was so excited to declare Mission Accomplished that I can't really see that happening.

Some rich people make me feel fuzzy.

2004-05-02T22:30:00.000-05:00

Oh, sometimes I just want Warren Buffett to read me a story. One that ends with me as a billionaire. Or at least with John Kerry as President.

Okay, what? I'm starting slow.

2004-05-02T22:13:00.000-05:00

Two things today:

1) Do you know Franz Ferdinand? They're super.

2) This weekend, I've been smoke-free for a month. Not a single cig. It's like getting rid of a really boring, clingy boyfriend. Who never showers. And lives on your sofa. And whom all your friends hate.

Yippee!