George W. Bush's economic foresight has brought about a premature end to the Barack Obama-caused recession.
Also Reagan, such as.
« September 2009 | Main | November 2009 »
George W. Bush's economic foresight has brought about a premature end to the Barack Obama-caused recession.
Also Reagan, such as.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 01:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Look out everyone, or the most ineffective, bloated, useless, spineless, red-tape-riddled bureaucracy in the history of the world will, with the stroke of a few pens and without any ratification by Congress, create a one-world government! Booga-booga!
Seriously, their ability to simultaneously believe that the UN is useless kabuki theater and that it's about to take over the entire world - and only John Bolton's mustache is standing in the way - is a wondrous thing to behold.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 05:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
However, since this network of religious extremists is full of so-called Christians with names like Dinwiddie and Leach, it's merely worth an article or two and Ebay's consideration as to whether they will allow the auction of terrorist hanbooks and memorabilia to go forward.
Substitute Islam for the religion and Arab-sounding names, and not only would Ebay reject it out of hand, but the FBI would be all over it, with the DOJ claiming success over another terrorist group and their evil plot.
One of the items is a drawing by alleged murderer Scott Roeder. It's a depiction of David and Goliath, with Goliath's severed head labeled "Tiller." This from the man accused of murdering Dr. Tiller.
Again, the sponsors of this auction are a collection of bombers, murderers and perpetrators of other violent terrorist acts, all of which have occured on American soil. While some of them have spent time in prison, almost all of them walk free today, planning their next violent moves. Simply because their claimed religion is Christianity and their names are European in origin, they are able to avoid Guantanamo and secret prisons in Eastern Europe. They are given full due process, full rights in court. The politicians who cozy up to them pay no cost in the media for associating with known, often convicted, terrorists who still publicly advocate the violent murder of American citizens.
It is far past time for all of this to change.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (21)
Yes, it is a rather significant thing that Benedict XVI has done, reaching out to unhappy Anglicans who are troubled by the Church's treatment of women and homosexuals as actual human beings. Personally, I think the Onion managed to hit another timely home run with its article on the Roman Catholic priesthood:
Priest Shortage Forces Vatican To Hire Temps To Deliver Sacred Rites
MILWAUKEE—In an emergency effort to boost the dwindling number of Roman Catholic priests in the United States, the Vatican contracted with a nationwide staffing firm last week to hire thousands of temporary employees to provide liturgical services and administer holy sacraments in its American churches.
"The reduced number of active diocesan clergy has forced us to take unprecedented measures to stop parishes from closing," Pope Benedict XVI explained in a decree issued Saturday by the Vatican. "That is why, for the first time in two millennia, we're allowing pretty much anyone who is willing to show up at 9 a.m. and work for slightly more than minimum wage to act as a Vessel of Christ."
In the United States and England especially the Roman Catholic Church has suffered from a priest shortage for decades. It's partly to blame for the indefensible, despicable actions on the part of bishops in keeping known sexual predators in parish ministry. So it's hardly surprising that Rome would look to other sources of priests, particularly one that has managed to keep up a few standards over the years.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)
Son Three, (age 10):
One part made me embarrassed: when they threw dirt clods at each other. Because I thought that was fun...wait, maybe I was too old for this movie. I shouldn't think that was funny, but I did.
My favorite part was when Max was running and rolling around with his dog, at the beginning.
No, wait, I also liked when Carol showed Max the beautiful village that he made, with all the little people and the mountains. It reminded me of Max's Lego village. Oh, and also, that snow village I made for you, Mama. And the saddest part was when Carol destroyed all of that. I felt the saddest of all at the end of the movie, because I wanted Max's adventure to go on more and more. I wanted to stay with Max and the monsters forever.
Son Two (age 13):
My favorite part was when they built that massive fort. And how they made a system of underground tunnels that showed there was more going on than just what you saw on the surface. To me, the monsters represented Max's friends--he had no friends at home; his sister was a total jerk to him and told him to go play with friends when she knew he didn't have any friends; and here were these monsters who loved him and made him king. I thought two of the monsters were most important to Max. Carol felt like Max was a lot like him, in a way at least, and they trusted each other right away. The other one was KW, who was always nice to him, and seemed to understand him, but Carol did not seem to like KW, which was really about him not being able to express his feelings to her, so it was easier to just act as though he didn't like her and to shut her out.
I thought KW's owls were like yin and yang, wisdom and doubt. They were two sides of the same person, really--isn't that how yin and yang work, Mama? [Yes, my darling.]
I thought it was really sad how Max's mother and sister treated him. Claire [Max's sister] let her friends hurt him and when they completely destroyed his igloo, she didn't do anything about it and went off with them as though nothing bad had happened. She didn't seem to care, well, maybe for a moment, but she went off with them anyway. I found it really sad when Max left at the end and they were all howling together as his boat sailed off--well, not sad, but moving, definitely. He knew he had the monsters as friends now, that they were there, but that he also had his mother and his sister waiting for him.
I loved how the bond between Max and the monsters grew as the movie went on. At first, they were afraid of each other and suspicious, but by the end, they all loved each other even though they fought. They loved and also accepted each other.
I think Max felt completely different at the end of the movie than he did at the beginning. The monsters eventually loved him for who he was, not for his attitude or him pretending to be a king or anything. It didn't really make sense at first, because the monsters were destroying everything randomly and Max was destroying stuff too, but then they went from destroying to creating, and everyone pitched in and came together.
The image that sticks with me the most is that scene where they're walking through the meadow with the floating pink flowers [apple blossoms] and Carol was telling Max that the world was his, but okay, not that twig. And not that rock. Not everything.
Son One* (age 17):
This is the kind of movie that you just can't talk about. Okay? If you talk about it, you've missed the whole point of the movie.
Mr. litbrit aka Roberto (age 54):
My favorite image was...hmm...it would have to be the pile where they [Max and the various monsters] all sleep together. Because they were all looking for a sense of security and belonging and they found it with each other, even if it was temporary. That moment you can feel complete trust for another, and togetherness, that's when you can sleep like that, in a pile.
In fact, that's something I really appreciated about the film, how Max's dream--his subconscious journeys--reflected elements from his real life. Max sleeping with his monsters--himself--in a pile recalled the piles of stuffed animals he slept with in real life, back at his house. The tiny, intricate worlds that Carol built and was so proud to show Max--those were pretty similar to the little worlds Max built for himself in his room and outside, in the snowy yard.
Early on, I liked the "Let the wild rumpus start!" part, because that was such a typical moment for boys, when we let go and release energy and have fun. The thunderous sound effects, the balls-to-the-wall brawling and physical contact, the way the monsters flew through the air like missiles, and the way things crunched and thudded and slammed--those were so real to anyone who's ever been a boy, you know? That's how we guys behave when you women aren't looking, and sometimes when you are.
I loved the look on Max's face when Carol showed him his special village, with the flowing water and the tiny creatures, and I completely related to that sense of wonder at making a whole world, just for yourself.
I also related to the moment where KW threw the rocks at the owls, and you thought they were dead but no, they were fine; that's something hard to explain but little boys do feel that, the impulse to do something unexplainable without realizing you might hurt someone or something. The lack of awareness that there are consequences. I also related to, but at the same time regretted, those impulses in the mud-clod fight scene. The glee on the faces of Max as the Bad Guys flew into the air; the way everyone turned on the goat monster when he said he'd had enough--okay, here was the weak guy: let's get him! Boys understand this--it doesn't make it right, but it's something we can understand really well.
Deborah (aka litbrit, age 49):
First and foremost, I am compelled to say that Where the Wild Things Are, which I watched through a membrane of memory and tears, is a masterpiece. That much is certain, as well as this: Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers** are geniuses. Now, I'm not at all sure that this intense movie would have resonated with the six-year-olds to whom, at various points in my journey as a mother to three, I read Maurice Sendak's masterpiece in book form. Nonetheless, Wild Things has unquestionably and deservedly earned a position on my Top-Ten Movies of All Time list. Oh my goodness, readers, go and see this lovely and affecting film. Please. Please go and see it.
As in Sendak's book, the movie Max is an imaginative, creative, and deeply lonely boy. He is an outsider, a solitary figure who finds affinity and thrill in the tunnels, forts, and hideaways he creates from his frozen surroundings and mountains of stuffed animals. And people don't get him. No, Max isn't physically hurt when his sister's friends destroy his igloo-fort--he's devastated; he's enraged. And his tears are less a momentary show or tantrum than a moving, troubling firestorm of anger, indignation, humiliation, and loss.
It was at this point that my tears began flowing with gusto, and I simply gave up trying to contain them. Son Three, who sat next to me as he is wont to do, quietly pushed up the armrest that separated us, leaned into me, and clasped my hand for the following hour.
As book-Max does, movie-Max runs away from his pain and anger. His dark and gorgeous imagination takes him on a journey wherein we, the lucky viewers, are brought face-to-face with the embodiments of Max's various demons--his monsters. And oh, what wondrous and inspiring monsters they are.
I don't want to say too much more, other than this: please see this lovely, lyrical film. If you've ever been--or loved--a creative child, it will resonate with you like no other movie in recent memory.
* Son One is now seventeen. He still won't talk about this film, and it has been a week now.
** Full disclosure: I have met Dave Eggers and his brilliant wife Vendela on a couple of occasions. Had I not met and conversed with him, my opinion of his writing would be no different--he's a genius.
Also at litbrit.
Posted by litbrit at 09:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
Forgive me, but it's hard for me to understand these parents
who apparently believed a DVD could make their babies smarter and now
want refunds from Disney (and are getting them) because, lo and behold,
their babies didn't turn out to be Einsteins after all. Good grief.
Do I think all teevee is always bad, all the time? Of course not. I'm a committed Mad Men and Dexter fangirl; as such, on Sunday nights, you can have my cable remote when you can pry it from my cold, dead...well, you know. And as for children's video, if it weren't for the Sesame Street tapes we had piled high in the playroom ca. early-1990's, I'd never have been able to take a shower or get ready to go out. Indeed, brightly-hued bits of programming like Elmo's ABC's would entertain Son One, in particular, for about 20 minutes--tops--as he bounced around in his playpen. And that gave me just enough time to wash my hair and race back out before he started smashing things and hurling his Junior Legos across the room and beaning the cat. Now, this boy was able to recite the alphabet at 18 months (his favorite letter, God help me, was "da-do-ooo": W). He knew several words in Spanish, too.
Years later, when Son Three was born, someone gave me a Baby Einstein video. He pretty much ignored it then; in fact, none of the boys liked it and it sat on the shelf unwatched, but we did wind up using it when Son Three was four, as an adjunct to his thrice-weekly speech therapy (my youngest son didn't begin to speak until he was five; now, at age 10, he gets straight-A's and has a flawless 100% average in spelling, of all things.)
I guess what I'm getting at is this: Every child is different; there are different "brands" of intelligence; and every child develops at a unique pace. And most importantly, none of these different kinds of intelligence can reasonably be expected to benefit in any meaningful and measurable way from something as easily-packaged and mass-marketed as a series of dull, condescendingly simplistic videos, which, after all, are just slide-show-style image displays of familiar objects accompanied by single-word statements set to various commercially-accepted and (considerably) less-challenging classical pieces.
Hey, here's a bold idea: Why not just play the damned Mozart in the car? That way, you'll be pleasantly surprised when your four-year-old hums things like Eine Kleine Nachtmusik in the checkout line and can tell people exactly what it is he's singing (okay, so they didn't always get the Köchel numbers right, but still). Who knows--you might then find yourself and your progeny moving on to Schubert, Shostakovitch, Glass, and Zappa. (Be still, my beating heart.)
But back to these videos. For the most part, I think the vast majority of child-friendly teevee is dead boring and might even be a depressing experience for bright, creative babies (grownups, too); moreover, plunking children in front of the tube every day for extended periods of time seems counterintuitive, if not lazy. Instead, why not just read little books to your babies? Dance with the wee buggers and speak to them in different languages! Buy some old-fashioned globes for your house--yeah, I know, The World is Yours, Tony Montana, but they do look cool--and show them where they are, relative to everyone else on this Big Blue Marble (ahem). Cook with them and measure stuff out--one, two, three..okay, stop! Let them build towers out of your Tupperware (trust me, by five or six months, they'll have figured out how to pick the baby locks on your cabinets anyway). Get a telescope and look at the stars together.
Hell's bells, none of this is rocket science, so to speak.
Posted by litbrit at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)
The USA did once belong solely to whites - well, white males and particularly wealthy heterosexual white males - and they are in many ways losing it to women and other ethnicities and sex/gender identities. Gays are not going back in the closet, and despite the racist garbage rising to the surface right now, we did manage to elect a black man as president.
So let's celebrate the decline of that America, the one in which a black man could be lynched for looking at a white woman the wrong way, the America in which that same woman could be raped by a white man that very night and have no recourse at any level of our justice system.
And let's be honest about who built America and the conditions under which they labored: slaves, Chinese immigrants, Native Americans, women and other peoples of all races.
However, we need to be careful here. People are not able to lay claim to America because their ancestors were here on the Mayflower or fought in the civil war. They are not able to lay claim to this nation because people of their ethnic group have been here just as long as or longer than white Europeans. No, one of the great virtures of America - existing, as always, more in potential than fact - is that the immigrant fresh off the boat has as much claim to the American dream as those who can trace their family history on this continent back centuries. (Even and especially ridiculously good-looking British ex-pats living in Florida.)
Posted by Stephen Suh at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)
"Friday" - Joe Jackson
Well, through a series of mishaps and miscalculations Sir Charles and family missed our flight this evening. Have now been cooling my heels at Dulles Airport for four hours. But when life gives you lemons, I say have two beers, a bacon cheeseburger, a chocolate shake, and one of those seated massages/foot rubs. (It's okay -- they have those automatic defibrilators here.)
Posted by Sir Charles at 09:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
El Gato Negro has a message for our dear friends, the Blue Cross
Dog ConservaDems: Remember all those people who worked so hard to get
you elected? We want to see real health care reform, with a robust
public option, become reality.
Next year, we'll remember who did the right thing.
Posted by litbrit at 08:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (15)
I know it would knock you all over with a feather to learn that the media might just have a class bias in its treatment of contracts, but Matt Browner Hamlin of Hold Fast has a post on the subject that's still worth reading. The 'liberal' media doesn't so much have a left or right bias as a royalist bias.
And consider this an open thread. Looks like we could use one, and I've got some travel ahead this weekend, so I'll be out of commission.
Posted by low-tech cyclist at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (15)
Nah, we're not starting over. It's a whole new ballgame because a signing ceremony for a health care reform bill is finally looking pretty probable. And all of a sudden, that puts foot-dragging Democrats in a very different position from where they've been.
I've been saying for awhile that, if the bill passes, the November 2010 midterms would turn on who makes the better argument: Dems saying "look what we did for you," and Pubbies saying, "look what they did to you."
As long as there was still a good distance to go before a bill was passed, Business Dog Dems could afford to be Business Dogs - to maintain the charade of being Democrats by being on the side of passing something, while watering it down to please the people who write their campaign checks, and hoping that the bill would die a quiet death amidst all the wrangling. So they didn't have to think much about how it would play out in 2010 if the bill passed, because that was a pretty damned big 'if.'
Not so much anymore. So now they're having to think about passing a bill that they can defend to their constituents when the GOP tries to put the worst face on it that they can.
And that means strengthening the bill so that the GOP doesn't have much to work with.
As Ezra said today, "the fact that Nelson's position has become "states can opt out of the public option" rather than "no public option at all" suggests the goal posts on this are moving, and rapidly." I'll bet they are. And I wouldn't be surprised if they're also moving in the right direction on subsidy levels, out-of-pocket cost caps, and other areas where people will be worried about the effects of this bill on their own budgets.
I can't say whether a bad bill is better or worse than no bill from a practical perspective. But for vulnerable Dems, a bad bill is the worst political outcome possible. Now that a bill looks very likely, that fact is our friend.
Posted by low-tech cyclist at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)
When George Bush was president, liberals said the word "fuck."
Now, conservatives threaten to kill Barack Obama.
When George Bush was president, liberals said they hated him.
Now, conservatives threaten to kill Barack Obama - a 400% increase in threats against Obama compared to those against George Bush.
When George Bush was president, liberals photoshopped his face onto a chimpanzee.
Now, conservatives threaten to kill Barack Obama.
Now, conservatives take guns to meetings with Barack Obama and other politicians.
Now, conservatives talk about armed revolution.
Now, conservatives in uniform band together to conspire over the circumstances in which they would disobey their orders.
Now, conservative GOP politicians visit illegitimate governments and pledge their support to unelected dictators against the stated policy of the USA. (Never mind, they've always done that.)
When George Bush was president, liberals were angry and let it show in their words and in organizing to defeat Republicans in special and regular elections all across the country.
Now, conservatives from the grassroots, to lunatics on TV to their top elected officials foment rebellion, spread fringe conspiracy rumors, stoke racist fires and, it must be said again and again,
to the point that the Secret Service is entirely swamped, unable to deal with the avalanche of violence directed toward the legitimate government of America.
God damn all of them.
*I know that 'conservative' is a neutral word that doesn't necessarily imply that any person who is 'conservative' is a deranged, right-wing killer. But that's the word they want for themselves, and there's precious few self-identified conservatives out there disputing the idea.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 01:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (28)
Go read this article about Bill Caudle. Bill is 40 years old. He worked for 20 years at the same job until he was laid off earlier this year. He got some severence, and with the stimulus measures passed by the Democratic Congress and President Obama, he and his family were able to scrape by on unemployment and federal assistance for health insurance.
All of that has run out, especially the health insurance part. And Michelle Caudle, Bill's wife, has ovarian cancer. Without treatment, she'll die. Let's face it, with treatment this cancer will probably put an early end to her life.
So with no jobs and no ability to pay thousands of dollars a month for health insurance, Bill joined the Army. He seems a patriotic guy, and says in the article that he's long considered the military. But the plain fact of the matter is that while his country is fighting wars in two different nations, Bill Caudle joined the Army so that his wife could go see the doctor, get chemo, and live out what time she has left on this earth with some dignity.
I don't know how to make the members of the US Senate see this as something that's real, something that matters, something about which they can actually take action. Even aside from the human toll our healthcare system profit-generating scheme exacts from us, healthcare reform with a strong public option will simply be cheaper for the federal government. It will lower the budget deficit. It will actually cut out 'waste, fraud and abuse,' that empty mantra of the corporate whores who ply their trade in the Capitol Building's strangely red-tinged halls.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (32)
And the usual random dishonesty.
Being a Brand Name in the Village goes a long way. For years now, George Will has not only been just another right-wing hack, but doesn't even write particularly well to boot. But he's managed to position himself as not just a responsible, mainstream conservative, but an exceedingly intelligent and erudite member of the breed as well. So no matter how dishonest he is, and how poorly he writes, his column in the Washington Post, his presence on the Sunday talk shows, and his influential position in the Village are in no danger.
So he can write a column that is little more than "Liberal academics at University A bug me, which reminds me of something derogatory about the Obama Administration that I'll pretend is true, which leads me to this bogus argument against the health care bill (which allows me to show off my deficit-hawk credentials that gathered dust during the Bush Administraton) that in turn reminds me of an incredibly bogus argument against unspecified advocates of an additional stimulus bill," and he's still one of the preeminent voices in our national discourse. Great work if you can get it.
Along Will's random walk, two items are of particular note: his bogus claim about funding health care reform from Medicare cuts, and his claim that an additional stimulus would actually be a third, rather than a second, stimulus is somehow a devastating argument against stimulus supporters.
So here's Will on the first point:
But speaking of unfunded medical entitlements: The furrowed Washington brows that currently express faux puzzlement about how the health-care entitlement -- aka "reform" -- will be paid for are theatrical. There is no mystery. The new entitlement will be paid for, to a significant extent, the way much of government is paid for -- by borrowing from China.
Republicans are operatic when they pretend to take seriously, in order to wax indignant about, the Democrats' professed plan to partially pay for Sen. Max Baucus's version of reform by cutting at least $400 billion from Medicare. Supporters of the Baucus bill are guilty of many things but not, regarding such cuts, of sincerity. Congress regularly vows to make Medicare cuts, and as regularly defers them.
Nice try, George, but it helps to know the facts - or admit to the facts you surely must know, one or the other. Unthanks to George W. Bush, there's a rather substantial amount of Medicare expenses that aren't translating into Medicare benefits. Due to the program misnamed "Medicare Advantage," we taxpayers are subsidizing private firms to the tune of, yes, hundreds of billions per decade to compete with Medicare. Obama, Baucus, etc. are simply suggesting we remove the subsidies, and let them compete on an even footing. If they can manage that, great; if not, seniors enrolled in MA will go back into the regular Medicare program, which won't experience any cut in benefits.
So from the point of view of both the taxpayers and Medicare recipients, this is free money: we can save money without cutting benefits. The only losers would be the companies that we're subsidizing to compete with Medicare.
If Will doesn't know this fact at this late point in the discussion, he's got no business influencing anyone's opinion because he's freakin' ignorant. And if he does know about Medicare Advantage but is conveniently skipping past it, then he's a liar.
And then there's Will on the stimulus:
But the number from which Washington flinches is...3.
Many Democrats believe that rising unemployment means the nation needs a "second" stimulus -- but one they could call something other than a stimulus because it would be the third. The first was passed in February 2008, two months after the recession began. Its $168 billion tax rebate failed to stimulate because overleveraged Americans perversely saved much of it.
This is, of course, a pile of steaming bullshit, absent the naming of the "many Democrats" advocating a second stimulus, and whether they thought the first stimulus was large enough to do any good, or whether they expected the zero'th stimulus (the appropriate numeration of Bush's deservedly forgotten 'stimulus' bill) to be at all useful. Certainly saddling stimulus advocates with Summers' claims regarding the first stimulus, as Will does, is completely dishonest unless either Summers is one of those advocates, or if those advocates agreed with Summers at the time about the likely potency of the first stimulus.
But that's not true. The Administration seems to have little interest in another round of stimulus. The loudest second-stimulus advocates I hear are people like Krugman and DeLong, who were quite clear at the time that the first Obama stimulus was way too small, and that there was every reason to expect most of the paltry Bush stimulus to be saved rather than spent. Bringing up the Bush stimulus isn't the least bit inconvenient to advocates of more stimulus. Rather, it's inconvenient to those who would urge a significant portion of any additional stimulus to be devoted to tax cuts and rebates, rather than direct Federal spending or aid to states in the throes of major budget cuts.
Finally, Will claims that the purpose of such a stimulus "would be, primarily designed to save a few dozen jobs -- those of Democratic members of the House and Senate." Which is why Congress is working day and night on an additional stimulus bill.
Oh, wait a minute - they aren't. The main proponents of more stimulus are, alas, outside of government entirely.
So shorter Will: guys like Krugman are desperately trying to convince a Democratic Congress to implement a second stimulus in order to keep a few more Democrats in Congress, but the Democratic Congress itself seems oddly uninterested
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
And of course, the consequences of high unemployment on the lives of the men and women out of work, and on their families, is beneath Will's notice entirely. As far as he's concerned, they don't even exist; tthis is all about Washington, and what happens in the provinces only has meaning as it affects the power games inside the Beltway.
So in addition to being an extremely dishonest person and a terrible writer, Will is a morally repulsive human being.
We knew that already. But I honestly wish he wouldn't pile up the evidence quite so high and deep, so quickly.
Posted by low-tech cyclist at 04:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)
"Who Knows Where the Time Goes" - Fairport Convention
Happy birthday to Deborah. A beautiful song, beautifully sung by the late, lamented Sandy Denny, who had one of the purest voices I've ever heard, asking the musical question that everyone in our age group asks. (Denny, in the confidence of youth -- she was 20 when she wrote this --, ironically, has "no fear of time" although she would only live to be 31.)
Have a lovely day D. May all those mens around you take up the slack for the day at least. (And I hope it's not raining where you are -- here in DC it has now rained for more than 100 straight hours -- even the atheists are contemplating ark building.)
Posted by Sir Charles at 11:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (13)
Actually, they shouldn't: Groucho's funny because he's lampooning "whatever it is, I'm against it," and the Republicans in Congress and elsewhere aren't funny (ridiculous, perhaps, but not funny) because they're quite serious about it.
(Video here, since I can't seem to figure out how to embed in Typepad.)
I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.
Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.
Conservatives these days come pre-parodied.
Posted by low-tech cyclist at 06:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
I dedicate this terrific bit of parody to Stephen, iPhone newbie and fellow pointer-outer of Republican homophobia sexism racism fanatic Christianism hypocrisy ah...let's say all of the above, plus abject Republican insanity. We are, all of us, compelled to point it out to you on an ongoing basis, since they keep topping themselves.
Via Shadowfax, the awesomest ER doc in the northeast.
Posted by litbrit at 05:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Are we really supposed to buy this horseshit?
A new focus-group of Republican base voters by the Democracy Corps (D), the consulting and polling outfit headed up by James Carville and Stan Greenberg, presents a picture of the GOP base as being motivated by a fundamentally different worldview than folks in the middle or on the Dem side -- and they see the country as being under a dire threat. . .One thing that the firm makes clear, though, is that this is not about racism, but about ideology: "Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters' beliefs - but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson's incendiary comments at the president's joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion - but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point."
So Carville got a bunch of white, southern Republicans together, started asking them questions and told them that their answers would be written down? And they didn't immediately slip on their Klan robes and burn crosses on the conference table? Amazing!
Because everyone knows that no person with racist attitudes ever holds them in check in a public setting. And we can be absolutely sure that none of the people brought in for the focus group had any incentive whatsoever to cast themselves in a good light. Let's all just uncritically accept it as gospel when people say to an interviewer that they aren't racist.
Apparently, since whites protested interracial marriage by calling it 'socialist,' their opposition was in no way racist, merely ideological. And Dr. Martin Luther King, since he was accused of being a socialist, was the subject of ideological opposition from whites, not racism.
Let's rewrite all the textbooks, because this puts the entire civil rights movement of the 1960s in a whole new light, now that we're just going to let white Republicans tell us whether or not they're racist.
I'm sure they all have piles and piles of black friends, and comparing Obama to a raccoon, dressing him up as an African shaman, calling an escaped gorilla one of Michelle Obama's ancestors and circulating an endless cycle of emailed 'jokes' about watermelons in the White House garden are all random, innocent coincidence.
To the good people at TPM and Balloon Juice, among others: if your leg is the only thing getting wet, it ain't rain.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 02:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (16)
But still, it's hard to resist when Saletan, at this late date, jumps in to defend Roman Polanski.
I know: if I hadn't read his two pieces for myself, I still wouldn't expect that, even from someone as useless as Saletan.
Saletan's argument is that Polanski's likely to get a worse sentence than he would have gotten back in 1978, and that's just plain unfair. Especially since he'll be judged by the mores of a different era.
Huh?
That's what happens when you gamble: instead of settling for what you've got, you might wind up better off - or worse. If you win, life is good, as it was for Polanski for three decades. But if you lose, then it sucks to be you. Shit happens. If life were full of 'heads I win, tails I break even' bets, we'd all take them.
The fact is that Polanski could have gone to trial in 1978, and been judged by 1978 standards. He chose not to. Now he may have to walk into a courtroom in 2009 or 2010, and be judged by contemporary standards. Sucks to be him.
What's more, he bases his argument around the notion that Polanski would now be judged as a pedophile, which he says wouldn't have been the case in 1978, and in apparent support of this point produces a lot of evidence to support the notion that the victim was probably sexually mature at the time - a point that I've nowhere seen disputed.
But the real problem is that Saletan regards Polanski as a man whose desire for a sexually mature, but underage and consenting, young woman got the better of him.
We're arguing that he's a rapist, which is a whole 'nother thing. The big problem for most of us isn't that the girl was underage, but that she didn't want to have sex - and Polanski forced her to against her will. That's rape, regardless of the age of the victim.
And even if we concede Saletan's point, and assume arguendo that both parties were willing: why should Polanski get any sort of break? Did he do anything to indicate that he was a man who made a bad mistake, but realized he shouldn't have given in to his urge to have sex with an attractive minor?
Polanski, 1979:
"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But...fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"
I'll take that as a 'no.'
Update: I accidentally posted this, though I meant to be saving it as a draft. (If you read the original, its fragmented nature was probably pretty apparent. Aggh.) What's above is a considerably reworked version.
Posted by low-tech cyclist at 03:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)
At*ten*tion, n: Concentration of the mental powers upon an object; a close or careful observing or listening.
Whore, n: A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
At*ten*tion Whore, n: This guy.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 08:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)
If by this he means that I can repeatedly hit him with a blunt instrument with impunity, then fuck yeah!*
Are we really sure that Michael Steele is not a white man wearing black face? Because that would explain a lot. And frankly, otherwise nothing he says makes a whole lot of sense.
[*I kid, I kid, of course -- I actually was on the same flight as Steele (and Michelle Malkin) from Austin last year and was on my best behavior.)
Updated: Steele's bizarre analogy that he would be the cow on the track stopping Obama from driving the health care reform train and the hilarious quest on Sadly, No! to give him a rapper name pointed out by litbrit must be linked. (You must watch the dailykos clip -- sweet Jesus it's funny.)(And on the Sadly, No! front, I am torn between Mos Tone Def, Galt 'n' Pepa, and MC Erkel.)
Posted by Sir Charles at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)
"Love Minus Zero/No Limit" - Bob Dylan
Bob Dylan performs one of his most beautiful songs at the Concert for Bangladesh, backed by George Harrison on lead guitar, Ringo Starr on tambourine, and Leon Russell on bass. It appears that they are going to play "If not for You" and then Dylan says something to Harrison and changes songs. Very Dylanesque as it were.
I thought of this this morning when I heard cuts from the soon to be released Dylan Christmas album on NPR, which sounded a bit frightening. Dylan's voice is not for everyone (especially now) but I think in the period depicted and shortly thereafter, he sounded the best he ever would -- and to my ears at least, pretty wonderful.
[Happy birthday Lauren.]
Posted by Sir Charles at 09:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)
Oh my.
As both of my fellow lawyers, bigbadwolf and kathy a., predicted Judge Clay Land was not messing around when he issued the Order to Show Cause to Birther Queen, lunatic, and alleged bar member Orly Taitz. Today Judge Land issued an order fining Taitz $20,000 for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for filing a frivolous lawsuit and otherwise wasting the Court's time, doubling the amount of the penalty from that previously threatened by the Court. [That Eric Holder claim probably helped with that.] I have only had the chance to quickly scan the 43 page opinion accompanying the Order, but it appears to be both thorough and scathing -- best line so far "[h]er response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional."
The Judge seemed unamused at being called a traitor. Go figure.
Posted by Sir Charles at 01:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (55)
BREAKING NEWS - ROSS TAKES HIS OWN ADVICE - MUST CREDIT COGITAMUS
Dear Editors,
It is with a heavy heart that I must reject the honor of having been awarded a column in the New York Times. (Well, okay, I originally accepted the offer, but the fact is I've spent six months producing forgettable pieces regurgitating the Republican talking point de jour complemented by periodic doses of jejune prudery reflecting my fundamental discomfort with female sexuality, but no one will remember these -- I mean does anyone remember Judy Miller?)
I am giving up the column because I had the sudden realization that I've actually done nothing with my life to date that justifies my being given such a prominent piece of editorial real estate. Hell, I'm 29 and almost a virgin. (I have, on the other hand, seen William F. Buckley naked and lived to tell the tale so that's something.) It occurred to me that I got the column only as a sop by the liberal elite media to conservatives -- and that I got the gig by default. Simply by being right wing, yet presentable in public, writing complete sentences without using the CAPS lock button, and never using the word n*gger, even in private, I got the job.
And that's really not enough, is it? I've never had a job other than as a youthful pontificator, I don't have a graduate degree, don't really have an area of actual expertise (other than knowing that every time a single woman has an orgasm the Baby Jesus cries), and have no life experience of which to speak. How the hell did I become the youngest columnist in the venerable history of the Times? Thomas Friedman has actually spent more time in cabs than I've been on the earth.
I am afraid that I cannot live up to the Times' "implausible expectations." Some of my supporters, liberals among them, had "cloud-cuckoo-land expectations" of my abilities. Soon, however, the "inevitable disappointments of reality" set in -- including the regrettable fact that I use phrases like "cloud-cuckoo-land" while purporting to be a writer.
So I take my leave with the vow to go out and live and learn and get a real job and meet real people and attain actual mastery of something. Only then will I claim the right to foist my opinions upon millions.
I guess I wish that the Times hadn't put me on the spot by making this generous offer to me. I just regret that I wasn't brave enough to say no when the offer came my way.
Posted by Sir Charles at 09:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (17)
As you'd imagine, I'm completely in favor of banning weapons in schools per se (though I would note that such bans weren't terribly effective at getting kids to not bring knives and loaded guns to my
high school--some kids got caught and suspended, yes, but many more
souls in that crowd of 4,500 just walked around with their protection
devices well-concealed, and that was that). Having one's stuff stolen
or one's ass groped--sometimes by teachers, counselors, and even
administrators, I'd add--or contracting food poisoning via the
cafeteria's liberal use of Magical Mystery Meat®, were far more common
(not to mention clear and present) threats to one's health and
well-being than getting stabbed, sliced, or blown to bits by a fellow
student ever were.
This incident, however, involved a six-year-old boy and the Cub Scouts' camping tool that he received as a gift and was excited about showing to his class. And for his trouble (or, actually, the lack thereof), his school's officials suspended him and want to sentence him to 45 days of reform school because they have a "zero-tolerance weapon policy" in place. I'm dead serious (read the linked article).
So, I'm curious: what's next? No more baseball bats or tennis rackets? No more ropes in the gym? A ban on ballpoint pens and scissors and compasses and Exacto knives? No chopsticks in girls' hairdos and no popsicle sticks in art class, because someone might put an eye out?
They've already done away with Bunsen burners and most of the interesting chemicals in, um, chemistry, which in turn begs the question, What is the bloody point of having chemistry lab in the first place, then? They've already cut shop class and home-ec from the curricula in most Florida public schools, resulting in legions of kids who have no freaking idea how to repair a broken chair leg or turn on a stove and make a simple, healthy, affordable dinner, which idiotic policy in turn has rendered the current generation overly reliant on fatty, cholesterol-packed fast food that's full of unrecognizable ingredients and is expensive, to boot. Few teens these days (and God, how I cringed as I typed that) have the foggiest notion of how to shorten a pair of trousers or sew on a button or cut a slab of drywall or hang a picture on the wall. Forget doing any electrical wiring, plumbing, carpentry, shoe repairing, or furniture refinishing--all things that I not only know how to do myself without playing the damsel-in-distress card and calling Robert, but for which I actually have in my possession the necessary tools and chemicals. And I suspect I'm not terribly different from most of the women in my graduating class, ca. late-1970's, at the aforementioned High School of Peril.
Whatever happened to identifying the truly violent children and counseling, punishing, and--yes--re-assigning those individuals as needed? Whatever happened to affording our teachers a little respect for their intellect and good judgment and allowing them to, you know, exercise discretion, to be free to judge each unique incident on its face and instead of treating every child as a potential terrorist, to simply say, in cases like the one linked above, something to the effect of: That's wonderful, Timmy, but please hand that over to me for safekeeping for now, and we'll return it to your Mum at the end of the day.
Are we such a terrified, litigious, scapegoat-seeking nation that it's no longer possible to have a well-supervised environment--in art, in shop class, in home-ec, in chemistry lab--wherein our little ones can learn how to properly use all those Evil Sharp, Pointy, and Explode-y Things so they can grow up and face the world, in which, it must be said, there is no shortage of Evil Sharp, Pointy, and Explode-y Things?
And if we're going to bring up rare but horrific incidents like the Columbine school shootings in order to state the bleeding obvious--that we need to reduce violence in our culture--then why can't we start at the source and heavily regulate the sales and ownership of guns, and see if that doesn't do it for us?
Jesus wept.
Also at litbrit.
Posted by litbrit at 01:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (22)
Recent Comments