A Beautiful Soul

The End

2005-10-11T18:28:00.000-04:00

Well, as some of you may know, I'm at Pandagon now. And since I'm not Matt fucking Yglesias, I'm done posting here. I don't expect a whole lot to change. This has been nice, and all. But like a worn out condom, there's no need to get sentimental.

Tata

WARNING:THE CONTENT OF THIS POST IS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE

2005-10-05T01:22:00.000-04:00

Click Here to see what evil looks like.

Blue Girl also made me cry today.

Yesterday too.

"I Was Hoping He Was Gifted Sexually"

2005-10-03T22:44:00.000-04:00

UPDATE:
I had a brilliant thought over at 3Bulls which I want to add:

"I think I figured out why Bob Loblaw doesn't work for me. It's as if they wrote the character and then just wrote him into the episode like "hey isn't that funny." As opposed to Winkler where they didn't seem to go out of their way to create him. They needed a lawyer for various scenes and wrote him into it. All of the lawyering in this episode was unnecessary.

It's probably the same thing for Rita. Like hey, we got Charlize Theron. Let's create a character for her and plot."

Also, I used the term "retro review" above, and I just want to clarify that these aren't really "reviews" but more accurately criticisms. The difference being that a review assumes the reader hasn't seen the episode. A criticism, or critique if you will, assumes the reader is familiar with the critiqued material. So there's that.

Also Arrested D, returns on October 31. Mark your calender Blue Girl.

Now back to the original post:

I tried to work the title around the "Tobias Funke: Analrapist" joke, which has got to be the darkest joke to have ever aired at 8 o clock on Broadcast television. I also pondered going with Gob's "He's my son you pothead," line which for my money were the funniest moments on tonight's Arrested D. And there were a lot of funny moments. A very solid show tonight. I can't gush too much about it, because I just don't care for the Rita storyline too much. It's easily my least favorite plot in the show's short history. Also, I don't care for the Bob Loblaw character so much. And I don't care for the blahblahblah joke either. Unfortunately, it's not going anywhere. One more complaint, the surrogate dad was kinda funny, but I didn't like it that much. And I think they went a little long with it.

Otherwise, this was classic Arrested Development. I don't feel like it was their best episode, but it was definitely the best episode of Season three so far and was overall a pretty average episode, not appreciably worse than the standard Arrested Development fare. The pacing problems are under control. Gob and Buster are getting their jokes in. Lucille and Tobias, I still feel, are suffering in the writing a wee bit, but I'm just being picky. Funny funny stuff with Gob's "forget me nots" and Buster clubbing the stuffed seal on Rita's backpack. For the third week in a row, they had a clunker in the narration, but otherwise a very strong job by Ron Howard. Especially the "This would be a great time for a commercial break." Begin to cue the music. "But it wasn't" Also, Gob was on fire the whole episode. "In our defense Ma, we're not dog people" Haha. "You lobbed that one over the plate, Michael. Homerun!" And the on the next Arrested Development bit with Steve Holt. So funny.

Unfortunately just as Arrested D has hit its stride, it looks like it'll be preempted for about a month due to the baseball playoffs on Fox, which especially blows, since the Indians found a way to screw themselves out of a playoff spot, and I have no reason to even pretend to care about the outcome anymore. Some are gloomy about the prospects of Arrested D. returning after baseball ends, but I'm reasonably confident, that despite the low ratings, FOX won't pull the plug that soon. One tiny glimmer of hope lies in DVD sales, which provide another source of revenue besides ad sales. A show like King of Queens may do well in the ratings, because Americans after a hard day at work or whatever, might like to zone out to some jokes they've heard before. But a show like King of Queens will never sell well on DVD, like Arrested Development, practically made for repeat viewings and with its hardcore fans, might. So if you can, buy the season 2 DVD when it comes out on October 11. And the Season 1 DVD as soon as you can. Remember, Family guy, a far inferior show, was saved from cancellation by strong DVD sales.

It seems as though the weak ratings are causing bitterness among the writers, too. Like when they're at Fat Ammy's, the American style restaurant in wee Britain, and Rita says "And they laugh at the stupidest things." So Michael responds "Michael: That's your typical american. they're all so juvenille with everything. It's like they're in arrested development." Which led to the narrator's clunker. But still kinda funny. Almost harkens back to the Ben Stiller episode where the bluth company's housing order got cut from 22 to 18, just after Fox reduced their episode order from 22 to 18. Or "why do we even market to this idiot demographic?" Haha. Neat. Also, that bit in episode 2, where Gob is hiding from Steve Holt in the birdcage and then gives Tom a "vitamin" finally makes sense.

Anyway, I'll probably like this episode a lot more on the season 3 DVD, but definitely a good one as is. On the Pitchfork scale I give it a 8.768. No episode next week, but I'll probably do a retro review of an earlier classic episode, instead.

Nominee Blogging

2005-10-03T18:00:00.000-04:00

Check out Harriet Miers's Blog everyone. But also check out the sour grapes from snubbed potential nominee J Michael Luttig. I predict funny stuff from these blogs over the next couple of weeks. And then I'll probably never visit them again.

Get Your Roots Out Of My Clusters You Stupid Bitch

2005-10-02T22:17:00.000-04:00

I was going to do this over at Ezra's, but then I just didn't know if it was really appropriate to launch a contest this awesome on someone else's blog. As I'm sure you all know, the New York Times recently published the correspondence between Scooter Libby and Judy Miller in the whole "who gave love to the terrorists for partisan advantage?" mystery. In the course of releasing Miller from her promise of confidentiality, so that she might testify about conversations she's had with Libby concerning Valerie Plame and whether or not she was an undercover CIA agent, Libby writes:

"You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover—Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They're in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work—-and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers."

Quickly, over at the daily kos, while taking a break from the important shit, they stumbled upon the very real possibility that this is some kind of coded message. Come on, "the aspens will be turning." "They turn in clusters because their roots connect them." I've seen enough movies to know some codery when I see it. Unfortunately it would be impossible to crack that code with any sort of confidence. Aspens could figuratively mean anything. All I know is that that fucker is not talking about trees.

So in light of my love for rampant and reckless speculation and my deep fondness for creativity. I'm announcing a contest to see who can come up with the best interpretation. And by best, I mean craziest, but crazy in a humorous way, or at least in an angrily and irrationally partisan way. I'm not sure if sincerity will be rewarded or punished in the judging. There's just no way to tell what kind of mood I'll be in. If you have your own blog, I encourage you to post your best shot there and trackback, otherwise you can do it in the comments. Blue Girl has helpfully gotten us started with two separate theories. Check 'em out. But don't be intimidated, I'm confident one of you enterprising sorts can top blue girl. I'm also confident that we're all mature enough to keep our minds out of the gutter concerning that last statement. No one's impressed with your ability to turn my innocuous statements into double entendres, or as the french say, "double entendres." And I don't care if I've told that joke before either. It's called a "running gag" dipshits.

Anyway, we'll see if anyone bothers to enter before we think about prizes. I'm thinking it's probably sexual favors though, courtesy of moi.

"Throwing a Tattoo on a Sexpot Makes… a Tattooed Sexpot"

2005-09-30T11:26:00.000-04:00

Remember when Walt Disney made the here-to-fore seedy carnival safe for children? Or how about when Vince McMahon did the same with professional wrestling in the 1980's? The recent attempts to do something similar with porn by Suicide Girls is being exposed as the rank facade it is. Not that they were trying to make porn safe for children as such, but the attempt to market Suicide Girls, not as something seedy and exploitative, but empowering and alternative, with an almost wholesome fondness for the excessively pierced, tattooed hipster punk rockeress next door.

I never really got into the Suicide Girls thing, myself. It seemed too image conscious to be the kind of true amateur porn with which my druthers lie. But compared to the cold sterility of the spread eagled blonde in an anonymous studio, it seemed like a step in the right direction for mainstream porn, if not solely aesthetically, but at least ethically.

Turns out, though, not so much. Check out this description of the site's owner. Clinical Sociopath No?

This leads me to the constant verbal abuse and threats that sean dishes out to models, or anyone who gets close enough to experience his personality. i have heard him call everyone in the office "fucking morons and idiots" on numerous occasions. i have heard him call models, "sluts", "whores", "junkies", "stupid", etc...this list is longer that i care to write. in fact the burlesque tour girls had an on-going joke about this, and actually wrote and taped a piece of paper that read "YOU SUCK! - from sean" on our costume bin. sometimes ya gotta make light of the ugly stuff. i have watched girls (my friends) cry themselves to sleep at night (on numerous occasions) due to his verbals insults and downright mean behavior. i have also heard sean laugh about it later...amused at his own demeaning antics.

now, this is not to say that sean is all evil...he has a very intelligent and charming side. one that i got along with very well with for some time. in fact, if you're on his good side, he's full of perks and favors. he has given me free banners ads, free clothing that often gets sent into the office for sampling purposes, bought me food, let me drive the company car around, and let's not forget i lived in his house for 2 months...where i kept things tidy, ran the occasional errand, and gave him and a couple of the girls private yoga lessons. it was great for a little while, until he started having random outbursts at me and calling me names. in fact i'll share just one experience:

But maybe that's just "prickly management style." From "Dia:"

I'd like to clear up the record that there have been around 150-200 models who left the site, over two years, but about 30+ in the month of September alone, during one Mass Exodus of models, particularly those models who had worked on the DVD or the Burlesque Show. It was by far the most models who had ever left at one time.

I'd also like to mention that the article states pay as being a primary reason for models leaving. Let it not be a point of confusion that these models probably should be paid more, especially those working for $200 a night for mainly sold-out venues across the country, however, it's rarely been cited as a reason for models leaving.

The sentiment of models has varied quite a lot but the resounding theme I hear from the models who recently (the 30+) left are a feeling of disgust at the general Misogynistic tone of the site owner, who has been said to have been especially verbally abusive towards his dancers, calling them, and some other models, very harsh names and berating them, also complaining about an unusually poor standard of treatment, even for this industry. I left this site happily after being asked to leave 3 years ago, though I clung to the allure of the community, when I heard the owner Sean Suhl, state in front of myself and another model that the girls were all a bunch whores, he would never pose for his own website if he was a girl, and that Suicide Girls were some of the stupidest girls on earth. He also said that the only good Suicide Girl model was, as he put it, 1%... a tiny piece in his site... a statement seriously lacking any Punk or Feminist or even Progressive-Minded credibility. Women with strong voices seem to be more likely to wind up archived.

More specifics here And some interesting background here.

As fucking Hugo says

Âthis is where I find the likes of Larry Flynt (publisher of Hustler) to be less offensive than men like Sean Suhl of Suicide Girls. Flynt doesnÂt pretend heÂs empowering his models; he embraces raunch with a bracingly candid enthusiasm that even his detractors often find to be Â almost Â winsome. Fellas like Suhl are out to make money off womenÂs bodies in much the same way Flynt is, but in SuhlÂs case, greed seems hidden behind the rhetoric of edginess, alternative culture, and a rather shallow feminism.

All via Feministe

Bobby Lightfoot and the Sword of Destiny

2005-09-30T01:06:00.000-04:00

I meant to post this much earlier in the day, but I got distracted. I'm pretty much only capable of functioning between the hours of midnight and 4 AM, so... hey. Anyway, the first draft of this post went like this:

They used to say when I was a boy, if you wanted to be the best in the world at something, you should probably never leave your hometown. Cause if you did, someday, you'd probably end up stumbling upon Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. And I said to myself, weeel, I just happen to have a crowbar with the name "wolfgang amadeus mozart" inscribed on her. So I had no worries. No one ever told me I might stumble upon Mr. Bobby Lightfoot, though. And I reckon that old crowbar just ain't up to the job. Need something stronger to take out a son of a bitch like Bobby Lightfoot. Like some kind of mystical sword maybe.

But then I thought, that's pretty gay. So I scratched it. But the point here is that Bobby Lightfoot is one bad-assed man and an insightful son of a bitch as well. And I don't feel at all bad for thinking he's probably an asshole.

Just check out this post on Tom Delay's recent legal troubles. That post won him a corndog courtesy of Mr. Res Publica. Goddamn I want one of them corndogs.

But even better in my opinion, was his America at a Crossroads post. And just to loosen up those link clickin fingers, here's a taste.

You see that's what America could be, and what we should aspire to.

You wanna click on that one and then you wanna check out his one on NeoCon polesmoking felcheteers

And if that don't convince you than the problem is you.

Time To Get All Literary on You Motherfuckers!!!

2005-09-28T23:27:00.000-04:00

Since it's banned books week, kids, according to those bastards at the American Library Association, I thought it might be time for some trenchant and insightful commentary on a few books that made ALA's top 100 most frequently challenged books. I haven't read many of them. But then I tend not to read very many books with titles like "Daddy's Roommate." But that's mostly just because I'm not a 12 year old boy trying to come to terms with my pa's homo-gayness. Nevertheless, I've read a few. Should we burn them? Well here's my opinion.

1. Scary Stories by Alvin Schwartz
Don't remember much about this one. Fuck it. Let's burn it.

5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I don't know what the objection here might be, except for the constant use of the phrase "nigger jim," a word verboten, even on this blog. Should've called him "Nigger Jed" or something. Good story though. A tale about a runaway slave and an illiterate boy's adventures on the mighty Mississippi. Sounds pretty goddamned American to me.

6. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
The story of a coarse okie and his amiable retarded pal. A couple dead rabbits later, and I don't want to give away the ending, but the retard somehow ends up president. Burn it.

8. Forever by Judy Blume
Read this one in the third grade. Don't remember much, but the bittersweet tale of adolescent love and the characters' wonderous discoveries of the mechanics of their filthy budding bodies was mesmerizing to 8-year-old jedmunds. You don't ever really change.

13. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
"Then Holden found Jesus and died while saving some orphans from a fire. The End." That would have been a great ending. But instead in a gesture of karmic justice, it shall be used as kindling to burn down an orphanage. You fucked up, Salinger.

19. Sex by Madonna
I haven't read it, but I've seen the pictures. Let's put this one back on the shelf shall we? We shall.

41. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
I do recall Jem being insufficiently perturbed by Scout's muddy drawers, but that's no reason to ban a book. It's no Forever by Judy Blume, but I kinda liked this one.

43. The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
Pony boy and Soda Pop did indeed save some orphans from a fire or some shit. I feel like it kind of glorifies gang violence though, but not gratuitously, like Grease did. I'm not saying there's not a place for the gritty realism of a film like Grease, but I would rather burn that than this book.

44. The Pigman by Paul Zindel
You have a weird old man with nothing to lose but his collection of pig figurines. And two awkward teenagers who spend way too much time with him. The formula for success is right there, but I guess Zindel was too much of a pussy to pull the trigger on it. Burn it.

45. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
This book is filled with good jokes about retarded people, then he gets all smart, and though easier to read, becomes much less funny. I think there's an erotic scene though if I recall correctly. And some real perv shit too. All in all, that makes it my kinda book.

51. A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein
You shouldn'ta written that poem about the Nazi pedophile who kills himself with a discarded douchebag, Shel. I know. I know. Who knew it would be so easy to read between the lines of "Moon Catchin' Net," and discover it's hidden dark meaning. But you can't market that shit to kids ya know? Not in this crappy country anyway.

52. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Well then what are we going to read when we want something more prescient than Orwell's 1984? Yevgeny Zamyatin's We? Surely you jest.

60. American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis
A little social commentary never hurt anyone, other than all those Irish babies. But hey, we're talking about hookers here. Not babies.

62. Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume
Yeah, so I read a couple Judy Blume books as a kid. Fuck you.

69. Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
It's too bad Vonnegut's such an asshole, cuz this is a good book. Let's burn Timequake, while reading this one aloud, and toasting marshmallows.

70. Lord of the Flies by William Golding
I should go back and read this book, again. I recall it having some cool-assed themes that, having achieved maturity and erudition, might be worth another wade into.

71. Native Son by Richard Wright
A semi-literate black guy kills a white girl, rapes his girlfriend, beats her till "her face resembles a wad of wet cotton," and thanks to a shoddy faux ransom note is able to briefly shift the blame to a highly educated socialist jew. Helluva book. But we gotta burn it.

Read Lauren, Lindsay, and Amanda of Pandagon for some more takes.

Out With The Old, In With The New

2005-09-28T20:24:00.000-04:00

House Majority leader that is.

"It's not easy to fill the gap left by our leader, Tom DeLay, who's done a tremendous job, but all of our team is going to come together like we haven't ever come together before." -- Temp Leader Roy Blunt.

Huzzah!

I Used to Be Somebody

2005-09-28T13:33:00.000-04:00

Holy shit! Some lucky journalist scored an interview with president for life Sheelzebub. And it's pretty good too. Here's an excerpt:

Will you get moody one day and blow up another country?

I will never live that down, will I? It was a very small country. Has anyone actually missed that country? Does anyone remember which country it even was? I'm serious, because I don't remember which one it was. Some very annoying place with goats and horrid food, as I recall. Not a popular tourist destination, unless hanging out in mud puddles and listening to Michael Bolton croon love songs was your thing. Really, I did everyone a service, but you all act like I was in a bad mood and taking it out on innocents. I was in a good mood, for Hades' sake. If I had been moody, I would have declared it Dick Cheney's official undisclosed location.

Man, so this is what professional jealousy feels like. Poor Jon Stewart. I feel so bad for him now. Not as bad as I feel for myself. But you know, hey, now I know what empathy means. Perhaps I'll console myself by re-reading the greatest series of interviews since Jim "JR" Ross interviewed Mick "Mankind" Foley for WWF television. This is the stuff legends are made of:

Ben Styles
Bernard Goldberg
Tall Saul
Politivi

Les Eclats De Rire Est Mort! Vivre Les Eclats De Rire!

2005-09-28T01:23:00.000-04:00

Ratings for Arrested Development, universally agreed upon as the best show ever, the contrarianism of a few douchebag holdouts for some overrated HBO filth aside, are in the fucking crapper. Monday’s episode garnered a 2.7 rating equaling about 3.9 million viewers, finishing in fifth place in its timeslot behind some show called Seventh Heaven. The premiere attracted a disappointing 4.5 million viewers, much less than the 6 million averages it held during seasons 1 and 2.

How can such a phenomenal show have such low ratings? That’s an easy one. Americans are stupid. More pressing is the reality that Arrested D has been barely able to survive with their former ratings. As such, this drop in ratings is a dire threat. A dire dire threat to our supply of comedic material. And I don’t know what to do about it. I feel so helpless. So impotent. What can one man do? I can’t be 1.5 million viewers.

I’ve felt this sadness before. About 15 years ago, FOX had a funny little show called Get a Life starring Chris Elliot. Originally conceived as a grown-up Dennis the Menace, it was about a 30 year old paper boy who lived with his parents, and … did funny stuff. A combination of gross physical humor and a certain wittiness, influenced by the British comedy the Young Ones, made it the exemplar of cutting edge comedy in a popular format of its time. It lasted a scant two seasons, if I recall correctly, abruptly cancelled due to low ratings in its Sunday time slot. That style of humor would live on however in shows like The Simpsons, back when it was still funny (You have to be of a certain age to remember when the Simpsons was funny). Looking back on it, Get a Life doesn’t seem as funny as it did in its original context, just as even the old Simpsons don’t seem all that funny any more either, and even old Seinfeld episodes don’t seem so hot either.

Comedy changes quickly. What was once cutting-edge eventually becomes commonplace, and eventually stale. That’s probably the primary reason why comedies with a strong narrative inclination age better than those without. Ten years later the gags seem predictable and unfunny, and so the story is called upon to bear a greater burden of the entertainment value. It might be hard to fathom now, but ten years from now, Arrested D won’t be that funny. Or at best, it’ll be funny the way a show like – what’s that show with the fat guy and the hot wife whose dad is played by Jerry Stiller? Anyway that one.

Despite this inexorable fate, or perhaps even because of it, we must cherish this time we have with our beloved Arrested D. I know not how much longer it is for this world. Whether its death is to be premature at the cold ruthless hands of a cynical and calculating FOX exec; or if in its struggle, it survives and thrives and grows gracefully, blooming to full maturity, and then gracefully exiting in its twilight with a soft and reverent breath with all due glory and tribute. With hope and a bit of luck we might be fortunate enough to witness the latter, but if not, I’ll be ever grateful for the moments we have and will have shared. Just as I treasure the laughter emitted during the halcyon days of the Simpsons, Seinfeld, Mr. Show, Roseanne, the Wonder Years, Married With Children, and etc etc. Those laughs are gone. Never to be brought back. Such a fleeting, almost sad, joy that comedy is. But today we have Arrested D. And no need to worry from where tomorrow’s laughs shall come.

"I Know What An Erection Feels Like, Michael."

2005-09-26T22:02:00.000-04:00

Tonights episode of Arrested Development went by way too quickly. Kind of interesting that they moved the "on the last episode..." to the front of the show, instead of the faux preview at the end of the show. Probably a mistake. The pace is still too frenetic as their trying to work in a bunch of extraneous little plot developments, but I think by the second half of the show, they had gotten everything the way they want it, and they're set up to start working the Arrested D magic.

I definitely enjoyed this week more than last week. But not enough Buster. Hell, not enough Gob. Too much Michael. Something about they're presentation of Charlize Theron is rubbing me the wrong way, too. It's got a real ratings gimmick type feel to it, a "jumping the shark," tone if you will. But overall, I'd say it was pretty solid, but not their best work. Everyone doing a chicken impression was pretty awesome for long-time viewers, but it was probably only kinda funny for new viewers. For a show that seems hell-bent on upping the ratings, ratings they deserve by the way, it seems like they don't give a shit about new viewers who might be tuning in.

Some great lines and gags, including "I guess you could say I'm buy-curious." The newscasters line about a little-IRA. Ron Howard saying "No one's making fun of Andy Griffith. I can't stress that enough." "I shan't kill you then." God I love killing hooker jokes. A lotta lotta good jokes in this one. But there are lingering concerns. First of all, I feel like they're doing to Tobias what they did to Homer Simpson, making his quirks too exaggerated. They're doing the same thing with Lucille, who seems a tad unrealistic so far this season. Also, The show worked in the past based on the family interactions, which now often feel kind of forced. The last two episodes have felt more plot based, and I'm not entirely feeling it. If too much air-time is devoted to Michael interacting with Charlize, we could have an enduring problem. But hopefully, having everything settled somewhat, like how the fuck did George Sr. end up under house arrest anyway? - they'll slow the pace and give us, not just the funny, because it's not just the jokes that make the show so good, but the excellent storytelling that goes with it. I won't even bother pondering why the transition between this episode and the last one was so terrible, and seemingly unnecessarily so. So far we've got a lot of plot holes, but I don't care as long as they right the ship moving forward. I'll buy into it from here on out, but they can't keep doing such weak transitions.

I've never seen a James Bond movie in my life so some of that episode was probably over my head. But I'll say this, having season one on DVD, and having downloaded season two, it's pretty fucking excruciating to wait a whole friggin week to catch the next episode. I'm dyin' here.

Just Posting For the Sake of Posting

2005-09-26T11:05:00.000-04:00

Man I'm so bored with political blogging right now. Yawn. You could say that I'm bored with politics generally right now. But man, I'm really bored with political blogging. So much sound and fury over so fucking little. As if all the comments and all the little points scored, from here and yonder, mattered a whit. I mean I suppose I could head over to the daily kos and work myself into a lather over G dubya's fondness for tuna melts or some such. As if that were on par with Abu Ghraib or New Orleans or any of the other multitudes of heinosity. But hey, did you know that the daily kos is as big as the entire conservative blogosphere? Hey, now we're cookin'. I feel so effectual. We've been milking that nifty placards and cheesy slogan gap for decades now. If we'd could only somehow figure out how to combine the two, we might form something really awesome. El Blogacitos Unido Jamas Sera Vencido!

That sound of laughter you hear is by those humorless conservatives incapable of detecting irony.

Speaking of conservatives, someone - I believe it was John Holbo originally - said conservatives were really good at politics, at getting elected. They just weren't so good at actually governing. And part of that is of course that enviable ability to deflect blame. Like hey, don't blame us, we just control every single level of government except for the bureaucracy, infiltrated by liberal fifth columnists who have all the real power!!! And the college professors, and their goddamned literacy. Not. Real. Americans. They not only read books, they write 'em, for god's sake! I bet they've never even cleared brush in their entire lives!!! Oh yeah, and despite all of the evidence to the contrary, the media is really mean too! Not that they can even pretend like they have a bias toward reality, to the best we can presently understand it, anymore. Just the other day, I heard a couple of conservatives laughing - if you can really call it laughing, twas more like angrily and shrilly making fun of - at liberals for "blaming the refusal of people to evacuate New Orleans on Iraq." Not that I've heard anyone say this. Not that it doesn't completely cloud the issues. But you have to admire it. The blame deflection. They're just so fucking good at it!!! Makes me want to kick back and have a drink.

But nothing in that preceding paragraph matters to anyone. It's just spilled pixels. A waste of time. Like Swift said, "It is impossible to reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place." Or like what they say, blogging provides an illusion of activism. Maybe to some on the left it does. And not that it can't be used as a tool for activism of sorts. Look at what Mydd and swingstate did for Paul Hackett. They raised money. I still stand by my belief that the most powerful tool at the average person's disposal is how he spends his money and how he lives his life. You don't like the Bankruptcy Bill? Cancel a credit card. The powers that be will pay more attention to that than any well worded rebuke you can get linked to by Atrios. Spending hours reading the latest jabs doesn't change anything. It doesn't really even make you better informed. And it's usually not even that entertaining.

All of which gets me to my first reminder about blogging after having recently done a self audit. Blue Girl did something similar recently with advice that's mostly for people seeking traffic. But I didn't like their advice. And I don't really care about traffic. The only good political blog in technorati's top 100 is Pandagon. And I'd rather have what I consider a good blog according to my standards than a popular one, and these are some reminders to myself on how to better accomplish that.

And so,

1. Political Blogging is almost always boring

2. Avoid the rant. Other than Mark Ames and Maddox, so few are any good at it.

3. People don't care about your opinion so much as how you express it.

4. I forgot this one.

5. Sloppiness as an aesthetic is okay, but you can't get too lazy with your diction and syntax. The well-turned phrase is your biggest strength.

6. Don't post for the sake of posting just to adhere to some ill-concieved self-imposed weekly quota.

7. You can't force joie de vivre.

8. Self deprecation is ill suited for someone as intimidating and intelligent as you are.

9. Remember that blogger will eat your fucking posts, as it did to the first version of this one.

By the by, I did a bit on parental notification laws chez Ezra over the weekend. I tried to be insidious, but I should have been more unaccomodating I reckon. It's not that good.

Also, remember to watch, Arrested D, ce soir. Especially you Blue Girl!

Update: Jesse of Pandagon hits the

"Republicans can get elected. Republicans can promote ideas. Republicans can even demonize Democrats who don't share their ideas. But somehow, parts of that just never seem to work out - particularly the parts involving money. The leaders are never right, the timing's never right, something, but the core of the Republican Party, the people designated to enact this cohesive, structured agenda always fail to do so when push comes to shove. Then, you get the new firebrand (who sounds not-so-coincidentally exactly like the old firebrand) who's supposed to come in and clean house and take us back to the conservative principles that were never actually represented in the first place."

part square on the head.

Some Big News

2005-09-22T10:55:00.000-04:00

First I'm moving to D.C. I'm not exactly sure when yet, but I either have to be there on Oct 2 or Oct 17, for a new job. I'm not completely sure how quickly I want to start. But, you know, I'm excited and you should congratulate me.

Second, in even bigger news, go to 3 Bulls and take the Arrested Development gag challenge.

I Am The Rakish, Workaholic, Cheating Cad of Yore!!!

2005-09-22T00:39:00.000-04:00

I must confess that my first reaction to this article by Rebecca Traister about yon listless lads was a bit of incredulity that anyone would take this very seriously.

I was thinking Rebecca Traister meet Jack Shafer

As she says:

"And with it, I have observed the birth of a new breed of man: a man of few interests and no passions; a man whose libido is reduced and whose sense of responsibility nonexistent. These men are commitment-phobic not just about love, but about life. They drink and take drugs, but even their hedonism lacks focus or joy. They exhibit no energy for anyone, any activity, profession or ideology. While they may have mildly defined areas of interest -- in, say, "Star Wars," or the work of Ron Jeremy -- they have trouble figuring out what kind of food they might want to eat on a given night. And, in an effort to cure what ails them, they have been medicated to the gills with potions designed to dull their feelings even further."

I says to meself "heh? really now?" Commitment-phobic or what you will about the monogamy or whathaveyou, sure, okay, not much of a phenomenon one might want to waste ink writing about, not interesting mind, whether there be a marked increase of said or no, but I'll give it to ya lady. But the rest. C'est vrai? Surely no. Not from my vantage. Laddus Listless, I do not know thee. But then round these here internets I find lady after lady and woman after woman and female after female and (predictably) fucking Hugo who can relate like.

This blows the mind. My mind, that is. Incroyable!

I mean really? Serious?

Cause I mean, it's almost like your talking about me and my friends, except you know, you're not talking about us. You're talking about fucking some kinda stereotypical cigarette smokin, Sartre reading, frenchman ou comme ca. Or what... like huh? Maybe law school moved me out of this social circle. Leaving me with associates of the ultra-ambitious sort. And as well as the art-fag gang, who I mean, come on now? You're not talking about them are you? What are you dumb? They're homosexuals and artists, for christs sake, content to enjoy. Enjoy the life, right, that few others bother with. There's no disproportion there.

But just to get one this out of the way. For the Goddamned Record. My hedonism lacks neither focus nor joy. And my libido is insane. It's been institutionalized, busted out, and is on a killing spree, taking wayward hitchhikers, lonely orphans, and the elderly to early graves, and like the love of a mother for her offspring, it cannot be killed.

But even though I can not relate. I'll take your word on it. Cause what else am I gonna do? Muster an argument? Man, but I'm so tired, and I'm just not in the mood right now. I'm already bored with the whole thing. How bout we just drink some beers and watch tv, then I'll try to get a gratuitous passionless shag outta ya? huh? oh alright, forget the shag, I wasn't really up for it anyway. No go ahead. Go out with your friends. I'm just gonna take a nap.

Even still though, I feel the need to point this out:

"Kunkel and his fellow co-founders of literary journal n+1 have recently been identified as members of a new generation of "public intellectuals." So imagine my surprise when he not only consented to my frivolous request to discuss gender relations, but suggested we have our talk over Friday dinner. "Dinner dates are what all those indecisive men go on, right?" he wrote me by e-mail. For the record, Kunkel's date planning was decisive: He wanted Indian and presented me with a list of restaurants in descending order of preference and costs. (Since this was, in fact, a fake date, Salon was paying.)

Kunkel, dressed in a dark suit-jacket and white shirt, has a small frame and a handsome face -- covered with downy blond beard and mustache. When I arrived at the restaurant, he was drinking single-malt Laphroaig Scotch.

He also wasn't shy about expressing his preferences: He eats only fish and vegetables, and in a previous visit to the restaurant had found the saag paneer too spicy. Over a crispy tangy bitter melon salad and hali..."

Gushy starfucking, right yon.

And golly golly Hugo boy:

"As one of my old friends used to say to me, “Hugo, you’re either transforming or you’re stagnating. Those are your only two options.” Stagnation is easy; growth is hard…

I don’t think any of us ever get to say “I don’t need to change.” All of us, without exception, carry around our selfish desire to stagnate, to be comfortable, to focus more on ourselves than on others. That’s true in my case and in the case of everyone I’ve ever met. Some folks are wise enough to recognize that dark side of their nature, and they spend their lives actively seeking to transform it by reaching out to others and by challenging themselves to grow. Most simply shrug, say defensively “I can’t help the way I am” and demand that others change to accommodate their own needs."

Yeah, I think I read that in chicken soup for the mongoloid soul. Right on. I'll one up ya. Always believe in you!. An extraordinary person, never has an ordinary day! And You come here to shit or piss
i come here to fuck my fist!!! For some more great sayings I've seen on public bathroom walls click here.

Goddamn I'm in a bad mood.

But I'm feeling better with every word I type.

Nepotism Rears Its Ugly Head

2005-09-21T13:14:00.000-04:00

I have a fairly strict policy of not linking to people who run google ads, since google rejected me for their ad program due to the offensive content of this site. But I'll make an exception for my older sister, who just started blogging yesterday. She is indeed a right-wing lunatic and an incorrigible defender of the papacy. But she's also good people, and not nearly as insane as the other members of my family and their inclinations toward Republican douchebaggery. She also watches a lot of television. And her blog is pretty good. Entertaining. At least to me.

Same As The Old New Deal But Less Efficient

2005-09-20T16:41:00.000-04:00

A gem from Ezra.

Moore's framing of compassionate conservatism as an out-and-out loss for actual conservatism is well-conceived. Bush has, during his tenure in office, greatly strengthened the American consensus on government spending and activity. From Medicare to education to foreign affairs, there's not a single area in which Bush's federal incarnation could be safely called a more humble, cautious, conservative institution than its predecessor. For small-government Republicans who voted for Bush to curb Clinton's Big Government liberalism, once the heat of partisanship wears off, they're going to realize they sent the federal government to rehab only to watch the white-hatted nurses let it do lines off their funny hats. The whole thing reminds me of something Melissa wrote in response to Kevin's piece on the surprising progressivism of Bush's accomplishments:

This is something I've been struggling to post about, lately, and Stephen Moore has is it exactly right when he says "The Democrats are already forging their 2006 and 2008 message: We will spend just as many trillions of dollars as Republicans, but we will spend them better than they do."

Bush in many ways has governed with a liberal face. The only complaints a liberal are left with are the cronyism, the wastefulness, the incompetence, the corruption, the irresponsibility, the refusal to face any sort of reality that clashes with ideological preconceptions, the lying, the love for corporations, the philistine cersion fo christianity, and the hypocracy. How do you spend all that money without doing a thing with it, anyway? The difference between liberalism and compassionate conservatism appears to be the difference between an effective government and that prophetic SNL sketch where Will Farrel as Bush addresses the nation from the White House as fires rage outside and announces that "presidenting is hard."

What Would Madonna Do?

2005-09-20T16:05:00.000-04:00

Great Post from Amanda of Pandagon:

"It sounds like Levy has a good eye for a lot of stuff that's being repackaged as "empowering" when it's just degradging. But I really hesitate to label all female exhibitionist behavior as degrading. Some can actually be empowering. It's the problematic area, but I think that it can be and should be possible to relish the effect you have sexually on someone without it compromising your identity or anything like that. I also dislike the idea that girly-girl is inherently degrading--if a woman is beautiful and sexually appealing, that should be a good thing.

Unfortunately, it's just not in our culture and I think Levy has point about how demeaning it can be and how women find themselves adopting that attitude. But I think it's also perfectly natural that women put on a degrading, objectifying point of view, because it's not a male way of thinking so much as it's the way that people in the patriarchy are supposed to view women. There's a subtle difference, but I think it's important, because women enforcing patriarchal standards is hardly a new thing or unique to our culture. This is just a different version of it.

But I think there's a way that sexual display can be framed that isn't degrading, and I have to say that I know a lot of women who found raunchiness to be a great way to overcome certain insecurities. In fact, from my own experience, raunchiness can be a great way to subvert male dominance, especially if you turn that shit back on men and objectify them a little. But I would definitely agree that most women don't go that route, because it's such an unusual role to take on and the demeaning objectification of women is just more accessible. The best way then to tackle it is not to convince women to abandon sexual display or sexual language so much as to work at broadening choices in a more egalitarian way."

That's stuff I've been thinking about and trying to refine since some of the comments from this post where I broached the subject. I feel at a bit of a roadblock on the whole thing, mentally. I guess in my personal life, I'm inclined to let a lady enjoy sex on her own terms. I don't tell her how to enjoy it, and I don't expect subservience to my whims and idiosynchracies. Though, you know, sometimes it's fun to get a little treat, right. Maybe it's the same concept within the sex industry, if it's freeing women to express sexuality on their terms, I think it's an unqualified good thing. But so much of it is so nebulous. So much of it is about appealling to a male concept of sexuality, that it's hard to call it an unqualified good, for reasons I discussed in that other post. And also, I'm thinking about how porn fits into the cultural paradigm and how that seems exploitative, but perhaps porn itself is a method for changing that paradigm. Hmmm. Anyway, Amanda and Jill have the smart thoughts on this one.

Feminist Blogger Say No To John Roberts

2005-09-20T16:02:00.000-04:00

To members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate:

We are a group of writers who are passionately committed to supporting women's basic freedom as citizens of the United States. We are appealing to you as free citizens dedicated to political growth, fairness and the spirit of Liberty guaranteed in the US Constitution.

We are not paid pundits or political operatives. We are concerned citizens who represent the diversity of the United States: women and men, straight and gay, single and married, religious and atheist, of different races, religions and ethnicities. Some of us are even parents even after having abortions. And we all blog because we have to.

We have taken to this citizen media to create communities of hope. In our blogs people rant and rave, discuss and debate to share the one thing we all agree about : The United States Constitution is about creating common ground among the many, not limiting freedom for the benefit of the few.

Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about the right to privacy.

Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about civil rights.

Yes, the battle for the Supreme Court is about state rights.

Yet what is at stake in the the reconfiguration of the Supreme Court, is the fundamental right to freedom for all peoples living under the Bill of Rights and unenumerated rights retained by the people. Roberts' has consistently opposed the interests of the people in his career. The decisions, dissents and legal documents that have been released for scrutiny point to the man's willingness to find ways to use technicalities to curtail freedom and not expand it. Although it would be easy to demonstrate this willingness through his involvement in cases dealing with reproductive rights, it is the following three cases that show a road map to what could happen to the US Constitution under a Chief Justice Roberts :

The Most Important Thing I Did All Day

2005-09-19T23:01:00.000-04:00

Well, to be perfectly honest, I was pretty disappointed with the season debut of Arrested Development. The pace was off. And the timing made most of the jokes fall flat. The characters came off a little flatter than normal. The camera, always excellently done, ended up telling most of the laugh out loud jokes. But something was just off. For instance this bit of dialogue should have killed:

Lucille: "Anti-depressants lead to street drugs, that's what the handsome doctor on the Today show said."
Michael: "That's Tom Cruise, Mom, he's an actor."
Lucille: "But they say he's some kind of scientist...."

But it just didn't work. They either rushed it, as this show seemed faster paced than past shows, or else they gave it too much of a comic pause, at the end. As if it were a sitcom with a laughline and they were pausing for the laughs.

I think a big problem is that the characters all seemed a little bit too self-aware of the character they were supposed to be. Honestly, I felt like I was watching David Cross pretend to be Tobias, and Will Arnet play Gob, and etc. And I honestly felt they fucked up Gob when they had him strand his reunited son in Reno. Gob's always been a bit of a cad, a charming guy with a faux arrogance that overcompensates for his insecurities. He was kind of a jerk, but he was never that kind of jerk. He was a jerk with a good heart. Now he's just callous. And that's not Gob. That's not the Gob I know and love.

Also, the Lucille and Buster stuff seems a little cliched and forced at this point. And the punchline for the flashback of her watching the news report of when Susan Smith drowned her kids, while Buster did his tribal drumming was pretty underwhelming. The build was too long for a simple "good for her," to do the trick. Which is weird because so much of the show relies on understatement and subtlety that it seems like a weird criticism for a fan of the show to make, but it just didn't work. Much of the show was just not clicking tonight.

But a few things were pretty great. George Michael, was as usual, awesome. I think he's the most underrated actor on the show, because he seems so boring, and it's hard to compete with Buster, Tobias, and Gob for attention. But that kid is brilliant. I had my loudest laugh when he told Maebe, he was going to stay in the car to watch "the sunset," and she said, something like well isn't it behind us. And George Michael says "yeah, but there are mirrors... it'll seem even closer." Which doesn't seem that funny, but that kid delivers the line so perfectly. He's fucking great. Maebe's awesome too. Such a little cutie. And I'm not saying that in an oldery brother way. I'm saying it in an "I'm willing to go to jail for you, honey" sort of way.

Henry Winkler was pretty awesome too. The incompetent lawyer in over his head turned hooker. He played his part to perfection. Fuck a cliche. Michael was Michael, which doesn't really matter, because Michael is nothing more than the moral center of the show. He holds it all together, so he's essential, but I don't think anyone watches the show to see what Jason Bateman's character is going to do. At least I don't. The rest of 'em had some faults in execution, especially Gob who is probably my favorite character, though I feel like it was the writing, more than the acting. Though like I said, some of the jokes should have been funnier, but the timing felt off. My biggest peeve, was when Ron Howard, doing the narration, slipped out of objectivity and commented on Tobias, saying something like no wonder Linsey doesn't want to go back to him or something like that. They've done that a handful of times before, and I really don't care for it when they do. I think it's funnier when they have Ron Howard stick to the deadpan objectivity that he does so well.

So I guess in conclusion, I felt that this episode was a bit of a mixed bag. It wasn't one of their stronger episodes, and certainly not up to the standards I expect of the show, but it wasn't bad. On a scale of 0-100, I give it a 68.7983065555555 and that 5 repeats ad infinitum. I appear to be in the minority, however. A quick glance around the internets has shown heaps of unwarranted praise for the show. And I'll share with you a comment I unearthed of the unintentionally funny sort from some discussion boards. I didn't read the comment of the guy he was responding to. Which is just as well. It's better to imagine the insanity I think.

"I'm not sure if you watch the show, but arrested development is by no stretch of the imagination conservative. If anything, it is one of the most liberal ("ultra left hoolywood (sic)" as you called it)shows out there. Arrested Development' loss has less to do with "liberal bias" than probably any other factor that I can think of.

Felicity Huffman was a mess because nobody, let alone herself, expected her to win because her part is very low key when compared to her costars.
While I agree that in many ways arrested development was robbed (dorris roberts over jessica walter), I fully accept that there are other shows worthy of praise. Are the emmy voters out of touch? Yes! DO they vote for sentimental reasons? Yes. DO they like Will and Grace? Obviously.

But let's remember that without awarding Arrested Development with the best comedy emmy in its first year, it probably wouldn't be coming back for a third season.

That is all."

And now I can't wait till next week.

Your Monday Morning Announcements

2005-09-18T23:06:00.000-04:00

The greatest television show in the history of any medium debuts it's third season tomorrow (Monday) night my fellow exhuberant friends. That's right Arrested Development will be on at 8 o'clock on FOX!!! And if you don't watch it, it will only be because you are a N-E-R-D. Nothing else matters.

By the by, I did a little weekend blogging at Ezra's over the weekend. With the dispassionate version of the post below, and a little bit on the Solomon Amendment and the Department of Defense's enforcement and lack thereof.

Also, Media Girl has been on a tear in a similar vein. Really good reads. Do yourself a favor and lick these links. And I don't want to sound obsessed or anything, but Dadahead's gotta good one too! Also, what the hell, here's Feministe's Jill on how Parental Consent Laws Kill

Who's Down For Another Round of Circular Arguments?

2005-09-16T13:12:00.000-04:00

I'm getting really tired of going around the same old ground with the the kosites, and I haven't even exactly spent a lot of time on the subject. But if Kos wants to keep stepping in it, I guess I feel somewhat obliged to spend some energy telling him why he's wrong.

But let us take a detour for a moment. Politics for the past quarter century has reminded me much of Tolstoy's great book War and Peace. There's Napolean's army at the gates marching toward battle, and our liberal and progressive generals have ordered a retreat, and so we sit and watch Moscow burn. Obviously with this analogy, I'm being generous toward those who advocated retreat. Just as Tolstoy argued that retreating allowed Russian forces to regroup and gain strength and choosing to engage the French forces, weakened having spent their momentum during their long march through Russian territory from a stronger position, perhaps at that particular moment when our generals retreated from the conservative juggernaut, it was a strategically good move, perhaps allowing the conservative movement to weaken itself and choosing to fight back when much of it's momentum has been spent. Whether or not that is true, others can decide. But the time for retreat is over, and I'm certain that Kos agrees with me on that.

But what does that have to do with Kos's derisive view of groups like the Sierra Club and NARAL and gay advocacy groups? Nothing that I can tell. I'm just really fond of that analogy. But I do know as well, that when the Democrats in Washington were retreating, those groups did not. To admittedly mixed success. But if you take the War and Peace analogy with some seriousness, they probably should have been steamrolled completely. That they haven't, is in fact, some measure of success on their part. But so what right? Kos says it's time to unite, because "divided we fall," or some such Revolutionary War feel goody slogan. The political environment has drastically changed, and so tactics must change, Kos sez. Well, let's send our letters to the NAACP then letting them know that their organization is a relic of the past according to Kos, and so they should just disband so their resources can be used as part of a more general progressive movement, which will look out for their interests better than they could have.

Because that's Kos's basic argument. That so called "interest groups," progressive ones atleast, are just no longer viable in today's political environment, and that they should no longer exist. Because anything not a full subsidiary of the Democratic Party needs to be eliminated. If you are not with us, you are against us. Indeed. And to make his point, he compares environmental organizations to... neocons? What the mutherfucking F-word kos? Neocons? Maybe that would be persuasive as an example of a Republican interest group, if you know, there weren't actually real Republican interest groups with which to form a real actual comparision. You know, like say those Christian groups that hate abortion and the gun nuts. No offense to gun nuts. Although I'm not personally into guns very much, I've found that gun nuts are often friendly, likeable people with a good sense of humor about everything except the second amendment. Nevertheless, Kos's argument is like calling the NDN or the DLC a "special interest" group. Not too swift Kos. Is more elaboration needed on this point? God I hope not, because I'm going to move on now.

Since Kos has a legal background, I'm sure he understands fiduciary duties and conflicts of interest, which is the framework with which I approach these issues. Sometimes what's good for the gay rights movement, or the environmental movement, or hell the women's movement is not good for the Democratic Party. But who should make the sacrifice? Kos thinks the "special interests" should, and that's no surprise. I'm as partisan a Democrat as anyone. I understand the conflict a Democrat feels when someone you consider an ally makes it harder for you to win an election. It's a bummer for sure. But when that conflict occurs, both parties have to look out for their own self-interest. Kos it appears would like to create a fiduciary duty on the part of Democrats, to take all of the power of these "special interest" groups in exchange for the duty to protect their interests. Which would be interesting if you could create a real actual fiduciary duty that was enforceable, but you can't. Give the Democrats power in this scenario and there's nothing to stop them from fucking you over.

And Democrats are already fucking us over. Take a look at the Pennsylvania Democratic primary once again. Washington Democrats have anointed a pro-life Dem to be the nominee against Santorum. Once again when it comes to what's good for the Democrats verses what's good for the people who support the issues that Democrats nominally support, the Democrats go with self-interest. Well, the people who support issues, as specifically or as generally as you'd care to define them, have the obligation to protect their self interests as well. And as terribly inconvenient as that might be for you and the Democratic Party, Kos, the issues for which the Democratic Party has garnered support are not going to disappear en route to a victory of blank check power.

And you know, the silence from the "blogosphere," especially the bigshots like Kos who talk a good game about the netroots and the grassroots and the Dean loving "you have the power" rhetoric, about Schumer's clearing of the Pennsylvania Senate primary for Casey has been one of the most disenchanting things for me over the past few months. Everyone likes to talk about the "cocktail set" in DC who think they can run the party from the top down with their incompetent proffessionals who keep losing elections. And what happens when a high profile example occurs right under their fucking noses? Silence? Not even. They get in fucking line, like good little power worshippers. That's what victory looks like in the hands of the Democratic Party and their loyal blogging hacks. Bob Casey Jr.

The Natural Habitat of Whores and Dunces

2005-09-13T23:42:00.000-04:00

I haven't been following the Roberts hearings. Listening to 10 minute rambling preambles to questions a first year law student would scoff at, only for a would-be Supreme Court jurist to dodge them is not in my estimation a worthwhile use of my time. Not when I could be doing something like reading books about pubescent magicians or watching b-list celebrities tell lame jokes about actual famous people on VH1. Nevertheless, I came across this via Ezra Klein of Dahlia Lithwick's take on the hearings:

"John Roberts is putting on a clinic.

He completely understands that he needs only to sit very quietly, head cocked to signal listening-ness, while senator after senator offers long discursive rambling speeches. Only when he's perfectly certain that a question has been asked does he offer a reply; usually cogent and spare. Here's a man long accustomed to answering really hard questions from extremely smart people, suddenly faced with the almost-harder task of answering obvious questions from less-smart people. He finds himself standing in a batting cage with the pitching machine set way too slow.
[...]
in the end, these hearings are perfectly matched. Roberts wants to say little and literally fade to black. The senators want to give speeches and seize the limelight. It's a match made in heaven. It's just the watching it that's hell. "

Which gets me wondering exactly why Senators enjoy preening for the cameras in these situations so much. No one remembers it. And I'd kinda think that anyone with the interest in sitting through it is going to be unimpressed with the showboatery, compared to you know actually asking concise questions that would lead an audience to think, "hey this Senator isn't actually in over his head." I mean, when even your fellow Senators know that a crossword puzzle is a better use of their time than actually paying attention to your blather, it makes you wonder who they even think they're impressing with the pirouettes that are the mark of the original sophists.

Speaking of which, I sojourned on over to the aptly named Corner, apt because corners are the natural habitats of whores and dunces, to get some sense of how Republican hacks feel about the proceedings. I don't know whether they don't care that they don't know anything more about the guy and how he'll rule than any of us do, and they just want Bush's guy to pull through because, well, you gotta root for the home team, or if they just trust Bush that much. Misplaced or not. While there, two things jumped out at me.

One, Byron York, quotes a poll on the right to privacy:

"When you think of the right to privacy, what comes closer to how you think of that right?

A) The right to be free from government intrusion -- including private phone calls, private mail, private medical and financial information, and the right to raise your children as you see fit.

B) The right to make decisions free from government interference, such as the right to choose abortion.

In the survey, done in August, 66 percent of those polled chose answer A, while 26 percent chose answer B. Breaking down respondents by category, 75 percent of Republicans chose A, while 15 percent chose B; 64 percent of Independents chose A, while 27 percent chose B; and 55 percent of Democrats chose A, while 38 percent chose B. Of women surveyed, 63 percent chose A, while 29 percent chose B."

Is it me, or is that a really dumb poll? It's like asking "do you think the first amendment is about the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion?" and then using the results to show that the american people don't really care about the freedom of religion thing. I trust even Byron York knows that this poll is fundamentally dishonest and useless.

Two, Lucianne's dipshit kid quotes Bit Hume on judicial activism:

"HUME: But judicial activism refers to a particular judicial philosophy in which there is great elasticity in the Constitution and that is found to permit and guarantee all sorts of things not there before.

(CROSSTALK)

LIASSON: That's liberal judicial activism.

HUME: Liberals don't like the term. That's what the phrase means.

Liberals have decided that that's disadvantageous to them, because Republicans have succeeded, or conservatives have succeeded, in demonizing the idea of judicial activism. So they invented a new concept of judicial activism, which is judges who are willing to hold certain congressional actions up to the light of the Constitution. And when they found the Constitution doesn't permit them, they strike them down. That's almost the opposite of judicial activism."

Like it as not, my liberal friends, Hume is more or less right about this. Judicial Activism, as I've always understood the term, never meant striking down unconstitutional laws, though some have tried to redefine it that way. Judicial Activism, as I've understood it, refers to wonderful things, such as finding that criminal defendants have, you know, rights and stuff, or that segregated schools are like bad and stuff, absent any congressional action at all. The divide between judicial activism and judicial restraint is a disagreement fundamentally on what is a political issue and what is a legal issue, on what issues the courts should decide and what issues the political branches should decide. Theoretically, you can have a liberal in favor of restraint and a conservative with an activist philosophy.

But of course, if there is such a thing as a right to, say, privacy in the Constitution, and it's fairly beyond serious dispute at this point that there is, then you will find legal issues where someone with a dogmatic faith that there is no right to privacy will find political issues. So we could call it a more complicated issue of constitutional interpretation, expansiveness vs regressiveness, if you will. But regardless, Judicial Activism has a long history of illuminating rights that we all eventually agree on, pitchfork Billy and his band of merry yokels notwithstanding. We should be proud to embrace judicial activism, just as we should be proud to call ourselves liberals and feminists, not shirk from it and apply it to retrogrades and tobacco chewing hayseeds.

Some Musings on the Drug War

2005-09-13T13:09:00.000-04:00

The Katrina aftermath exposed to all but the most willfully blind the racial indifferences of our government. But hurricanes don't strike every day, thankfully so. And these injustices go on every day under our noses, unexposed, ignored. One of the most pernicious of which continues to be the so called war on drugs. Some keenly brilliant fellow once said that if the drug laws in this country were as rigorously enforced against middle-classed white kids as they are against the poor and the black, that politicians would no longer be able to countenance supporting the drug war. As long as we're sending to prison people who look like they belong in prison, it all seems to make sense. But were we to ever start sending young Ashey and young Wilson upstate for smoking some hash, we'd come to understand quite quickly how stupid the whole thing is.

In the first place, it's fairly clear that the penal system is a ridiculously poor approach to dealing with the real social costs that do occur due to the use of some drugs. And in fact, it tends to increase and exacerbate those very social costs. Treatment, though a questionable approach to those who don't in earnest want to be rehabilitated of their drug use, at the very least avoids the exacerbation of these social costs, and is more than marginally more effective at solving the problem then prison sentences are. But even if treatment isn't an optimal approach to dealing with drug issues, it's clear that criminalization and the crude bludgeoning it brings has been a complete failure at both preventing drug use and rehabilitating those who do.

If we accept these assertions as true, there remains no compelling justification for even punishing those who violate drug laws. To get at a dessert theory of punishment for a given crime, it seems to me that we need to first examine why we chose to criminalize the underlying behavior. Keeping in mind an inherent liberty man has to do as he will, either under the natural law or a contractarian approach, we as a society do not have the right to criminalize behavior for the good of the individual. We do not have the right as a society to proscribe the private behaviors of the individual as per se evil without more. That is to say that we cannot say someone deserves to be punished, in a retributive sense, for behavior that were it not criminalized we wouldn't say deserves to be punished.

The justification we as a society have for attaching criminal stigma to drug use is a consequentialist one. Drug use produces external social costs that we, as a society, have the right to curtail, not for the good of the offender in a paternalistic sense, but for the good of ourselves as a society. To justify the punishment of such regulation, the punishment must survive this consquentialist approach. That is, the overall good caused by the punishment must exceed the overall harm caused by the punishment. If we're worse off by punishing behavior that harms us, than it doesn't make sense to punish it, unless there are compelling reasons of dessert which are completely absent in this context. The evidence compiled is pretty clear that the penal approach to the drug war has completely failed this consequentialist test. As such, unless we are ruled by a sovereign with the right to demand subservience to his strange whims, the drug war is in some sense illegitimate. We are in fact ruled by such a sovereign, though that sovereign be ourselves.

Which makes the demand to reform these illegitimate drug laws which are the basis for one of the gravest injustices our society knows all the more urgent. Yet it is so very strange that this is an issue that is completely ignored politically. The injustice itself makes it so. As we discussed earlier, the need for reform would be clear to all if it affected affluent whites as it did poor blacks. But this doesn't explain all of it. Certainly, the war in Iraq tends to affect the poor to a much greater degree than it affects the affluent, and opposition to that has been viable. Yet our politics is silent about the war on drugs, which has a similar distribution of effects, and costs taxpayers about $40 billion a year. And yet the social costs, multiply that number. For example, from 1987 to 1998 state spending on corrections increased by 30% while spending on higher education decreased by 18.2%. And state prison budgets are growing twice as fast as spending on public colleges and universities.* Almost every single person with intimate knowledge of our implementation of the drug laws, across party lines, including judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement has concluded that the war on drugs is a monumental and incredibly costly failure, and yet as a political matter, there's a strange silence.

I do not know whether out and out legalization is the best approach to the issue, but I do know that serious reform of our current laws is needed, and I believe that we should encourage our elected officials to make some of these necessary reforms. For example, the higher education drug policy provision forbids loans and federal assistance for college to students convicted of a drug related offense. This ill-conceived provision, produces enormous harm to poor, middle class and predominantly minority students. Discouraging the benefits of a college education to these students seems an acutely designed deliberate stupidity. Ignoring the fact that the children of people the wealthy are unaffected by this provision, college education provides an important opportunity for many of these students to become productive members of society to those most in need of such an opportunity. Putting another obstacle in these students paths is not only foolish, but oppressive.

Since 2000, when this provision took effect, over 160,000 students have been affected, unnecessarily adversely affecting our nation's human capital, hurting the economy and increases the propensity for criminal activity.

Another issue in need of reform is the sentencing practices for drug offenses. An opportunity has recently been presented to Congress by a recent convoluted Supreme Court decision holding that the federal sentencing guidelines are not mandatory, providing a chance to re-examine approaches to federal sentencing, especially in terms of drug laws, including alternative sentences for drug crimes such as rehabilitation, and avoiding the unjustly long sentences of the rigid and harsh federal sentencing system.

Another issue before Congress is federal anti-drug practices, such as the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, which has produced corruption in state after state and led to the imprisonment of innocent people. For example in Tulia Texas a few years ago, 15% of the African American population was sentenced to decades in prison based on the uncorroborated testimony of a federal officer with a record of racial impropriety in the enforcement of the law. These defendants were all eventually pardoned. The task forces funded by these programs are prone to corruption and unaccountable to local tax-payers and thus are mired in scandal in many states already, and are in urgent need of reform.

I would encourage my readers to let their Congressman know about these issues and to think more seriously about the grave injustices perpetuated under the guise of the Drug War and force our politicians to address them.

Statistics from Drug Policy Alliance

Some Gifts From the Link Fairy

2005-09-11T23:49:00.000-04:00

Mark Schmitt has an interesting revisionist look at the Carter presidency. I wasn't old enough to remember anything about Jimmy Carter, except my dad telling me during the 1980 election that Jimmy Carter wanted to draft me. Anyway, my favorite part is this:

"So that's the case against Carter, on competence. How does that stack up against: The loss of a major American city and tens of thousands of lives due to failure to prepare? A war of choice based on false intelligence that's rapidly turning into a quagmire? A fiscal surplus turned into a deficit in the $300-$400 billion range? Making a wreck of Medicare? A botched attempt to eliminate Social Security? Allowing some of your top aides to deliberately reveal the identity of a CIA agent for political purposes?"

Belle Waring lists the accountables responsible for the Katrina aftermath. Laisser les tetes rouler, indeed err tout a fait.

Media Girl on the stealth war against reproductive freedom, and the Democrats who are aiding and abetting.

Thad at Majikthise notes the imminent retirement from blogging of Arthur Silber, who's archives, I may have to spend some time delving into if this post is any indication.

Amanda of Pandagon on creepy old men and creepy old women. A double standard?

Hopefully, I'll get back to some real blogging soon.

Your Friday Reading Assignment

2005-09-09T12:58:00.000-04:00

You must read the following links, and then email me a ten page paper summarizing them, and peppered with pithy observations. Due Monday. Or you're not allowed to read my blog anymore.

Some funniness from Feministing: the wrath of the vengeful fetus and Iron Hymens and technical virgins.

Amanda of Pandagon on the journey from New Orleans to the archipilego also the nice things she says about me while discussing Hugo's post which strikes me a bit like a strain of dudely over-drama.

Echidne's anger at Bush douchery, which I think I may rechristen "douche a la Bush." Anyway, more profits for Halliburton.

Brad Plumer gives Rob Thomas, yes that Rob Thomas, a sympathetic ear for the whining about not being hip. I'll say this though. As much as I love David Cross, I'm sure he really is an asshole and a poseur. And as much as I'm not certain which songs I've heard on the radio are by Matchbox Twenty and which are by, say, Third Eye Blind, or Our Lady Peace, or whoever, I'm willing to assume that Rob Thomas is a legit nice guy and less of an asshole than most other celebrities.

Essential Digby on the decision to keep the media out of what is becoming a military zone in New Orleans, and Ezra Klein's, who just sent me the nicest email, bit comparing the non-inconvenience of Clinton getting a haircut with the Bushtard's massive inconvenience of chemo patience for the sake of a botched photo-op.

The cunning realist sticks it to Lucianne's dipshit kid and the other pseudo-thinkers over at the aptly named Corner. And also Pinko Punko's comicy fun at the same's expense.

And, finally, Loomis's anecdote about fcukign christians and their mass emails.

The Year's Top Ten Stories That The Media Ignored

2005-09-07T21:11:00.000-04:00

Brought to you By Camille T. Taiara of the San Francisco Bay Guardian via Rox Populi.

10. Mountaintop removal threatens ecosystem and economy
The use of explosives to eliminate mountains in the appalachians to access the coal underneath turning areas incredibly rich in biodiversity into the biological equivalent of parking lots. If they could only export some of those parking lots to the urban centers on our coasts. Am I right?

9. Iran's new oil trade system challenges US currency
"One bit of news that hasn't received the public vetting it merits is Iran's declared intent to open an international oil exchange market, or "bourse."

Not only would the new entity compete against the New York Mercantile Exchange and London's International Petroleum Exchange (both owned by American corporations), but it would also ignite international oil trading in euros.

"A shift away from US dollars to euros in the oil market would cause the demand for petrodollars to drop, perhaps causing the value of the dollar to plummet," Brian Miller and Celeste Vogler of Project Censored wrote in Censored 2006."

Well shit!

8. Iraqi farmers threatened by Bremer's mandates
'Texas A&M University, which brags that its agriculture program is a "world leader" in the use of biotechnology, has already embarked on a $107 million project to "reeducate" Iraqi farmers to grow industrial-sized harvests, for export, using American seeds. And anyone who's ever paid attention to how this has worked elsewhere in the global South knows what comes next: Farmers will lose their lands, and the country will lose its ability to feed itself, engendering poverty and dependency.

On TomPaine.com, Greg Palast identified Order 81 as one of several authored by Bremer that fit nicely into the outlines of a US "Economy Plan," a 101-page blueprint for the economic makeover of Iraq, formulated with ample help from corporate lobbyists. Palast reported that someone inside the State Department leaked the plan to him a month prior to the invasion.

Smith put it simply: "The people whose forefathers first mastered the domestication of wheat will now have to pay for the privilege of growing it for someone else. And with that the world's oldest farming heritage will become just another subsidiary link in the vast American supply chain."'
Oil and wheat!

7. Journalists face unprecedented dangers to life and livelihood
The Pentagon has refused to implement basic safeguards to protect journalists who aren't embedded with coalition forces, despite repeated requests by Reuters and media advocacy organizations. How can they report all of the good news out of Iraq if they keep getting killed?

6. The real oil-for-food scam
"Most of the oil that left Iraq by land did so through Jordan and Turkey – with the approval of the United States. The first Bush administration informally exempted Jordan from the ban on purchasing Iraqi oil – an arrangement that provided Hussein with $4.4 billion over 10 years, according to the CIA's own findings. The United States later allowed Iraq to leak another $710 million worth of oil through Turkey – "all while US planes enforcing no-fly zones flew overhead," Gordon wrote.

Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector in Iraq during the first six years of economic sanctions against the country, unearthed yet another scam: The United States allegedly allowed an oil company run by Russian foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov's sister to purchase cheap oil from Iraq and resell it to US companies at market value – purportedly earning Hussein "hundreds of millions" more.

"It has been estimated that 80 percent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under 'oil for food' ended up in the United States," Ritter wrote in the UK Independent."

Yeah, but the U.S. only consumes about 25 percent of all of the oil consumed in a year!

5. US uses tsunami to military advantage in Southeast Asia
""Consequently, in the name of relief, the US revived the Utapao military base in Thailand it had used during the Vietnam War [and] reactivated its military cooperation agreements with Thailand and the Visiting Forces Agreement with the Philippines," Bedi reported.

Last February the State Department mended broken ties with the notoriously vicious and corrupt Indonesian military – although human rights observers charged the military with withholding "food and other relief from civilians suspected of supporting the secessionist insurgency, the Free Aceh Movement," Jim Lobe reported for the Inter Press Service."

You're Goddamn right we did.

4. Surveillance society quietly moves in
'"In one fell swoop, this act has decimated our rights to privacy, due process, and freedom of speech," Anna Samson Miranda wrote in an article for LiP magazine titled "Grave New World" that documented the ways in which the government already employs high-tech, private industry, and everyday citizens as part of a vast web of surveillance.

Miranda warned, "If we are too busy, distracted, or apathetic to fight government and corporate surveillance and data collection, we will find ourselves unable to go anywhere – whether down the street for a cup of coffee or across the country for a protest – without being watched."'

The San Francisco Bay Guardian has reported that this entry may be bogus. Shrug.

3. Another year of distorted election coverage
"Last year Project Censored foretold the potential for electoral wrongdoing in the 2004 presidential campaign: The "sale of electoral politics" made number six in the list of 2003-04's most underreported stories. The mainstream media had largely ignored the evidence that electronic voting machines were susceptible to tampering, as well as political alliances between the machines' manufacturers and the Republican Party."

Puhleaze! Even Markos didn't want to hear about this one.

2. Media coverage fails on Iraq: Fallujah and the civilian death toll
"Decades from now, the civilized world may well look back on the assaults on Fallujah in April and November 2004 and point to them as examples of the United States' and Britain's utter disregard for the most basic wartime rules of engagement.

Not long after the "coalition" had embarked on its second offensive, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour called for an investigation into whether the Americans and their allies had engaged in "the deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, the killing of injured persons, and the use of human shields," among other possible "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions ... considered war crimes" under federal law"

If I know the American People, and I think I do, then they really don't give a shit anyway.

And the number one story that the media ignored:

1. Bush administration moves to eliminate open government
"One year ago, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) released an 81-page analysis of how the administration has administered the country's major open government laws. His report found that the feds consistently "narrowed the scope and application" of the Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Records Act, and other key public information legislation, while expanding laws blocking access to certain records – even creating new categories of "protected" information and exempting entire departments from public scrutiny.

When those methods haven't been enough, the Bush administration has simply refused to release records – even when the requester was a Congressional subcommittee or the Government Accountability Office, the study found. A few of the potentially incriminating documents Bush and Co. have refused to hand over to their colleagues on Capitol Hill include records of contacts between large energy companies and Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force; White House memos pertaining to Saddam Hussein's, shall we say, "elusive" weapons of mass destruction; and reports describing torture at Abu Ghraib."

But if the government is so secretive, how're journalists supposed to know about it?

Gonna Start the Revolution From My Bed

2005-09-07T00:00:00.000-04:00

Via Yglesias, I came across a critical review in the Nation of some guys book about sex. The nut of which goes like so:

"And herein lies the gravest problem with Margolis's erotic agenda: In wanting to keep sex unencumbered by emotion, morality or mysticism so that we can have as much of it as easily as possible, he altogether depletes it. He makes it dull and small--at best an agreeable snack for the sensations and at worst a forgettable hiccup, but never a sublime experience.

And that is tragic. For sex is a powerful force; if harnessed rather than simply sprinkled hither and thither, it can take us places. It can burst through barriers that would otherwise remain unbroken, accomplish in one explosive clap what decades of whittling away at someone else's or our own defenses could not. It can throw us into the core of a Strange Other or into the still center of our own souls. At its best it is two things Margolis disdains: mystical and transgressive."

And you probably think you know what I'm going to say about this. A staunch advocate for the demysitification of the punanny, you think I'm going to bitterly decry the Nation's attempts to imbue sex with some kind of superfluous transcendental powers. But you're wrong. I'm going to go with a far more nefarious technique of persuasion. I'm going to agree with the main point, and then use elaboration and nuance and what the hell, possibly a metaphor to make my point of view seem reasonable, even dare I say it, persuasive. Just watch me.

Because, my loyal friends, sex is a beautiful beautiful thing, and sometimes the physical union of two animals - two raunchy raunchy animals in a sensual embrace of heat and flesh - really does achieve something wonderful and bonding and even transcendant and sublime, of a more powerful experience than even the run of the mill orgasm.

Just not always.

And when it's not, you know, that's okay. Sex doesn't have to be so... so... so very meaningful and enrapturing all of the time. An orgasm, in and of itself, is good enough, and it completely justifies the experience. I like to think of it like music, whether it's something you play or something you dance to or something you just appreciate the joys of. A group of musicians can get together and play some tunes just for the hell of it. And there's a simple joy in that, and that's great, even if they only produce a mindless little tune like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer," or something of that ilk, simple and fun. And that's great. It makes people happy. They dance and they get their release.

But every once in a while, a group of truly special musicians come together and produce something truly magical and awe-inspiring, like "Wonderwall," for example. And more than just providing that simple joy that music can bring, it brings us closer to what we might call "god" if we weren't a bunch of godless communists, though sentimental we may be. Sex is exactly the same way. Sometimes you're rocking with John and Paul, and you just get a nut, and that's cool. But sometimes, with someone like Liam and Noel, you not only get your nut, you get something truly special in the bargain.

And you know, when you're wistfully crooning in your car to "don't look back in anger," Liam and Noel don't even really care that just the night before you were playing "And you're bird can sing," while you were getting a quick handjob from your old lady.

When I started this post, I thought I'd figure out a fairly easy segway to this post I found via Rox Populi about some woman's retrospective about having written about burlesque. But damn, it didn't happen. Not smooth at all. Fuck it though. Am I right?

Anyway, it covers a good bit of interesting observations, but the part I want to address, I'll quote, for the ease and convenience of my readers, aka you.

"And then there is the other question, the one about whether striptease performers in the pre-porn era were exploited or empowered. The question also arises out of the porn-antiporn debates; that is, whether pornography exploits women or can potentially empower them. In reviews of books about pornography, there often is a puritanical suspicion of pleasure and also reflexive talk about exploitation versus women's self-reinvention as autonomous beings taking charge of their own lives. There is simply no good way to answer the question of whether old-time strippers were empowered or exploited."

I want to focus on the question of whether pornography is empowering or exploitative. I don't expect to have reached a conclusion by the end of this post, but who the fucks knows, I'm rolling on the fly here, and I may figure it out to my satisfaction. Cause I'm awfully fond of myself and the brains I HAD went to my head.

As a consumer of pornography, the question of empowerment verses exploitation isn't very relevant. That is, I'm going to consume pornography that appealls to my fetishes and tastes and that's entirely independant of the desires of the performer. That is, I'm paying (let's pretend like I pay for pron for convenience sake instead of downloading it for free, though in the sense of like opportunity cost I am foregoing other things and other types of pron to consume pornography even if I'm not parting with my money) the performer of pornography here to fulfill my desires, my fantasies. She's not being paid to enjoy the act the way she might enjoy the act. And it's important to note here, that talk of female friendly pron aside, that the vast majority of pornography is consumed by men. Why this might be the case being outside of the scope of this discussion. This kind of thinking, from the perspective of the consumer tends to make me believe that it's exploitative, or at the least is kind of neutral in a contractarian sense, but probably tends toward the exploitative.

But the perspective of the consumer is not definitive I don't think. We could ask how the performer feels about the experience of being involved in pornography, and though this is not definitive either, I think you'd find that it has the potential to be both exploitative and empowering from this perspective. But even for those women who find pornography empowering as performers, is that really the case? I could find joining the army and shooting at arabs personally empowering, but is it really? Or am I really being exploited by powers greater than my own, though it may put me in a better position than had I not joined the army?

I think that the segment of feminists who find pornography empowering, find it empowering because puritanical attitudes about sex tend to be used as weapons against women. They tend to be about keeping women in certain roles and in affirming prevailing understandings of womanhood that are very limiting. And that feminists asserting a woman's right to recreational sex without stigma, asserting a right to enjoy sex as a casual matter, can find something very liberating in pornography, and yes, empowering, as a way to celebrate sex, and celebrate female sexuality. Even if they don't consume it, or they don't consume it nearly as often as men do.

I think that's the really troubling part of the issue. As long as pornography is basically about paying women to gratify men, and appealling to male understandings of sex, it's going to tend toward the exploitative to my way of thinking. I guess it could be conceptually transformed, if women started consuming more pornography, and pron thereby became more egalitarian conceptually. But as it is, I guess I tend to think that the empowerment arises from pornography is a bit of a chimera. I mean the empowerment doesn't seem like much if it's empowerment derived by filling male desire within a male framework. I don't know. It's like being a corporate lawyer. You might feel good about that salary and the seeming importance, but you're really just a flunky for the people with real money and power.

Listen To The Lady

2005-09-06T23:52:00.000-04:00

See Blue Girl for details.

Katrina's victims and our country is depending on you.

Where's Your Bullhorn Now Asshole?

2005-09-02T13:53:00.000-04:00

Via Karen Wehrstein at dailykos, the mayor of New Orleans:

"RN: I have no idea what they're doing, but I'll tell you this. You know, God is looking down on all this... and if theyre not doing everything in their power to save people, they are going to pay the price. Because every day that we delay, people are dying... and they're dying by the hundreds, I'm willing to bet you.

We're getting reports in calling that are breaking my heart, from people saying, 'I'm in my attic...I can't take it any more. The water's up to my neck. I don't think I can hold out. And that's happening as we speak.

And you know what really upsets me, Garland. We told everybody the importance of the 17th Street Canal issue. We said, please, please take care of this, we don't care what you do, figure it out."

The situation in New Orleans is extremely fucked. And I'm utterly amazed, ashamed, and angry how quickly NO has turned from a cosmopolitan city into the fucking third world. And some people deserve blame for this, this catastrophic fuck-up. I don't know entirely where it belongs. But we need to ask these questions and get some answers. Because this is unacceptable. And this isn't politics. This isn't about playing politics at all. People with responsibility fucked up and people are dying. You have drug addicts with guns roaming the streets and jonesing for a fix, and fucking dead bodies floating being eaten by rats. And someone needs to take responsibility for it. When politicians fuck up, it's not politics, to affix blame. It's not some petty partisan "I'm hoping to capitalize on this in the midterms" disrespect to those afflicted politics. This should not have happened. This situation should have been prevented. And someone is responsible for it, and they should pay the consequence of it. And they still don't know what the fuck they're doing.

And yet the politicians continue to be politicians. Congratulating each other for doing nothing and saying nice words. Check out this video, via Crooks and Liars of Anderson Cooper giving the business to Senator Mary Landrieu trying to get her to understand the situation in New Orleans while she congratulates Clinton and Bush for saying nice words. Read the transcript of the interview with the mayor of New Orleans as he begs these useless politicians for real leadership.

RN: I need reinforcements. I need troops, man. I need 500 buses. Man, they were talking about... you know, one of the briefings we had, they were talking about getting public school bus drivers to come down here ... I'm like, you've got to be kidding me! This is a national disaster! Get every doggone Greyhound busline in the country, and get their asses moving to New Orleans. That's them thinking small, man.... this is a major major major deal!

And I can't emphasize this enough, man -- this is crazy! I've got 15,000-20,000 people over at the Convention Centre, it's bursting at the seams. The poor people in Plaquemines parish... they're air-vacc'ing people over here in New Orleans... we don't have anything and we're sharing with our brothers in Plaquemines parish. It's awful down here, man.

Really, what the fuck is wrong with these people? Where's the fucking leadership? Aren't we supposed to be prepared for a disaster like this? And honestly, can you really tell me you think this would have happened under the watch of any other president? The unique combination of incompetence and indifference has consequences. And that's the truth. And I really don't see what's so fucking wrong with saying so.

If We Could Just Sing Our Grief Away

2005-09-01T12:40:00.000-04:00

The developing tragedy in the wake of hurricane Katrina weighs heavily on the mind today. Like Blue Girl says, it puts things in perspective.

"I've had a hard day. Imagine that.

After all, I ate breakfast, lunch and dinner today. Lots of coffee too. I was able to work and make some money. My house is not leaking and I've got a nice warm bed to crawl into in a couple of hours. Or I might stay up late and fall asleep on the couch. I have options. My family is safe and I know where each of them are at this very minute. I can depend on tomorrow, as much as any person not facing imminent danger can. And even if something happens, I can access at least $25 to escape if I have to."

And it's hard to not to think, comfortably with a cup of coffee in our hand, about how much of this could have been averted. Though a natural disaster, much of the tragedy, particularly in New Orleans, is man made, caused by political decisions reflecting political priorities. As Neddie Jingo writes:

Sidney Blumenthal points out in today's Salon, "In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent."

And as Pinko Feminist Hellcat notes:

"Now, far be it for me to indulge in a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking, but Katrina was a category 4 hurricane headed for a city that was below sea level. A city that was always keeping the flood waters at bay anyway. Working on the levee system wasn't just some needless pork, for heaven's sake. The options were: work on the levee system or eventually lose the city. It's quite simple, really.

This is not something that will take months to fix. Things won't be back to normal for years. And even with all the preparedness and funding in the world, it would still be awful, but--it wouldn't have been as bad. Things could have been salvageable; lives could have been saved."

Some might level accusations of callousness to discuss politics in the wake of this tragedy, but some blame lies in politics. It's certainly less callous than telling jokes about it, like Jonah Goldberg did. Via Majikthise.

"I think it's time to face facts. That place is going to be a Mad Max/thunderdome Waterworld/Lord of the Flies horror show within the next few hours. My advice is to prepare yourself now. Hoard weapons, grow gills and learn to communicate with serpents. While you're working on that, find the biggest guy you can and when he's not expecting it beat him senseless. Gather young fighters around you and tell the womenfolk you will feed and protect any female who agrees to participate without question in your plans to repopulate the earth with a race of gilled-supermen. It's never too soon to be prepared."

But we'll leave that alone. Jonah's crassness will damn him long after I do. Instead let's turn to thoughts of rebuilding, and whether or not we really should. I don't know a lot about New Orleans and it's economy. I've never been there, and I have to wonder if I ever will. But it seems like we're talking about city, below sea-level, who's purpose other than Mardi-Gras, I'm unclear about. An important port city? What natural resources are there? I really don't know the answers to these questions. But I'm not sure about re-building the city as was, if it doesn't really make sense to. Erik Loomis makes the case against it, and I find it pretty persuasive.

"To me, this is the perfect example of the idea of consumption without consequences, which American subscribe to more than they do to low taxes and Christianity. And like those other two ideas, consumption without consequences has serious negative consequences. We simply cannot expect to live in a place like New Orleans without consequences. Everyone is saying that they will rebuild--why? What good is it going to do to rebuild a city that will likely be destroyed again in the next 50 years as another result of our consumption without consequences, global warming, leads to more and stronger hurricanes that make all the cities along the Gulf of Mexico vulnerable to complete destruction, not to mention rising sea levels from the melting ice caps?"

But more important than anything at the moment, is the lives of those affected, to whom I wish I could say "God Bless," but can in sincerity really only offer a good luck, and my concern, whatever that's worth.

The Top 100 Hits of 1996

2005-08-30T00:21:00.000-04:00

Via Amanda of Pandagon, I discovered two really fucking great posts by Media Girl about the dailykos. I don't want to totally commit myself because they're pretty long, but I agree with just about every word in the both of them. They are really really worth reading, because they're about more than just petty intra-blog meta-gheyness. But I don't want to ruin the surprise. I also don't want to go to the trouble of summarizing them.

Amanda also shares this meme, where you go to Music Outfitters, type the year of your high school graduation into the search function, select the top 100 most popular songs, cut and paste it onto your blog and then bold the ones you like, italicize the ones you hate, and leave alone the ones you don't care about or don't know. So bring you:

The Top 100 Songs of 1996

1. Macarena (Bayside Boys Mix), Los Del Rio
2. One Sweet Day, Mariah Carey and Boyz II Men
3. Because You Loved Me, Celine Dion
4. Nobody Knows, Tony Rich Project
5. Always Be My Baby, Mariah Carey
6. Give Me One Reason, Tracy Chapman
7. Tha Crossroads, Bone Thugs-N-Harmony
8. I Love You Always Forever, Donna Lewis
9. You're Makin' Me High / Let It Flow, Toni Braxton
10. Twisted, Keith Sweat
11. C'mon N' Ride It (The Train), Quad City Dj's
12. Missing, Everything But The Girl
13. Ironic, Alanis Morissette
14. Exhale (Shoop Shoop), Whitney Houston
15. Follow You Down / Til I Hear It From You, Gin Blossoms
16. Sittin' Up In My Room, Brandy
17. How Do U Want It / California Love, 2Pac
18. It's All Coming Back To Me Now, Celine Dion
19. Change The World, Eric Clapton
20. Hey Lover, LL Cool J
21. Loungin, LL Cool J
22. Insensitive, Jann Arden
23. Be My Lover, La Bouche
24. Name, Goo Goo Dolls
25. Who Will Save Your Soul, Jewel
26. Where Do You Go, No Mercy
27. I Can't Sleep Baby (If I), R. Kelly
28. Counting Blue Cars, Dishwalla
29. You Learn / You Oughta Know, Alanis Morissette
30. One Of Us, Joan Osborne
31. Wonder, Natalie Merchant
32. Not Gon' Cry, Mary J. Blige
33. Gangsta's Paradise, Coolio
34. Only You, 112 Featuring The Notorious B.I.G.
35. Down Low (Nobody Has To Know), R. Kelly
36. You're The One, SWV
37. Sweet Dreams, La Bouche
38. Before You Walk Out Of My Life / Like This And Like That, Monica
39. Breakfast At Tiffany's, Deep Blue Something
40. 1, 2, 3, 4 (Sumpin' New), Coolio
41. The World I Know, Collective Soul
42. No Diggity, BLACKstreet (Featuring Dr. Dre)
43. Anything, 3t
44. 1979, The Smashing Pumpkins
45. Diggin' On You, TLC
46. Why I Love You So Much / Ain't Nobody, Monica
47. Kissin' You, Total
48. Count On Me, Whitney Houston and Cece Winans
49. Fantasy, Mariah Carey
50. Time, Hootie and The Blowfish
51. You'll See, Madonna
52. Last Night, Az Yet
53. Mouth, Merril Bainbridge
54. The Earth, The Sun, The Rain, Color Me Badd
55. All The Things (Your Man Won't Do), Joe
56. Wonderwall, Oasis
57. Woo-hah!! Got You All In Check / Everything Remains Raw, Busta Rhymes
58. Tell Me, Groove Theory
59. Elevators (Me and You), Outkast
60. Hook, Blues Traveler
61. Doin It, LL Cool J
62. Fastlove, George Michael
63. Touch Me Tease Me, Case Featuring Foxxy Brown
64. Tonite's Tha Night, Kris Kross
65. Children, Robert Miles
66. Theme From Mission: Impossible, Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen
67. Closer To Free, Bodeans
68. Just A Girl, No Doubt
69. If Your Girl Only Knew, Aaliyah
70. Lady, D'angelo
71. Key West Intermezzo (I Saw You First), John Mellencamp
72. Pony, Ginuwine
73. Nobody, Keith Sweat
74. Old Man and Me (When I Get To Heaven), Hootie and The Blowfish
75. If It Makes You Happy, Sheryl Crow
76. As I Lay Me Down, Sophie B. Hawkins
77. Keep On, Keepin' On, Mc Lyte
78. Jealousy, Natalie Merchant
79. I Want To Come Over, Melissa Etheridge
80. Who Do U Love, Deborah Cox
81. Un-Break My Heart, Toni Braxton
82. This Is Your Night, Amber
83. You Remind Me Of Something, R. Kelly
84. Runaway, Janet Jackson
85. Set U Free, Planet Soul
86. Hit Me Off, New Edition
87. No One Else, Total
88. My Boo, Ghost Town Dj's
89. Get Money, Junior M.A.F.I.A.
90. That Girl, Maxi Priest Featuring Shaggy
91. Po Pimp, Do Or Die
92. Until It Sleeps, Metallica
93. Hay, Crucial Conflict
94. Beautiful Life, Ace Of Base
95. Back For Good, Take That
96. I Got Id / Long Road, Pearl Jam
97. Soon As I Get Home, Faith Evans
98. Macarena, Los Del Rio
99. Only Wanna Be With You, Hootie and The Blowfish
100. Don't Cry, Seal

Wonderwall redeems the whole goddamned year.

So Fucking Insensitive

2005-08-29T20:24:00.000-04:00

Below, via Three Bulls! und Blue Girl we have footage of a nice Republican fellow trying to get his conservo-douchebag pals to help fight the war in Iraq, only to be confronted by the "sensitivity" police, those pc douchebags who say you shouldn't encourage people to fight in wars, because some people really really want to, but for some reason or another, they are unable to. I don't know why, but I'll guess it has a lot to do with the possibility that web-fingers interfere with your ability to shoot straight. Also there's maybe one of those Catch-22 things going on. If you're fucking dumb enough to support this misadventure, then you're just too dumb to be given a gun. Never the less, I think the fragile feelings of the inbred and other assorted mongoloids wing of the conservo-douchebag movement should be subject to the higher goal of making sure our military has enough recruits and is functioning at it's best. I don't know why I think that.

Because I really am one of those flag-burning liberals who hates this country and I am rooting for the insurgents, terrorists, and um religious extremists to just really clean our clocks, you know. I still think it though, and as a result we really should encourage the other wing of the Republican Party, our nation's best and brightest sons and daughters of the fantastically upper middle class and upper class to join up. I think it'll be that much more gratifying rooting for the eventual victory of our nation's enemies if they beat our most talented war-hawks. Hey, there's a rationale. Good on me. But my point is that this pc "sensitivity" nonsense has got to stop. We've got a fucking war to lose, my friends. And we can't allow a few crybabies who don't have what it takes to shoot and be shot at to get in the way of doing our best, and being a worthwhile opponent.

Click here to watch the video.

Restaurant Blogging Part One

2005-08-29T17:35:00.000-04:00

Jumping off this Majikthise post on bar tipping, which is a subject that always seems to spur anger and controversy, which is weird to me, cause I don’t know anyone who doesn’t tip, and tip well at that. Even my old man, who’s quite possibly the cheapest man in the world – who goes to the local recreation center to shower to save money on his water bills – tips at least 20%, in general.

But nevertheless, I always find myself pretty sympathetic to those who argue that the tip is not some sort of social obligation. I tip because I like tipping. Because I’ve worked in restaurants and I know how happy it makes someone to get a good tip. And I like to spread happiness. I am completely selfless that way. But I certainly don’t think it’s an obligation. I really don’t care at all whether or not you, personally, tip. I’m not fighting some battle on behalf of the wait staff with entitlement problems union to make sure that you’re shamed into tipping. In fact there have been times where I’ve had service some egregiously bad service, and I did not tip. Those occasions I can count on one hand, and I feel that they were completely justifiable, involving unnecessary rudeness, and cuntlike behavior that I will not tolerate from a service “professional.” I know that they’re paid below the minimum, and I know they rely on tips to get a decent “wage.” But that is not my problem. I didn’t tell them to get a job where they were at my mercy as to whether or not they got paid. All they had to do was not piss me off, and they would have gotten a nice tip. And to be perfectly clear, I’ve worked in enough restaurants over the years to have a pretty good idea when something is beyond someone’s control, and hell, I understand that we all fuck up sometimes. Just don’t piss me off, and you’ll get your tip, whiny.

And I completely understand that you hate your job, and on some days you hate every single motherfucker who walks through that door and waits to be seated. And I know what a fucking bitch it is that you have to pretend otherwise. But see, you really do have to pretend otherwise. Though on occasion we all have our bouts. I remember years and years ago, one time I was working at a now defunct Friendly’s as a cook. And I had just worked something like 9 days in a row, because the guy who did the scheduling was a total fucking douchebag, and I wasn’t even going to get any fucking overtime for it because of the way the pay period ended and a new one began in the middle. And so here I was on day 9, having just completed the dinner rush, and was cleaning up and restocking shit and in walked a group of about 8 people. I looked at these people, and I just did not want to fucking cook for them. Big groups are the worst. So I just stared at them and started picking my nose as they waited to be seated. Sure enough, they decided to find another place to eat. Not before mentioning the incident to my supervisor. But that was nothing an eye-rolling denial couldn’t handle. Sometimes I’m surprised I never got fired from that job, especially the time I played a prank on the wait staff and switched the coke and diet coke syrups so that every time someone ordered a coke, they’d get a diet and vice-versa. And every time the waiter tried to rectify it, the problem would persist. That cost them about $2000 to fix, which I hadn’t foreseen. But I’m not at all surprised that that place is no longer in business. And I’m glad too. I fucking hated that place.

Then there was the time a family of four walked in about five minutes before close, which is pretty fucking routine run-of-the-mill inconsideration, so you just fucking deal with it. So I cooked their food, and cleaned everything up, turned everything off, to discover that upon finishing their meals, the sons of bitches wanted to order some carryout as well. That one filled me with enough rage to shout “motherfucker” at the top of my lungs, loud enough to carry out into the dining room. But I cooked their fucking carryout. And then was the one time that I ever “took care” of someone’s food. I didn’t do anything particularly heinous to it in terms of bodily fluids or whatever. I just soaked it in bunch of pickle-juice, and other natural ingredients that would detract from the flavor and texture.

And then there was the waitering, at a couple of different restaurants. Working as a waiter is in a lot of ways is worse than working in the back, because there aren’t really any good opportunities to avenge yourself on these douchebags that fuck your shit up, except to overcharge them, which still sucked because that just enriched my employer, who I hated as much as I hated the customers. And because I generally found it too busy to douche around with people’s food and there were usually too many people around anyway. Plus on top of that you have to actually deal with the curt miserable fucks and when you’re lucky, their rotten fucking families, but on good nights, you generally get paid better. So anyway, I understand how difficult it is to be nice to fucking assholes. But I did it. And I rather expect you to as well. And that really shouldn’t be so hard because I’m like the model fucking customer.

But I’ll admit that I can be an obnoxious customer as well. For example, I can remember on one particular occasion, after a night of drinking, a group of eight of us went to eat at one of the Midtowns (don’t remember which) in Philly. The booths were designed to only fit six, so we squeezed into one, with someone on the end, and Big Narsty sat on my lap. And sure there was some light fondling. And I suppose we did a little tongue-kissing. But so what? It was three o’clock in the morning in a diner full of drunks. It wasn’t some kind of family restaurant or some fucking candlelight affair. And I can guarantee that there were people sitting at our table as disturbed by the scene as anyone in that fucking restaurant. Nevertheless, the waitress had to make a big deal when she brought us our water, about there only being six people at a table. So two people moved to another table and we were left to look at our menus. So I was like “fuck this, let’s leave.” But before we did, I knocked over all the glasses of water to piss that old bitch off. Of course in hindsight, the innocent busboy probably had to clean it up. But it was still very gratifying. Obnoxious and impetuous, sure, but deeply deeply gratifying.

But I guess my biggest complaint is the way that some people expect me, the fucking customer, to accommodate the fucking dubs and bartenders and other assorted service types, just because they have shitty jobs, and they rely on my tips. And I am considerate. I try not to inconvenience people. But these people’s job is to put up with my fucking inconveniencing them. I’m not going to bend over backwards not to disturb you, and then pay you for the pleasure of it. The worst is in the bars in Philadelphia. Where I come from, it’s understood that bars close at 2 AM, and I understand what it’s like to work late and want to get home. But you let people enjoy the last of their drinks, finish their conversations and move on. It’s just how it is. While you’re working, you’re there to accommodate the customer to an extent. People are going to linger a little bit in bars. It’s not a big deal. But in Philadelphia, I swear to god, at like five to two, they literally start yelling at you to “get the hell out.” They’ll even come and stand over your table and watch you chug the rest of your beer. It’s fucking ridiculous. And these people are professionals? There’s not a professional in the world in any other industry that will start yelling at a client to get the fuck out of his office at the end of a meeting. It’s a matter of perspective, and I think somewhere along the way, that perspective has gotten lost. Now, everyone acts like it’s the fucking customer who has to accommodate the people working in the service industries. It wasn’t that way when I worked in them, and that makes me so extremely bitter and jealous, because I really wish it had been.

This One is For the Fleshbots

2005-08-28T01:04:00.000-04:00

Just stretching the writerly muscles a bit for some Sunday morning titillation. Plowing some new ground, if you will, which always makes me hesitant about the reactions of the regulars. So if you're the blushing type, you might want to skip it. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy. Tried to avoid the cliches with rigor, but I guess we'll see how it turns out. Some of it is supposed to be funny and over the top though. Enough caveats.

An arrogant smile creeps over his face as he rests his hand on my knee.

"Cookie," he pauses, "I think you're tame." He delivers the line perfectly. He drawls it out slowly and matter of factly. Then taking a deep drag from his cigarette and exhaling a thick stream of smoke toward the bar.

I'm very drunk and probably won't remember much of this, but I'm certain I'll remember the impression: the deep aousal, the melting pang, the submission. Everything about him is so very sexual, though it is not at all overt. He moves slowly, confidently, like a jaguar perhaps, in tight blue denim and yellow button down shirt that clings tightly to his slender body, with a wild mop of hair and perhaps a two day growth of stubble that accentuates a primality and a sort of tightly restrained lust conveyed subliminally, almost hypnotically. His eyes are soft and tender. They open wide in a sort of genuous innocence, suggesting something effeminate within the hard masculine shell.

I respond with exactly what I'm feeling, impulse permitted and unrestrained. Any sense of inhibition has been cowed by the mesmerizing thickness of the sexual exhusions hanging in the air heavily like an oppressive humidity.

"Tell me something that doesn't just make me want to mount you," I say.

He smiles, and chuckles, with a tinge of discomort. I think it is to buy himself time to come up with an appropriately witty response, perhaps startled by my directness. He recovers smoothly.

"You'll be sore for days afterward," he says it in a silly voice of deliberate bravado, and I laugh spontaneously, almost wildly, leaning against him. He catches the attention of the bar tender as his arm slips around me and orders another round. We're in, as it happens, Dirty Franks. I was playing darts with some friends, when he came out of the bathroom and asked me to buy him a drink. One thing led to another and we ended up talking by the bar, and then we were in the bathroom with his hand down my pants and his mouth on my left nipple sucking it gently.

And then they started kicking everyone out, and we went back to my place to watch a movie. We spoon on the couch, his hands massaging my belly in soft slow circles, every now and then dipping under the front of my pants to run his fingertips over my smooth vulva, while kissing my neck, and feeling the contours of my body. A friend of his is making out with a friend of mine on the other couch, their shirts off, vigorously pawing each other. Unseemly.

I grab him by the hand, and whisper "come on," in his ear and lead him into the bedroom past the couch where our friends our making out, half-nude. I close the door. He undresses me and joins me on the bed. His eyes taking me in, staring lustily. He mounts me, kissing my neck and grinding his cock against my vulva. He moves down, kissing my tits, then my tummy, softly and slowly, steadily descending my flesh with his lips, taking his time untill he reaches my clitoris. Stimulating it with his lips and tongue as he slowly enters me with two fingers thick with my juices. I cum. I pull on his head, and he comes up and we kiss, sticking our tongues deep in each other's mouths. His cock is hard, when I grab it and guide it toward my cunt. It's big and girthy and is a snug fit, as he enters swiftly and proceeds to grind me out gently.

"Harder," I say.

He smiles down at me, "no, not yet," and he keeps up the slow steady thrusts. It feels very nice and I moan and I say "harder." And he says, "not yet," again. I keep begging him to fuck me harder, but he won't do it. He asserts control, fucking me at exactly his own pace and I submit to his will. It's incredible. I moan and I squeal, and I cum on his big gentle dick. And he keeps going, leaning down to suck on my neck and slowly fucks me as I feel the pleasure building. Suddenly, he gives me a hard thrust. He grabs my hair and pulls my head back against the pillow, and give another hard thrust. Then another. And then he's rapidly fucking me hard and furious. Taught flesh is flapping. The bed is rocking. Sweat is flying off of him. I'm yelling at the top of my lungs. He's ripping into me. Just tearing and stretching. I'm sure I'll feel it in the morning, but now he's finally giving me what I wanted.

"Oww Fuck me yess." I yell. I gurgle. I'm incoherent and slobbering all over myself, drool coming down my chin, and my mind just goes black. And it's like a million twinkling stars exploding in my skull, as a warm shiver goes through me, and I'm momentarily blinded. And there's a slow melting return to the mundane world with slow ripples of pleasure ebbing over me. I feel him pull out and move his body, and I open my eyes just as a burst of semen hits me in the face. I close my eyes again, and feel a couple more streams, and then I feel him wiping my face off, carefully, trying his best to get it all, but there's always that sticky residue that won't just wipe off.

I open my eyes again and point to his dick and say, "so that's why you're so arrogant."

He grins but doesn't say anything and we lie down, and he holds me, falling asleep seemingly almost immediately. And though my body is exhausted, I can't sleep yet. I cuddle against him, wrapped in his strong arms, and close my eyes.

Some Shit That I Did NOT Learn in Fucking Kindergarten

2005-08-27T23:06:00.000-04:00

8. Never try to get your cock sucked in Haiti. Or France. "Hey you forgot about Poland." No I didn't.

7. Do not start wars whose costs exceed its benefits thereby creating a pointless showdown of "competing resolve." Also, know when to CUT your losses and RUN.

6. Racism (and sexism?) beneath a heavy shellac of science cannot be fucking killed.

5. Condoms suck almost all of the pleasure out of sex.

4. My dog's cock is practically the same as my own.

3. Anything at all about women getting off. Sexually, that is.

2. Avoid Fucking the Crazy Ones. The Clingy ones too.

1. The homosexuals probably want to fuck me.

That last one I didn't learn untill the eigth grade. It was during confession, oddly enough. That's not a cheap anti-papist joke. It's the truth about a creepy priest who wanted to know all about my masterbation habits. Fucking pervert. Nevertheless, that shit about everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten is not to be trusted.

Fighting the Bias and Prejudice of the Goddamned Media

2005-08-26T15:48:00.000-04:00

Being on the front lines of the culture war is often, believe it or not, a somewhat mundane job. For instance, yesterday, I was doing some routine research on the opposition, ie those who regard "civility" and "decency" as some sort of virtue, when I happened across this article in the November issue of the Christian Science Monitor. Frankly I was shocked to discover such a shoddy example of modern journalism and their bias toward those earnest "christian" types and their parochial standards of morality. I sent the author the following email.

Dear Linda Feldman,

As a journalist/culture warrior, I read with great interest your article entitled "How lines of the culture war have been redrawn," but became quickly dismayed to discover that while you appeared to have spoken with so-called social conservatives, you did not achieve "balance" for your story by speaking to or by in any way making notice of the views of those of us who are "moral degenerates." This is unconscionably shoddy journalism by any standard.

In fact, I noted that while you quoted several impartial political observers, you then went on to quote one Gary Bauer, a fairly prominent cultural warrior, to this effect: "It [his side of the culture war] includes people who listen to Jim Dobson and Focus on the Family, and it [allegedly] includes the guy sitting in his living room with his Budweiser who is just darned tired of seeing his middle American values trashed by the cultural elites," (brackets mine). Yet you did not speak with a single one of his opponents to rebut these ludicrous claims. If you had, you might have discovered the following, and thus written a much better, more balanced article.

First of all, Gary Bauer (and indeed many of his allies), by his own admission, worships as a "god," a hebrew named Jesus of Nazareth. This, I think we can all agree, is prima facie insane. More than that though it is completely ludicrous that one who claims to follow this Hebrew carpenter would fight alongside Gary Bauer in this culture war.

1) This Jesus of Nazareth was a convicted criminal

2) He had some sort of depraved and disgusting foot fetish, on occasion even stooping to the degenerate behavior of washing the feet of some of his male companions with his bare hands in what may be described as a lascivious manner.

3) He frequently intervened in the punishment of those who could be described as "sinners," including most prominently a hooker who was about to be stoned.

4) Did I mention that he was a heeb?

5) He engaged in occult practices, such as revival of the dead, and other sorts of necromancy such as turning water into wine.

6) He was a member of the cultural elite, commanding crowds of palm waving adulators wherever he went.

7) He was eventually killed, depending on who you listen to, by either the Romans or his fellow jews, for his pernicious influence on society.

I could go on, I suppose, but since idleness is a virtue, I won't. Nevertheless, it is clear that were this Jesus of Nazareth alive today, he would not be fighting on the side of these so-called social conservatives, but that he would indeed by fighting alongside those of us who do not have neither a proverbial nor literal bug up our asses. Not that I really care about the debauchery of this long-dead heeb, except to the extent that I believe we should follow the Romans', the world's last great civilization, example and feed his followers to lions or perhaps some other ferocious beast for the entertainment of homosexuals, feminists, yids, and other members of the cultural elite. But mostly, I just think it's ironic, because Gary Bauer is a douchebag (the bad kind), and this Jesus of Nazareth was not known to suffer douchebags very kindly.

All of that aside, the next time you write an article on the "culture wars," I earnestly implore you to get both sides of the issue, and that includes those of us who believe that gay pride parades should be permitted in our public schools, abortion should be taught as the preferred method of birth control, drug use should be encouraged, and that violent sex should be rampant on our nation's airwaves at all hours.

Sincerely,

Jedmunds

Shrill Rhetoric, Dead Hookers, and Other Links

2005-08-24T14:30:00.000-04:00

Yglesias has a nice post about Brett Easton Ellis' new book, which for some reason I'm not at all of a mind to read, over at his typepad joint. It kind of articulates what had been bugging me about Lance Mannion and Scott Lemieux thoughts on Ellis last week. They both thought American Psycho was an awful book, and not having read it in years, I wasn't feeling very confident at taking issue with that assessment, but I certainly didn't remember it as a particularly awful book. It's certainly in probably the top quintile of published books in the last 30 years or so. I can say that with confidence having recently read some of the crappier stuff that makes up the volume of books in the fiction sections of your Barnes and Noble. That being the case, the assessment by Lance and Scott seemed harsh by any standard. But mostly I felt they were criticizing the book for being something it's not. I never read it as some kind of horror novel, nor did I understand it to be a necessarily trenchant satire. I just enjoyed the book by the standards at which I enjoy books for aesthetic purposes. That is I was able to suspend whatever disbelief I had at the world he created. The dialogue was believable. There was a certain baseline accomplishment of style. And there wasn't a lot of heavyhanded judgmental characterization of the sort you might find in Dr. Zhivago. Nor was there the heavyhanded "wisdom" that you might find in something by Milan Kundera. I don't think these are demanding criterion on my part, in terms of pure enjoyment, but you'd be surprised by the number of novels that don't meet them. Dostoevsky, Conrad, latter day Martin Amis among the most prominent.

Of course Dostoevski and Conrad and even Amis, I'm compelled to judge, not by the standards of what I necessarily most enjoy, but by the standards that they sought to meet. So if I was going to discuss their books I would say that I didn't like them and why, but I'd also feel compelled to assess them on their own terrain, independent of the aesthetic judgments their authors made that I don't particularly enjoy as a matter of course. I guess my point is that I somewhat felt like Mannion and Lemieux neglected to do this in their assessments of Ellis and American Psycho in particular, or at least that they had some kind of blindspot when it comes to that particular novel.

I'm certainly not putting it in the pantheon of great literature or anything like that, either though. I don't think it measures up to, say, Faulkner or Gaddis or Gunther Grass and their ilk, but I still think it's pretty good. And I still think that despite pages and pages of skim worthy detail about fashions and labels that I am too fucking gauche to even be familiar with. But even there, I understood the meticulous attention to detail. But mostly, I guess I just really enjoyed the dead hookers and whatnot.

Then also, sometime last week over at the cafe, Yglesias wrote in a post about Hackett and policy/rhetoric and other stuff:

"My main critique of the netroots would be that I sense a large degree of willingness to elevate shrill rhetoric over actual policy."

My first instinct would be to respond with a "if it wouldn't be too impudent, I might just take the slightest issue with your characterization, my esteemed... Fuckstick." However I don't really disagree with him I guess. Use of the word "shrill," a conservative buzzword to describe liberals, might be considered unseemly in an inhouse discussion, and prone to stick in a craw or two. But I don't care about that either. I've certainly made that mistake. Change the word "shrill" to "harsh" and it probably goes down better. Nevertheless, I feel similarly chagrined that so many elevate rank partisanship above any sort of ideology. (And in that vein, I'd encourage you to quit being so fucking cynical and consider giving Chuck Pennacchio a donation.) But I'll make a couple of other points.

1) As far as Paul Hackett goes, a Democrat winning in OH-02 is a step in the right direction regardless of ideology. Long term it'd be great to get a progressively more liberal Democrat elected there. But, you know, baby steps.

2) To win nationally, we don't need to win OH-02. Hackett's campaign message in that district really doesn't tell us anything about how far right we'd have to go to win nationally.

3) Shrill rhetoric is fun, viscerally so, much like killing hookers. Also playground arguments are also fun. Some call it juvenile, I call it joie de vivre.

And with that out of the way, let me dump a couple more links on you.

1)This One via Majikthise, is one of the funniest things I've ever read.

2) Ben Styles' sister calls fey dudes grossed out by childbirth Big Pussies.

3) And I don't even know how to characterize this one in a pithy way, but Amanda of Pandagon, responds to some truly bizarre thoughts about her sex life. Speaking of Amanda, some enquiring minds would like to know her thoughts on male genital mutilation aka circumcision.

The Lowlifes and Luminaries Series Part Four: Ben Styles

2005-08-23T14:25:00.000-04:00

Today, into the comfortable recliner of DOOM~! we welcome the venerable Ben Styles aka B-dub for an engrossing and in depth interview filled with insight and levity. Ben, well aware of my aggressive interview style came with his game face on, prepared for some tough questioning.

Now this isn’t the first time I conducted an interview with a gun pointed directly at me, so fortunately I knew exactly what I had to do: ask easy questions. And that I did. Some might say that they wouldn’t allow the threat of violence to prevent them from doing their jobs with integrity and in service of the public’s “right to know” and et cetera et cetera with the fancy journalist talk. But I say “Bah” to that. BAH~! I am too important a figure to allow myself to be crudely assassinated for the sake of mere abstract theories. Lesser journalists, of course, are more expendable. In that vein, we’ve rechristened the comfortable recliner of DOOM~! as simply the comfortable recliner of friendly conversation. Quickly, my esteemed colleague and good friend did indeed make himself comfortable.

Jedmunds: Well, my esteemed friend, you’ve been on the forefront to my mind of popularizing the term “swass,” in everday types of usage. Perhaps you could define it for us.

Ben Styles: I've heard swass defined as two things: 1. Some Wacked Ass Stupid Shit. I don't buy it. No one says that anyway. When was the last time you heard someone say something was some wacked ass stupid shit? 2. Sir Mix-a-Lot, on his album "Swass," uses the term in context. A famous line is "don't you wish your boyfriend was swass like me?" Which seems to suggest that he thinks any chick's boyfriend must be lamer than him, or at least not as swass. So I take it to mean super-cool, smooth, suave, and the like.

Jedmunds: Oh I thought you made it up. But, you’re also an advocate of outer space adventures and things of that ilk. What is going on in the world of space at the moment?

Ben Styles: Well, both a lot and a little. A lot in the sense that the government is continuing to do things there like send probes to planets and shuttles to space stations. In this sense, the human race is doing a lot of exploring and generally accomplishing pretty amazing things. But the space revolution envisioned by guys in 1997 has yet to come into being. Basically because it remains such an incredibly expensive enterprise. On a bright note, however, a company announced yesterday that for the tidy sum of 100 million dollars, you could take a trip around the moon. Pretty amazing if steep. I only hope it's the first trickles of something real.

Jedmunds: Ok for real, first of all, do you think a depiction of Jesus punching a woman in the head, under the tagline "turn the other cheek, bitch" would make a pretty sweet t-shirt, or no? Would it make a better album cover?

Ben Styles: It might be best received as an album cover, but it would be best as a t-shirt. And it would make a sweet one. You see, the whole "turn the other cheek" thing is bullshit. Like water into wine. The books about J.C.'s life as a street brawler in the employ of Judean gangsters was left out of the bible. He got in an awful chariot wreck trying to drive some schlub off the road and was terribly injured. So he went into the business of making up stuff he could do. And then he added the "turn the other cheek" thing so as not to get wacked.

Jedmunds: Well, now that it is officially somewhere on the internet, it must be true. So, tell me, if you drew a mustache on George W. Bush, would he remind you more of Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton?

Ben Styles: Jees. Depends on the moustache -- if it was a Chaplin, he'd probably look more like Hitler. So I'll go with General Custer.

Jedmunds: Jesus Christ. What the hell is your problem with silent movies anyway?

Ben Styles: (glares at me quietly)

Jedmunds: (uncomfortable chuckling) I mean, well, umm. What don’t you like about them?

Ben Styles: They are all quiet and stuff. And the plots are gay, all running around and over-emoting. Yeah, so they set the benchmark for movies. But so did celery soda for soft-drinks, and nobody drinks celery soda.

Jedmunds: haha good points my friend. I don’t watch them either. What kind of people do you hate?

Ben Styles: I really don't hate people. But I do hate how people act. Like old ladies who take a million years at the check-out at CVS. Or bitchy NY women who get sand in their vaginas if you are smoking. OK -- evangelical christian republicans are, on the whole, pretty vile.

Jedmunds: Yes I hate those people too, but what about Margaret Cho? Do you think Margaret Cho is funny? Be honest.

Ben Styles: I don't really have an opinion, but leaning toward no. Comics are usually lame. All coming up with ideas about why the world is funny. I get it. Stuff and stuff. Bah...

Jedmunds: Well, I have an opinion, and my opinion is that I hate Margaret Cho. Maybe you should just get off the fucking fence and take a stand.

Ben Styles: You are a goddamned, motherfucking, shit-ass bitch. (an insult he claims to have learned in the third grade.)

Jedmunds: Oh yeah? Well, it's quite obvious that while you are indeed trying to sag, you are flooding at the same time. What do you have to say to that?

Ben Styles: Well if it's on motherfucker, then it's on G.

Jedmunds: No, No. It’s not on. I never told you this before, but one night back in the old apartment, Big Nasty and I were pretty drunk and we started making some prank phone calls. For instance, we called this speechwriting service, and I said I was going to be giving the keynote address at an upcoming NAMBLA conference and I told them to call me back and I left Rob B.'s name and phone number. That's the kind of thing we were doing. So anyway, at one point I called this adoption agency and said I wanted to purchase "a cute little nigger baby" for my wife's birthday. I left a pretty detailed message talking about erectile dysfunction, and the stability of my home, and my desire to help out by giving "a cute little nigger baby" a nice home. I then left your name and cell number. Your reaction?

Ben Styles: I guess I'm just glad some black kid wasn't delivered to my doorstep.

Jedmunds: (maniacal laughter) phew! That was pretty funny. Do you have any nostalgic remembrances of our youthful badassery?

Ben Styles: Maybe that it was the funniest thing ever when I was all "Hey Jedmunds, wheres the love for hooking you up with that chick in the bar" our first-year and you replied, "what dude, do you want me to suck your dick?" That was pretty awesome.

Jedmunds: Ahh yes. I’m quite the asshole. If you were me, what would you be most embarrassed about?

Ben Styles: Maybe all those times you and Big Nasty kissed in bars? I dunno Jedmunds -- you do shit pretty right.

Jedmunds: Swass. Tell us a funny story culled from your life that both illustrates your personality in a pithy way and has a moral.

Ben Styles: One time I was drunk in a bar, trying to argue my now ex-wife out of divorcing me and I made the mistake of saying "I don't know if I can live without you." The next thing I knew, I was at St. Elizabeth's insane asylum. I guess the pithy bit is that I made some pretty good friends: the lady with no teeth who called me her boyfriend. The homeless dude who was there for the food. The crack dude who was pretty disappointed in me that I was there and who admonished me that if he saw me there again, he wouldn't be my friend. He was the one who explained that love is just a feeling and that I needed to get over my wife, if not for myself, then for the people I was surrounded by who had so very little in comparison. He figured if he could get through life, I should be able to easily. And I think he was right. The moral? Don't ever give your vindictive wife a reason to commit you?

Jedmunds: And finally my friend, is "the open steppe, fleet horse, falcon on your wrist, wind in your hair" best in life?

Ben Styles: This is also up for debate. Many hipsters would probably say that pabst and some dour broad to talk about music with is best in life. I'm sure we all know someone who thinks crack is best in life, though the big H is much better. But I'm sure the controversy will ever have been put to rest during the hyborean age: In the time before the oceans drank atlantis and the rise of the sons of Aryas, there was an age undreamed of. And unto this, Conan, destined to to wear the crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow while treading the jeweled kingdoms of the world beneath his sandaled feet. When asked this by the Khan, he replied: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women." Which is totally true.

Jedmunds: Thank you so very much for the pleasure of this interview my friend. If you are ever in need of some H, I would be most happy to oblige you.

Part Three: Bernard Goldberg
Part Two: Tall Saul
Part One: Politivi

I Shall Return In Three Days

2005-08-15T12:34:00.000-04:00

I must do some travelling, loyal readers, for business not pleasure. I'll be back on Wednesday or so, and you can rejoice. And hopefully I'll have some good news and my return will be triumphant. And if not, well, that's something I'd rather not contemplate. Anyway, take it easy.

Back On the Subject of Date-Raping Cows

2005-08-15T12:05:00.000-04:00

Steve Gilliard thinks PETA is racist. And I think, "neato," I don't have any particular love for PETA. After all, I really really fucking hate animals. I really really do. I don't like touching 'em. Don't like looking at 'em. Don't even really like thinking about 'em. I like eating them, but that's about it. So I read Gilliard's post, and damn, not only did he fail to convince me that PETA was racist, but his PETA quotes convinced me that there isn't really a compelling reason to privilege human suffering over animal suffering. Can anyone tell me why I should privilege human suffering over animal suffering? I know I have oodles and oodles of professional philosophers reading this blog who I imagine can help me out on this. So please explain that one to me in words I can understand.

Not that this knowledge is really going to change my eating habits anyway. To my way of thinking, morality stems from the tension between obligations to relieve the suffering of others and our desire for our own comforts. I'm going to continue to eat meat, and I'm going to continue to eat meat in restaurants and bought from grocery stores that came from cows that suffered unnecessarily. That is selfish and hypocritical, I admit, but it's an honest hypocrisy and I don't mean to dismiss it glibly, as in, this is horrible but I don't care. I make my sacrifices and chose my comforts in a way that I feel is on balance guided toward making the world a better place. Others may do better than me and they may stand in judgement, but yes, not only am I physically lazy, I am morally lazy as well. I'll cop to it, but not indifferently.

I say it's honest, in comparison to so many others who just refuse to deal with the arguments of groups like PETA. People who aren't stupid, and who can't accept that their selfish; people who don't believe that they are the kind of person who could acknowledge an injustice and then continue to be a part of its perpetuation. They really don't want to start walking down that line for convenience's sake, so they do whatever they can to prevent themselves from acknowledging that injustice. And that may mean complaining about unnecessarily provocative tactics and accusing them of things like racism. Again, I don't think eating animals is wrong, just the unnecessary suffering of the animals that we eat.

I suppose I'll admit, I'm not acutely aware of the pain felt by the history of the comparison of black people to animals, so I'm not saying Gilliard is vile due to this particular post, though he is fairly vile. But PETA wasn't comparing black people to animals. They were comparing human suffering, and systemic human suffering at that, to the systemic suffering of animals. So again, we're back to the question, what makes human suffering worse than animal suffering? I spent a long part of my life pretending like that question was ridiculous. I would have loved to have a good answer, but in the back of my mind I was always aware that I hadn't come across a good one. Whelp, anyway, time for lunch.

UPDATE: Upon reading theMajikthise take on the subject, some clarification is order. I certainly do not put animals on the same moral plane as humans, in the sense that I think it's okay to kill an animal to eat it, but I do not think it is okay to kill a human to eat it, as a necessary societal construction. Nevertheless, if the topic is abstract suffering, I have a hard time getting the argument that systemic human suffering is worse than systemic animal suffering. That is, the suffering of humans does not seem to me more immoral, merely because humans should not be eaten. The immorality of suffering is independant of the societal value and of the ultimate destiny of the sufferer, I think. I don't know if we have to re-create the universe for my position to make sense; but I think if we destroyed it, it would make sense, and I'm pretty sure it's defensible enough even if we don't. I know my position does not totally conform to PETA's on this. Hell maybe it doesn't make sense at all, I don't know. I'd be able to figure it out if someone would slap me around a bit.

Killing Babies Is My Business, Not Kissing Rings

2005-08-10T20:17:00.000-04:00

Ezra Klein, in response to Brad Plumer, weighed in on that Kos stuff with the whole "what's the difference between a feminist and a good democrat?" thing. At its root, this most recent Kos thing is nothing more than NARAL suggesting that it's allies discuss the right to terminate your uterine parasite with Kos, and Kos responding with a "take that shit to someone who gives a shit about what NARAL has to say." Which like it or not, is a fair response. But at the same time, it's really about NARAL's approach to protecting a woman's body from the imperial moralists. The same imperial moralists who once they own all the uteruses, would then probably find the time to tell the rest of us where we're allowed to stick our dicks. I don't like playing ball with people with a sick fetish for fetuses and I pretty much decided I'm not gonna be forced to play ball with Casey Jr, but that neither here nor there. Well it's both here and there, but it's not incredibly germane to this discussion, though perhaps you can understand it as an understandable digression.

Anyway, Ezra's post is interesting, because he takes the right approach to the issue: it's a question of power. A lot of liberalish types often don't seem to grasp that politics is about power. The acquisition and use of power. I suspect that this is so because it sounds kind of sociopathically fascist to talk about power in naked terms. But what're you gonna do? Politics is about getting people to behave in accordance with your wishes. Maybe it would be lovely to wish that away, and we often do, but we really shouldn't forget that elections and all the other stuff is just the civilized equivalent of prison rape. So success in politics is achieved by maximizing your power. Ezra seems to understand this, which makes it a wee strange that he gets his conclusion wrong. Not really strange. We're mostly Democratic partisans around these parts, and we know well enough how difficult it is to divorce one's interests in Democratic success and look at this whole thing with a cold, calculating and clear head. But if you can successfully do so, I think it's pretty plain that NARAL is not mistaken to endorse Chaffee and other things of its ilk.

But first of all, Ezra is most definitely correct that NARAL has a long history of fucking up. Most famously probably in the 1990 Democratic primary for the Georgia governorship when they endorsed our good friend Zell Miller over his opponent (who's name I haven't bothered to remember) because Zell was more likely to win, even though he wasn't really that good on abortion once you started looking at restrictions and whatnot. "Single Issue" groups often make these mistakes due to an odd risk aversion, seemingly oblivious to the fact that real power is gained by taking risks. People don't owe you, unless your help means something. And people don't fear you, unless you can flex. These groups sometimes don't seem to realize that they're trying to accrue power, and admittedly NARAL has been among the most prominently guilty of this in the past.

But the Chaffee thing? Ezra refutes himself with his own example of the NRA. How would the NRA have handled it? The same NRA that has a history of supporting Democratic incumbents even in the reddest of red states such as say, Alabama. The NRA certainly did not get in the position they're in by supporting Republicans weak on guns or by blindly allying themselves with Republicans, crossing their fingers and hoping for the best. They tend to be allied with Republicans because that's how the issue breaks down, but they don't support Republicans at their own expense.

Because what is NARAL's goal anyway? To ensure that abortion remains legal and available to those who need it. And how do they go about accomplishing this? By maximizing their power with respect to elected officials. And if that's true, the endorsement of Chaffee is a pretty reasonable move. You support incumbents with good records on choice, and whether you like it or not, Chaffee has a good record on choice. If NARAL cannot endorse a thing like Chaffee and help it win a tough re-election, than they have absolutely no leverage over Republicans who are pro-choice. Chaffee and other pro-choice Republicans would have no incentive to be responsive to NARAL on these issues. It's probably a lot easier for Chaffee right now to bend to his caucus who have their own levers to threaten and cajole. And RIGHT NOW, as the Senate is currently constituted, we need pro-choice Republicans, and we need to have levers of influence over them. Granted, if Chaffee votes for Roberts, it's elementary that NARAL has to rescind their endorsement, or else all they have is the appearance of influence, but nothing of actual significance. But right now, NARAL needs to have the power to influence pro-choice Republicans, and they lose that influence, if they refuse to endorse Republicans.

But even if we wanted to pretend that NARAL's goal should be to maximize influence within the Democratic coalition, I'd say they are still making the right decision. Can you think of any groups over the last 20 years less effective on their issues than the blacks and the unions? The throw all your eggs in the Democrat basket strategy just does not appear to have a very good pedigree. To have power, you have to have options, and again we should not forget that politics is all about power, not trust, not making friends. It's about getting power and using it. And NARAL has made the right choice in this vein. The fact that it conflicts with the interests of the Democratic Party is in some sense unfortunate, but it's nothing to get bitter about, and it's nothing to take personally.

UPDATE: Read Digby

Blue Girl Knows How To Tweak My Conscience

2005-08-09T20:18:00.000-04:00

PZ Meyers has a really great post on the Cindy Sheehan matter, comparing it to a "let them eat cake" moment. I'm not writing more on this issue, because the more other people are writing about something, the less I feel I have to, especially if I don't feel like I have something particularly compelling to add to the conversation. But I feel like it's only right that I at least point people to the blogs that are really doing good on this issue. And as I said a couple posts down, Blue Girl has been really great on this one. And if nothing else, it won't hurt you to hit this petition. I'm not trying to be lazy on this one, or dodge it or anything, but sometimes on some issues other people have a better perspective than I do.

This Cat Won't Be Herded

2005-08-09T17:43:00.000-04:00

So Kos is still crying because NARAL's goals at times conflict with the Democratic Party's. Sweet Jesus. Man, Kos must be so fucking focused on the important shit that he just can't understand why anyone wouldn't just hitch everything to the Democratic Party and hope for the best. And when we're in the majority, and half of our caucus thinks sluts should have to "live with the consequences" of the whoredom we've wrought, well at least we'll have scored a pyrrhic victory.

Yeah, it's more complicated than my glibness would imply. But NARAL is right when they say abortion is about more than just politics. And truth be told, I'm a helluva lot more upset with Democrats trying to antidemocratically thrust Casey on me than I am at NARAL for standing with a guy who has in some sense stood with them in the past. Kos is the one who has blinded himself to the various considerations a group like NARAL must pay heed to, while demanding blind allegiance to whatever the Democratic Party vomits up in some fucking swamp somewhere.

But even pro-life Democrats are going to vote better on NARAL's issues than pro-choice Republicans when it comes to court appointments and whatnot? Nice easy superficial analysis right there. In the long run, NARAL has to protect their integrity. Their fight is to protect a woman's right to autonomy over her own body, it's not a fight to elect Democrats, even if a Democratic majority would better protect a woman's right's than the Republican one does. They have to be able to work with Republicans. Their endorsement has to be something Republicans can gain from if they go after it. If they can't endorse a guy like Chaffee, than a guy like Chaffee has no incentive to ever protect NARAL's interests. But Kos would rather ignore NARALs complicated position, simplify it, and go with the rank silliness of partisan hackery.

And here's something else. I'm now thinking Roberts is stoppable, and it has everything to do with NARALs efforts, a little bit to do with likely swampthing disgust with Robert's pro-gay pro-bono work, and fuck all to do with any thing written on the dailykos.

I Don't Really Care Much For Jim Goad Anymore

2005-08-09T15:03:00.000-04:00

So I spent what little online time I've had the last couple of days, arguing on that MRA board, about MRA issues, while confined to the "troll" forum. I said I'd leave it off my blog and so I will. But I'll just say that there's an old saying that there's more stupidity in the world than malice, but in this case, I think there's plenty of both. Though there were enough guys who really were just amiably stupid, and there were insances where the stupid was so great you'd think it was deliberate. And how do you characerize a guy who thinks he's a big shot in threads where there's no one to challenge him, but has nothing but hot air when it comes time to defend it? Ultimately though, you take away their general hostility toward the modern woman and their ability to throw up irrelevant feminist scare quotes, and they don't really have much. I've probably already said more than I should have, so I'll just move on and share some links to stuff in the last couple of days that I wish I could have weighed in on.

First we have Amanda at Pandagon's discussion of this post by Alley Rat of the issue of whether media images of women make real life women disappointments to men. Both are interesting discussions even if personally unrelatable. Lindsay Beyerstein came along with the best point, being that if you can't get it up for real life women with all their flaws, than you just may be gay, which strikes me as true. Also, personally, I'll just say that I'm not bragging when I say, I'd bone just about anything with a vagina, including your grandmother. More than likely Amanda'll write something tomorrow making fun of guys who say stuff like that, and I'll be the asshole. But fear not my friends, I don't think women are biologically programmed to want sex less than men. It's just that clearly I have some kind of problem. I really would love to know what it feels like to be saited. And I do wish more of the gals wouldn't let their conditioning get in the way of a good time.

Next Mithras wants to know where all the funny conservative bloggers are. I think it's certainly true that liberal blogs are more likely to be funny, while conservative blogs offer nothing but anger and persecution complexes. My only real complaint is his list of funny liberals; other than the guys at Sadly No!, they aren't really all that funny, unless you're the kind of person who lives and breathes politcs. But I'll add that I think Jesse Taylor and Amanda Marcotte are as consistently funny as anyone on that list. The problem with Mithras's way of thinking is that you can be the kind of guy that tells really funny rape jokes in the locker room, but than be all business when it comes time to discuss tax cuts. Jim Norton is a pretty fucking funny guy who happens to be pretty Republican. I don't think the ability to be funny while discussing politics indicates anything more than the comedic value of your opponents. Also, I'd like to point out that Margaret Cho is not at all funny. I caught a few of her specials. It was all weak stuff about how Bush says "nukular" and stuff of that ilk. I imagine people will disagree, though.

And of course, there's Cindy Sheehan, who if you don't know about, you should read here, and if you have the time, read here. Also check out blue girl. Then I'd encourage you to figure out if you want to do anything about it, and then do it.

Oops. I almost forgot, Sotd has done another of my requests for Pere Ubu's "Final Solution. When I first started listening to Pere Ubu, I described them as a cross between the Talking Heads and Sonic Youth that predated both of them in fucking Cleveland. Now that I'm familiar with more music, I don't know if I'd still describe them that way, but I rarely re-visit these things, once I've settled on something.

Thanks for reading, sometime soon, we might discuss fannypack and the benefits of a litigious society, but you all know how lazy I am, so don't count on it.

Could've Deep-Sixed Him, Wouldn't Bat an Eye

2005-08-05T00:10:00.000-04:00

So I guess I worked off a little testosterone recently or something. Feeling a little sheepish about it now. You know the gals seem to enjoy it, so that's good. But I wish I would've written that post below with a little more levity. With my trademark joie de vivre, if you will. I guess while I was writing it though, I was feeling a bit under siege, reading comments somewhere involving vague threats and my ip address. And when I first wrote the initial part, I really didn't mean it as a taunt at the time. I was just expecting the other to make itself known here, and I just wanted one convenient place to deal with it. And I'm kind of annoyed with myself and embarassed that I let that stuff get under my skin. But if there's one good thing about it, it's that it's not as lazy and sloppy as the standard fare. A few things I’ve forgotten to mention over the last couple of days while the drama ensued.

The guys at Three Bulls have a really cool site where you can request a song and they'll write about it. They recently did a request of mine for the Avett Brothers "Swept Away", which again is a band I'd encourage everyone to check out. And we can forgive Pinko Punko for saying mean things about Oasis. Although I still contend he's probably not human.

Also, everyone should check out my pal, Politivi's Choose Your Own Adventure Story and vote. We're stuck in a statistical tie over there that badly needs broken.

And Blue Girl appears to have come back from her vacation tanned and rested with a couple of really good posts and even a bonus one over at Republic of Dog's. I'm sure there's a lot of other stuff going on out there too.

Also, I've been listening to the new fannypack. I'm thinking about giving it a review. So be on the look out for that.

Thanks for reading.

Who Wants a Piece?

2005-08-03T23:57:00.000-04:00

Explanations for the oblivious will come later. But those of you who've got something to say, come and say it here.

(pause)

It is now the following morning, and checking my comments I see that all we have is a couple of comments from Amanda at Pandagon. I'm disappointed fellas. What were you worried that if you commented, the world would find it's way back to your little hiding place, where you puff out your chests in your "safe" space? Or were you just afraid of the public embarassment a tussle with little old me might bring? I'm not puffing my chest here guys. Here you had the chance to humiliate me in front of my friends and readers, and you blew it. I had more to lose than you did. It's not that I'm so confident that I'll bat you wimps around like a cat playing with a ball of string, it's just that I really don't care if I lose. My ego is not invested in this.

Where does this story begin? I suppose it begins with this little thread, where I first wrote about these guys. As I said in that thread, I stumbled upon the nice guy forums because they were linking to something I wrote. Curiousity got the better of me, and I signed up for an account to see what they were saying. That thread is a good indicator of what I found. One of the first things I stumbled upon was this little pinned thread in a forum that if memory serves was titled "Sexist Double Standards That Ameriskanks are Addicted to" with this message:

"Folks, I love what you've been doing on Pandagon. Your voices are badly needed, but I want you all to promise to adhere to a strict set of promises:

1. Please, please PLEASE do NOT use the word 'Ameriskank'. That could lead people back here, and I will explain why that's bad in a moment.

2. Do NOT directly link to that site.

3. Do NOT post under the name that you post under here.

(And niceguys, you can thank me for editing this part out.)

I'd hate to punish people for not taking my concerns seriously. "

I sat on that info for about a week or so pondering whether I should share that with Amanda. Eventually I did. In the meanwhile, I poked around their site a little bit, but wasn't that interested in what was going on untill they did their parody of feministing At that point, I thought it would be funny to go on their parody feminist site, as a parody MRA. Like a Bizarro world or something you know? This strange place where the MRA's pretend to be feminists, and the feminists pretend to be MRAs. Funny right? I thought so. So, you were right, brother jaded, I was Captain Boner.

But it was a lot more difficult trolling these guys than I expected. You don't know how terribly difficult it is to parody something that is already on it's face, patently ridiculous. Almost everything I wrote in there was either inspired by, a paraphrase of, or a direct quote of something that these people said behind their safe little forum walls. In context though, I made it as obvious as I could that I was making fun of them. It's just really hard to tell the difference between an MRA and his parody. But don't take my word for it. Their first reaction? They thought I was one of them who hadn't been clued in and was suckered into believing that it was a real feminist site.

Only later, after I made a few choice comments about women fucking black guys behind their boyfriend's backs, which was half inspired by this incident, and half inspired by a comment made by a fella named bandersnatch at the end of the "If you post at Pandagon for the love of god don't let them find out about this place" thread, did they begin to suspect I was Amanda playing Captain Boner. Because Amanda is the most evil person in the world to these people.

It all really fell apart though, when I messed up a cut and paste job and left some forum names in my post. At that point jaded guy did a little sleuthing, and figured me out. They were not happy about Captain Boner. Not happy at all to be on the other end. Anyway, Captain Boner in action can be viewed here. But come on guys, I was hoping that this would be the one thing we could agree on: Captain Boner was kinda funny.

Anyway, I was disappointed in my failure to provoke much in the way of hijinks at this point. I kept dropping little hints in threads they were reading, and in their own minds, "winning," safely in their little password protected forum. (And by the way guys, I don't know whether you just cast a wider net on who you banned or what, but you did get me, I can't see what you're saying about me. So Congrats.) Mediagirl sent them into red alert when she dropped a comment in that thread over at Pandagon. But this slight tweaking was wholly unsatisfying. So over at the thread at feministing, I asked quite seriously:

"Just out of curiousity crella, why do you guys hide in your little forum, where you can all pretend your logic is so unimpeachable and that you're putting these "ameriskanks" in their place? And why are you so afraid that we'll discover it? Is that your little "safe space?" Where you can talk about your "issues" without the big bad feminists intimidating you? No one here is afraid to say anything publicly. Why are you and your niceguy pals so effeminate anyway?"

Back in their little forum, they were pretty slow to react, and I ended up banned before I could read about it at all, but I can imagine. I sure do love to imagine. Let's dissect the frog a bit, and I'll make the irony explicit about how these guys like to ridicule feminists for "being strong independant women" who need "safe" spaces to hide in. Crella, serendipity over at We Aren't Angry Because We're Not Getting Pussy We Swear to God!-ville, says it's because trolls are a "headache." I wouldn't know. I've never had a problem with trolls. And the thing is, trolling is what made me famous in the first place. But really, I suspect that that's just a convenient rationalization, crella. I never trolled your little forum guys! I didn't even post there. So why did I get banned? IT'S BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE. You are embarrassed to be who you are. The facts speak for themselves.

Then a fella by the name of mraguy did a little spamming for me, and tried to call me a hypocrite because I called Bernard Goldberg a pussy. I am well aware that there is plenty of material on this site that is not very feminist. There is plenty of material on this site that a decent person in general would find objectionable. I think a quick glance around more than bears that out. I'm not confused by it all. But since these guys don't have the minerals to make use of this thread, we might make use of it to discuss my insufficient feminism if anyone has an objection to it, and see if I have a leg to stand on or if I'm part of the problem.

But moving on, I had a little back and forth with mraguy. He tried to take the high road with me after I told him that I would call him a pussy too. Which is whatever. Pointing out that I fail to take the high road doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm well aware that I'm not Joe Lieberman. Anyone can see that. But then he turned around and called Amanda a skank. Which confused me, coming from Mr. High Road. He said he didn't come from the "We Swear to Christ We Could Get Pussy If We Wanted To" forums, but than he made some comments that indicated he had. Either way, he's another one that can't say what he has to say in public, sending me an email inviting me to insult him. I made it pretty clear, my somewhat inadequate attempts to respect the prevailing standards of decency over at feministing aside, what I thought of him. I'm not about to send him a private email, just so that I can be as explicit as possible. I don't relish gratuitous insults that much. But I know you must like it rough, son, but if you want your spanking, it's going to happen right here.

Upset by this he sent me another email informing me that I don't get to dictate the rules. But I'm not biting. If you want to be called a pussy so badly, you know what you've got to do. Also, I've done enough arguing to know what your invitations mean, what your refusal to engage without me making the first move mean. You are not a serious person. He also castigates me for publishing statements made at a private website, which is apparently a violation of some internet rule or other. One that I hadn't even heard of. But he thinks that means I'm the pussy or something. Alright. If pussy means someone who's gonna do what he's gonna do without fear of consequence, than yeah, I'm a pussy.

But I'll lay a challenge out to you nice guys. Since you're so fucking afraid to have this out in public. Why don't you unban me over at your place, and we'll work it out there? What's that? But then you won't have a place where you can pretend like you're winning? You won't have a "safe" space where you can fantasize about how you look from the outside? You don't want someone like me intruding upon your carefully constructed fragile "reality?" Yeah I didn't think so. One last question though, again, out of genuine curiousity, even prior to Captain Boner's arrival at .org, you had some mra characters deftly pointing out the flaws in the parody feminist reasoning. Now, my question is, when you set up a fixed fight like that, did you do it to consciously manufacture propaghanda? Or did you do it because it made your tiny tiny little ego's stand up a bit to smack some fake women around? Ones who you knew wouldn't ever put you in your place? So what I'm asking is what kind of a man smacks around his blow up doll, anyway?

UPDATE: I've Just Recieved Notice That They Let Me Back In Their Forum. I Just Left a Post There. And I Expect Further Engagements To Occur There, Not Here. 1:45 AM EST - Aug 6.

There Just Aren't Any Good Pop Cultural References to an Ezra

2005-08-02T17:29:00.000-04:00

Via Ezra Klein, we discover this bit of conservative persecution fantasy via that Kriston guy from grammar.police. For you fuckers who are too lazy to click on a link, it's about a comic book set in the Orwellian future starring some kind of robot G. Gordon Liddy freedom fighting the douchebaggery that resulted from an Al Gore presidency, or something like that. Click the link, jerky. Backlash conservatives, such wonderful fodder for comedy.

Ezra follows up with an interesting post about the total abdication of ideology by all corners of the political spectrum. It's true to an extent, and I think true for a lot of people, not me of course, but others. But I can't really bring myself to agree with it. I think a lot of people forget that when you get into these discussions that the liberal of 20 years ago, just doesn't so much exist anymore. When you think about the internecine fighting with the DLC from 15 years back or so, well the DLC appears to have won that battle pretty completely, on most fronts, if you go back and look at the substance of those fights. Another post could go into depth on how the DLC's success has rendered them irrelevant, and how their attempt to assert relevancy by further pushing to the middle is counterproductive or whatever. But that's outside our scope here.

Issues change over time. Look at Goldwater. A lot of people today look at him and act like he was a reasonable man compared to the current crop of rightwingers. But that's not really true. He was as loco guano as anyone in his day, it's just the issues have changed. His side won a few, lost most, but most of his positions aren't that relevant today, except for the rhetorical small government stuff. But we forget he was such a fucking lunatic because we aren't talking about civil rights anymore, we're talking about other shit. And he wasn't an extremist on that other stuff, like the Bush administration is now. But that doesn't mean he wasn't crazy. By the same token, see if you can find a William F. Buckley column from back in the day that would be considered a legitimate political view today. It's not that easy. It's the same thing for liberals. On some issues we're a lot more moderate than the liberal of yesteryear, but on others we're more progressive. I mean, Dick Gephardt was once a liberal champion. Times change. Which isn't to say that there isn't disagreement on the left as there always is on this or that. But a lot of what Ezra points to as an example of ideological abandonment, I think can be attributed to the idea that he's applying an outdated view of liberalism to contemporary discourse. As far as the right-wingers and libertarians go, though, I don't know, and my best guess isn't very generous.

More Ezra? okay. Here's one where he discusses Chris Matthews book on Kennedy and Nixon, which I read a while back. He essentially read the book the same way I did, concluding that "The two of them, in the end, were the same sort of folks. It's just that Kennedy's looks, charm and money allowed him to get away with his tactics, even be admired for them while Nixon went down in disgrace." Reminds me of something I wrote a little while back.

...we’d also be forgetting that probably the only reason Nixon ever paid a price for his crimes was because he was such a strolling-on-the-beach-in-a-suit-and-me-wingtips nerd. Not a happy back-slapping frat-boy who back in the day pulled all the same rich boy pranks at elite schools that the journalists covering him did. Bush is more Kennedy than Nixon, meaning he’s fucking all the right slags, the slags the press corps would like to be slagging, not chubby interns with low self-esteem and other assorted working class types, and he does it with the kind of smile that makes you want to be him, not expose and rebuke him.

I reckon I don't say these things with the same 1) clarity that Ezra and others do. Anyway, you'll find no fawning over Kennedy here, nice rhetoric, short on substance, woulda fucked up Vietnam too. More interesting though, the resentments that fueled Nixon, that sort of backlash conservatism resentment of their cooler, richer, better looking peers is still being ridden by Republicans to this day. George W. may be rich and affable, but he didn't make the mistake of being smarter than you too.

Nerd Fight!!! Nerd Fight!!!

2005-08-02T10:30:00.000-04:00

Majikthise thinks that Terry Pratchett was "reduced to incoherent rage" by a recent interview of JK Rowling in Time magazine. She thinks his views are irreconcilable. Then she goes on to say that she doesn't have any opinion on any genre fight in any medium. Okay, I'll take your word on that, but it really seems to me that when you are reffing a fight, you get things this categorically wrong only when you do indeed have a dog in the fight. But I'll say no more.

The apparent views of JK Rowling strike me as far more irreconcilable than anything Terry Pratchet said in response. How do you "not realize you are writing a fantasy novel," at the same time that you are trying to "subvert" it? Look up the definition of "subvert" if you need to, it's logically impossible. This sounds an awful lot like Rowling is saying "I'm not some nerdy cloak wearing genre writer. this is literature dammit!" But also saying, "look at how I'm revolutionizing the fantasy genre! Fantasy used to be for nerdy cloak wearing dorks!" Heady times indeed, it must be when even people who read the newspaper about as often as I shower, find the time to clamor for your books.

I really really don't have a dog in this fight. I don't even know who Terry Pratchett is. (I'll admit to knowing who Neil Gaiman is though. I even read a couple of Sandman's back in college. Good times.) I haven't read any Harry Potter either, though I have read some Beatrix Potter, and Peter Rabbit was one of my favorite stories as a kid.

But the best thing to come out of all of this is this clip of William Shatner doing his rendition of Elton John's "Rocket Man" way back in 1978. If you're a fan of his rendition of "Common People," and I'm not, then you may or may not like this one. It's inconclusive. But the really good thing about it is that I finally "get" a particular segment from the Family Guy where Stuey does this. I used to think that segment was boring and tedious, and pointless. Now, at least, I know that it just wasn't funny. Any way, watch it. It's enjoyable. But don't take my word for it, Gaiman says it made him "feel faintly embarrassed to be part of the race that produced it*." That asterisk is there to let you know that Gaimain is talking about the human race, not a sociological race.

This Post Does Not Have a Title

2005-08-01T23:17:00.000-04:00

Bystander: Do you think that title bit is clever or something?
Me: Man, you're really bumming me out lady.
Bystander: You can do better, that's all I'm saying. You're slumming it. You're slumming it!
Me: I don't believe I like your tone.
Bystander: where are you going with this dialogue bit?
Me: Oh I don't know, just following me whims.
Bystander: Why don't you get on with it then. What's on the agenda?
Me: Links
Bystander: that figures.

Via the estimable Roxanne
These people are the responsible parties. This is funny because it takes a well known bumper sticker slogan that makes fun of lazy, bitter and ineffectual losers such as myself and then changes it so that it makes fun of someone else. Haha. See explaining humor is not like dissecting a frog, it's like getting an ultrasound and finding out your uterus is filled with cockroaches. Yes, exactly like that.

The New York Times reads my blog, apparently. Cause all of a sudden they wanna know why cat-blogging is so popular anyway.

Back to the estimable Roxanne who gets the convo started on why women are afraid of trolls. Read the comments, because there is more thoughtful stuff there then what you are going to read here. But I've been looking for an excuse to discuss trolls for awhile. The germ was probably placed in my subconscious by Mr. Publica. Anyway, I was going to offer some unsolicited advice, because I could probably write a book on the subject. But then, eh the thought process is too complicated, so long story short, I'm not going to. I don't like the term troll though. Such negative connotations it has, oy. Any would be trolls are welcome here, though. Mi comments es su soapbox. Say whatever. I mean it. If you wanna say, "nigger nigger nigger I hate niggers," by all means, I won't shield the world from your nonsense. Those of you who will curl up into a little ball at the sight of such language, well, hmm... I guess you really can't please all the people all the time.

In the unrelated, I'm highly recommending these two posts by Beta-Mike. One is about ketchup flavored potato chips, but it's more than that, it's about condiments in general. The other is about the Golden Girls, but it's also about Rilo Kiley, who is teh rule.

Also Le Viscout LaCarte recently started blogging as Blue Girl announced last week. I'd seen him about town with the commenting and stuff, and his blogging skills are quite good. And he's got a good link to an old Frank Zappa appearance on Crossfire. Amazing to watch, today. Plus ca change, plus ca le meme chose though. Also reminds me why I'm proud to have never voted for Tipper Gore's husband.

And over at Majikthise, good stuff on Thomas Frank, and the What's the Matter With Kansas business.

I'll close with my thoughts on Bolton. If you've been around long enough, you know well enough that I don't think it matters a goddamned bit whether its Bolton or some other douchebag at the U.N. I just thought it would've been pretty nifty to hand the occupant a relatively high profile defeat. Well, this is even better. For all intents and purposes, Bush has been handed a defeat, because his nominee was not confirmed. But this is even sweeter, because anyone, anyone that's paying attention knows, despite whatever hackery they feel they must endulge, that this recess appointment is hardcore evidence of the Bush administration's lack of regard for a Republican form of government. Are the trains running on time though? Every Senator has to know that the president views them with contempt, not just the minority, but the institution itself. "U.S. Senate, you are no check on curious George's awesome powers, whatever influence you fancy you have, exists solely at Bush's pleasure." I think it's a real coup to have this out in the open. I'm excited by it. This trend, I imagine, is all in line with the warmening weather and our transition to Spanish speaking. Republica Plaintano, I will learn to love you.

Turn the Other Cheek, Bitch!

2005-08-01T16:46:00.000-04:00

Just adding a little color.

I call this one "Too Busy."

Click here to enlarge.

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

Luminaries and Lowlifes Part Three: An Interview Dodged

2005-07-29T11:34:00.000-04:00

Bernard Goldberg is a lowlife and a pussy. I first thought I would interview him after hearing about a rather testy interview with Jon Stewart over at the Stephen Colbert show. I'll admit, there's some proffessional jealousy between Jon Stewart and myself. I can't blame him for this jealousy. I'm terribly terribly funny and I don't have to rely on the easy laughs of jewy humor. Anyway, I thought I'd rub my superiority in little Jon Stewart's face by out-interviewing him in regards to Bernard Goldberg. So I gave his publisher a call.

HarperCollins: Hello
Jedmunds: Yes, who do I speak to about interviewing Bernard Goldberg?
HArperCollins: Would you like a promotional copy of his book?
Jedmunds: Well, I wasn't planning on actually reading it.
HarperCollins: (laughs) well, you should contact his outside publicist at...

So then I gave his publisher a call. His secretary said that "he was in an important meeting and would I like his voicemail?" I suspected that this was bullshit, that Bernie and his publicist knew that if they granted me an interview, careers could be ruined. But I went along with it, and left the following message:

"Hello, This is Jedmunds, journalist slash culture-warrior slash blogger, and I'm hoping to interview Mr. Goldberg for the website A Beautiful Soul. You can reach me at ---. I look forward to hearing from you, and I hope your quote-unquote important meeting went really really well."

One day elapsed, and no return phone call. So I left another message, relaying my inquiry. Again no response. I think it's pretty clear that Bernard Goldberg and his publicist are afraid of me. That's kind of annoying from my perspective, but I bet it really gets under Jon Stewart's skin. So from that perspective: Mission Accomplished. But yet, I'm still pissed that Bernard Goldberg was able to evade this hard-hitting interview. Here are the questions I was planning on asking him, use your imagination to fantasize about how Bernie would answer them.

Jedmunds: It looks like Al Franken is #32 on your list here...
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Oh he's 37? Oh my mistake.
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Listen Bernie, I can't be bothered to read every piece of trash written by every cranky old bastard I want to interview. How would that be a productive use of my time?
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Calm down. Anyway, I met Al Franken once at an SNL party, and he was a real dick to me. So let me just suggest that you might've moved him up a bit, cause he'd be a top ten American Fuckup in my book, err I mean Screwup.
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Interesting, have you ever met him?
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: So who would you say is a bigger dick, Franken or Dan Rather?
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: So what would you say to your critics who would say that you are just a cranky old man?
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Well I would characterize you that way, I think any reasonable person would.
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Well, moving along then, cranky, I heard on the Stephen Colbert show that you said that there was once a time when "even a drunk in a bar" would not use the fuck word. That sounds like bullshit. I'm no etymologist or anything, but the fuck word goes back at least 400 years, at least as far back as the puritans, and the fuck word would be obsolete if someone wasn't using it. I mean no one says "prithee" and uhh... you know other words puritans used that I don't know BECAUSE PEOPLE STOPPED USING THEM! So if it wasn't the drunk in a bar using the fuck word, who was it?
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Stumped you have I?
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Alright, so where's Laura Bush on your list?
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Well her jokes about G. W. Bush's inadequate sexual vigor and fondness for milking male horses, not only coarsens our culture, it's a national security issue.
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: How does G.W. look a man like Vladimir Putin in the eye after Laura said something like that? Hell, how does he look Jacques Chirac in the eye? I mean Chirac is a pussy. He's afraid of terroritsts. We can all agree on that. But I bet he's got like dozens of mistresses up in Paris, and yet his wife still doesn't complain about him being spread too thin. How can the American people be expected to show resolve in the War on Terror... err Global Struggle Against Extremism, if the leader of the free world looks like such an impotent douchebag?
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Yeah, but you're not the leader of the free world Bernie.
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Listen I'm just saying - and I'm as feminist as the next guy - but I'm just saying I'd feel a lot better about our national security if that uppity bitch had a couple of mysterious black eyes now and then.
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Even LBJ woulda cuffed the bitch, and he totally screwed up Vietnam. What can we really expect a limpdick like GW to do against a much more formidable foe?
Bernard Goldberg:
Jedmunds: Well I see we're going to have to disagree on this one. You being a senile old man, clearly can't see things clearly. So I'm ending this interview.
Bernard Goldberg:

It's almost better this way, because Goldberg almost certainly would've hung up on me at some point, but I'd have gotten as far as I could. Anyway, if you'd like answers to these questions as much as I do, you should call his publicist and ask him why Bernie is dodging this interview. Or you can interview him yourself.

Max Pulsinelli
703-739-5920

Past Interviews:

Part Two: Taul Saul
Part One: Politivi

Scientists Analyze My Comedic Style

2005-07-29T11:12:00.000-04:00

Conclusions From a Study Conducted By OKCupid

Labeled:the Wit
(60% dark, 17% spontaneous, 22% vulgar)
your humor style: CLEAN | COMPLEX | DARK

You like things edgy, subtle, and smart. I guess that means you're probably an intellectual, but don't take that to mean you're pretentious. You realize 'dumb' can be witty--after all isn't that the Simpsons' philosophy?--but rudeness for its own sake, 'gross-out' humor and most other things found in a fraternity leave you totally flat.

I guess you just have a more cerebral approach than most. You have the perfect mindset for a joke writer or staff writer. Your sense of humor takes the most effort to appreciate, but it's also the best, in my opinion.

Also, you probably loved the Office. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check it out here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/.

PEOPLE LIKE YOU: Jon Stewart - Woody Allen - Ricky Gervais

Are You a Self Loathing Closet Case Or Are You Just Pissed That You Can't Get Laid?

2005-07-29T00:30:00.000-04:00

Are you a MRA or are you just pissed that, you can't get laid?

I stumbled upon these forums as a result of these people linking to one of my articles on "nice guys". They are apparently what are called Men's Rights Advocates. I will not editorialize here though. I will let their comments speak for themselves.

I have been wondering this for awhile. Look at the Asian women thread it started out hardcore MRA then drifted into talking about paying for massages, hand jobs, and the quality of the handjob.
Chris Key said something that made alot of sense. To paraphrase him:
I'll bet that if some of you guys got a steady supply of ass or had a woman to hang around you would never come back here.
I think this is true. Some of you guys are hear because you have blue balls and not because you are angry at the way men are treated in this world.
I am starting to realize that there are three kinds of men on this board:
1. Those that date but are still MRAs in their hearts.
2. Those that could get a date but are two jaded to do so.
3. Those that flat out can't get laid and want to pretend its an Mens Rights issue.
Your inability to close the deal is your problem not a Mens Rights issue. If you have to pay for sex that your problem. If you can't get a date thats your problem. I think its really fucked up that women prefer bad boys to good men but fuck 'em. LET THEM BURN! I'll either find a better woman then what I am seeing or I'll stay single.
I hate seeing these fucking "This bitch don't like me she must die" and "I pay for sex because women are no good" posts in threads. If you are really a MRA a woman disliking you would not hurt you at all. You would be too focused on finding a better woman to care or you would be to jaded to give a shit. We have two threads right now dedicated to attention whores with webcams and camera phones. I did not even know who the "famous" one was but alot of you guys did. I'll bet you motherfuckers don't even know the name of the woman that smiles at you in the bookstore but you know the name of some whore you'll never meet. IMO thats not how a MRA is supposed to be.
I think the "I can't get laid and all women must die" guys are dangerous to the movement. If they ever get a handjob or let alone a real good fuck they are going to switch sides. You can deny it but you know its true. Alot of you guys are just one kiss or rub on the arm away from selling the fuck out. (I have seen some people that I thought were MRAs change their tune quickly after posting they had met a woman that liked them. They were not MRAs. They just couldn't get laid. One good orgasm was all it took.) I know I am not like this because even when I was married I could still see how bad women treated men. Hell, I think one of the reasons we broke up was beacuse she realized she could not treat me like shit.
You guys don't hate bad boys as much as you are jealous of them because they can fuck the hos you wish you could.
I am not going to tell anyone what they should and should not post but I have been thinking about this for a couple of weeks and had to get it of my chest.
So lets have a poll. Look deep into your heart.
1. Are you a REAL MRA?
2. Or are you hear because you are angry because you've been dry humping your pillow for years?

Good Questions. How many of these guys are serious about the woman hatred? And How many would betray their brothers like a cold-hearted woman for some slice?

Some Answers:

Good point Eli. I would call myself a real MRA. I wouldn't put up with a woman's bs just for the sake of dating/getting laid. If I wasn't so repulsed by most N. American women I would probably date more. I just can't be bothered, really.

I do think that there is some value in guys coming here and blowing off steam. The main thing that attracts guys here is the fact they can't get laid yet they are everything a woman should want in a man. Now, if they've been here for a year or so and haven't learned anything - that's another story. They're probably not that interested in men's rights. Don't forgot this place didn't start out as a MRA site, it evolved as solutions/answers were sought for the Ameriskank problem.

Not getting laid, and doesn't even want it. Real MRA? Check.

I'm number 1.

The fact there may be guys who fall under #2 or #3 still makes them qualified MRA's in the fact they can turn that negative energy into fighting for something good that affects us all in a positive way.

This guy's response is boring, but he's got a picture of this cute athletic looking blonde guy for an avatar that I assume is him. He's the kinda guy a fella could get used to sharing a cell with.

Serin if you are a real MRA you will not be bothered if some chick does not like or approve of your views. What good is any grown man to this world if he cares what a woman thinks about him? If you are going to do what is best for your family you will at times have to ignore even your wifes feelings. This is a fact.

...

If you are paying for pussy, posting about the rudeness of hos online, or lusting after some chick you will never meet you just might not be an MRA.
You motherfuckers now who you are. Am I the only one that sees this? If you are so weak that you will pay for pussy how can you stand up to a woman in real life

Dudes, if you sexually desire women, there's a good chance you're not an MRA, face it.

These guys saw me talk to woman. Make them laugh but not really be interested. Once they saw me as a man that could get laid but was too jaded to then they started to listen to me. They would ask me to go to strip clubs or even offer to buy hookers for me. I would refuse and try to turn the conversaion to mens rights. Don't get it twisted these brothers still think I am crazy as hell but they will listen to me now. When I was "the guy that couldn't get laid" they never listened to me but as the "jaded guy" (I wish I had thought of that name or was a eloquent as Brother Jaded) men will often approach me and ask for advice. Even some of the guys that are married will listen to me.
This is another reason why the "angry no pussy getters" are dangerous to the movement. No one respects them enough to take them seriouly. Not women and certainly not men.

Must. Stifle. Laughter.

Am I pissed off at women's choices in mates? Yes. Am I pissed off that I get summarily ignored unless I have something material to provide to a woman? Yes. Am I upset that even if I do have something material to provide to a woman, that still doesn't get me any kind of romantic relationship? Sure. Am I pissed off that in the last twenty-something months I've watched well over a dozen people in similar situations to myself get engaged and/or married? Sure as hell am. Am I pissed off that I haven't had a real date in over two years, and that that one date was an aberent break in a long-standing trend of the same? Hell yeah. Am I mad that I hear people complain about the losers they date? Yes. Am I highly disturbed that my best friend, who happens to be female, has stated that she would never be interested in me but nevertheless feels compelled to dump all her relationship drama and sexual drama on me? Is (was) the pope Catholic?

Now, on the other hand: Am I pissed off at the court system? Yes. Am I pissed off at the societal entitlement mentality that women have? Yes. Am I pissed off at paternity fraud? You betcha. And so on.

Hey, I'm pissed off at paternity fraud too!

I think the lack of an ability to attract women and men's rights can be related. Women usually don't like me and I "can't get laid" but I think this is because I am passionate about men's rights. I think it is my beliefs that cause me to behave in certain ways that women don't like. I refuse to play the games that women make the rules for. I'd still like to have a special woman in my life but I'm not going to change for a woman.

Well, hey, that's probably true too.

I am just pissed that I can't get laid

I like this guy.

There's seven pages of more comments that can be divided into two categories. 1) I don't get laid, or 2) I don't want to get laid. So what have we learned here? Probably nothing we didn't already know.

Thanks To Disney For The Wonders of Imagination

2005-07-28T14:18:00.000-04:00

Perhaps you've heard about the lost footage of Jessica Simpson's "harrowing" trip to Iraq? It seems like ABC and Disney understand all too well that the reason we even watch her little reality show is because we've got our fingers implanted in our ears as firmly as possible when it comes to Iraq and a lot of other things. It's not Disney's job, and it never has been, to remove those fingers from our ears and force us to deal with a painful reality we'd rather not deal with. Disney has long taught us the joys and wonders of our imaginations. That's their commodity: Imagination!!!

And now my imagination can run wild in Iraq as well! Some days I like to imagine adventuring knights rescuing arabian princesses in high towers from dragons and wicked stepmothers set to an Elton John penned score. But most of the time, I imagine things more like this and this. But which vision is more accurate? I don't EVER want to know!!! Because when you lose your imagination, and thereby lose your chance to DREAM, well, that's the biggest tragedy imaginable. So thank you Disney! Thank you for the magical adventures you've brought to my mind!!!

But tell that bitch Tinkerbell she better have my scrill.

Nerdy Music Talk I Didn't Feel Like Finishing And That Sucks After The Second Paragraph

2005-07-27T09:23:00.000-04:00

I was hanging out with some friends a couple of nights ago, talking about Nirvana, not the destination for the Buddhist soul, but this band that was pretty popular from roughly 1992 untill 1994 when the lead singer, a fellow by the name of Kurt Cobain, was murdered - by himself. They had hits such as "Smells like Teen Spirit," "Heart-Shaped Box," and "Lithium." Maybe you've heard one of those on the oldies station, sometime.

Now, I have the decency to be somewhat self-conscious about discussing Nirvana at this point. I imagine it's about as lame as at it used to be listening to old folks have their Lennon-or-McCartney (I'd go with McCartney) debates. (You know, here would be a good time to go off on a raving tangent on the "where were you when you heard RFK got shot?" stories that always always always has some douche walking into your dorm room while you were busy spacin' out to some Crosby Stills or hwatever (that started as a typo but I like it) and saying, "they got Bobby!" in hushed, startled tones. And like you immediately knew what he was talking about. What is with these fucking baby boomers? Steal this blog, loser!!!) But anyway, yes, I'm getting to be an old man. But I'm all right with that, because now when I complain loudly at restaurants about slow service and incompetent help, they just roll their eyes and smile at me and send me on my way. They used to call the cops on me when I'd do that. And I'm pretty sure it's because I was young, not because I was buck-naked and covered from head to toe in green latex paint.

But anyways, we were talking about Nirvana, and I made my usual contentions; that Nirvana did not in fact "kill" hair metal like Rolling Stone and MTV like to mythologize about, it had already been rendered passe by Metallica's black album released the prior year; but that they did deserve credit because a lot of great albums would be out-of-print right now if Nirvana hadn't created a market for their re-release. But then I got to thinking about the notion that Nirvana itself created the market for those re-releases, and thought about Nirvana as a media creation, and decided that it wasn't really true. Because if it hadn't been Nirvana, it most certainly would have been some other band to achieve that kind of success and thereby create a renewed interest in obscure punk and post-punk bands.

The big record companies had been actively looking for an indie act to promote for awhile. Many of the label types that had cut their teeth in the indie music scene had over the years gone onto jobs working for major labels, and the culture at major labels was slightly changing in the sense that execs were more open to this kind of music. Capitol Records had signed Sonic Youth a few years prior to Nevermind almost exclusively because of their cachet among indie bands, unique in that they were respected by both the snobs and the kiddies who liked noise. Capitol had no illusion it was going to make money off of Sonic Youth's albums. They didn't even care if the albums turned a profit. They wanted Sonic Youth because they would help to lure many of the more accessible indie bands over to the label, and Capitol hoped to make a lot of money off of those bands, and with Nirvana they did. But you could have just as easily plugged another band into that slot. A Dinosaur Jr, perhaps.

So to make a long preamble as short as possible, my friend laid down the challenge to list ten 80's American post-hardcore albums that were better than Nevermind. And let me say first of all, this is a good point. Nevermind is in fact a good album. I can concievably imagine a world where Nirvana and say, Husker Du, switched places, where Nirvana had the underground cult status that failed to successfully make the major label transition, and Husker Du were the superstars. Nirvana's albums are good, and they'd be in the company of the top indie albums even if they never got huge. But at the same time, demanding 10 post-hardcore albums that are better than Nevermind is hyperbole. I could list 25, probably. Ten, I can do without thinking. So here we are, 10 America post-hardcore albums of the 80's that are better than Nevermind.

But before we get to the list, I'm going to rub it in by listing some of the albums excluded from consideration. For instance, I won't be considering Black Flag's Damaged, although its the seminal album at the root of the entire post-hardcore scene, and although Black Flag went on to produce a few really crappy post-hardcore albums, Damaged itself is a pretty much straight up hardcore album and thus excluded from consideration. And it's not even marred by Henry Rollins at all, who turned in an admittedly amazing vocal performance, probably the only time in his career he sounded good.

I will not list anything by Sonic Youth, Pere Ubu, or Gang of Four because although much of their respective catalogues are arguably better than Nevermind (I actually can't think of a single Sonic Youth album I'd really say is better anyway), they all took a slightly different, usually more arty, route into the post-punk 80's indie scene than did the post-hardcore alternative bands that culminated in Nirvana. Also, I won't list anything that was more on the "college rock" end of the 80's indie spectrum. I'll stick to the SST, and SST-like bands of the era.

And finally I will also exlude all the of the bands that were at the time lumped by the Brits into the "pigfuck" genre, most notably, Big Black, the Butthole Surfers, Scratch Acid, and other bands that took an offensively confrontational and avante-garde approach to their post-hardcore musings.

And so now you probably expect me to give you that list. Nope. Don't feel like it. Sorry to get your hopes up asshole. Okay I'll give you one: Lungfish Talking Songs For Walking. Now go stare at your Gavin Rossdale poster for a while.

What Do Hillary and John Roberts Have in Common?

2005-07-26T18:25:00.000-04:00

No matter how bad they (Hillary R. and John G.) might be, it's best not to think too much about it, because they just can't be stopped, and it'll all just bum you out. It's a fait accompli. Roberts can't be stopped because Senate Democrats will never show the kind of spine needed to stand up to media opinion. That didn't bum me out so much a couple of days ago, but the information is coming out about Roberts, and now it does.

Then there's Hillary. As much as I really really hate myself for doing this, I'm going to be completely fucking ridiculous and punditicize on the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, three and a half years in advance. Lame. I admit it. Boo me. I got to thinking about it though, because of the ongoing internecine thing with Democrats and tactics pitting the DLC types on one side and the reasonable as well as the "the people united can never be defeated" types on the other, which for some reason has flared up again. It's more complicated, but the essential question is, should the Democrats stand for some sort of principle or should they tell some combination of women and gays and unions and those of us not marching in lockstep with the administration's Iraq war plans to bend over and take one for the team, the team being the self interest of those who have no real interest in a successful Democratic Party, anyway. Because if you look at the debate, 90% of the party who's paying attention and who doesn't have some sort of conflict with their self-interest knows that in the longterm the Democrats would be better off if they didn't run to the ever shifting center every chance they had.

But on the other side, you have people like Hillary, politicians and the proffessionals in their orbit, as well as those whose careers will be advanced through their association with the DLC. It's in the short term interests of someone like Hillary to move to the center, no matter how ridiculous a move to the center is at this point. Obeisance and pandering could after all get you elected president. Provided of course, you have the credibility, which I'm not sure Hillary does or ever will have. But it's looking more possible than I ever would have imagined 4 years ago, and three years hence, who knows? She might be Margaret Thatcher in our minds by then. But if Hillary can acquire that credibility, it will in fact be in her short term interests to flirt with podunkery, even if it's at the expense of the progressive agenda short term and long term. But this is academic, because Hillary is going for the moderate image, and she cannot be stopped from getting the nomination.

Again that would have worried me more a few years ago, when Clinton hatred was fresher, and the thought of Hillary being president seemed impossible, nay damn impossible. It seems more plausible now, but I still don't see it happening. What state is Hillary going to win that Kerry didn't? Ohio didn't go for Bush because everyone here is in love with what the guy's been doing with the presidency. Ohioans went for Bush because to your typical Ohioan, incompetent conservatives with evil motives are far less scary than a "liberal" is, especially a wimpy flip-floppy liberal. And on the "liberal" front, Hillary is even worse. Kerry at least had a chance to define himself differently. So again, what state is Hillary going to win that Kerry didn't? Because people here still hate Hillary, regardless of how she positions herself, even if they've temporarily forgotten just how much. The Southwest? umm I doubt it. It's more likely Hillary will lose Pennsylvania and a bunch of those states in the upper midwest. The frustrating thing is that a Democrat can win here, though it's been a while. A liberal Democrat with the right personality can win here. Hell, fucking Howard Metzenbaum was an Ohio Senator not too long ago. I can remember, not that well, but i can remember, when along with Glenn and Celeste both Senators and the Governor were Democrats, despite Ohio being a traditionally Republican state. But it'd be pretty tough climb for Senator Clinton, for a lot of reasons, most of them unfair.

But like I said, the right Democrat can win here, without being the kind of Democrat that elevates procedure over substance, pandering electoral tactics over progressive fidelity. You know, it wasn't untill I was a sophomore in college that I even met anyone else who would admit to being a liberal. When the only person you're aware of who is an avowed liberal is fucking Phil Donahue, you don't exactly have a high opinion of liberalism. Of course, liberals are some ridiculous species. Because no one wants to be one. No one wants to be labeled one. It's a slur. And of course any idea that can get tagged as big government liberalism is a bad one. But then you start meeting actual people who are like "yeah I'm a liberal," and you're stumped. Like hmm... this guy isn't ashamed, how weird, so maybe it's okay to be a liberal after all. I didn't fall into that morass luckily, thanks to my embrace of the iconoclasm of punk rock, but I know a lot of people who did. I've seen the phenomenon. Too many Democrats approach the issue of picking up votes in the midwest and probably the south too, by acting like they're fucking anthropology students studying a foreign culture and trying to figure out what kind of trinkets would assuage the natives' terrible anger and guarentee safe passage.

But what's called for isn't some kind of pandering trinket, but authenticity. Be honest and be yourself, and people will respect you. I learned a lot of things when I worked at ACORN for a brief period, knocking doors and trying to organize low-income people politically. You get a lot of people with nifty degrees from fancy colleges who do the organizing for organizations like this. Sometimes I wondered why they ever hired most of us. Like how is that white girl with the hairy armpits who insists on wearing tank-tops going to walk into fucking North Philly and get low income black people to pay any attention to her? But she was one of the more successful people working there, more successful than a lot of the folks who would knock on doors and pretend like they were something they weren't, pretend like they could empathize with these people, dumbing down their speech, and being too ingratiating. Cause if you're just some dumb white guy with a fancy degree pretending to know what's best for someone, you're not gonna get very far. You're just going to be a dumb white guy with a fancy degree, trying to peddle a false empathy like the huckster you are. But if you are just honest, and act like who you are, a dumb white guy with a fancy degree not hiding the fact that he's a dumb white guy with a fancy degree, people will see beyond the "cultural" differences and they will relate to you as a human being, and then you'll start getting somewhere.

And this is the problem with the DLC approach. They're just hucksters. They all sound like they're trying to sell someone something, and the problem is, like that one guy says in that one commercial, that no one wants to be sold anything. If you believe being tough on Terror means walking the Bush administration line in Iraq, defend it on the merits. But don't say the American people will never support dovish pussies, because that's not an argument. If you think compromise is the right thing to do, explain why, but don't say because it'll improve our election chances, cause that's not an argument. If you're going to make an argument, you need to make an argument, and you need to mean it. What liberal Democrats need to do is say I'm a liberal and this is what I think and this is why I think it, and if the DLC wants anyone to pay attention to them they're going to have to say what they believe and why, without using "because it's good politics" as an argument. Cause that shit just doesn't fly anymore.

But I digress. Just as unlikely as I think it is that Hillary can win the general election against just about anybody but Bill Frist (and that'll be a close call), I think it's even more unlikely that she'll somehow fail to get the nomination. Democrats just fucking love her too much. She's a star. She probably should be president, for god's sake. And her polling will be good enough to prevent queasy electability Democrats from taking a pause. The last time I spoke with Big Nasty, he outlined a plausible scenario where Hillary didn't get the nomination. Basically the theory is that Hillary, Kerry, and Edwards divide the establishment superstar vote a bit, while progressives unite behind a single Dean like character. That's plausible. But it's a real finger-crossed, blind-folded, prayer of a possibility. The establishment always ends up uniting behind a single candidate as well. Looking back at 2004, Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt were supposed to divide the establishment vote, allowing Dean to take the nomination. But Lieberman was, as we all knew he was going to be, a joke; and Gephardt couldn't make it out of Iowa.

This time around, I suspect Edwards will look like Lieberman in 2004 and Forbes in 2000. He had a nice run when he was in the right place at the right time, but he's going to have problems catching that magic again. Kerry might make things interesting, but I get the sense that there aren't too many Democrats who want to see him at the top of the ticket again. If Gore were to jump in, that might make things interesting in the primary, and it would be a hell of a thing to watch Al and Hillary duke it out, but it really seems to me, that most Democrats feel like now is the time to give Hillary a shot. And I think she would probably prevail in that matchup as well. I don't know though. And I don't really like Gore, so I may be underestimating him.

Clark, I think is proving that he's got some staying power, and he'll be a more formidable candidate in 2008 then he was in 2004. While I can't believe that anyone voted for him last time around, he'll be a force this time around, but come on, he doesn't have the juice to beat Hillary. Then there are some darkhorses like Feingold and that guy from Montana. I wouldn't mind seeing one of them get some momentum and taking us all by surprise a la Dean in 2004, but a handicapper wouldn't give 'em good odds. Though at the same time we probably should expect something like that to happen to queer things up a bit.

Speaking of Dean, however, he's the one guy I really think could have a shot at stopping Hillary from taking the nomination. A lot of people, on the record, seem pretty sure he won't run. And maybe he won't. Part of me gets the feeling that he really never did want to be president anwyay. He was just running to make a statement, and never thought it was possible that he'd succeed. But his popularity is growing, not declining, and a lot of people are ready to jump right back into it for him. No one publicly thinks he's going to run, but the scenario is obvious. If Democrats have decent gains in 2006, which really should happen, and Dean gets some credit for turning the party around. Then a draft Dean movement gets orchestrated getting thousands of petitions, and the promise made to about 400 people not to run in 2008 in exchange for being DNC chair doesn't mean anything unless he wants it to. Bam, he's in the race, with a horde of support that could rival Hillary's. And maybe you think I'm talking out my ass with this scenario, but if I am, than Joe Trippi is too. Cause he's the one that really fleshed out the idea for me (met him at a q&a thing at school last semester) before I even thought about it. And, Dean, I think would be the least of all possible evils.

I Don't Understand Women

2005-07-26T17:39:00.000-04:00

Over at feministing I was reading about how the vaginal administration of emergency contraception might be better for woman than oral administration. And Jessica, while discussing the matter, said "Now I don’t know how much I want to take any frigging drug vaginally; just popping a couple of pills seems like a more reasonable alternative."

And I thought to myself, that's wierd. Because I'm pretty sure that if I had a vagina I would be down for sticking all kinds of things in it. Car keys, breath mints, lipstick, little baggies of drugs I was smuggling over the mexican border. You know, whatever. Even now, whenever I see a vagina I stick just about whatever I can think of into it: tongue, penis, a couple of fingers maybe, cranberry pie. Is this some kind of weird attitude unique to Jessica, or do most women not see the wonderful possibilities of their moisturizing pouches?

Rick Santorum Wants My Cock And He'll Use Eminent Domain To Get It

2005-07-26T16:09:00.000-04:00

Rick Santorum does not believe in a judicially recognized right to privacy, as noted by Armando over where the Larouchites play, saying in the course of discussing why Griswold v Connecticut was wrongly decided:

"Look, legislatures have the right to make mistakes and do really stupid things...but we don't have to create constitutional rights because we have a stupid legislature. And that's the problem here, is the court feels like they have a responsibility to right every wrong. When they do that, unlike a Congress, that if we make a really stupid mistake and we do something wrong, we go back next year or next month and change it, and we've done that."

That's not a totally crazy point of view. If you take that logic and apply it, though, I think you'd have to conclude that judicial review as practiced in this country since Marbury v. Madison is wrong. Because even if the legislature makes a "mistake" and passes something unconstitutional, the legislature is in a better position, according to Santorum's logic, to go back and fix it than the courts are. If Congress decided to up and ban guns, the court that reversed that legislative act would make the same "broad, sweeping decisions that have huge impact down the road," in that instance as they would in the right to privacy decisions. Would it not be better to let the legislature come back in "a year or a month" and change it so as to avoid the terrible consequences of a court discussing rights in way that has an impact far outside what the legislature might evision or control? Because what Santorum is really arguing is that legislatures should decide what privacy means. But why should it just be limited to privacy? Why shouldn't the legislatures decide what the Constitution means in general without the courts input at all? They do it that way in a lot of other countries, Britain for example. It seems like a reasonable point of view if you take it that far. But I have a feeling Santorum isn't saying John Marshall fucked up 200 years ago. Err, I mean screwed up. Wouldn't want Bernie Goldberg on my case.

But is he really saying there's no such thing as a right to privacy? I hope now you can see why some people should not be given educations. Because you see people, this is what happens when you try to polish a turd. You and your advocacy of universal public education! You teach a hayseed some civics, and this is the kind of shit they end up spouting. Instead of harmlessly wallowing in their filth and babbling about alien abductions and calling light bulbs "magic," we've got to hear about their goddamned theories of Consitutional interpretation. You know what's even worse? They actually fucking vote! I wish I could bring Horace Mann back to life, just so that I could punch him really hard in the stomach and make him double over as I pointed and laughed at his pain.

So now I'm going to make up some shit about the founding fathers. If you look at the Bill of Rights, it's authors sketched out the parameters of basically two fundamental rights. On the one hand, you have the right to be a hectoring, self righteous prick, if that's your thing. But on the same hand you also have the right to go about your life without a bunch of nosy pricks fuckin' with your shit. You've got the right to indulge your vices and even to be a criminal in your own goddamned home. And you're france to defend your rights with firearms if necessary. Because the founding fathers understood pretty well that there are a lot of nosy pricks out there who think they know what's best for you. Especially in America, half of which was more or less founded by nosy pricks and the people who couldn't stand living with them (the other half being founded by those screwed over by primogeniture and who decided to make a buck on the backs of Africans). But the founding fathers knew that there was nothing to be done about these nosy pricks. A constitution is just inadequate for the task of dealing with nosy pricks. All they could do was prevent the government itself from indulging in such nosy prickery. But they also knew that the nosy pricks wouldn't give up so easily. They'd ban vices. They'd try to tell you what to do with your genitals. Etc Etc that sort of thing. And they'd use the guvmint to do it too. But as long as you were france to be a criminal in your own home, things were cool. And the situation worked out okay for awhile. Really it was the best of both worlds. The nosy pricks could tell you not to engage in any assclownery. But at the same time you were france to do it behind "closed doors."

But then the exigencies of dealing with things like drugs became a problem. You can't stop people from dealing drugs if you can't get evidence from their homes and you can't make them confess. And if you really wanted to stop drugs, then something had to give. And so gradually, the right to privacy became a bit more flexible. This of course had some unintended consequences. Now all of those laws against buggering, and birth control, and possessing pornography became just a tad bit more enforceable as well. The nosy pricks got a new wind. And the right to privacy as sketched by the founding fathers became quite inadequate when it came to the problem of dealing with these nosy pricks.

So the Supreme Court fixed it. Big deal right? If Santorum thinks it's not the Supreme Court's job to fix it, then like I said above, there's not really any point in having judicial review at all, and quite possibly, there's little point in even having a Constituion. Because, Jethro, if our rights bend with the whims of the fucking legislature, then they bend with the whims of every fucking semi-literate hayseed who hasn't yet accidentally killed himself with a pitchfork.

Blue Girl This is For You

2005-07-25T23:15:00.000-04:00

As you can see, I've added haloscan for comment and trackback capabilities. As you can also see my genius does not extend into the computer technical stuff, so I've got this jakey thing where there are two comment links for each post. I may get around to fixing this eventually, but I might not. You see, I kind of like the rough aesthetics of using blogger, because it makes me feel so very "punk rock," and unproffessional. A Beautiful Soul to be found lurking in the rough so to speak. And this lame-assed comment situation really accentuates that, I think. If I could express it in a mathematical formula, I think jakey assed double comments = 5X, where X equals the sort of default level of badassness of using blogger in the first place, and not looking very sleek and professional, but like some kind of amateur scumbag with that coveted authenticity. Well anyway, we'll see how it goes. I'll probably end up disabling blogger's comments to fix the problem. But I'll feel like such a sellout. Just like I will when I eventually buckle and remove the Big Black quotes when the corporate overlords come a-callin with their offers of fat cash and... uh... more fat cash I guess.

UPDATE: Well it appears the problem only applies to the old posts, not any future posts, which when you think about it, isn't really a problem at all.

Hey Is That Wax On Your Fingers Mr. Wilson?

2005-07-25T18:04:00.000-04:00

Not too many people have a laid back attitude toward the issue of adults touching a minor's genitals. I'll admit, I have the minority view when it comes to this subject. I just think sex is a really really great thing, and that kids should get in on the action as early as possible. I mean it's really not some monumental thing. But at the same time, it really comes as no surprise that when lawmakers in Missouri became aware of a loophole that allowed predatory beauticians to get their jollies removing the pubes from the tender little euphemisms of adolescent girls, they sprang into action.

I suppose to some people it's reasonable to forbid someone from touching their underaged daughters genitals without their permission. I don't agree with those people, but yet, I'm a reasonable man and it strikes me as kind of a mainstream view. Personally, I think that when you're exposing a 16 year old to the pleasures of the flesh, it's a lot easier to pretend like she's 12 when she's had a Brazilian. And if she's gonna get a Brazilian, like anything, it might as well be done by a proffessional. Unless she's like Fugazi, and has a real religious belief in DIY ethics. But I guess my point is that I'm not surprised that Missouri lawmakers had nothing better to do than to try to shield underaged vulva's from in any way being associated with sex.

You Look Really Pretty Tonight Bro

2005-07-25T10:12:00.000-04:00

So I never got around to retyping that post I lost on Friday. In hindsight I don't think it was that good anyway. It was kind of a nostalgic piece, and I don't do nostalgia that well, I don't think. At least I really can't find the angle to talk about a cultural phenomenon that occurred 13 years ago and make it interesting today. What's that maxim about knowing your limitations? Whatever it is, it applies.

Anyway, feministing comments on the proliferation of men's beauty products. Full disclosure: When it comes to these products, I am among the manliest of men, meaning I've never used them. I have been called a metrosexual though, but I think that's just because I'm so fucking gorgeous that I should be some kind of male model, well, except for some crooked teeth, and even then, I do have a pretty great smile.

The question, however, being asked is: is this a fad or an enduring trend, and why? I'm leaning toward enduring trend, and I've got a guess as to why. I think it's because more and more guys are taking bachelorhood later and later into life. People are getting married later. Guys are enjoying bachelor's lifestyle more. And I don't know if this is true, but anecdotally there seems to be more women out there open to a rather casual sexual experience than in any other time in recent history.

I suspect that this adds up. First of all, a guy in his late 20's early 30's is now more likely to be living the lifestyle of a fella in his early 20's without being a complete joke to his friends and family. This older fellow on the singles scene is likely going to fing it a good idea to use some prouct to keep himself looking fresh and youthful. No longer has he been married for a couple of years and content to let himself go and allow his youthfulness to go quietly into the night. If he's prowling the singles scene, ass is at stake, and his looks matter, a lot more than if he's in some kind of monogamous relationship, it would seem.

Secondly, the availability of women to have casual sex with is important. The cultural acceptance among young people of the singles scene and the prowling and whatnot seems to me significant. When it comes to finding monogamous relationships, a partner you intend to be faithful to for some indefinite period, a stocky balding man with a good personality will be okay. As long as there is not that continual pressure to find someone to hook up with tonight than looks probably aren't that important. But a guy at a bar looking to get laid with someone he doesn't know, is going to have a tough time unless he's attractive. I know this from experience. When I was pudgy, random sexual encounters were far less frequent than when I slimmed down. This seems like common sense, but I don't know, I could be wrong. Assuming I'm right though, the fact that you've got a real chance of scoring, provided you go to the trouble of making yourself pretty, is going to mean that you are going to do what you need to do to make yourself pretty, and that probably very well does mean metrosexual products for a lot of guys, especially the ones that are starting to show some age.

So in conclusion, I would posit that the increasing use of these metrosexual products is a sign of the increased possibilities of bachelorhood among straight people. And this may even have a lot to do with the trend toward staying single longer too. A woman in her mid to late twenties, for example, has probably had enough sexual partners at that point that she's going to be considered a slut no matter what she does anyway. Plus, it's like, that's the age where it seems like women really start to feel like it's okay to enjoy some cock for its own sake. Plus a guy in his mid-20's is at the point where he's been around the block enough to know women well enough that he's got some knowledge to apply and be successful with. That's at least true for me, anyway. I did a lot better at 25 than I did when I was 21, and didn't know the first thing about approaching women, the pretext of talking to them, and then finally getting 'em to pretend like they're passed out. The fact that men and women at this age are no longer so very close to being married seems to me to be pretty important. Because now the bar scene is crawling with people who know how to score ass and also people who are open to sharing a piece. This being true, it seems obvious that there would now be a market for products to help a guy look younger or prettier or whatever, whatever he needs to get the edge, and maximize his hook-up potential.

This Is Today's Open Thread #4; The I Hate Blogs Edition

2005-07-23T01:19:00.000-04:00

Awhile back, on July 5th specifically, you may remember that I de-linked Maddox from my list of links because he's got "a bad attitude," he insulted Oasis, and as a result he's just "not the bad-assed pirate I thought he was." Coincidentally, the very next day, Maddox went on this tirade entitled "If These Words Were People, I Would Embrace Their Genocide." Where he takes his best shot at bloggers. I'm not saying I hurt his feelings. But at the same time the evidence is irrefutable. I'll admit he makes some good points, though. For instance:

Then God forbid a blogger gets mentioned on CNN. If you thought it was impossible for a certain blogger to get more pious than he was, wait until you see the shit storm of self-righteous save-the-world bullshit after a network plug. Suddenly the boring, mild-mannered blogger you once knew will turn into Mother Theresa, and will single handedly take it upon himself to end world hunger with his stupid links to band websites and other smug blogger dipshits.

I immediately thought of Andrew Sullivan upon reading that. But otherwise, it's just a silly, if entertaining, attack on an entire medium and one shouldn't bother taking it too seriously. It's the same as making fun of comic books, or people who play video games, or anything else. It's kind of amusing, I guess, but it's still dumb too. As dumb as saying all of anything is dumb. Which is the thing about Maddox that really led me to delinking him. He says a lot of really dumb stuff, and although he says it with entertaining ATTITUDE~! It's hard sometimes to get beyond the blatant dumbness of it.

Needless to say, anyway, I'm a big fan of blogs. Even the really crappy ones. Even the ones where some narcissistic dork fills their pages with lame-assed Quizzila thingies and writes about their life in a way that you can't imagine even their closest friends would bother to keep up with it. But I choose to celebrate self-expression whatever form it takes. At the very least, these are people who have made the decision to express themselves in some way, even if they're not very good at it, rather than watch television all day. And I appreciate that and applaud it. Cause, as much as I enjoy Belushi and Animal House, fat and stupid really is no way to go through life. Besides, I think what's her face who wrote that one book put it best:

"Remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird." That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
"Your father's right," she said. "Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy . . . but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."

Because these bloggers are working pretty hard and they really don't get much out of it. Because really, it's not that hard to not read blogs, anyway. But then, people wouldn't be so impressed with what a bad-assed pirate you are if you just let shit slide and went about your life. People have such a hard time with that: live and let live. I think it's because human beings are pretty much pack animals. And if something upsets the pack, then it's fair game. And if something upsets you, you feel like you have the right to yell and scream about it, and hanker for the horde to suppress it. I don't know, maybe I'm biting off more than I can chew there. But I think people pretty clearly do have a herd mentality. That's why shit like gays, abortion, plastic surgery, tattoos, Pamela Anderson, and drug use provoke the ire of so many.

But I'm getting off topic. The purpose of this post is to highlight a few things that I really hate about blogs at the moment. I made a list.

1. Cat-blogging.
Seriously, man, I don't give a fuck about your cat. If in real life, you started telling me about your pets, I would roll my eyes as conspicuously as possible and laugh in your face. I hate your cats. Seriously. They aren't cute.

2. Friday Random Ten Posts
I could give a fuck what you have in your Ipod right now. I mean, really, what kind of stance are you trying to pull here? Cause it really only comes off like yuppie scum a little too fond of their gadgets and bourgeois musical tastes.

3. Posts about how Democrats can better appeal to the red states.
Self-explanatory really.

4. "I just dug up the craziest fucking dipshit I could find on the opposing political team, and now let's all pat ourselves on the back for either a) not hating america or b) not being stupid."

5. Let's all speculate on what George Bush will do about X and why he'll do it posts. I really don't understand these posts. The most recent spate of them were the "who will Bush appoint to fill O'Connor's seat and what if Rehnquist retires too?" posts. Pretty obviously those posts are all completely obsolete now, and no one can even remember who was right and who wasn't. Plus it wasn't all that interesting anyway unless you're a really tedious person or you've got some conspiracy theories and you need a thin pretext to start pushing them.

But I don't really care, except to the extent that the people who routinely do that shit often have the most well-trafficked blogs, so they can get away with it I guess.

Here's a funny anecdote. I just used the Blogger spell-checker for this post, because I don't know how to spell narcisistic (???) and fucking Blogger's spell-checker does not recognize the following words: blog, blogger, blogging, de-linked, and a bunch of other crazy stuff. Is that Ironic? No, it's not, just funny.

I WANT TO FUCKING KILL BLOGGER

2005-07-22T13:53:00.000-04:00

This morning I wrote a fairly long post, and just as I was about to publish it, blogger pissed off, and I lost it. I really should know better, because it's not the first time this has happened. I should remember to write shit up in Word and then cut and paste, because Blogger is such a jakey assed piece of shit. Hopefully I'll get around to rewriting that post this weekend, but rewrites are rarely as good as the first time around. The first time around you just let shit fly and it has a nice organic quality. When you rewrite, you spend too much time trying to remember that really awesome phrasing you used, and it doesn't flow as naturally. The real losers in all of this? You, the consumer.

But like i said I'll try to find time to write it this weekend. Though I'm not sure where I'll find that time as a certain medical ethics advocacy group I am a member of has decided to protest in front of the homes of prominent surgeons, waving placards with pictures of tumors and open chest cavities and whatnot, hoping to make people realize just how gross surgery is.

But for now, here are some interesting political posts courtesy of the cafe.

Josh Marshall on Republican ownership of Washington. It's an interesting point and true, but potentially backfirable. Why would you vote for someone who is admittedly ineffective? Yglesias, on the other hand, has some real goodness.

I don't know much about the American Conservative as a publication. They probably don't reperesent the highest standards of integrity. But neither do I, so I'll link to their rumor without caring about it's veracity. If true though, I'd probably be pretty outraged, but only if my outrage hadn't been beaten into a cynical pulp by the continuing stream of outrages flowing from the Bush White House. Seriously, this is probably only the third or fourth worst thing this White House has done, and it's a doozy, if true of course. And I-ran I ran so far away...

And then read the Rude Pundit on NYT's treatment of John Roberts. He's alright, though a bit angry perhaps. Billmon, meanwhile, is a better read because he's got the "just how big of a douche is Roberts, and should I care about it?" approach down pat.

Enjoy the rest of your day, and have a lovely weekend my lovely friends. And remember: "the love that you take is equal to the love that you make."

Is John G. Roberts Infatuated With Uterine Parasites?

2005-07-20T22:53:00.000-04:00

First of all, score one for Yglesias. Good joke, buddy. I really doubt anyone will come up with anything funnier than that. But anyway, it seems as though everyone is analyzing this guy in terms of abortion. Now, I love abortion. I probably love it even more than pinko feminist hellcat does. But I have to admit that if G-Dubya won the capital to appoint anyone to the court, it's someone who believes the state owns our genitals, and has the power to punish us for using them "inappropriately." Anti-fun types have organized around the abortion issue, and they've delivered for the Republicans. It's only fair that they reap what they've sown. And they've sown a "Jesus hates fornicators" message that is now bearing fruit. It was "hella" clear in the last election, and it's been "hella" clear for a while, that Republicans are all about making you "suffer the consequences" of your "hedonistic" life style. And they won. So maybe we should all just accept this heartland wisdom. Sluts make great mommies.

But Bush did not win the right to appoint someone of the "I don't care about precedent, I just love making money (for corporations)" ilk. Of course, the morlochs did vote for him for that very unspoken reason, but the eloi, as always, are too busy enjoying the pretty "I hate terrorists, taxes and dred scott" talk, to pay any attention at all to the hidden motives before they get eaten. Nevertheless, it looks like Roberts will cruise to victory. I don't know if "we," and by "we" I really don't know who I'm talking about anymore, should bother raising a stink about it. If we can create an issue to run on in 2006, let's do it, or if we can get Bush to spend some capital, let's do it. Otherwise "we" should save our energy, because I hear thatRove is pretty fucked.

Part Two: Luminaries and Lowlifes, The Series

2005-07-19T23:41:00.000-04:00

Next up in the comfortable recliner of DOOM~! is my pal, and frequent commenter Tall Saul. We shared a tour of duty in the Nam together. I was a lieutenant in the U.S. Marines, with a cushy job that kept me away from the front, the details of which are classified, not by the U.S. government or anything, but by my own authority. Saul was a 12 year old Vietnamese girl employed as a hooker and loyal to the Victor Charlies. Despite our differences, at the end of a long hard day spent on our respective backs, we'd often find oursleves in the same bar throwing back drinks; Saul to wash the taste of semen out of his mouth, me, because I used to have a drinking problem. I still do. But I did then too (R.I.P. Mitch). To make a long story short, we ended up developing a beautiful friendship. Not the kind between Louis and Bogart at the end of Casablanca, but the kind between a junkie Vietnamese whore and a lazy, unmotivated, alcoholic version of Rambo.

I suppose you could say that Saul is the kind of guy one tends to want to take some cheap shots at. That is because insults are funny, and Saul is a funny guy. But the truth is that Saul is actually a pretty decent, thoughtful, intelligent and loyal friend beneath that "charming asshole" exterior. He's a bit like the character Pink in the movie The Wall, I would wager. Not that I've seen the Wall or know anything about Pink, or am even much of a fan of Pink Floyd, it's just that my gut is telling me this is true, and I trust my instincts. So without further ado, I set out to prove my hypothesis.

Jedmunds: So what do you think about Pink Floyd?

Tall Saul: Good music, a little whiny and preachy, but it's nice to wind down to. My favorite song is Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast, one of the most non-musical songs in existence.

Jedmunds: Ever see the movie the Wall?

Tall Saul: Great movie, but it went on for a tad long, and the animated talking ass was a little much even for me.

Jedmunds: If someone were to say that you reminded them of the character Pink from the before mentioned movie, what would you say?

Tall Saul: I would say that is ridiculous since I am not English.

Jedmunds: Ridiculous huh? What are you drunk?

Tall Saul: Not drunk, but I have to regulate my blood with the proper alcohol fortification. Note that I do party occasionaly, but full on binge drinking is very hazardous to my and everybody else's health.

Jedmunds: Is that a threat? Remember the time you said to me, "If you keep talking like a bitch, I'm going to have to slap you like a bitch?" What on earth made you do that?

Tall Saul: I think this might refer to the question that was two questions ago. And if I was in fact sober (it's not something I remember) I might have done it out of sheer defensiveness or my own brand of humor which is seldom funny.

Jedmunds: Fair enough. So why are you so tall anyway? Nature or Nurture?

Tall Saul: Nurture, it's my body trying to live up to the insane demands of my ego.

(polite, but awkward laughs. Now that I've lulled him with some softballs, watch as I begin to turn the screws.)

Jedmunds: If I could make you cry just using words, what would those words be?

Tall Saul: If you don't wrap your lips around this, I am going to pull the pin on the grenade strapped to your chest.

Jedmunds: But if I say please, you do it with a smile. What else makes you smile?

Tall Saul: Explosions (I had a great couple of laughs at War of the Worlds), pain and suffering on people who deserve it, kittens playing with string.

Jedmunds: Well, I hear you're pretty into military history. What's your favorite war and why?

Tall Saul: That's a very tough question, since all wars have their unique flavor. I would have to pick a few that come to mind. The Boxer Rebellion is a true classic, since it had its real villians (the Chinese Queen who deposed her husband and set loose the mysterious Secret Order of Boxers on the Foreign Devils) and its heroes (a multinational band of diplomats, civilians, and soldiers fighting back to back against the swarming hordes of berserk Chinese, weilding nothing but ceremonial close combat weapons) with victory going to the various consulates of Europe and Asia. Future President Herbert Hoover was even on the scene, working as a combat engineer in the defense of the German consulate.

Another favorite was the combined revolutions of 1848, the last gasp of militant Liberalism that started with the French Revolution. All across Europe, from Paris to Berlin to Milan to Budapest, it was the Monarchs vs the Rebels. Often, referred to as "The Point at History Failed to Turn" the forces of Liberalism were defeated. In Hungary, it took the combined forces of the Hapsburgs, Russian Czar, and an agitated Croation minority to take down the forces of Louis Kossuth. Their failure is ours today. I truly believe that we are living in the after affects of that triumph of conservatism over liberalism.

My last favorite war is the Thirty Year's War. A Life and Death struggle between Romanism and Protestantism. I say Romanism because Cardinal Richelieu of France greatly helped the Protestant Princes of Germany by signing Gustavas Adolphus onto the effort. It is not my favorite war because it was the most fun to watch or I would have loved to have been apart of it, it is my favorite because it illustrates how wars should be fought. Entire villages burned and razed, women raped, all males killed. It wasn't really a war between armies, it was a war against the civilian populations. Over a 1/4 of Germany's population died during the conflict. If wars were still fought this way, we would have had peace in the Western Hemisphere for
over a hundred years now. Chivalry and a football mentality has normalized conflict.

Obviously, this kind of war isn't desireable, but it is the only way to fight a war. It is the way that wars always used to be fought until the Geneva Conventions and Chivalry which have let wars been declared and pursued all too often by eliminating only a little bit of horror. But all war is horrible, and as long as we continue to fight wars and cry for the civilians, then we will always have war and
civilians will continue to die and all they will have left is a few tears shed from thousands of miles away.

(I took a smoke break while Saul was giving that (longwinded) answer, so excuse the lack of continuity coming with this next question.)

Jedmunds: If you had a time machine, what three presidents would you go back in time to assassinate?

Tall Saul: In the interest of keeping negative attention off of me, I kindly
decline to answer this question.

Jedmunds: What the hell dude? This isn't some kind of pr puff piece for you. I'm not Tim Russert. I can't just let you get away with...

Tall Saul: Reverend, as our friend in Southern California likes to say, "Let's agree to disagree."

Jedmunds: Well, I have to admit that that's unrebuttable. So... uh... hmm... well, what's the worst thing you've ever done then?

Tall Saul: Again, to keep negative attention off of me I will decline to list my subversive and destructive activities. But I will list a thing that I still think about today. I had hurt a girl's feelings to try to make our breakup final, because I thought that I could do better.

Jedmunds: She probably had it coming.

Tall Saul: Fuck with the Bull ya get the Horns.

Jedmunds: Well I can see that you're a total douchebag, hell-bent on stonewalling my attempts to uncover the truth, the UNVARNISHED TRUTH~! So how about we just say fuck it, and end the interview with your thoughts on William McKinley.

Tall Saul: He got what he deserved.

Jedmunds: Okay, well, thanks, kind-of, for sitting down with us. Although you proved to be a total vagina in the face of my most whithering questions, you're still a great American, and probably destined for some future equivalent of the Nuremberg trials. Also, I enjoyed having sex with your mother way more than Politivi did. So that was kind of cool.

Luminaries and Lowlifes, Part One

Maybe I Was a Little Hard On The Beaver

2005-07-19T21:52:00.000-04:00

Well what do you know. Check out Billmon's latest tune:

"I post this lastest twist only for the benefit of those who are keeping a scorecard. As for myself, I'm getting a little burned out on this particular version of Clue. The characters aren't very lifelike and the game is beginning to drag. Plus we already know who the murderer is, which takes a lot of the fun out of it."

Yes, my good man, you may surrender with dignity intact.

Half Blood Prince

2005-07-19T21:40:00.000-04:00

I don't really have a problem with the Harry Potter thing, per se. A whole lot of people seem to enjoy them, and I don't look down on those who do, no matter what my ex-girlfriend might say. So I'll just put it like this: maybe someday I'll have crossed enough things off of my to do list to get around to reading the 12-year-olds playing magic series that is apparently so compelling to so many. But then again, I just took another look at the list, and unfortunately, it appears that just above "#579. Read Harry Potter Books" on my to do list is "#578. Overdose on heroin."

So it may not be in the cards.

Who the Fuck is Billmon?

2005-07-17T21:43:00.000-04:00

Why, he's the guy that's qualified to run around offering unsolicited advice to accomplished, professional prosecutors, on matters he has few details, but plenty of speculative theories.

"The only one who can cut through this Catch-22 is Fitzgerald. If he thinks Miller is protecting a source, he should let her go: not because she has any legal right to defy the court, but because she's already demonstrated she's not going to talk, which means there's no point in holding her -- for three more months or six.

If on, the other hand, Fitzgerald thinks Miller is protecting herself, he should notify her that she is the potential target of an espionage indictment and offer her immunity in exchange for her testimony against the person she told -- i.e. Rove. That would give Miller the choice of either cooperating or facing criminal charges."

As an aside, I've never believed in journalism-shield laws. Reporters may have duties to their sources, but I'm very wary of a government that gets to decide who a journalist is.

This is Astonishing

2005-07-17T02:05:00.000-04:00

All the news that's fit to print*, plus the parochial ravings of Mrs. Caroline Bascomb Compson. Some people should really be ashamed of themselves.

I'm About To Shove Some Links Down Your Throat So Open Wide

2005-07-16T14:42:00.000-04:00

Kevin Drum once again rebuts “amnesiac conservatives” who seem to keep forgetting that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were not in fact in the habit of sharing lentils and chick peas. Was that joke kinda racist? Oh well.

Billmon’s got some compelling speculation. I tried to make up some shit-assed theory about what was going on in this Rove case, but the best I could do was to speculate that the only reason Bush and Cheney didn’t fire Rove out of political necessity was that Rove had the goods on them, and so BushCheney needed to protect Rove out of legal necessity, or else Rove would start pointing fingers up the chain. And then I got to thinking that Rove probably was a whistleblower in this whole thing. Like Rover went to Judy Miller and said, “look at this horrible thing BeastChauna is making me do for political reasons. It would be bad news if they found out and stuff.” And so now Judy is heroically covering his ass. Admittedly there are obvious problems with this theory, but I thought for sure there would be someone willing to go with it. After all, I got all kinds of people to babble on and on about John Kerry’s war record, and to hint about Terri Schiavo’s husband being a murderer. So far no one on the left has been willing to sink that low. But anyway, go read Billmon, he’s got better theories, and he reads much more like an amateur sleuth trying to get to the bottom of things than a willful douchebag.

Let’s jump off topic here, but did you know there’s an anti-immigration sentiment that has been sweeping the country? It reminds me of the way fads like spanglish, salsa, and cinco de mayo celebrations have similiarly swept the country. But while I understand the feelings behind this backlash, I don’t really know what we can do about all these unwelcome Irish people at this point. I mean it seems like they’ve been here a while and all, many of them for generations. Hell most of them were born here. But you know, I spent some time in Boston a few years ago, and the way those people celebrate St. Patrick’s Day makes me think that America is going to end up permanently changing for the worse. You don’t see that much enthusiasm for the Fourth of July, a time to celebrate the anniversary of this great nation’s independence and france, and a great landmark in human history. Instead they get drunk and paint themselves green. That doesn't strike me as something George Washington would have approved of, and so neither do I.

Back on topic, but Yglesias, while slumming it over at that café, asks and answers a gripping question about Rove’s alibi, which strikes me as more of a political alibi than a legal one. I mean, legally, it strikes me as a bit closer to a confession. Be sure to read reader Jane Boatler’s comment as well.

Hoffman reminds us that douchebags are probably being douchebags while we distract ourselves with these other douchebags. Which is true. And it goes beyond the telecommunications issues Hoffman wants to make such a big squealing deal about.

I couldn’t resist the temptation to note Palast noting the ridiculously fucking obvious. As does Wolcott.

And hey, wow, let’s note the Bush administration’s shocking blatant willingness to fuck up the "war on terror", when there are elections to win. Some, share Kevin Drum’s opinion that this makes Nixon look good in comparision. But we’d be forgetting that it was probably that 1960 election that really drove Nixon loco guano. And we’d also be forgetting that probably the only reason Nixon ever paid a price for his crimes was because he was such a strolling-on-the-beach-in-a-suit-and-me-wingtips nerd. Not a happy back-slapping frat-boy who back in the day pulled all the same rich boy pranks at elite schools that the journalists covering him did. Bush is more Kennedy than Nixon, meaning he’s fucking all the right slags, the slags the press corps would like to be slagging, not chubby interns with low self-esteem and other assorted working class types, and he does it with the kind of smile that makes you want to be him, not expose and rebuke him.

But this neddie jingo fella is right. He spits something I’ve been grappling with for a while. Getting worked up over this shit just isn’t any fun. And that there’s a high price to pay for not having fun. To me the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that liberals really are happy people. We joke around. We laugh at ourselves. We laugh at the world. We enjoy ourselves. Conservatives on the other hand, and I’m talking rank and file folks (we all know that Tucker Carlson and Jonah Goldberg are fun-loving guys or at least the conservative mind’s idea of what “cool” looks like, which is kinda funny no?), are some of the most bitter, resentment filled people around. Always talking about how they grew up eating gravel and picking grains out of horseshit, but thanks to their incredible will and self reliance become multimillionaire exploiters of white underclass resentments. And then there's the super-seriousness about god, flag and country stuff. (It's so as I can't even run around spitting on vetrans with my longhair friends without someone getting pissy about it.) And just the hyper fucking seriousness all the time, even when they’re defending their right to tell jokes about the coloreds. They’re boring unattractive people. And we become ever so much more like them when we allow ourselves to be driven insane (I'm a lookin' at some of you folks who post at you know where) by the outright unchecked evil of the world around us. And like Neddie Jingo, I'm not exactly saying we shouldsit back, say fuck it, and ride the tide. But while we maintain against the grain, there’s no reason not to have a smile on our faces, and in fact that smile is in some ways how we do it. Or as Neddie says:

"The Right waves around this Culture of Life crap, and we've forgotten how to wave our own Culture of Life back at them: We're alive.

We breathe. We love. We fuck. We sing. We eat. We drink.

With joy.

Yes, of course, goddammit, the world is in pain, people are dying in agony, injustice & bad faith & ugliness & intolerance & the whole fucking depressing batshit insane ball of ear wax. I know. I know, all right?

But let me ask you, if I started racketing along with all the rest of them, shrieking indignantly about whatever passes for the fuckin' Latest Outrage of the Last Ten Minutes...

Would that change anything a single goddamned iota? Would that Push the Pendulum even one tiny degree back into True? Would it save one starving kid, one soldier in Iraq, convince one crazed, bulging-eyed monotheist to put down his Bible or Qu'ran and just relax for a second?

I put it to you that it would not.

So instead I turn my back on it and say fuck it. Instead of contributing more noise, more howling, more indignant huffing, I try instead to celebrate in my own quiet way those little joys that a true Culture of Life would hold dear."

Friday Afternoon Link Dump

2005-07-15T15:54:00.000-04:00

Fuck the detractors. Thank god for blogs. I can only imagine the isolated insanity I might feel if it weren't for the internet, and I had to get info on what is going on in the world from the so-called professionals. I might feel like I was in the fucking Twilight Zone, the last sane man in an absurd world questioning his own sanity. I'm content, like Res Publica, to let others comment on this Rove stuff. But I still can't help but wonder thanks to Digby and Blue Girl (who's been on a helluva role lately with a bevy of good posts).

The Digby piece reminds me of what I've been thinking lately. What is more serious? Lying about a beedge or compromising national security for the sake of destroying your political enemies? I heard Al Franken interviewing Bob Barr the other day, and it seems like the obvious question to ask, but Franken was too busy playing the "I have Republican friends" game.

Blue Girl makes it all the more specific:

"What is WRONG with our media? Who cares if Bush decides to do, as Tom Oliphant put it last night on Hardball, "do a reverse perp-walk" with that dirty political trick personified?

Why did the media go on and on about how "loyal" Bush is? Who cares? Pat Buchanan is still loyal to Richard Nixon. Loyalty does not equal integrity.

The other line that fell into favor last night was, "Karl Rove does not have a crime problem, he's got a political problem."

And now that the headline today is: "Republicans and White House Support Rove," he's not going to have a political problem anymore because, just like our lame media, the Democrats will also fold and the story will go away."

Even holding aside this white house's policy not to comment on stories that are potentially damaging, I can't help but wonder why none of these journalists are interested in getting to the bottom of a story that would, you know, further their careers and such. Bizarre fucking behavior. I've spent some time in newsrooms, and I've known a few reporters, and it's pretty fucking clear that intelligence is not a job prerequisite. I mean who goes to school for four years to learn how to write like a 12 year old? Besides football players and former beauty pageant winners? Believe me, I know, I majored in journalism. For the same reason the football players did it. Because it's really easy and you meet none too bright, but very very good looking women.

I can remember going to my journalism proffessors for letters of recommendation when I was applying to law school, and so many of them were incredulous that I would leave such a noble proffession in order to make money doing something so cynical as practicing law. So I can understand that these people really are dumb enough to believe that Judith Miller represents something noble. Some bullshit fairy tale about the sanctity of journalism and protecting it's sources. Entirely oblivious that they're nothing but tools for the powerful to advance their agenda. I don't know when journalism became respectable, or when people started talking about them like they were ethical people. It was probably around the time they began moving into Georgetown homes and getting invited to the ritzy parties. But they need to get back to that muckraking esprit of unsavory characterlessness. The willingness to stab someone in the back in order to get a good story.

Theres a story that back in the old days, new journalists cut their teeth on the unglamorous local interest stories, involving drunk driving tragedies, and good-old fashioned wife-beating taken a little too far. The new journalist was the one in the position of getting the sobbing mother's reaction to the news her daughter had died, or the newly orphaned boy's reaction to his father killing his mother. And the story goes that there were two types of people: those that had the stomach for this, who moved up in the journalism ranks, and those who couldn't cut it, and ended up selling life insurance policies for a living. I don't know if this was ever true. But a lot journalists like to pretend that it is, that that mentality is still alive. But a glass eye in a duck's ass can see it's nothing but self-flattering bullshit. Tim Russert is a pussy. Michael Isikoff is a pussy. They're all pussies, as Taibbi pointed out long ago. Judith Miller is in jail for one reason right now. To uphold the sham that these fucking cowards aren't pussies.

In other news, Scarlett Johansson is most definitely not a pussy, and she is quite possible the coolest chick in the world. I'm not joking, because this guy already told all the good jokes.

And Katha Pollit called me a featherhead. I have no comment.

Maybe you heard that Rush Limbaugh is pissed at Ken Mehlman for going before the NAACP to "bend over and grab the ankles?" There's something ironic in there. Cause it's like Mehlman's gay isn't he? Isn't that what gay guys do? Bend over and grab their ankles? Eh, what were you thinking he'd do Rush? Sodomize liberals?

And I'm pretty sure that's all I wanted to cover.

Is it Possible to Laugh While Fucking?

2005-07-14T23:25:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm toughing through this incapacitating headache, to bring you content. Because that's what the opposite of pussies do. I hope you appreciate it.

So, I got in a bit of a kerfuffle, as I'm wont to do, over at Philalawyer. At first, I didn't think it was all that entertaining a story. You know, dog bites man, bad-ass regulates on shitheads. Nothing too interesting there. But then I got to thinking, as I'm wont to do as an introspective sort, and well, the post practically wrote it itself.

You see it really all started with an anonymous commentor saying:

"I used to write a blog. I’m an investment banker. A trader. Semi conductor capitol equipment and data storage. Mostly.

I posted 11 entries and received exactly 436 replies. My 12th and final entry spawned 121 replies, 56 of the critical. I remember. I never posted again. Envious, critical cunts robbed me of my fun. Probably 3k + (according to site meter) gifted me with pressure.

IT SUCKED PHILA. And I am CERTAIN that you’re in the same canoe. Delete this shit. Fuck these cunts. Start anew somewhere else. Like me.

I-banker of doom 10-03 1-04 04/5."

And a fellow by the name of Jagger followed up with:

"What a pussy!"

So I was all like:

Boohoo for the I-banker. I agree with Jagger. You're a pussy.

Now here's where it gets interesting, as this cunt Nikki comes along and says:

"jedmunds, go home and die. it's fucks like you who can't sit back and fucking wait who have succeeded in wearing him out. when you manage to write entertaining stories every day (hell, even every week) without fail, then maybe i'll give you a little credit. otherwise just shut the fuck up and wait with the rest of us."

WTF right? Like what's this bitch talking about? So I say:

"I was talking about the I banker you stupid cunt. I could give a fuck how often Phila updates. But anyone who starts crying because they got a little criticism and quits blogging is a pussy.

But I guess these reading comprehension problems arise when you're nothing but a semi-literate cretin. Shove that up your filthy twat, and I'll eat it out with a side of cottage cheese.

Thanks for the link to postmoronic though. that is good shit. The rest of your links are internet debris."

She comes back with some seriously weak shit:

"bite my ass, you poor 'beautiful soul'. internet debris? right. jealous much?

awww, i knew you wanted to eat me."

Like what the fuck? this is like strangling a hooker after she's fallen asleep. No challenge at all.

"I've got no jealousies little lady. Those links, other than postmoronic, that you dropped, bore the fuck out of me. You can knock my blog, implicitly or explicitly all you want toots. I got my fans and I got my detractors. In the course of this conversation though, your mention of it is what those of us with college degrees call "a non-sequitar."

Sorry if I inadvertantly knocked the cock out of your little fan-girl mouth there. Didn't mean to.

And yes I love me some cottage cheese and snapper. Mmm-mm."

So what do you think she'll come back with? Is she boring enough to defend her intelligence? Is she inane enough to mention that she's got a college degree. Will she again, treat the cottage cheese line seriously? Well, it's even more tedious than that.

"oh my god, could you be any more pathetic? did you really think you were going to stump me with 'non-sequitar'? you are by far not the only one to go to college. call it what you want, all i did was point out that your blog is nothing to be proud of.

i'm not really concerned with whether or not you don't like the other blogs i threw out there. i enjoy them, and i thought others might. your opinion is your opinion.

now excuse me while get back to this nice cock you so rudely slapped away. wait your turn."

At this point, I was just going to walk away. Because it had gotten to be a little like rolling nickels down the sidewalk and watching retarded homeless guys scurry after them, or like getting pseudo high-brow types all convulsive over my love for Oasis, or like getting inbred right-wingers to rant about the librul media. It's kinda fun at first, but it gets a little tedious after a while. But then, some others jumped in the fray.

Middle America and Loving It said:

"i went to college but still don't know what the deuce "non-sequitar" means...too lazy to look it up on dictionary.com. it's proof that idiots can get degrees, so stop using college as an indicia of intelligence. "

Now I'll admit there's something almost clever about using your own moronic, laziness to prove a point. It's just such a shame that that point is really really gay. I mean, like I was really saying "I'm rilly smrt cuz I wents to kollidge, I bets you don't know what a non-sequitur is." I was doing nothing more than calling Nikki dumb, but with the aplomb and class that is my motherfucking trademark.

But there are a lot of people in the world who take shit too literally. Essentially humorless people. They are the swamplike creatures of backwoods conservatism who may know how to define irony, but wouldn't recognize it if they were, say, accused of fealty to the "homosexual agenda," DUH-DUH-DUH. And then there's lawyers, or people with legal educations. I don't know why law school churns out so many creepy humorless robots incapable of normal human reaction, I'm just thankful that my lawschool friends have avoided this phenomenon. I suspect it's caused by a combination of spending too much time hitting the books without enough time acting like a normal human being with other people, and the very nature of legal study which demands specificity and shuns ambiguity. An ambiguous contract is useless. An ambiguous answer from a witness at trial is useless. A statute written ambiguously is useless. The law requires specific, definite, unambiguous answers most of the time. And the people who study and practice law become used to this. However, the vast majority of human interraction is very vague on a superficial level. This creates for some funny situations. Like, and this is a true story, the lawyer asks the woman at Burger King if Whoppers are on sale. She responds, "they're 2 for $3." Well, the lawyer starts sputtering and droning like the fucking robot he's become, "are they on special? are they on special?" "uh they're 2 fo-" "are they on special are they on special are they on... does not compute does not compute...invalid data... does not compute" It takes the poor woman, admittedly none too bright, a good two minutes to realize that "yes" is the only acceptable answer.

But I digress, the next commenter was some anonymous douchebag, with this bit of brilliance:

"and it's non-sequitUr, you nincompoop. And it means a conclusion that is not logical because it has nothing to do with it's supporting arguments. "

You know you've reached rock fucking bottom when you start calling people on their spelling mistakes, I might point out, but I won't. What I find amusing about this response is that this guy evidently did consult the dictionary, and read what he read and concluded I used the word wrong. When, in it's common usage, to quote Judith Miller, "I was Fucking Right!" The non-sequitur card is deployed when your opponent makes a statement that has no logical relevance to the argument. For example, if I were to say that George Bush's tax cuts were somewhat irresponsible given contemporary budgetary constraints, the bloated simpleton rebutting me would be tossing out a non-sequitur if he were to go on a rant about his tax money being wasted on negro haircuts. Similarly, if I were to say, the Investment Banker is a pussy. Saying "yer blog sucks" would be a non-sequitur.

My apologies for explaining this all to you like you're five. I know I have a very intelligent and discerning audience who doesn't need to be walked through on how to read, but I'm expecting some stupid people to drop by soon. So again my apologies. But anyway, despite all of this, and despite my boredom with the exchange, I decided to offer the olive branch and wrote:

"Boy you guys sure is smart. But I think we can all agree on the following facts:

1. That Investment Banker upthread is a Pussy.

2. De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum

3. Nikki has a smelly vadge and is possibly a little retarded.

4. Phila lawyer owns this blog not you whiny cunts. He'll update at his own pace. Untill you start paying him to entertain you, you'll just have to take it and like it.

5. Some people have a problem with irony.

There, those are the things we can all agree on. It sure is nice finding common ground, eh, hayseeds?"

To date, no one has yet responded, but I do not care if they do. At this point, any further involvement would cross the line into "arguing on the internet makes you a gold medal retard," or however that thing goes. I'll just go to sleep at night knowing that 90% of everything is shit, and there I am, all by myself, repping the ten-percenters in Philalawyers comments.

Final Thoughts on the Myth of the Nice Guy

2005-07-14T20:12:00.000-04:00

This is a topic that apparently won't die. Of course, I'm referring to that mythological creature, and folk hero; the nice guy - destined for romantic failure, and loneliness. The poor sap who gets dumped by the princess like a cold-hearted gangsta in favor of the jerk who treats her like shit. We know you so very well, you unsung hero. Well, I suppose it's time to unleash a little bit of reality. You see sometimes when people have been in a relationship for a while, they get, for lack of a better word, "bored." Especially when they are young. They start to wonder about what else is out there. They question their willingness to commit to something without having "tested the waters" in a substantial way. Sometimes shits just not working out and someone is in denial, and they make it worse with an unattatractive clingyness due to a need for a constant reciprocation of assurance. Lots of shit happens.

And so someone finally moves on. Sometimes, in hindsight, this is a mistake. Sometimes you later realize that good people aren't a dime a dozen. And sometimes two good decent people just simply don't really belong together, and only one of the two realizes it. Sometimes it's a good move. Sometimes it's not. But it's a perfectly normal thing that perfectly normal human beings go through. It's so common as to be tedious. So why does this paricular archetype get encoded into our cultural understanding in such a passive-aggressive way? Why does on the one hand, reaction to this kind of situation, one we've probably all been through or will go through one day, become represented in the cliche, "all men are assholes?" While on the other hand the cliche becomes "women only date insensitive assholes, 'nice guys' are fucked?" I don't really know, but I'd bet Amanda Marcotte does. If I had to take a wild stab at it, I'd say it has a lot to do with people allowing their personal drama to drive them fugazi. Recent heartbreak can make you pretty misogynist, or on the other hand, whatever the big word for man-hater is. So can also, I imagine, routinely striking out with bitches that are way out of your league. So there's that stuff. Plus, you know, whatever mandypandy thinks. But why do men create something so much more passive-aggressive than woman do? I confess I'm stumped.

Hmmm....hmm...hmmm... well, we gotta put something down to make the proffessor think we at least tried, so... I think there's probably a lack of respect for a woman's agency in there. It goes back to the whole notion of seduction. The notion that there's some method short of rape to tricking a woman into copulating with you against her wishes. And that this is a very bad thing to do. Because what does a woman have, if not her purity? The scummy jerk, without any regard at all for the terrible consequence a penetrated vagina must endure, uses his powers to overcome the natural pedestalized purity of the femme in white gowns to violate the temple (Note, I'm using "temple" as a euphemism for "vadge" here. Completely novel, I know. I am most definitely a genius). He likewise uses those same strange mysterious asshole powers, which are apparently like catnip for unsuspecting women, to get her to leave her nice, decent, well-meaning boyfriend and join him on the darkside. So it's not really the woman making a decision to leave. It's the guy who's the asshole, because he's the one with agency. And what's the best evidence that he's an asshole? His total lack of regard and recognition that that particular witless and unsuspecting female had been claimed. She had been CLAIMED!!! Damn you! Even if she does have agency, what little she has, you had no right provoking!

Okay, I'm done now.

And Goddamn This Noise Inside My Head

2005-07-14T16:44:00.000-04:00

I wasn't planning on posting anything new lately, untill this incapacitating headache disappeared, and I could concentrate on writing quality. But I came across some potentially amazingly good news, on the cure for AIDS front. I suppose it's a bit preliminary in the testing to draw any definitive conclusions. And these articles are a bit vague and short on information. So okay, maybe this is entirely premature. But any way, it's still pretty interesting and exciting news.

But otherwise my apologies for a low content week, and maybe don't expect any updates for a couple more days. Hopefully I can get back into the groove of things soon.

Rembrance of Things Past

2005-07-12T17:41:00.000-04:00

Lately the Blogosphere has been aflame with that always lurking old saw about how nice guys never win, at least when it comes to scoring pussy. Both Majikthise and Yglesias have seen fit to dip their toe in this ever contentious topic. You see, this topic, when it erupts, is usually even more contentious than the super contentiousness of issues like abortion and whether guys should still pay for dates. On the one hand you have the unmollifiable resentments of the involuntarily celibate who need some, nay any, rationalization for their inability to successfully sniff the uniquely pleasant odors of the renowned genus-species snapperis femalus. And on the other hand, you got the women who just don't want to fuck those guys. I don't really find these discussions that interesting any more, but I do take continuing insult at the implied notion that I'm some kind of "jerk," because I attempt to do that most ridiculously dickish maneuver, which is to try to get laid.

The Heartless Bitches pretty much wrote the definitive texts on this debate as far as I'm concerned, which can be read here. But back when I first started blogging, I myself wrote the now definitive text on how nice guys can better approach getting ass. Once you accept the dominant paradigm of the dating world that the vast majority of the populationa adheres to, than you must accept the unimpeachable effectiveness of my advice. If you want to get some ass, this is how it's done son. Rereading this, I'm surprised at how well this article holds up, because back then I wrote with much less confidence and much more second-guessing of myself. I wrote it when I first started blogging, long before I had much of my approach figured out, and jeez I think I'm better now, but I don't deny that there have been some growing pains along the way.

Serious Journalism: The Luminaries and Lowlifes Series, Part One

2005-07-11T11:49:00.000-04:00

This is the first in what will hopefully be a regular feature where I use some of my professional journalism skills to get the true story about great american heros and their villainous counterparts. First in the comfortable recliner of DOOM~! is a man who goes by the name of Politivi. Pol is not only, a good Catholic boy, a great american and one of the most decent fellows I know, but he is also a terribly funny and creative guy who recently started his own blog over at www.politivi.com/blog. You should check it out.

In the interests of full disclosure, I'll admit that Pol is a good friend of mine, but he's kind of the Karl Rove of the friendship world. He's the kind of guy, who, for no reason at all and completely unprovoked, once spread the ugly and vicious rumor that I was an advocate of a low carb lifestyle, probably the most dickish thing anyone anywhere has probably ever done to another human being. I hope this interview, like Into that Darkness, does just a little bit to probe the consciencelessness of the dark and empty void deep within this sociopathic and malelovent consumer of Friendly's Happy Ending Sundaes.

Jedmunds: Let's start this interview off with you giving me some compliments. Fire Away.

Politivi: I often wonder if you had a superpower, if that would become the thing I liked most about you. As it stands now, what I like best are your nice legs and that you're good at smoking.

Jedmunds: Why don't you pull your lips off my ass? I don't know what you think this kind of brazen flattery is going to get you.

Politivi: Well, you're also one of the best comedic writers I know... whether that's intentional or not, I'm not sure. Unrelated but equally important, I think, is that in my imagination, you're a pretty solid chef.

Jedmunds: STOP BEATING AROUND THE BUSH GODDAMMIT! What do you really think? America wants to know.

Politivi: What was it your ex-wife used to say? Ah yes, you sir, are a loser.

Jedmunds: Wow. Man. I thought... we were... friends.

Politivi: We are. I was just horsing around.

(Maniacal laughter erupts)

Jedmunds: So I see you're starting a blog of your own. What makes you think you can cut it in the hard-boiled world of big-league blogging? It's not as though every twelve year old girl with a learning disorder has a blog.

Politivi: I am confident in my ability to make it to the bigs someday. Sure, I spent a good part of my early years snorting piles of cocaine and cheerleading at Andover and Yale, but I have made it a habit of building faltering blogs from scratch and then being bailed out by my father's rich friends. It has worked out well for me, and I intend to hold course.

Jedmunds: Oh well isn't that fancy? Just like your fancy little blog. I bet you think you're better than me, don't you?

Politivi: Thanks for remarking on its fanciness... I used a web application called WordPress as the foundation. It is available for free at http://wordpress.org/ I think format-wise, my blog will beat yours out... but content-wise, you win hands down. But let's be honest to ourselves, J... people visit blogs for one reason: they don't want to have to read. That's why they do it!! THEY DON'T WANNA HAVE TO READ!

(Unfortunately at this point of the interview, I fell victim to his Svengali like mastery of reverse psychology, and I went on an angry red-faced tirade about how bad my blog is, and how great his is. That part of this interview has been deleted for the sake of the children, those future J-school scholars, who look up to me and dream of one day sitting in this mystique filled interrogators chair.)

Jedmunds: You once said, and I quote, "J, I consider you a comedic genius by any standard, except for a G-rated one." Now what the fuck was that supposed to mean?

Politivi: I actually don't know why I said that...and I don't really remember the context... but in hindsight it doesn't make much sense. I think you would be capable of doing some ingenious G-rated comedy, if it existed.

Jedmunds: Way to dodge the question asshole. What are you hiding?

(At this point we stare at each other for a half an hour, neither one of us saying anything, my left eyebrow raised and my upper lip curled into a snarling posture of intimidation.)

Jedmunds: Are you cracking under the pressure of these "hard-hitting" questions of professional journalism?

Politivi: I don't know... I DON'T KNOW!

Jedmunds: Well it's only gonna get tougher from her on out, so go ahead and cry if you have to. Besides me, who are your heros?

Politivi: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congressman John Lewis, and my late grandfather. I don't care if people think it's cliche.

Jedmunds: Don't try to pull that shit in my house. You do care if people think it's cliche, don't you?

Politivi: (I forgot to write down the response. Oopsie! - Jedmunds)

Jedmunds: It seems as though everyone who meets you likes you. Are you really this affable, friendly charismatic person of good will that you seem? Or are we all going to end up surprised to find out one day that you've been molesting children all these years?

Politivi: Thanks for the kind words, sir... but I take offense to the other part about me being a friendly, charismatic person. Just kidding. Seriously, thanks. For the record, I think child molesters should be ground up and fed to grass-fed cattle.

Jedmunds: Anything else you want to get up on your little soapbox and lecture us about? Anything else you want to say?

Politivi: Thank you for taking the time to interview me. The pleasure was all mine. I'm a big fan of A Beautiful Soul!!!

Jedmunds: And thank you for sitting down and chatting with me, pol. Even though I vehemently disagree with your big-government political views, I've gained some respect for you. If I ever need help hiding a body, you'll be one of the first people I turn to.

Those Cries, Those Lies That Tell The Truth

2005-07-08T16:32:00.000-04:00

This is what I've been trying to say:

"'Serious' is the new black, apparently, and there’s no such thing as too serious .

At first blush, I tend to translate all of this seriousity along the following lines: 'We have ridden the 9/11 horse until it is not only dead, but sort of falling apart and smelling pretty bad. Now we’re going to get all huffy and scold you because you seem unwilling to let us use 9/11 to justify every idiotic policy blunder, foreign and domestic, that we choose to make for all eternity. If you people won’t remain sufficiently frightened, how are we supposed to free American from the scourge of liberal democracy terrorism? Why do you mouth-breathers hate America, anyway?!?'"

(...)

"It does remind me, though, about all the “death of irony” chatter we heard from the middle-brow media meat-puppets (alliteration!) in the days after the 9/11 attacks...
How ironic can we be, we who made Oprah a billionaire and “The Bridges of Madison County” a best-seller? We, who consider Thomas Kinkade an artist? We, who use words like “sinful” to describe things like chocolate cake and ice cream? No, we’re not ironic. American culture (at least since the 80s) has been intensely sincere and serious. The only reason any vaguely sarcastic cultural production stands out as “severely ironic” is because it contrasts so sharply with the “all serious, all the time” cultural surround."

-- Res Publica

Go read the whole thing.

I Tell People The Medication's Working But It's Not

2005-07-08T13:07:00.000-04:00

I've got a few posts swirling around in my head that I just don't feel like writing:

1. A Seriously Outdated Post Titled: "I Am Not a Member of the Reality Based Community."
2. A thing on angry democrats vs semiliterate republicans teeming with resentments.
3. An "Elimidate without the cameras" craigslist thing.
4. A Mea Culpa
5. A sort of fantasy interview thing where I work in some of my stand-up.
6. This song I wrote over the fourth of July weekend while jamming with some pals entitled "I Ain't No Goddamned American Aquarium Drinker."

But instead of that, I'm just gonna dump some links on your worthless asses.

More of that can be found here

Digby, Majikthise, Jesse Taylor and others have been having a pretty good time with the question of whether "conservative intellectuals" believe in evolution. I believe in evolution like I believe in things like gravity, photosythesis, alien abductions, and santa claus. But I don't believe in "conservative intellectuals." I don't know why conservatives are so exercised about what is taught in the public schools. Evolution has been taught for generations, yet Americans are still as dumb as fucking bricks.

My apologies to my southern friends, especially Patrick P (who's not really a southerner anyway, just another another filthy half-mick guinea from NYC) but Fuck the South. It may not be real clever or current, but neither am I.

On the serious side, postsecret is a blog of postcards that people have written some pretty deep and haunting secrets on. It's unsettling, but really worth checking out. We live in a culture where we all act like we're always happy and our lives are one great big giant party all of the time. This blog does a commendable job of peeling away that surface and exposing the soul lurking beneath that superficial sheen.

And finally, they say that Rehnquist is about to retire, and possibly Stevens.

Present fears
Are less than horrible imaginings.
Macbeth, 1. 3

Saddle Up Motherfuckers, London's Calling!!!

2005-07-08T00:44:00.000-04:00

It's clear that it is time that we got serious about the war on terror. This is a reminder, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc...

Time to stand together.

Maybe the Brits will finally take terrorism seriously, and stop jerking off like they have been for the past 4 years. Reverse Pearl Harbor! Roar! Fuck Yeah!!!!!!!

Let's Take a moment for some Soul Crushingly Boring Commentary from some Soul Crushingly Boring People.

But let's not forget thatGeorge Bush is the greatest!!!

And Jesse Taylor loves terrorists

But our resolve will not be weakened!!!

We gotta stay the course!

Cause whatever we are doing, sure is fucking working!!!

Ok so maybe that "flypaper strategy" talk didn't pan out that well.

Why Is Al Quaida* Stoking My Bloodlust?

2005-07-07T13:32:00.000-04:00

My deepest regard and sincere sympathy goes out to the people affected by today's events. I wish I could muster the eloquence to convey the strong connection I feel for the British people, and the condolences I wish to express. Whatever I could say could not possibly be enough. Could not possibly convey the depth or the sincerity of it. I love Britain. This is a tragic day.

While I don't know if Al Quaida's involvement has been confirmed, Tony Blair's speech seemed to provide some implicit confirmation for those suspicions. I could almost agree with Bush's remarks today:

"On the one hand, we have people here who are working to alleviate poverty, to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS, working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. "

I could almost agree with that. If it weren't for all of the innocent unnecessary dead in Iraq, then I'd agree with it fully. I'd love to come to the conclusion that we in the west have a greater right to not be randomly killed. That we have some claim to a higher moral plane because we do it under the auspices of official military action. But I can't come to that conclusion. But then, maybe I'm just lobbying for one of Sully's silly assed awards.

I'm reminded that a week or two ago, I happened to catch a bit of Tucker Carlson's new MSNBC show. In that short segment, he had the gall to ask "why nobody was trying to figure out why these muslim terrorists hate us?" Completely Brazen. I did not know whether to call him a traitor for asking the question or just merely point out that he and his pals like Sully had spent years demonizing people who even broached the subject, calling a traitor anyone who wasn't in the pissing contest over who loves America the most. I was amazed that he could do it with a straight face. Line up and salute boy.

But mostly I'm reminded of the things that I've completely forgotten. Like the fact that right now Judith Miller is in jail to protect a treasonous government official hellbent on destroying this administration's political enemies and that that official is most likely Karl Rove. I've completely forgotten about the Downing Street Memo. About Torture. I've completely forgotten about Bush's plummeting approval ratings and his upcoming Supreme Court nominee.

I'm taken back to 9/11, and what that felt like, having just moved out to the East Coast, watching people watch the first tower crumble, people for whom that tower was more than some kind of abstraction, viewed from the perspective of a corndog from the rednecky portions of Cleveland's southern suburbs. And in that time, quickly moving, fears created, exploited, and over time had, those fears themselves, become mere abstractions. They take on a new palpability with this reminder, unsettling and poignant.

I'm not trying to connect any conspiratorial dots. I'm just frightened by how all of this might play out. But if I were... If I were to... I might wonder aloud just why we've got Saddam Hussein "safely" behind bars, yet no one seems to care that Osama roams free. I might start thinking that one is a useful abstraction from a certain point of view; a fearful bogeyman, who if he didn't exist the Republicans might need to invent. While the other represents some kind of concrete "accomplishment," however phony.

These days, every utterance I hear from politicians and the media, I have to think about how I'm being manipulated. Wary of those who try to keep me from thinking with yellow ribbons and blind support, and self-flattering talk of good and evil, and where anything but the most unyielding allegiance means victory for those who would destroy my way of life. Afraid that if I go with the grain of what I might be ennabling. And I wish it didn't have to be that way. But for too long, we didn't pay any attention at all.

Blowing Down the Backroads Headin' South

2005-07-06T10:14:00.000-04:00

This is a little play that I wrote. I feel kinda cocksuckery about writing it. It's like, "wow aren't you so fucking great for pointing out our little harmless silliness?" But calm down, lady. It's not that bad. Who am I, if not a dick, anyway. I just hope it's taken in the vein of good fun in which its intended.

Scene: A blog

Amanda: Check out the anti-cleverness of the crazy ravings of this random junkie I found on the internet. Her thoughts are like totally illogical, and incoherent. And in an ironic twist, Redneckerella posted a picture of her that implies that she's ghastly fucking ugly, though she's not really. So take that conservative bitches, we're not afraid to call you ugly.
Everyone: Time to form the circle-jerk of TRIUMPH~! Whoo-hoo. High-fives all around.
Me: I rather suspect that that Redneckerella link isn't that cool, but whatever, I'm probably wrong.
Amanda: *sigh* *huff* oh me, oh my, the slings I endure. *sigh* I just CAN'T win! *sigh* You know, I DIDN'T link to it... (flip-floppy hand motion) BEFORE I linked to it. *sigh* Oh woe is me.
Dumb Cooze #1 Hey, she's ugly. *high five*
Some Asshole You're some kind of rigid anti-fun feminist with a stick up your ass stereotype adherence level, that like, sets the whole movement back, man.
Dumb Cooze #2 But it's really funny, man.
Dumb Cooze #3 Hey, feminists are just as pretty as anti-feminists.
Filthy Cunt Oh, like totally.
Reduced to Female Body Parts Yeah, man, it's really FUNNY~!
Amanda Hey what about me? Can I be in the pretty girls club?
Dumb Cooze #3 Well, hmm... you really ought to work on your (pick something) but, (fake enthusiasm) yeah sure you can be in the pretty girls club.
David Thompson: So who wants to talk about racism?
Random Passerby: huh?
Amanda: Unity. Unity with ugly girls. We all stand together. vadge odors awaft!
Me: fwa? How do you like being sighed at?
The Thoughtful Vadge Hmm, what about feminists who are, like you know, serious thinkers, and not just posturing hollywood celebrities? are they pretty too?
Some Guy: It doesn't matter.
Dumb Cooze #1 Ann Coulter isn't a serious thinker and she's ugly anyway.
Homo Erectus Conservative women totally kill the blood supply rushing to my cockhead, thus preventing me from getting an erection. It's a scientific fact.
Late to the Party: I still just can't believe that that random junkie is so dumb.
Dumb Cooze #2: And it's Another Victory For the Goodguys, having proved that feminists are just as pretty as antifeminists.
Everyone: It's a wonder we can even feed ourselves.

End scene.

The preceding was based on a true story. Names have been changed to protect the innocent. It has been dramatized for your entertainment.

Kill Your Motherfucking Idols

2005-07-05T16:48:00.000-04:00

First things first. Maintenance shit. I've added and subtracted some links. First of all, I created a new category for people I link to for no other reason than that they link to me. So far that's Culture Blog. I don't mind reciprocal link arrangements, but I hate the idea of having shitty blogs reflecting on me, even if they do get more traffic than I do.

I also added Cam I Am, because I discovered he was sending some traffic my way, I checked him out, and he's gotta quality little blog going on. While linking to me won't automatically get me to link you back, it doesn't hurt.

I also recently realized that my good pal Ben Styles', (aka B-dub, aka Benjamin Alston, the space policy gangsta) sister and her husband are kind of big shot bloggers. So I added them too. What the fuck why not. They're quality people. They also post at Crooked Timber, apparently.

I added Republic of Dogs, who I discovered via Blue Girl, and I liked what I saw. I removed Maddox, becaue while he's pretty funny, I think he's got a bad attitude. Also, I noticed that in his archives he insulted Oasis. So I say: Goodbye faggot. You just aren't the bad-assed pirate I thought you were.

And now to the meat of the post. More and more lately, it seems as though Matt Taibbi has been phoning it in. To wit, this recent article he writes about Pataki's pandering to the remissibility junkies. All in all he gets around to making some good points. But then there is this gratuitous shit about l'objet contriversaire, a picture of the hooded Abu Ghraib guy with wires coming out of him that spell the word liberty, by Amy Wilson:

"Now, this is certainly stupid art on the level of throwing a picture of Ronald Reagan on a pile of spent AZT bottles and naming it something like Great Bedside Manner. Glimpse is about as subtle as a pile of shit under a Christmas tree and contains, as far as I can tell, absolutely no ideas at all, just a statement in the form of a picture...

"If the artist had at least titled the drawing, I Own Three Magic Markers and a Subscription to the Nation, that would be something, a joke at least. But a sense of humor is clearly beyond the artist, Amy Wilson, who in all likelihood was exclusively drawing horses and unicorns right up until a recent collision with an AMC broadcast of Norma Rae or the Counterpunch website."

To which I say, hey fuck you Mr. Taibbi. You've become a fucking parody of yourself, the journalist I used to admire more than any other. Now you're nothing but a less funny version of Ames*. How long ago was it that you wrote "52 reasons the upcoming death of the Pope will be funny," anyway? Sublety and humor certainly were not the hallmarks of that piece, you hasbeen cunt. I guess it's nice to see you're not full-on giving us a weekly anecdote about the genital crabs you got from the Moldovian whore you couldn't get it up for. You may be able to fool what you used to call the "beigeocracy," but you can't fool me. You've become a trained ape for cubicle lackeys, going through motions and running through their complacent little hoops. If you want to pander to a bunch of fucking careerists, that's your business, but deep down you know as well as I do that you'd be better off if you fucked off back to Russia, where you had the decency to show both balls and brains, all the time.

But I know it's all reflex for you. You just can't resist taking a shot at the earnestness of the vapidly serious left, whether it's deserved or not. You know as well as fucking I do, that subtlety is not a necessary condition of art. Ambiguity, maybe. But not subtlety. If Amy Wilson had thrown a pie filled with horse semen in Michael Wines' face or sent Tom Friedman's secretary some information on erectile dysfunction, that would have really been something. Her grand error was to be too closely aligned with "the Nation" types, I guess. So she said nothing, and was really serious about it. Fair enough. But you're hostile grab for the decadent middle, where you're free to piss off and hate all sides has become nothing but an empty gesture of hollow grandstanding. Either say shit like you mean it, or stop being so fucking stupid.

*Note: No implied knocks on Mark Ames here, who wrote the finest article ever on Russia's transition to France and Democracy and Capitalism.

Moving along, Someone Somewhere said something stupid. And then someone named the Redneck Feminist fought fire with fire, so to speak. And really, I was sitting there asking myself what would Yngwie Malmsteen do? Thinking like "*sigh* looks like I'm gonna hafta put another bitch in her place." But then, eh... fuck it, you know? It's one of those things where I end up looking like the fucking bad guy, just for giving some chippy a little taste of patriarchy, in the name of doing what's right. Who needs it. Not me. So count your blessings, toots. Cause I woulda given ya tha kinda dose you'd be unable to cross yer legs aftah, evermore.

"How hot and sorrowful, the machine begs for luck"

2005-07-05T15:39:00.000-04:00

I'm disappointed by the shoddy camera work.

Things are looking pretty ominous for those poor little flags.

The text is what I sent to the Congressmen, but I did it in the blackmail lettering by cutting letters from magazine headlines and making copies. Don't have a scanner though. So I just made this cheap ass approximation in MS Paint.

Burn, Motherfucker, Burn! In the name of France

Only The U.S. Senate and 18 state legislatures can stop me before I do it again.

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

The Responsible Parties.

An Unquestioning Embrace of Conventional Wisdom

2005-07-01T15:09:00.000-04:00

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

More later.

This Ain't Some Kind of Metaphor - Goddamn This is REAL!

2005-07-01T12:20:00.000-04:00

Some links. I'm lazy.

We're Pretty Fucked. That is how it begins. Goodbye freedom. Hello Robot Overlords. I hate George Bush.

Amanda from Pandagon steps up to plate:

'Timmy the Singing Fetus Sings Songs to Someone's Mother

"Why Did You Wear That If You Didn't Want to Get Raped?"
"Abstract Theories I Pulled Out of My Ass Prove Women are Stupid"
"I'll Grow Up to Be a Criminal if You Divorce Daddy"
"Women in Other Coutries Have It Worse"
"Your Rights Offend My Religion So They'll Simply Have to Go"
"Don't Be a Cock Tease"
"Women Make Less Because They're Lazy"
"Child Support is Highway Robbery"'

You know you want to read it.

She also disabuses me of the sweet illusion that children represent a future I can embrace. There goes my utopian visions.

Bush is about to get his first SCOTUS nominee. Back in the early stages of his 2000 campaign, he used to talk about how Felix Frankfurter was his favorite justice. But the rabble didn't know who he was, and the people who did were too smart to vote for a guy like Bush anyway, so he switched allegiance to Thomas and Scalia. I hope he reverts to Frankfurter. Otherwise, it's time to man the trenches. Ring the alarums. Bunker down. etc.

Speaking of Bush, 43% of the population is openly contemplating impeachment (assuming certain conditions). I'll jump on that bandwagon. I was afraid to do so before, because I was afraid people would stop taking me seriously. Huh?

I'd Ignore This Post if I Were You

2005-07-01T11:56:00.000-04:00

For the benefit of some guy's blogger research project, I am taking these personality tests and posting the results.

Survey
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Religion: Self
Occupation: Self-employed
Began blogging (dd/mm/yy): 02/02/05

Political Compass Results
Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.44

EXTRAVERSION: 62 (Average)
Friendliness: 13
Gregariousness: 74
Assertiveness: 78
Activity Level: 14
Excitement-Seeking: 95
Cheerfulness: 63

AGREEABLENESS: 1* (Low)
Trust: 65
Morality: 0
Altruism: 3
Co-operation: 4
Modesty: 11
Sympathy: 3

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS: 28 (Average)
Self-Efficacy: 80
Orderliness: 1
Dutifulness: 3
Achievement-Striving: 87
Self-Discipline: 52
Cautiousness: 9

NEUROTICISM: 62 (Average)
Anxiety: 15
Anger: 53
Depression: 72
Self-Consciousness: 37
Immoderation: 99
Vulnerability: 51

OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE: 93 (High)
Imagination: 94
Artistic Interests: 23
Emotionality: 82
Adventurousness: 85
Intellect: 88
Liberalism: 94

Track List:
1. Philosophy, et cetera - pixnaps.blogspot.com - pixnaps97a2
2. Majikthise - 6ea37d10-e9b9-11d9-8cd6-0800200c9a66
3. Ezra Klein - http://ezraklein.typepad.com
4. Rox Populi - http://roxanne.typepad.com
5. Jedmunds - http://jedmunds.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Overview: This post is a community experiment with two broad purposes. The first is to create publicly accessible data about bloggers' personalities, which may have sociological value in addition to being just plain fun. The second is to track the propagation of this meme through blogspace. Full details and explanation can be found on the original posting: http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/06/meme-worth-spreading.html

Instructions (to join in the experiment):

1) Take the IPIP-NEO personality test and the Political Compass quiz, if you have not done so already.

2) Copy to the clipboard that section of this post that is between the double lines, and paste it into your blog editor. (Blogger users may wish to use 'compose' mode to preserve formatting and hyperlinks. Otherwise, be sure to add hyperlinks as necessary.)

3) Replace the answers in the "survey" section below with your own.

4) Add your blog information to the "track list", in the form: "Linked title - URL - optional GUID".

5) Any additional comments should go outside of the double lines, including the (optional) nomination of bloggers you wish to pass this experimental meme on to.

6) Post it to your blog!

Take the tests yourself yean and yaan

A Message To the Terrorists

2005-06-29T22:29:00.000-04:00

We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens - and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there.
We will fight them here.
We will fight them anywhere.

We will fight them in a house.
We will fight them with a mouse.
We will fight them on a boat.
We will fight them with a goat.

We will fight them in the rain.
We will fight them on a train.
We will fight them in a box.
We will fight them with a fox.

We will fight them in a tree.
We will not let them be.
We will fight them with from afar.
We will fight them in a car.

We will fight them in a heap.
We will fight them in our sleep.
We will fight them wearing pink.
We will fight them while we drink.

We will fight them on the floor.
We will fight them at the store.
We will fight them while we smile.
We will fight them till it goes out of style.

And then we’ll bomb France.

My Traffic's About To Take Another Hit.

2005-06-28T01:30:00.000-04:00

Burning 286 little American flags is a more arduous process than I thought it would be, especially in this suffocating heat. And it turns out the kind of little flags you buy at CVS at 4 per pack are a bit flame retardant. But with enough lighter fluid you can pretty much burn anything. Everyone seems to think I'm a dipshit for doing this. My dad thinks that sending the ashes to Congressmen is about the stupidest fucking thing he's ever heard of. My mom thinks I'm going to get my self killed, and while she understands the sweltering stupidity of the other much better than I do, I still imagine she's overreacting. Meanwhile my psychiatrist thinks I'm mentally ill. Apparently I'm the one with poor judgement and a fetishist for symbolism. But fuck it. You just can't negotiate with terrorists. Some people just don't get that.

Anyway the immediacy of blogging sometimes makes you want to rush certain projects, you're better off taking your time and properly crafting. So that's what I'm gonna do. And since the fourth of July is right around the corner, I'll think save the ultimate flag burning post for that occasion.

Meanwhile, I've already got to figure out how to convince some underaged girl to get an abortion she wasn't intending on having. I'm beginning to regret that fucking post.

What Would Would Roger B. Taney Do?

2005-06-28T00:50:00.000-04:00

I haven't read this Grokster decision. I probably won't. I'm not that interested. But if Yglesias is correct in his summary, then this decision is pretty fucked. This has got to be the most fucked up decision since like Dred Scot or something, but less heinous. But still, stupid. The marketing? How fucked is that? Let's do a little thought experiment with the following hypothetical ad campaigns.

"Want to castrate that sweaty drunk that you stupidly married while he sleeps? Why not use a Bowie?"

"Our Rope is so sturdy, you can hang a 300 pound nigger with it."

"With our snazzy digital camera you can get the highest res pics of you raping your daughter and it's so easy to use even your stupid wife can work it."

"Chemical X. Even better than Zyklon B... but shh.. don't tell the you know who's"

"Whether you need a clean close shave for that early morning job interview or you need to slash your wrists after getting fired, you can trusst Gilette to get the job done."

"Having trouble getting laid? We're here to help... with Sleeping Pills. Just slip a couple in her drink fellas, and wait your turn."

"Use our cool-assed file sharing to listen to music for free and cut into corporate profits."

Which one of these marketing schemes can be used as evidence in a lawsuit against the products creator?

Kevin Drum says the law would take a "dim view" of all of them, but I think he's just pretty fucked in the head. It's not legal repercussions that prevent these from being the commercials you watch between snippets of Tom Cruise's latest departure from sanity, it's the fact that these aren't very good ways to sell these products. The creators produce the mersh, while the ad men figure out how to sell it. This decision is bullshit.

Here's some links to people who probably bothered to read the decision. Be forewarned though, most of them are the sort of people who you'd feel comfortable discussing legal issues with in polite company.

Slashdot
Volokh
SCOTUSBlog
More SCOTUSBlog
Fucking Guess

Unrelated to Grokster, but someone should really motherfuck Nike right where they breathe.

An Insightful and Thought Provoking Review of Lynne Cheney's Sisters

2005-06-27T02:43:00.000-04:00

Lynne Cheney's Sisters is the second best novel I've read by a vice-president's wife. The best would be Embrace the Serpent coauthored by Marilyn Quayle and her sister Nancy Northcott, which was a political thriller about the assasination of Fidel Castro. I read it a long time ago and enjoyed it. I thought it was at least as good as anything I had read by Tom Clancy or Sidney Sheldon. That may not be saying much since I'm really not a fan of that particular genre. Also I was in my early teens at the time and I liked all sorts of crap back then.

That said, Sisters is both better and worse than I thought it might be. I have a lot of ambivalence about criticizing novels. It's a form of expression that I hold in very high esteem. And while it's often funny in a watching a drooling retard trip over his untied shoelaces sort of way to ridicule the failures of others. With few exceptions I don't take much joy in it. Treating with utter disregard and contempt the hard work of someone who attempted to satisfy some deep ambition of his, and bring something into existence from his own creative impulse is not behavior that I condone. More people should write novels. And I choose not to be the heckling simian tossing his feces at the earnest efforts of those who get off their ass and do it regardless of how it suits my own particular tastes. So I'm sorry to disappoint if you were hoping for a good laugh at Lynne Cheney's expense here. My respect for her efforts prevents me from endulging that impulse. But there is something constructive about criticism as well, both for the author and the audience, and in that vein I hope to proceed.

First of all, the notion that this is some kind of tawdry, erotic tale is completely wrong to my utter disappointment. There is one sex scene in the whole book, and it lasts about two paragraphs, and is mostly left to the imagination. There is no titillation. Not once during the entire tale did I get an erection or have even the slightest urge to masterbate. Also, the belief that the book is filled with lesbianism isn't really true. At least not in the sense of the clit-lapping torridness of the lesbianism that I'm familiar with. No, this is about love between women that is "pure," on a higher spiritual plane that transcends primal inclinations toward sexual gratification, or at least purports to be:

"Oh, doubtless such convictions dictated limits one could not go beyond without destroying the myth. There could be no tearing off one's clothes and lustily hopping into bed, not if one would preserve the love-religion. But the loving words and the warm embrace were permitted, and the kiss before sleep, the arousal gentle enough so that its nature would not have to be acknowledged."

As this passage rather clearly asserts, we aren't talking about overtly physical, sexual lesbianism. It's a lesbianism of endlessly delayed gratification and without consummation.

Another preconcieved notion about this novel is that it thoroughly embraces feminism. It's a bit ambiguous here. I can't place myself in the context of 1981, so I can't assess how it would have struck people when it was published. I would observe that a lot has changed in the intervening years. Politics has become virulently infused with attitudes that are starkly contrary to some of the ideas expressed in this book, but if this is terribly feminist by the standards of 1981, then feminism has gotten much more ambitious.

The story revolves around Sophie Dymond, a successful publisher of a ladies magazine who returns to 1880's Wyoming to visit her dying grandfather and learn more about her sister who died under mysterious circumstances the year before. She becomes involved with her sister's widowed husband, and finds herself targeted by a group of "cattle barons" engaged in a bit of vigilante "justice" with homesteaders trying to eke out a living for themselves, and along the way she comes to understand and find common ground with the frigid zealots of the temperance movement.

A few things are abundantly clear. One: Cheney did her research on the era. Two: She doesn't write very well. Three: She makes an effort to present human complexity in all of it's shades of grey, trying to present characters in context and to understand their motivations.

I won't make the mistake of attributing the views of Sophie Dymond to Mrs. Cheney, but Sophie and her views are written in a sympathetic light, and Sophie likes to editorialize about society and her interactions, especially with women. It may be a leap to conclude that Cheney is therefore sympathetic to the views expressed by Sophie, but it would probably be a reasonable leap to take.

Sophie, through James her sister's widower and another fount of wisdom, realizes that male society sees two types of women: one, ladies deserving protection and regard, and two, "squaws" - whores and minorities. Sophie comes to understand, through her interactions with the temperance movement, that these ladies are frigid man-haters disgusted by sex except for its procreative functions. They view sex itself as appealling to base and primitve impulses and they are orthodoxically opposed to contraception as something that is unnatural and against humanity's higher spiritual nature.

This put Sophie somewhere between the ladies of the temperance movement and the "squaws," explicitly so because of her quarter indian blood. She embodies the male fantasy of the madonna-whore. She enjoys sex as an end to itself, and embraces the use of contraception, but she is still a lady by societies standards, afforded the dignity that the squaw is not, and capable of being on the arm of a gentlemen in polite company.

This where the feminism of the book seems not so terribly ambitious. It seems to, while endorsing the notion that women are sexual beings, accept that this should be sublimated in a woman's public facade. It's okay to enjoy sex in private, but in public a mask of "class" should be adorned. While she comes to understand the point of view of those in the temperance movement, their rigid moralizing and disdain for men, she ultimately does not agree with them about much of anything. She recognizes that while humans do have a higher spiritual nature, that we also have a darker, more primitve impulse as well. This temperance movement, further, seems to have more in common with today's movement of fundamentalist evangelicals than it does with feminism.

Ultimately, I'm not entirely comfortable with calling this book feminist unless you believe that feminism is a sort of man-hatred fueled by the belief that men are primitives enslaved by their impulses, while endorsing certain societally constructed pedestals for women. But Cheney does draw attention to and illustrate the rough conditions a woman on the western plains in 19th Century America found herself in, the drunken husbands, the frontier, and the violence. And she does seem to take the issues seriously and grapple with them sincerely. And though I have my doubts about Cheney's allegiance to feminims, it would be presumptuous to assume she would place ideological needs above artistic ones, that she would place a belief of her own above the immediate needs of creating a realistic character that suited the purposes of the novel, which would seem to include a weird understanding of spousal rape.

Another aspect of the novel, which hasn't garnered much comment, is the ongoing feud between the cattle barons and the homesteaders and how this feud takes place in the sort of lawlessness of the western plains. At times you feel like Ms. Cheney is doing her best to provide a fair account of the context and motivations involved, but other times you get the sense that she's trying to construct a defense of the horrible means used by the rich to subjugate the struggling classes. Ultimately, I can't give her too much of a benefit of the doubt on this score. She gives a very sympathetic portrayal of the cattle barons, a sort of aristocracy who own the law, who intimidate and harass the homesteaders at will, burning down their houses, and even lyniching one to set an example. This is set as a battle for the future, where man's higher spiritual nature imbued in the cattle barons who represent culture and class by bringing an opera house and universities to the frontier are set against the homesteaders, violent drunks who live in shacks with unmarried whores amidst all of the dissolution and depravity that you can imagine.

Cheney, further seems to have no interest in holding these cattle barons accountable for the evil they unleash. They hire a private investigator form Pinkerton or somesuch named Rodman who does their dirty work while the cattle barons can keep their hands clean. Cheney goes along with the illusion. Rodman is just another tiny, evil man, of primitive nature completely independant of the cattle baron's responsibility for his actions. This is not wholly surprising, but the twisted lengths to which a twisted mind will go to justify the most barbaric actions in the name of progress is.

Finally, my conclusion, as a consumer, is that I really can't say that this book is worth reading independant of the curiousity aspect of its author being who she is. The story does hold you and keep you curious to discover the truth behind the developing secrets, and it's engaging in its own way, but, and I'll avoid cheap shots here, the writing is really rather bad by novel standards and ill suited to the medium. It makes it more of a chore to read than a pleasure. But it's not as bad as I was lead to believe. In terms of masterbatory merit, it wasn't as good as I was lead to believe either though.

Many thanks to Henrietta for lending me her copy, and my sincere apologies for holding on to it for so long.

I Would Have Never Guessed

2005-06-25T20:12:00.000-04:00

You're Steve Albini of Big Black, Shellack, and
Rapeman!!! You're about as nerdy as they come,
and you've been through hell because of it.
Well, now your an angsty, spiteful, little guy,
who's art is fuelled by the desire to piss
people off, as well as to expose the truth
behind society's most heinous ills. This makes
for some charged, fantastic, emotionally
tortured music, but may also distance you from
any potential relationships.

Which Post-Punk icon are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Such an Unholy Mess of a Girl

2005-06-24T15:32:00.000-04:00

At Pandagon and Feministe, they're discussing the demise of female characters in romantic comedies attributed mostly to corporate control of the creative process. Someone somewhere amidst all the links wrote this:

"Romantic comedy heroines aren’t characters anymore, they’re tranquilizers. They provide exactly what love does not, in a way it wouldn’t if it did. They’re designed to fan the fantasies, soothe the disappointment and calm the frayed nerves that come later. And to do that, they must be built to specifications"

This is a phenomenon I suppose I first noticed after watching the Tao of Steve, a kind of funny movie, that really wasn't very good, but for some reason had a brief moment of indie acclaim that I could never really figure out. The hardest thing for me to fathom about this movie was why the Dex character was so enthralled with the woman he fell in love with. She was a bland, personality-less non-entity indistinguishable from the line of women who came before her in Dex's life. Whatever possibly could have distinguished her in the mind of Dex when she would so easily have been lost in your typical crowded singles bar completely escaped me. Of course, she was nothing more than a narrative prop. The story was about this Dex character, the love interest was of no real consequence, and I'm guessing there's some kind of moral behind the whole thing. And I'm guessing it's the kind of moral that I'd be inclined to abhor, and which ultimatey made the enterprise indistinguishable from the kind of complacent mainstream trash this flick was held up as a departure from. All that aside, I can't help but think it would have been a richer, better story and Dex would have been a deeper more interesting character, had the makers of that movie bothered to create a female character for him to fall in love with, as opposed to a bland generic plot device.

And I can't help but think there's something completely unjust about a world where I'm doing this lame ass blog shit, while Donal Logue's getting paid to be stupid on sitcoms and going on VH1 to tell unfunny jokes about people more famous than he is. But we soldier on.

Anyway, I don't really know how far back this trend of attempting to capture the vague notion of the female platonic mold goes. And undoubtedly there are exceptions. But I'd wager most of those exceptions are movies that are based on books, and not really a result of the corporate process from beginning to end. And of course it's neither realistic nor really even disirable for every movie to have achieved some idealized feminist notion of womanhood. One could object to aspects of Annie Hall if one was inclined, but at least she was a real character, and not merely a foil for Woody Allen's personal journey. And certainly there are crappy movies with solid female characters. As Good As it Gets I'm looking at you.

A commenter at Pandagon, named Elena, pointed out that the Farrelly brothers often have pretty solid female characters. As much as I personally hated her, one could understand how someone else might feel there really was something about Cameron Diaz. And I think Kevin Smith has been pretty solid in this department too, despite the fact that his movies have gotten progressively more wretched. It's much harder to think of a movie that's an exception that's definitively in the category known as a chick flick. And it really hasn't been that long since I've seen a "chick flick" either. I think the problem there is that all of the characters, both male and female tend to be rather lifeless approximations of what someone might like to imagine they'd want to be like. Read that last sentence again if you need to. I can't be bothered to make the thought any more clear.

But however far back the trend goes, and for whatever reason that it stopped, there was a time, in the era of the screwball comedy, where you got to see female characters who could go toe to toe with any man in terms of intelligence, wit, et cetera, who weren't foils any more than the male characters were. And I'm not just saying this just because I'm admittedly gay for Cary Grant, but watch His Girl Friday, or the Philadelphia Story, and you'll wonder where such female characters disappered to in the romantic genre. I might posit that they were all swept into the post war femme fatale mold, but that's too simple an explanation really. Whatever the reason it's a shame movies forgot how to write lines like this:

"George Kittredge: You're like some marvelous, distant, well, queen, I guess. You're so cool and fine and always so much your own. There's a kind of beautiful purity about you, Tracy, like, like a statue.
Tracy Lord: George...
George Kittredge: Oh, it's grand, Tracy. It's what everybody feels about you. It's what I first worshipped you for from afar.
Tracy Lord: I don't want to be worshipped. I want to be loved.

...

Macaulay Connor: Tracy.
Tracy Lord: What do you want?
Macaulay Connor: You're wonderful. There's a magnificence in you, Tracy.
Tracy Lord: Now I'm getting self-conscious. It's funny. I - Mike? Let's...
Macaulay Connor: Yeah?
Tracy Lord: I don't know - go up, I guess, it's late.
Macaulay Connor: A magnificence that comes out of your eyes, in your voice, in the way you stand there, in the way you walk. You're lit from within, Tracy. You've got fires banked down in you, hearth-fires and holocausts.
Tracy Lord: I don't seem to you made of bronze?
Macaulay Connor: No, you're made out of flesh and blood. That's the blank, unholy surprise of it. You're the golden girl, Tracy. Full of life and warmth and delight. What goes on? You've got tears in your eyes. "

-- The Philadelphia Story (1940)

"Everything I Needed And I Wanted, Used To Be That My Head Was Haunted"

2005-06-24T15:18:00.000-04:00

A lady friend 400 miles away sent me this as part of an email today:

"
'In an otherwise excellent public zoo. Due to this lethary nothing much educational has happened. Everywhere you turn is a traffic jam in kl.We dont think she has but then Also keep in mind that lak of support can and does benefit women children and society in general. Ive sat in a long line of slow-moving cars in every car ride ive taken in kl this trip starting with the bus ride in from singapore.Thats why its nt mentioned at the zoo. We came across the statue on the left. Each man in his time plays many parts.Daddy and Lori and made are married and kai is their son.Were made t run through the show twice too many errors the first time plus all the dancers were having professional portraits taken. Jay and me to play the tingklik a traditional balinese instrument that looks like a bamboo xylophone.
She has picked it up amazingly quickly andHe and made have a clothing store.Oongie and Only onder how it is that mr fidler believes that a pot bellied hindu god with four arms and the head of a one-tusked elephant riding a mouse has been proven through the scientific method? Although thats pretty unpleasant on its own.Only wonder how it is tht mr fidler believes that a pot bellied hindu god with four arms and the head of a one-tusked elephant riding a mouse has been proven through the scientific method and intelligent design has not been proven to the point that it belongs at an institution like the tulsa zoo. Its kind of the balinese equivalent of malaysian economy rice one covers a plate of rice and covers it with whatever dishes he wants.Each man in his tim plays many parts. Denise now runs the three monkeys restaurant in ubud. Nyoman and kai re-taught us a song that we learned seven years ago.April is also thoroughly enjoying lumpy ood apart from breakfast which she never seems that keen on. All the worlds a stage and she continued with.'

i love the text they include in spam porn e-mails. where else would one read about singapore zoos, malaysian cuisine, balinese xylophones, hindu gods, and even a little shakespeare in between imbedded pictures of some white trash chick with a huge black cock up her ass and another in her mouth?

god bless america. "

And that sound you hear is the slightest pang in my tinny heart. Sometimes life really really sucks. And that sometimes bums me out. But I gotta keep my head up, amidst the broken dreams and broken hearts, and all the high hats I get along the way, and keep on hoping. Things have gotta start turning up J pretty soon.

That's When I Reach For My Revolver

2005-06-24T12:21:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court, with Kelo, once again rather nicely illustrates why I wouldn't exactly like to see a Supreme Court composed of 9 William Brennan's, or whoever your liberal hero of jurisprudence is. As nice as those decisions on criminal rights, abortion, and other things might be, that court would completely fuck up the commerce clause and issue rulings like Kelo giving local governments the power to take your home in order to build a Walmart. But of course guys like Yglesias understand that it won't be his home, and there's a good possibility that a store either he or his future wife might like to shop in will be built.

And as an aside, I agree with most of what Yglesias wrote in that post. And I'm not convinced entirely that the Court came down the wrong way on the merits here. But even so, in context, even if they got it right, this decision doesn't put me in the mood to pop open some champagne.

But to get back to the larger point. There are indeed whole areas of the law where the conservative bloc has better instincts and where the "liberal" bloc is just wallowing in patent douchebaggery. What's astonishing is that it's all so predictable. In order to understand privacy rights and individual liberties, do you really have to completely forsake any semblance of regard for federalism and property rights? On some of these issues you'd really either have to be a communist, or in an example of really strange bedfellows, the owners of the means of production, to like these decisions. Sandra Day O'Connor's been looking better and better lately. And maybe just maybe, with a little luck on Bush appointing the right justices, a few vacancies in the next couple of years wouldn't be such a bad thing, after all.

Completely unrelated, but this does not bother me at all.

When You've Had Enough and You Just Want to Get Some Sleep

2005-06-24T00:59:00.000-04:00

So this past week has been Orgasm Amnesty Week, which as near as I can tell is all about women discussing their craft. This whole orgasm faking thing is a rather difficult thing to get at the reality of. It's like whether penis size matters. Every woman tells you something different, and you have no idea if the woman you are listening to has some kind of hidden agenda, whether it be inflating someone's ego or the opposite, or something else entirely. I'd imagine women take some pleasure in obscuring the truth. Anyway, I don't know how many women have faked it with me. Most of them don't seem to bother. But then again, maybe they do bother sometimes, and other times they're too lazy. I can only speculate. My best guess is that I've got an okay batting average. I only know of one time that a woman definitively faked it with me. It was upsetting, not so much for the bruised ego reasons, but because of the dishonesty of it, especially with regard to something as important as sex. In hindsight I can understand her perspective though. Water under the bridge and all that.

I myself have attempted to fake it on two occasions. And in neither instance was I successful at fooling anyone. Both times occurred when I was really drunk and tired. We had been going at it a while, and honestly I was at a point where I was more frustrated than aroused. Exhausted, I felt more like sleeping and picking things up in the morning than I did with executing pro forma obligations. The first time was with a young lady from Detroit I had met a few hours earlier. I tried to tense up for a few seconds, then climbed off and removed the condom, etc. We relaxed on the bed, and I really don't know what was running through her mind. I know she couldn't have possibly wanted any more dick after all we had been through, but she certainly wasn't going to let me go to sleep without getting me off. Somehow, I think she figured that that would reflect poorly on her part. One can make a lot of jokes about bruising a man's ego. And I'm not one to generalize. But judging based on this experience, it seems like women have more than enough ego invested in sexual performance as well, and abject failure is completely unacceptable. So back into the fray I was drawn. An orgasm was had. And all these years later, I can't say it's made any difference.

The second time was with a girl I was kinda "dating" sortof. It wasn't serious or anything, and it didn't last very long, but I was comfortable enough with her to go with the pull out and pray method. It's plausible she was on the pill or something. To this day, I have no idea, but even if she was, I'd still prefer to pull out and shoot a few creamy ropes over her tan nubile body. That's kinda my thing. So at this point, a sort of precedent had been set. There were expectations and all. So you can imagine the difficulties I faced with the prospect of trying to fake it in this situation, especially when I hadn't been even close to effective when I had had the benefit of a condom to help Camouflage the deception. I really don't want to go into what I was stupid enough to think would make this girl think I had came in these circumstances. It's humiliatingly silly. Unsurprisingly it didn't work. But this time she didn't make me finish the job. She just went to sleep angry and pouting, not letting me touch her. Which was fine with me. Because I didn't really care. And I was tired. The next day, she woke up with something to prove. Which was nice.

So those are my two stories for Orgasm Amnesty week. I can't really figure out how to wrap this up. But hopefully you enjoyed it. And if not, feel free to pretend like you did.

Maybe They Thought I Was Kidding

2005-06-24T00:34:00.000-04:00

I level many threats in the course of a day. Often they're hard to keep track of. Sometimes they're just about impossible to make good on. But just for the record, if I go to the trouble of threatening the entire legislative branch of the federal government, well, chances are pretty good that I'll go to the trouble of keeping that threat. Not that there are a lot of similiar incidents to make definitive conclusions upon. But in this particular instance, I have gone to the trouble of purchasing 286 little American flags. I've scheduled some time on Monday for a good burning session, when I'll have a digital camera at my disposal. Hopefully I'll be able to host some picutres of flag burning in action. I'm also working on a draft of the letter I'll be writing to each of the Congressmen recieving his own envelope of flag ashes. It's still in a nebulous embryonic stage, but it'll more or less revolve around these lines: "In reality, I know you don't care about the flag any more than I do. You're just cynically gesturing to the ignorant throng with empty symbolism. Still, I take unreasonable joy in offending the sensibilities of normal, decent people. When I can do it for what I consider a good cause, well, that's just fucking gravy."

When all is said and done, hopefully, I'll have a worthwhile post.

A Pretty Good Polish Joke

2005-06-22T13:46:00.000-04:00

If you pay attention to what's going on in the rest of the world, and like a typical American I don't, then you would know about the anti free trade element in France's (not code for freedom in this context my Chinese friends) disdain for Polish plumbers. Well it looks like Poland has fashioned a response. And as near as I can tell, they're calling France a bunch of fags. Hilarious.

Via Tom G. Palmer