Hey, hey, what do you say (Alito hearings)

Firedoglake has a good entry with the observation that, for obvious reasons,

One issue that was clearly on the minds of everyone yesterday (With the exception of Tom Coburn who pretty much only thought about abortion...no litmus test here...) was that of an Imperial Presidency, restoration of separation of powers, and where Judge Alito would come down on issues that are almost certain to make their way to the Supreme Court in the next few years. With Alito's history of deference to Executive power, this is shaping up to be a tough day of questioning today.

ETA: Bob Geiger quotes People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas on Alito's membership in the "Concerned Alumni of Princeton."

“The question for senators to consider – and to ask – is why Samuel Alito would brag about his membership in an organization known for its fervent hostility to the inclusion of women and minorities at Princeton...What does it tell us about his approach to issues like equal opportunity? Even a preliminary review of CAP’s history demonstrates that it waged a campaign to turn back the clock at Princeton with ferocious zeal. If Alito were to bring CAP’s values to the Supreme Court, he would help turn back the clock in America.”

Say! (UPDATED w/additions)

Update: In a related post, Josh Marshall talks about another little problem the Republican establishment is going to have in "cleaning up the neighborhood," namely:

When you want to clean up the neighborhood, there's generally very little you can accomplish until you get the actual criminals off the streets. Once that's done, you can knock down the abandoned buildings, reseed the park, refound the neighborhood watch organization, whatever.

But the true, immediate and overriding problem with a crime-infested neighborhood is the criminals.

Congress, and thus the country, faces a similar predicament.

The talk of the day now in DC is 'lobbying reform', which Mark Schmitt aptly pillories over at TPMCafe. We may need new laws to curb the power moneyed interests now have over policy-making. In fact, I think we do.

But that's not the problem in Washington.

If you want to see what Josh thinks is the problem in Washington, read Talking Points Memo.

Original post: You know how bloggers like Digby, Bob Geiger, Julia and me, to say nothing of our man Howard Dean, have been hitting the fact that the Abramoff mess is not bipartisan, but a scandal owned by the Republicans lock, stock, etc?

Turns out somebody agrees with us. Somebody named Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review.

The Abramoff Scandal (R., Beltway)
It’s the Republicans, stupid.

...The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.

Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.

Republicans must take the scandal seriously and work to clean up in its wake.

Of course, he had to throw in a paragraph reassuring his audience that the right is behaving well and self-correctingly in this matter. As opposed to "the left's lickspittle loyalty to Bill Clinton, whose maintenance in power many liberals put above any of their principles."

Or maybe it was just that among our principles is the idea that a President should not be impeached for something that should have been a private matter between him and his family. But putting that aside, this is a mostly-honest editorial-and one that works nicely into the continuing theme that I've been working on here.

Hey, Democrats! If you don't start making moves to show that you "take the scandal seriously and work to clean up in its wake"...the Republicans are going to do it for you, get all the credit, and claim a just reward in November.

Now will you stop listening to the Joe Liebermans?

ETA: Digby posts about the same editorial, and expands on some of the points I made above, at greater length and with arguably greater words. He's less convinced than I (or maybe I should say not so afraid) that the Republicans will be able to come out of this clean as a whistle.

This Republican party is crooked. And despite what George Will says, it's not because of big government. Government spending has exploded under the allegedly "small government" Republicans while delivering less and less to average Americans. They have proven that they are completely full of shit on that issue and anyone who votes for them on that basis is an idiot. Judging by their performance the only things they actually care about are padding their own pockets and protecting their own power. If there are a hoard of "reform" Republicans out there who have been objecting to this pillaging of the treasury, they haven't exactly been speaking up. All I've heard is "praise God and pass the contributions."

In addition, he responds to the 'graph about Clinton thus:

...both the Republican president and the invertebrate Republican congress have engaged in or silently acquiesced to blatant graft and corruption for years while the Democrats impotently screamed into the void. The party was keeping the seat warm for months while the majority leader remained under indictment. They changed the rules so that an indicted leader could keep his seat until the public outcry forced them to retreat, for crying out loud, and then they launched a grassroots campaign to defend him.

So...who put "maintenance in power...above any of their principles?"

Et tu, Joe?

Joe Scarborough is on the short (and getting shorter every day) list of right-wing louts I could learn to like. He's just easier to take than most. But, he's also appearing on television to discuss Abramoff...while failing to mention that when he was a congressman, he took Abramoff's money.

Oh Joe, Joe, Joe...whoops.

If anyone needs me, I'll be in a cheap hotel room with a homeless Hungarian laying down tracks on a synthisizer

For those of you with Showtime, they've started showing episodes of Huff again, presumably to ramp up for the second season. For my money, this is the best and yet most underrated of the networks attempts to compete with HBO in the original drama series sweepstakes. Masters of Horror comes close, but that's an anthology orange to a continuing series apple.

I've only seen one episode of Weeds but it didn't seem like much-and how relived are you that I didn't say "it didn't grow on me?" And as for The L Word...well, one of these days I'm going to build up a head of steam about that series and it's all going to explode into a post here...for now, suffice it to say, Huff is superior in all ways.

I knew there was a reason I loved Toby

From the Daily Record, via a post to the Aaron Sorkin Yahoo! Group, Richard Schiff on "West Wing":

"I've been wanting to leave for a while. I love it. I love everyone on it. At times I think it was the best show on television. But it's different now, and it's been different for a few years. I'm sure whoever owns it might want to make some more money on it or, out of pride, see where it goes with a new administration. But it's not my 'West Wing,' so I don't have any interest in it. I don't want to do it without John Spencer."

Preach, Richard.

Why, god, why? Why do you hate me?

Why are you taking Sweeney Todd, one of the boldest experiments and greatest achivements of Stephen Sondheim (an artist I identify with and am thankful for year after year and first among his generation) and putting it in the hands of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp?

Burton is a "director" whom I loathe with the heat of a thousand suns; Depp is an actor who is completely wrong for the part and whose vocal skills are a complete question mark. So really: Why, god, why? Did I desecrate a shrine or something?

Ladies and gentlemen, Howard "boom-boom" Dean

During the '04 campaign, the candidate I probably agreed with most was Howard Dean, but I never quite warmed to him personally. I had trouble getting on board with him on that basis. He may or may not make an attractive candidate again (though I'd be inclined to take another look in '08), but as Democratic Party Chairman he has been absolutely kicking ass.

All the things the damn innocuous "sensible" Democrats hate about him are exactly the things that I love about him. Go read this excerpted transcript from his appearance with Wolf Blitzer. I'll quote some brief passages just to whet your appetite but seriously, go, read.

These people are not qualified. They haven't served themselves; they don't know what it takes. They ought to protect our troops. Our troops are doing a hell of a job and they deserve better leadership in Washington than what they're getting.

This president has lacked credibility almost from the day he took office because of the way he took office.

He's not reached out to other people. He's shown he's willing to abuse his power. He's not consulted others. And he's not interested in consulting any others.

And I think, frankly, that Joe [Lieberman] is absolutely wrong, that it is incumbent on every American who is patriotic and cares about their country to stand up for what's right and not go along with the president, who is leading us in a wrong direction.

Now that, my friends, is a fighting Democrat. Sometimes it seems most of them have forgotten what one looks like.

Ah, Tom DeLay...

Quoted verbatim and in toto from Joshua Micah Marshall:

Remember, Tom DeLay is still out telling everyone that the only thing that brought him down was a meritless indictment from a partisan Democrat. Today, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his request to have that supposedly meritless indictment tossed out.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is made up of nine judges. Each one elected. Each one a Republican.

Hallelujah

The good people of Truth Ministries in SC have put up a billboard asking,

Are you Gay or Lesbian and don't want to be? There's HOPE for change.

"It kind of rubbed me the wrong way. They portrayed homosexuality as being a choice. I don't believe it is," said Stacey Haney, an 18-year-old lesbian and business administration major at the University of South Carolina Upstate.

(Keitha: I wonder which way she'd prefer to be rubbed?)
(Annabel: Stop it.)
(Keitha: Eighteen, hmmmmm?)
(Annabel: Honey...)

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

One of these days I'm just going to go Hulk on the asses of Joe Klein and Kevin Drum, and every other pundit or Liberal who says

Democrats are heading off a cliff by making too big a deal out of the NSA's domestic spying program

No they're not.

and--

the NSA program itself is quite likely a reasonable response to 9/11

NO IT ISN'T.

I'm so fucking sick of the people who purport to speak to and for us I could vomit. Or if not vomit, then go riot in the streets and not come back until I have at least two heads on pikes.

We're on the road to nowhere

Credit: ReddHedd at firedoglake, who has an almost completely unrelated entry, but I just loved the picture.

I've been thinking about comedy teams a little bit; mainly because I got Jerry Lewis' book about him & Dean from the library.

There's a post working it's way through my mind about what style of show business I think each man represents. And the style in which I want to be.

But that's Dean & Jerry, and that's another post. The Hope & Croby Road movies (my favorites: Morocco and Singapore) were sexy and breezy and easy.

By the time I became aware of Bob Hope he was already the living embodiment of the military-industrial complex (I had a similar problem with Frank Sinatra).

It was only through his radio shows and films like these that I came to appreciate him. And how the hell can anything be wrong when Bing sings? He and Hope may not have been the best of friends off-camera, but who can deny how well they worked together in front of it?

I'm standing out here freezing and this guy's giving me proverbs

Oscar Levant: There is a thin line between genius and insanity.
I have erased this line.

In one picture, Reese Witherspoon loses all the ground she's gained with her performance as June Carter Cash in Walk the Line

...at least with me.

I mean first of all, somebody needs to feed that girl. And second...red leather? Really?

Like clockwork

As was probably to be expected, one or two movie theater chains are refusing to show the film "Brokeback Mountain." One in Salt Lake City:

The theater is owned by Larry H. Miller Group of Companies. The manager of the Megaplex refused to say why the film had been cancelled. A Miller spokesperson did not return calls.

...The decision by Miller Group to drop the film came a day after another chain suddenly decided not to show the movie in Poulsbo, Washington. The Regal multiplex movie theater ran ads for "Brokeback Mountain" in Thursday's edition of the Kitsap Sun newspaper and was promoting pre-sale tickets at the theater.

But when people went to the theater posters had been removed and the film was not available.

And where is the Regal chain based?

All together now, say it with me, children...

All right!

You longtime readers may recall what I think of the Alito nomination. I think it must be fought; I think he means to repeal Roe v. Wade and is otherwise well out of the mainstream. But that, of course, doesn't mean that he doesn't have a more appealing, classy, and less smarmy side.

Case in point.

Privacy

Hullabaloo has a good post on some recent revelations. Quoting a Political Cortex story:

As it hunted down tax scofflaws, the Internal Revenue Service collected information on the political party affiliations of taxpayers in 20 states.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a member of an appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the IRS, said the practice was an “outrageous violation of the public trust” that could undermine the agency’s credibility.

That's my Senator, BTW, and by and large I'm proud. She's no "Bagdad" Jim McDermott, but who is? Digby adds:

I have long thought that privacy is a potent issue for Democrats and all these nasty revelations about Republican snooping and interefering in people's personal decisions just make it more so. With the exception of a few sincere Goldwaterites who have all passed on, the libertarian strain in the Republican party was always just a simple cultural appeal on guns and taxes. History shows that they clearly favor big government that serves their corporate special interests and are more than willing to use the full force of the state at their discretion. (This is most vividly demonstrated by the new presidential infallibility doctrine on one hand and Terry Schiavo on the other.)

He then quotes some research on what rights the American people believe to be crucial and notes:

You'll notice that the right to privacy is considered more crucial than some other rights that are explicitly written into the Bill of Rights. (You'll also notice that number one [the right to vote itself] is not a right...Too bad the press was so busy handwringing about preganant chads that it didn't bother to discuss that fact in any depth.)

And, this time quoting our man John at Americablog:

Anyone can buy a list of your incoming and outgoing phone calls, cell or land-line, for $110 online.

Digby's conclusion:

I support the idea of Democrats introducing a constitutional amendment to codify a right to privacy once and for all. I have heard some say that we should not do this because people will then realize that we don't already have that right. I think that's weak. The only people who are currently concerned with that argument in any practical sense are judges and they understand the issue very well. This is about taking a public stand and fighting for something that most Americans, not just Democrats, believe in and care about.

I think he's right.

I am frightened I’m a liar and I’m tortured by desire

Pam writes in her Blend that:

There are so many dreadful lesbian films out there -- some that I've seen at the Gay and Lesbian film festival have been laughably bad

And here I am with a script for a lesbian-themed romantic comedy that, damnit, I think is pretty wonderful if I do say so myself. And I don't know how to sell it. I don't even know if I want to, even though-literally-my first image of Keitha & Colley ever was to see them on a big screen.

But the process it takes to get them there means they would have to pass through so many hands. If just one person gets it wrong, say, oh I don't know, an amateur director or diva actor...

Having made it through Tennessee (but not unchanged)...I don't want to know how it would make me feel to see someone hurt these characters/this story. Aw, screw it, I don't even know why I'm blogging about this...except that I've been having a real bad week in terms of shaken confidence. Confidence that my script is any good or that even if it is, I'll be able to sell it.

I am frightened I'm a liar, that it's not, that I'm not, as good as I think it is/I am. And I'm tortured by desire because all I want to do is get these characters and their relationships and their story out of my head and into other people's.

The frustration between the two sometimes feels like it's grinding me to dust.

Be careful what you wish for, young man...

...you may surely get it. From TV critic Alan Sepinwall's What's Alan Watching blog:

Sounds to me like, at very least, Sorkin and Schlamme are coming back to write and direct the Leo farewell episode -- or, as one critic suggested to me after he got a look at the schedule, maybe they're just coming back to do the finale. Or they could be just one and the same.

I've got mixed feelings about this; on the one hand, if Sorkin does come back for such a send off, of course I'll be there with bells on. But as a writer (he said pretentiously), I can't imagine leaving characters I created and loved in the hands of someone else for years.

And then having to come back and write a story that honored both who they were...and what they have become. But Sorkin's a better writer than I am, so it may be just me.

Sometimes we find the songs we need...

...when we need them to nourish us. Case in point, this song by Carole King which is at the end of the first disc of the Love Rocks compilation in duet with k.d. lang. I've had the comp for almost a year, but this afternoon, listening to it (on shuffle) along with a CD I'm reviewing, it really hit me.

I've followed it with two lyrics or excerpts from lyrics that, for me, are connected to this one for reasons that may be personal or may be obvious.

Why do we isolate each other
All the walls we build between us
Make it so hard to be together

How can we tear at one another
When the thing we have in common
Is an uncommon love

Walls can fall, tears can mend
So why can't we reach across the line
And touch each other

Here on two sides of the truth
We've a middle ground in common
We have an uncommon love

Time can heal, hearts can mend
So why can't we reach across the line
And touch each other

When will we ever learn
That the thing we have in common
Is an uncommon love
We have an uncommon love
An uncommon love
--Carole King "An Uncommon Love."

First a glance, then a chance
To make a simple gesture worth it all
A conquer all, a desert storm
That serves a drink to people under this sun
This is the place, now is the time
To take in any other point of view
Some are inert but one exists
To build a bridge
It doesn't mean much now
It's built for the future
--The Fixx "Built For The Future"

Down there in the ashes
There's gold and silver too
Dear sister, I try to share with you

Smug, you said
Take your spoils away

And you broke the bridge on your side

You wither my trouble
And all I dream to do
With half-smiles
Until I scream at you

Mad, you said
That's how you repay

But you broke the bridge on your side

And where am I
As I swallow your tears
And the prince with the slipper appears
Do you hack at your heel
Do I try not to feel

I fail with my anger
And with my sympathy
I tremble - so little left for me

Harsh, you said
Now you walk away

But I left the gold for you to find

When you broke the bridge on your side
--Joe Jackson & Jane Siberry, "The Bridge"

Haven't linked to a E. J. Dionne Jr. column in a while...

So here's one via Julia, guestblogger at Hullabaloo.

Abramoff, who used to pall around with close Bush allies Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed in the College Republicans and who has been a central figure in the rise of Republican dominance in Washington, is not a lone wolf. He is a particularly egregious example of how the GOP's political-corporate-lobbying complex has overwhelmed the idealistic wing of the Republican Party.

According to an Oct. 15, 2003, story in Roll Call, Abramoff was one of a half-dozen lobbyists who raised $100,000 for Bush's 2000 campaign. When Bush was battling Al Gore's efforts to recount Florida's votes, Abramoff was there with the maximum $5,000 contribution Bush was taking for the effort. A September 2003 National Journal story noted that Abramoff was so confident he would meet his fundraising goals for the president's 2004 campaign that he was planning, as the lobbyist generously put it, "to try to help some other lobbyists meet their goals."

On an Oct. 15, 2003, CNBC broadcast, journalist Alan Murray asked Ed Gillespie, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, about fundraising by "people like Jack Abramoff, who represents Indian tribes here," and another lobbyist whose name I'll leave out because he has not been implicated in any scandals. "Are you going to sit here and tell us that their contributions to your party have nothing to do with their lobbying efforts in Washington?"

"I know Jack Abramoff," Gillespie replied. He mentioned the other lobbyist and insisted: "They are Republicans; they were Republicans before they were lobbyists. . . . I think they want to see a Republican reelected in the White House in 2004 more than anything."

Julia adds:

There's been quite a flurry of attempts to play this unholy mess as a bipartisan scandal (I particularly enjoyed [a] bizarrity from the ever Republican-friendly Gallop, where they make a valiant attempt to "prove" that corruption is a bipartisan problem for Congress in the wake of blanket news coverage of Mr. Abramoff's activities based on polls taken, um, a while ago).

It's not working, and we shouldn't let it work. That means, among other things, you might want to consider defending the Democrats. After all, individual lobbyists weren't making tens of millions of dollars selling both sides of the mall to anyone with money when we held them (pace the junior generation of the Boggs family). Maybe we should grab them back.

Broken Flowers

This movie is Bill Murray at his dryest, how much you like it will depend upon how much you like sitting with that; I'm mostly fine with it. I think of all the Second City/SNL graduates, he's been the most artistically succesful (not that it's been much of a horse race).

It's about Murray looking up old girlfriends to see which, if any, is the mother of the son he's just been told he has. It's enlivened by neatly understated performances by the supporting cast. One sequence in the film has at least one too many "inside" qualities to it, however.

Murray meets first an old flame's teenaged daughter, whose name is Lolita (of course) and exposes herself to him (of course). Her mother is played by Sharon Stone (of course) and her father is dead, explaining the flaunting (of course).

Stone, BTW, is surprisingly terrific in this; I haven't seen everything she's ever done, but I'm gonna out on a limb and say it's the first time she's played a recognizable human being in...forever.

In some ways it compliments Happy Endings, which was also, in part, about a search for a son (and no, I don't have a father, thanks for asking). But where that movie had a few too many characters spread too thin, this one doesn't do quite enough, for my taste, with the few it has.

Man oh man

Ever wonder what sort of behavior gets you placed on a "no-fly" list? Apparently...writing books critical of the Bush administration.

What do you mean if?

Democrats have said repeatedly they aren't planning to filibuster Alito, although they also have refused to promise to refrain from the stalling tactic on the federal appellate judge.

The final decision will be made after the hearings, said Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and one of the senators who will question Alito.

"If he's a mainstream conservative, if he doesn't use a court to impose his views on the American people, he's likely to get approved," Schumer said. But at the same time, the senator added, "if he is out of the mainstream and will use his tremendously powerful position as Supreme Court judge to impose his views on the American people, then there's a potential for a filibuster, and no one really knows that until the hearings."

Ugly, baby. Just righteously ugly.

Via The Raw Story:

January 5, 2006
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President:

We write to you regarding the National Security Agency's use of warrantless surveillance involving people in the United States. While we believe it is critical that communications with Al Qaeda representatives be scrutinized, it is also imperative that it be done in a manner that respects the law and the privacy rights of individuals in this country, and as has been done by prior Administrations.

As you know, since this program was first disclosed by The New York Times on December 16, 2005, it has caused a firestorm of controversy. Among other things, concerns have been raised that not only is the program constitutionally problematic; but also that it is inconsistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") and not authorized by any subsequently passed law (including the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force); it included within its sweep calls solely within the United States; the intelligence information was widely disseminated without adequate controls; and that it involved tapping into telecommunication data and voice networks, thereby intercepting a large volume of telephone and Internet communications. Concerns about the program were not only raised by Members of the Intelligence Committees and Members of the FISA Court (one of whom resigned in protest), but by then-Deputy Attorney General Comey and, reportedly, by then-Attorney General Ashcroft.

Perhaps the most significant concern many of us have is that such a program could be utilized with the Executive Branch acting in the role of attorney, judge, and jury in deciding whether or not the surveillance was justified or appropriate. This is particularly perplexing given the ease with which your and other Administrations have been able to obtain FISA warrants in the past, and the fact that such warrants can even be obtained on a retroactive basis.

Given the controversy and myriad legal concerns raised by the surveillance program, we would ask that you forward to us proposed statutory language authorizing the program so that the Members can consider the same as part of our review of those provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act scheduled to sunset on February 3, 2006.

In addition, so that we may better understand the nature of the program, we would ask that you forward to us the following:

Any and all legal opinions and memorandum concerning the lawfulness of the program

Any and all orders authorizing and reauthorizing the program

Any and all records and information indicating the number of U.S. persons for whom such surveillance was authorized

Any and all records and information indicating the number of U.S. persons for whom communication to or from them were intercepted

Any and all records and information indicating the number of intercepted communications occurring completely within the U.S.

Any and all records identifying any members of the U.S. press, other U.S. media or Members of Congress for whom communications to or from them were intercepted

Any and all records and information indicating how the information concerning U.S. persons was stored, shared among various agencies and departments, and whether, when and how such information is to be destroyed.

To the extent any of the above includes classified information, we would be willing to discuss a means by which certain information can be redacted.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Rep. John Conyers, Jr.; Rep. Bobby Scott; Rep. Lofgren; Rep. Nadler; Rep. Tauscher; Rep. Jackson Lee; Rep. McDermott; Rep. Meehan; Rep. Olver; Rep. Wexler; Rep. Inslee; Rep. Schakowsky; Rep. Doggett; Rep. Kucinich; Rep. McCollum; Rep. Berman; Rep. Baldwin; Rep. Van Hollen; Rep. David Price; Rep. Tom Udall; Rep. Ackerman; Rep. Wasserman Shultz; Rep. Sabo; Rep. Tierney; Rep. Hinchey

Now he's up in the big leagues, getting his turn at bat...

Jon Stewart Set as Host of Oscars.

This is potentially great. He's done so well in little bits on other awards shows, I look forward to seeing how he'll do with "the big one."

Of course I do

I get along without you very well
Of course I do
Except when soft rains fall
And drip from leaves
Then I recall
The thrill of being sheltered in your arms
Of course I do
But I get along without you very well

I’ve forgotten you just like I should
Of course I have
Except to hear your name
Or someone’s laugh that is the same
But I’ve forgotten you just like I should

What a guy
What a fool am i
To think my breaking heart
Could kid the moon
What’s in store
Should I fall once more
No, it’s best that I stick to my tune

I get along without you very well
Of course I do
Except perhaps in spring
But I should never think of spring
For that would surely break my heart in two

What’s in store
Should I fall once more
No, it’s best that I stick to my tune

I get along without you very well
Of course I do
Except perhaps in spring
But I should never think of spring
For that would surely break my heart in two

~Hoagy Carmichael, "I Get Along Without You Very Well"

I don't even know what to say about this one

Jane says

Today King George announced seventeen -- count 'em seventeen -- recess appointments, many of whom would have faced serious confirmation problems. Kos tells us that the three appointments to the Federal Election Commission never even had nomination hearings. No opportunity to even face questioning. None. Zero. Zip.

Amongst them -- Hans von Spakovsky, who was in large part responsible for the purge of mostly Democratic, mostly African American and mostly legitimate people from the Florida voting lists in 2000. And, of course, Robert Lenhard, who is married to the Viveca Novak, the woman now providing the substantive part of Karl Rove's defense in the Plame matter.

Oh my god.

NBC seems to have reason to believe Bush wiretapped CNN's Christiane Amanpour. If you're not familiar, this is an excerpt from her official CNN bio:

For her reporting from the Balkans, Amanpour received a News and Documentary Emmy, two George Foster Peabody Awards, two George Polk Awards, a Courage in Journalism Award, a Worldfest-Houston International Film Festival Gold Award and the Livingston Award for Young Journalists. She also was named 1994 Woman of the Year by the New York Chapter of Women in Cable and Telecommunications, and she helped the network win a duPont Award for its coverage of Bosnia and a Golden CableACE for its Gulf War coverage.

Amanpour has been awarded a number of other prizes, including a further Emmy for her documentary 'Struggle for Islam'; the 2002 Edward R. Murrow Award for Distinguished Achievement in Broadcast Journalism; the Sigma Chi Award (SDX) for her reports from Goma, Zaire; two George Polk Awards for her coverage of Bosnia in 1994 and for her work on the CNN International special Battle for Afghanistan in 1997 to name but a few.

As a side note, she's also been cited several times on Gilmore Girls as Rory's ultimate role model.

So in other words, exactly the sort of person we want our government to wiretap in order to better protect us. Which, after all, is the only reason they'd do it. Oh. Unless, of course, it were one of these other reasons. On that same AmericaBlog post linked above:

anyone who uses any of Christiane's telephones or computers (work or home) could also have had their conversation bugged.

This includes Christiane's husband, former Clinton administration senior official Jamie Rubin, who was spokesman for the State Department.

Jamie Rubin was also chief foreign policy adviser to General Wesley Clark's presidential campaign, and then worked as a senior national security adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Did Jamie Rubin ever in the past four years communicate with any elected officials in Washington, DC - any Senators or members of the US House? Any senior members of the Democratic party?

So let me get this straight. NBC appears to have reason to believe that President George W. Bush wiretapped one of the most prominent journalists in the world. With a chief advisor to a couple of his opponents in the last election thrown into the bargain.

I don't want to jinx it by saying he's toast, but...this sure should be an interesting story to follow for the next few days, that's all I can say.

ETA: Talking Points Memo adds a little more on that subject.

...the president is arguing that his powers as commander-in-chief give him the authority to set aside that law. Such an unlimited assertion of presidential authority just has no place in our constitutional system; and his continued assertion of such authority is a plenty big enough scandal right there.

But if this were to take a truly Nixonian turn and it turns out that this was being used against political enemies, anti-war groups or journalists then we're talking a whole 'nother ballgame.

More reporting needed.

I admire your work, William Goldman

Bob Geiger, formerly of the Yellow Dog Blog, "follows the money" in the Abramoff scandal. He finds something that I think is going to be important to keep tattooed behind your eyeballs if you're keeping even one eye on this story via the MSM.

An analysis of all donations under Jack Abramoff's name or by his wife, Pamela – who donates under "Pam," "Pamela" and "Mrs. Jack Abramoff" – since 1977 and through January 2, 2006, shows that they made a total of $338,418 in political contributions. Of that, $204,000 went to individual political candidates, while $134,000 went to Political Action Committees (PACs).

Of the $204,000 that went to people running for the House and Senate, not one dime went to a Democrat. Yes, that's correct – 100 percent of Abramoff's personal donations went to Republican candidates or, in an extremely isolated case, he gave $750 to Howard Phillips of Virginia to run for something or other on the Constitution Party platform in the mid 1990s.

Other than that, it was all GOP money. Who were the biggest piglets at that trough? Little Tom DeLay picked up a cool $15,000, or over seven percent of the total all by himself...

There's more at Bob's blog, but that's the big thing to remember. This is not a bipartisan scandal. This is the Republicans being caught as the corrupt little piglets they are, every last squealing one of them.

And by the way, to those who say, "well, maybe the Democrats just weren't in power?" First of all, as Bill Sherman said in Pop Culture Gadabout,

Watching members of a political party that only a few years ago was heavily relying on "Character Counts" as its electioneering mantra now trumpeting, "But everybody's doing it!" as an excuse is pretty funny.

Yes it is, Bill. But second of all, dig that timeline. 1977-2006. By my counting, that includes two Democratic Presidential Administrations (or maybe three, if a second term is considered a new Administration). And I think something like 25 years where Democrats controlled the House and/or the Senate.

Times, in other words, when they had power. And Abramoff still didn't give them any money.

This is completely and utterly a Republican scandal.

It's a small world after all

A new biography of Laurence Olivier asserts that a long claimed affair between he and Danny Kaye may in fact not have happened, while otherwise conforming his general bisexuality.

The Kaye allegation was printed in Donald Spoto's exquisitely written life of Laurence Olivier, which I find generally trustworthy. But who the hell knows? The author of the new book said in a recent interview:

"What I did find was evidence of a homosexual affair in 1937 with an actor called Henry Ainley. He was a big name of the 1910s and 1920s. I'm not sure this is a terribly important thing. It's there and it's a fact and therefore I report it."

Henry Ainley was the father of Anthony Ainley, the second actor to play The Master on Doctor Who as a recurring role. And for that matter, Olivier was once asked (and reportedly considered) to play a cameo role in an episode of the series.

It's a small world after all...

So it's come to this

I just heard Newt Gingrich talking on Fox about how the Republicans need to take up the mantle of reform and vow to clean up the corruption in Washington. He said this without irony because he's quite serious. He mentioned that the Democrats were investigated ten years ago for illegal foreign campaign contributions. He didn't mention that there was never any there there. But it sounds good, doesn't it? And the Republicans may just be able to finesse this because Democrats are so skittish about a couple of their brethren being caught up in the sweep that they are pulling their punches.

Republicans beat a decorated war hero with a fey draft dodger during wartime because they skillfully exploited the public's long held anxieties about Democratic bona fides on national security. If Democrats can't can't run on the corollary "Republicans are crooks" meme in the midst of the biggest government abuse and corruption scandal since Watergate, then we really are useless. We saw this coming for months. And yet we are caught flat footed and the GOP is going to run as the party of reform. Dear gawd.

Digby sees the same thing I do. You know, if it weren't for what I desperately cling to as my "principles," I might just have to go and become a Republican, on the grounds that at least they can get things done. At least when it comes to winning elections. I gotta say, there are times when I can definitely see the appeal of that.

I mean, who doesn't want to be with a winner? Meanwhile, the Democrats are on life support like most television series in their sixth or seventh seasons. There are still a few zombies tuning in, but most people with any critical faculties left gave up a long time ago.

And I am reminded of my mantra during the Kerry campaign: If the Democrats can't beat George W. Bush, they ought to just quietly disband. Do you suppose they have, and they just haven't had the heart to tell us?

In a mine...

So I'm watching the return of "Scrubs" last night. That show, BTW, still has the same problems and virtues it's always had for me: Some genuinely funny direction, performances and writing, but I don't give a damn about any of the characters.

And I think Christa Miller-oft referred to by me in the past as "the most beautiful woman on television" must have had Botox or something. In any case it's the hardest someone's fallen off my radar since the unfortunate Laura Prepon incident.

But, of course, none of that really matters. At one point during one of the two episodes shown last night, NBC interupted the program to announce that the 12 miners had been found alive. And I, like most anyone watching, I imagine, thought, "Well great-a happy ending."

Turns out, not so much. AmericaBlog:

If this is true, someone screwed up big time. How do you say publicly - say to the FAMILIES - that 12 survived and now say "oops" 11 died and one survived?

Family members learned early Wednesday that 11 of the 12 coal miners who were initially thought to have survived an explosion in a coal mine have died.

Families learned of the deaths from mine officials more than three hours after Gov. Joe Manchin said he had been told 12 of the miners survived the disaster. The sole survivor of the disaster was hospitalized, a doctor said.

Anderson Cooper is ripping the coal/mining company. They knew, according to Anderson, 20 minutes after the news broke that the 12 had survived that in fact several did NOT survive. But since the coal company didn't have all the information, they didn't say anything for three hours, leaving the media and the families to believe that 12 had survived. Jesus. Now the company gets to worry about emotional distress damages added to the lawsuits.

I genuinely don't mean to trivialize-but ever since the miner story broke all I can think of is that Bee Gees "New York Mining Disaster" song.

In the event of something happening to me, there is something I would like you all to see...it's just a photograph of someone that I knew...

Ladies...

This can't be comfortable.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God...

"...for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist...therefore, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

~The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams

TOBY
James Hoebuck will vote yea...if we give him $115,000.

...

BARTLET
For an RV? What's he want?

LEO
An NIH study on remote prayer.

...

BARTLET
Well, in my faith, we've known it's worked for two thousand years. I never knew there was data available, but okay.

~The West Wing, "Guns Not Butter" by Eli Attie & Kevin Falls & Aaron Sorkin

January 03, 2006

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

This should go well...

Sing, sing a song...(Abramoff plea) UPDATED

Indicted Washington Uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff has pled guilty to three counts. Okay, this is going to be something of a link festival, which I normally don't like to do. But this is a big story, so...

Firedoglake reports:

What this means is that Jackie Boy has agreed to offer substantial cooperation, in the form of information, evidence and testimony against members of Congress, staffers and others involved in these schemes. The DoJ will hold that promise of cooperation over him and will withhold any sentencing in the matter until that cooperation has been completed. If he cooperates fully and gives meaningful evidence and testimony, the DoJ will make a favorable sentencing recommendation. If Abramoff tries to weasel out of the deal, the recommendation will not be so favorable.

In AmericaBlog, Joe says:

So much for Bush controlling the news this week.

ETA: Mark Evanier weighs in:

it's about time politicians of all kind saw that there can be accountability (i.e., prison time) for selling out the public trust for lobbyist dollars. I don't care what party they belong to or even which party did more of it in this particular case. I mean, if Democrats took less or took it indirectly, that may just be because Democrats are not in power and therefore not positioned to do as much for donors as Republicans. I also think that if I were a crooked politician -- a life's goal that seems less and less attainable with each passing year -- I'd feel a lot safer about taking bribes if my party controlled the government. So even if a lot more Republicans get swept up in the Abramoff investigation, that doesn't mean Democrats didn't or wouldn't. Throw all the rascals out, I say

ETA, again: In Hullabaloo, Digby takes on what seems to be the heavy GOP talking point for this scandal-that it's bi-partisan, that Democrats will be found to be just as tarred as Republicans. 'Taint true, Magoo.

I just saw CNN's Henry again say that this was a bi-partisan scandal and that Democrats were going to find it very hard to make the "culture of corruption" charge. This was not "he said/she said" --- he was editorializing in his piece and his opinion is either uninformed, myopic or biased. This piece was followed by another from William Schneider in which he helpfully points out that while the public indicates that it thinks Democrats are less corrupt than Republicans that's only because the public understands that it's because the Republicans are in power and have more opportunity.

This characterization of the scandal as being "bi-partisan" is typical bad mainstream journalism, particularly the emphasis they are placing on the very small handful of Democrats who've even been mentioned (much less included in any legal procedings.) Not only are they creating some equity and illegality where none exists, by doing it they are missing the real story, as usual.

This isn't a story about power corrupting or about a few bad apples. This is about a corrupt political machine --- a system of money laundering and public corruption on behalf of one political party. It's about a party that has used every tool at its disposal to legally and illegally enrich itself and enhance its power. It's right there. It's unravelling before our eyes.

Republicans get overwhelming support from our military

Except, of course, when they don't. From a Military Times poll (via Editor & Publisher):

Approval of the president’s Iraq policy fell 9% from 2004; a bare majority, 54%, now say they view his performance on Iraq favorably. Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60%, among readers of the Military Times newspapers (85% of those polled are on active duty).

Ow

There is an op ed in the Washington Post that may be painful for some to read, but is definitely moving. The writer is a father who lost his son in Iraq. Here are some excerpts, but I'd recommend reading the whole thing...if you can stand it.

I am outraged at what I see as the cause of his death. For nearly three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy that makes our troops sitting ducks. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that our policy is to "clear, hold and build" Iraqi towns, there aren't enough troops to do that.

In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was "less and less worth it," because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can't hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha....

Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?...

Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.

But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.

"It's true," said Keitha, "she's the one who turned me."

The Concerned Women for America, fresh from promoting name-calling in school and warning parents against allowing their children to watch Buffy, have discovered the latest threat to heterosexuality:

Barbie. Via AmericaBlog:

The religious right is now attacking Barbie for promoting "gender confusion." According to the men at the Concerned Women for America, Barbie is urging kids to go bi:

"This is directed at children aged four to eight... that's a really young age to be directing something along the lines of bisexuality."

Yes, Barbie is making four year olds want to have sex with other four year olds of the same gender. And the Concerned Men would prefer that children have sex with four year olds of the opposite gender, I guess.

What's really going on here is that the religious right has been attacking Mattel for months, just like they went after Ford and Microsoft and Allstate and Kraft and every other major American company. This is just another way for them to attack Mattel and get Mattel to do something bigoted to make amends.

Unfortunately, Mattel has already done something bigoted. You'll recall that Girls, Inc. is a non-profit corporation that promotes

...high self-esteem among girls...supports birth control and freedom of choice [and] girls who are lesbian or bisexual

Naturally, the AFA called for a boycott of any companies that partnered in promoting this weird behaivor, which Mattel had through their American Girl line. Caving in to this pressure, Mattel cut their ties with Girls Inc. last month.

It would be nice to think they would learn from this latest attack that bigoted groups like the CWfA and the AFA are the very epitome of the expression: "You gives some people an inch, and they takes the whole blasted yardstick."

There should be no compromises in dealing with those groups because those groups are not interested in compromise. They are interested in "freedom for me, but not for thee" and denying human and civil rights that should be garaunteed to everyone.

Yes, it would be nice if they realized that Ford did, after all. But I'm still not holding my breath.

Taking the virginity of an Amazon

Not bad, is it?

I think he looks more like Anthony Michael Hall

A naked man in Lake County, Fla., claiming to be Satan was arrested after he threatened to kill a sheriff's deputy and then injured the man in a neighborhood street, according to a police report.

Officers responded to complaints of a naked man screaming in the streets Monday in the area of Wall Street and Grant Avenue in Eustis, Fla.

When deputies arrived, they found Roy Lee Henson walking with his boxer shorts around his ankles and screaming wildly, according to the report. Henson then lunged at a sheriff's deputy, the report said. Backup officers arrived and took Henson into custody as the man screamed he was Satan.

The sheriff's deputy suffered minor injuries when he was kicked during the struggle with Henson, according to the report. Henson has been booked into the Lake County Jail on $10,000 bond.

In retrospect, Johnny Be Good was probably a clue.

Oh! And...

Graphic stolen outright from Pam.

I'm telling ya...If enough GOP leaders get together...

I have no idea whether or not 2006 will be the year the power of the despots in this country will be checked, but if it happens it will be due to people like James Comey who after only three weeks on the job as the number two man in the Justice Department went to John Ashcroft in December of 2003 and told him he had to recuse himself from the CIA leak investigation.

It was also James Comey who appointed his good friend, the godfather to his son, Patrick Fitzgerald as Special Counsel and gave him the power to do the job without interference.

According to the New York Times, it now appears that when John Ashcroft was hospitalized for a gall bladder operation in March of 2004, Andy Card and Abu Gonzales had to go his hospital bed and ask for approval of key parts of the warrantless wiretapping program because his acting deputy refused to certify it.

The deputy's name? James Comey.

-Firedoglake.

Hey, Democrats! If you don't start taking care of this the Republicans will...

Now for a word from our sponsor

Credit: The Propoganda Remix Project.

Taking care of old business...

One or two of you long-time readers from my old blog may remember I was suspicious of something that happened at the end of the fourth "day" of 24. Follow that link to the old post if you don't know what I'm talking about, and want to.

An "evil lesbian" character killing a character whose name sounded like "Joss," in exactly the same way that Tara was killed, yet? Taken together, it seemed to me possible if not probable that someone on the writing staff was having a giggle.

But it was also possible that the characters name was "Josh." A friend and I looked in the various online cast lists and summaries, but the part was so small it wasn't listed. So I had to wait for the DVD subtitles.

Well, the DVD has been released. It is not "Josh."

However, it is also not "Joss." According to the DVD subtitles...it is "Joz." So I guess the question of whether this was intended to be a subtle tweak remains in the category of "you make the call."

Me, I think it was, and I'm going to continue to think so until I hear or see something from whoever thought up that name which says otherwise. Because, as I said at the time, one or even two of those connections, I'd write off to happenstance. But three?

And really, how many times have you heard the incredibly-common name "Joz?" Pretty off-beat name to just be "throwing in there."

Old business now concluded...go about your day.

When the rain starts to pour

My pal Corey has shamed me with his generosity. He went and sent me that book on Terry Gilliam & The Brothers Grimm that I posted about a couple of weeks ago. Along with (from my Amazon list) a copy of Stay Awake: Various Interpretaions of Music from Vintage Disney Films, which I've been wanting to get replaced on CD for years.

It was really fortuitious timing, too, as I'd been in a miserable mood most of the day. A nosebleed, a computer than runs like toothpaste being squeezed out with the cap still on...Just started the book, but I think it's a good bet I'm going to enjoy a volume with the words "In Hollywood, No One Can Hear You Dream" printed in large letters upon the back cover.

ETA: The book tells me something I either didn't know or had forgotten about Gilliam's aborted Don Quixote film, as documented in the movie Lost in La Mancha. Christopher Eccleston was to have been among the cast.

So let me get this straight. Eccleston almost works with my favorite director, he gets paid to lie naked on top of an equally naked Kate Winslet, and he helps restore Doctor Who to a place of honor in television.

Lucky old bastard, or what?

But I digress...You know, every once in a while Corey and I get along like sand in oil. Usually because I'm being an overly-sensitive, "difficult" writer or he's being an insensitive or glib actor (and vice-versa, most likely).

But we like each other; at least, I like him, I assume he likes me...anyway he still takes my calls. We have a lot of fave TV shows in common; in fact we "met" via an online Dr. Who forum. This past year I badgered him into watching Veronica Mars and 24 and he became addicted; he tried to turn me on to Freaks & Geeks but it didn't take.

And he's always been incredibly supportive of my writing; as I mentioned last month he's my first reader on most of it. An idea I came up with in recent weeks and really like is that as we get older, he and I are going to turn into The Sunshine Boys, from the Neil Simon film and play of the same name.

I think I'm George Burns and he's Walter Matthau.

Raging John Kerry and his Grumbling Ground Troops in "The Curse of the Flinging Mudskippers"

There's a bit of a debate going on in the blogs about just how much service in the military does or does not add to the "electability" of a Democratic candidate. As I argued about with a GOP blogger last month, the service record of Democratic leaders unquestionably puts that of Republicans to shame. But the Democrats famously don't seem to be able to get any credibility with the voters from it.

The argument of those who think military service can and should gain them that credibility (like Neil) seems to take something of a beating from the experience of John Kerry. Kerry had a record that no ethical person could rationally have been expected to complain about. And you all know how that went.

But was Kerry the exception that tests the rule, or a big warning flag to others not to try selling Americans that ploy; they just ain't buying it? After all, Bill Clinton rather famously did not serve, but it doesn't seem to have affected his electability much.

NCHeartland writes in Daily Kos:

When Bill Clinton defeated veterans George H.W. Bush then Bob Dole, the era of required military service to serve the people was declared dead. Why is the Democratic Party trying to revive a dead era? Because there's a war on? Because they need a public relations face-lift? Stacking the House (and our party) with vets may sound like a good idea superficially, but what's the actual message? Is there any other kind of Democrat but a fighting one? Apparently not according to the "Fightin' Dems" brand. Forget education, jobs, privacy, community responsibility--our values and what we stand for; all we want now is 'boots on the ground' experience to combat Bush's war. The tactic looks cynical and reactionary--Why? Because it is. If many of us in the Democratic Party are turned off, what do you think swing voters (not to mention republicans) will think?

So do Democrats really "need" to be Veterans of any war? I think another possible reason for the deceptive appeal of the "fighting Dems" is that it's another excuse for Democratic "leaders" to say anything and everything but the plain and simple truth:

The President of the United States is a liar and a coward.

I believe, almost as an article of faith, that if John Kerry had stood up and said that, over and over and over again, people would have lined up to vote for him. I believe there were people who knew that to be true, knew it in their bones, even before the gradual unraveling of Bush's garments this year. And all they were waiting for was for someone to SAY IT.

But Kerry didn't. Why? I dunno. I only know his failure to do so led to the frustration that Jon Stewart expressed for me after an all-too typical clip of Kerry from the campaign.

"You're trying to lose!"

I think the "Swift Boating" of Kerry said more about him than it did about the "electability" of Democratic veterans. David Mamet wrote an op-ed last September in which he suggested

A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."

But as we all know, Kerry never said that or anything like it. For good or for ill, it's not the uniform, it's the man or woman inside it. Media Girl comes to a similar conclusion, and also links to several more voices in the debate.

Heydily-ho, abuserinos!

Digby has a short but good post making the point that if there's nothing wrong with the NSA spying, how come they kept it secret for so long?

Fast Times at Bush High

Krugman has a heck of a column laying out just how much of an incompetent Bush has been revealed to be in the past year. On a scale undreamt of in Peter Jackson's wildest imaginations, this has been a year of "The Emperor has no clothes" moments.

It's behind the NY Times stupid pay-firewall, but word has a way of spreading. Like that list last month of the service record of prominent Democrats vs. that of the GOP, these are things I think we all knew, but it almost takes your breath away to see it all laid out in black-and-white.

Herewith a few excerpts.

A year ago, Mr. Bush made many Americans feel safe, because they believed that he would be decisive and effective in an emergency. But Mr. Bush was apparently oblivious to the first major domestic emergency since 9/11. According to Newsweek, aides to Mr. Bush finally decided, days after Hurricane Katrina struck, that they had to show him a DVD of TV newscasts to get him to appreciate the seriousness of the situation.

A year ago, Howard Dean - who was among the very few prominent figures to question Colin Powell's prewar presentation to the United Nations, and who warned, while hawks were still celebrating the fall of Baghdad, that the occupation of Iraq would be much more difficult than the initial invasion - was considered flaky and unsound.

A year ago, it was clear that before the Iraq war, the administration suppressed information suggesting that Iraq was not, in fact, trying to build nuclear weapons. Yet few people in Washington or in the news media were willing to say that the nation was deliberately misled into war until polls showed that most Americans already believed it.

Another awards ceremony? What is this, Hollywood?

Ultimate Wingnut Contest. Your nominees are:

John "Hindrocket" Hindrocket
Michelle Malkin
Ann Coulter
Pastor J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Dr. Mike S. Adams, Ph.D.

If you're not familiar with all of their work, the link above includes representative samplings. I voted for Ms. Malkin, on the grounds that I really don't understand why so many people read her.

If You Give a Mouse a Cookie

As you may have heard, among the revelations in the recent NSA scandal is that they've been inserting "cookies" on computers that visit their website and that of the White House. According to Business Week...

In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies -- those that aren't automatically deleted right away -- unless there is a "compelling need."...

Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said mistakes happen, "but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say anything about doing it accidentally."

Meanwhile, the online WSJ has an article that would seem to support my theory that big business may be turning against Bush. Not because he violated the law (don't be silly, this is big business I'm talking about) or even the Constitution; no, it's because he's hurting them where they live: He's costing them money.

In firedoglake, ReddHedd concludes...

Saving the President and the party's political ass because you got caught with your hand in the Constitutional cookie jar is an understandable reaction -- after all the 2006 elections are fast approaching. But for Republicans and Democrats, this is a moment of truth: are you elected to represent the interests of your constituency for the long-term, and do you take your oath to protect and defend the Constitution seriously? Or is it truly all about holding onto power and covering each other's asses? You choose.

But know that we will be watching your choices. Now is the time for true patriots to stand up and be counted, regardless of party.

Recognize.

I missed this somehow, but a couple of weeks ago the AFI (American Film Institute) announced their selections for movies and TV programs of the year. Good Night, and Good Luck was among their film selections and among the TV programs we find 24...and Veronica Mars.

The AFI is (quoting from their website)

[A] national arts organization dedicated to preserving the heritage of film and television, identifying and training new talent, and increasing the recognition of the moving image as an art form.

They're the ones who've been coming up with those "100" lists of best-loved moments from the movies; quotes and so on, for the past year or so. And they host retrospectives, film festivals, etc.

They're pretty well established in the film & TV world, so for Veronica Mars to get noticed after less than two seasons on the air is something of an achivement. Especially considering they did it with (realistically speaking) no one watching...

I guess I'm always hoping that you'll end this rein

Shakespeare's Sister wants to know:

Recently, rewatching Sideways, I was thinking that few directors manage to capture what life really looks like as well as Alexander Payne (with help from his fantastic production designer Jane Ann Stewart, who worked with him on Election and About Schmidt, too). Granted, not all films are meant to look like real life, but of those that are, Payne's are near-perfection. It makes his characters that much easier to empathize with, though I'm not a great deal like any of them.

I started thinking what characters I am like, and which films feel the most familiar, which brings us to the QotD: What film feels most like your life?

To which I answered: Oddly enough, Sideways, and yeah, Paul Giamatti. I'm a writer who knows the scar of checking that mail again every day and finding nothing but rejection and no love.

You wouldn't think it would be so hard to sell a lesbian love story in the US in 2005, would you?

But anyway, Sideways is...uncomfortable. At least for me. And, I suppose, to anyone who likes to close their eyes to reality and inhale a bouquet (sometimes a wine is just a wine, but not in this movie).

And it is sorta kinda not fair that they made a movie about a failed writer whose possible/probable salvation is represented by Virginia Madsen. I have had a crush on Virginia Madsen since 1984. It ain't fair to mess around in my dreams like that.

A little taste of that old computer-generated...

The Washington Post has a story about how damnit, George Bush wants his big stage back. In AmericaBlog, Joe observes how you can kind of tell who's spinning the Post by who doesn't come off well in it (Karl Rove).

But Media Girl sifted through it and found some truly shocking revelations.

The lessons drawn by a variety of Bush advisers inside and outside the White House as they map a road to recovery in 2006 include these: Overarching initiatives such as restructuring Social Security are unworkable in a time of war. The public wants a balanced appraisal of what is happening on the battlefield as well as pledges of victory. And Iraq trumps all.

"I don't think they realized that Iraq is the totality of their legacy until fairly recently," said former congressman Vin Weber (R-Minn.), an outside adviser to the White House. "There is not much of a market for other issues."

The words They finally figured it out come to mind...and then are just as quickly replaced by: Oh. My. God. They finally figured it out? Bush's advisers didn't realize until just now that nobody cares very much about other issues as long as you're sending the nations young men and women to die?

Sometimes I think this is St. Elsewhere and it's going to turn out to have all been a dream of an autistic child as he stared at a snow globe of the White House...

Hey kids!

Know anyone who supports the sacrifice of personal freedom for security from terrorism? You might want to invite them to sign this pledge and e-mail it to the White House. It simply states that they

...waive any rights of privacy in my person, property, association, thought and/or expression that I have, had or claim to have under the federal and state constitutions, statutory law or regulation of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, decisional law, common law and/or any other source of authority, real or imagined, to the extent the waiver of such rights is, in the sole judgment of any military, law enforcement or national security employee of the United States, deemed necessary to prosecute the war on terror.

As Benjamin Franklin used to say: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

And as Bill Hicks used to say: Let's see how comitted you are to this fucking premise.

It's gonna get ugly. Oh wait, it already is.

Via Jane Hamsher at firedoglake, we find more evidence for my growing theory that this president is going to be taken down not by the "opposition," (such as it is) but by his own party.

Bob Barr writes:

...we get a president bobbing and weaving like Muhammad Ali. He knows he can't really tell the truth and he knows he can't rely only on lies. The resulting dilemma leads him to veer from unintelligible muttering to attempts to distract, and then to chest-beating bravado and attacks on his accusers.

John Dean adds:

I think it's dangerous for some Republicans, and I think some Republicans have realized that....They know the politics of this. They know the American people do not like to lose their civil liberties. It's still a story that is just starting to catch on and be broadly embraced and understood. It's a complex story. But people do get wiretapping. That's one of those issues they understand.

Say what you will about the modern Republican party, but (at least when it comes to electoral politics) they can get things done. If enough GOP leaders get together and decide they have to take out George W. Bush for the good of the party...he'll be out with one punch while the Democrats are still trying to get their gloves on.

And then John McCain (or whoever) can run in 2008 by saying See? We Republicans correct our mistakes. And, at least in the last few elections, evil and efficent seems to trump good but clueless every time.

More awards season results

Winners of the first annual Kippie Awards for Distinguished Wingnuttery:

Chickenhawk of the Year Award: Jonah Goldberg.
This blog supported: Jonah Goldberg. I know a poster child for chickenhawkery when I read one.

The Fluffy: John "Assrocket" Hinderaker "for, among other things, using the word ‘genius’ in a sentence about GWB."
This blog supported: Harriet Miers, who beat Joe Lieberman for second place.

The Purple Teardrop with Clutched Pearls Cluster

Winner: Bill O’Reilly.
This blog supported: Bill O'Reilly. Because the man needs more enemies on his list than Jon Stewart and the New York Daily News, and I'm proud to participate.

The Soggy Biscuit Award

Winner:The War on Christmas!
This blog supported: The War on Christmas. Because I've heard of nonsense, but this made Dr. Seuss look like Rudyard Kipling.

Wank of the Year

Winner: Barbara Bush - the victims of hurricane Katrina “were underprivileged anyway so this (chuckle)–this is working very well for them.”
This blog supported: Ann Coulter, who didn't even place in the top three. I guess posting a blogger's personal contact information and questioning New Yorkers courage because they didn't support Bush isn't what it used to be.

The Palme d’Hair

Winner: Bill O’Reilly.
This blog supported: Bill O'Reilly. Because inviting terrorists to blow up my hometown isn't the kind of thing I'm gonna get over anytime soon.

I'm not "a card-carrying member of the ACLU"

...but ads like this make me think maybe I should be. Via AmericaBlog:

The ACLU ran the following advertisement in the December 29, 2005 edition of The New York Times:

And speaking of The Fantastic Four

A new meme:

Four jobs you got fired from, or quit under a cloud: Only two: Bookstore and video store clark.

Four places you've lived that aren't in New Jersey: Seattle, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Palo Alto.

Four movies you'll [probably] never watch: The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, High Fidelity, Serenity, The Fantastic Four. I added the "probably," because you never can tell what I'll watch on cable.

Four bands [or performers] that people say are great, that actually basically aren't: Eminem, Madonna, Destiny's Child, Rod Stewart.

Four bands [or composers] that nobody seems to like much, comparatively speaking, that are often superb: Fairlight Children, Prefab Sprout, Double, Joe Jackson

Four foods that you like, that other people are appalled by: Probably too many to list, starting with Burger King...

Four TV shows that you're vaguely familiar with, from folks talking about them all the damn time: The various CSIs, House, Monday Night Football, The Apprentice

Four blogs that you don't understand why a lot of people read them: Michelle Malkin, Hit & Run, RedState, Michael Yon.

Four places you've been on vacation: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle (before I lived here), Sacramento

Four wonderful kinds of oyster: n/a

[*] Four beautiful things: Breasts, actors who want to serve a script instead of going for an award, Keitha & Annabel if I do say so myself, The Mamas & the Papas' best records.

Names have emotional value

Last year I wrote, in a post on the old blog about a young Republican man kicking a female protestor while she was being held on the ground:

...one of the other Young Republicans is named "Taylor Bickford." I think if your name is "Taylor Bickford," you pretty much have to be a Young Republican.

Today we find FoxNews.com throwing a little pity party for a fella who claims he was harassed in college because he is a conservative.

"When I was on campus, I had no help," the recent Ohio State University graduate told FOXNews.com. "I was harassed, intimidated, shouted down."

The recent Ohio State University graduate's name? Christopher Flickinger. See, it's something about the names, man, people with funny-sounding names just naturally gravitate to conservative Republicanism.

"Taylor Bickford." "Christopher Fickinger." "Moya Huff-" No wait, scratch that.

Happy Birthday, Stan Lee

Today is Stan Lee's birthday; Mark Evanier has a short birthday greeting and an anecdote about how he didn't run Lee over with his car recently here. Lee, of course, is best known for his cameo appearances in films based upon Marvel comics and an episode of The Simpsons.

I'm kidding, of course. He's the co-creator (with artists including Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko) of the Marvel Comics characters (The Fantastic Four, Magneto, the X-Men, Doctor Doom, Spider-Man...).

He's revered by most as an elder statesman of comics and known by more than one generation for his chatty, informal "Bullpen Bulletins" style of quality hype. But he also put a lot of heart into the comics when he was writing them. He was responsible for a lot of what we think of as the Marvel Comics "tone."

You notice how I got through this whole thing without saying Excelsior...doh!

Hoo boy.

In a firedoglake entry, ReddHedd lays out the legal ramifications of the domestic spying scandal. Not so much for the government....but for any number of charged and/or convicted terrorism suspects whose defense counsel are now obliged to challenge their cases.

If ReddHedd is correct (and she is an attorney so I'm assuming she knows more than I do about this): Nearly all of them now have grounds to claim that they might have first attracted federal attention through an illegal, improper wiretap.

If we were to believe government spin, Bush was only trying to make it easier to catch bad men and put them away. But what he chose to do about it is about to turn into a legal nightmare. One that may make it more difficult to catch new criminals and stop any that we already have from walking. As Redd puts it:

This is what happens when you play fast and loose with the rules. It comes back to smack you right in the ass. And all of us will be paying the price for it: in court costs, in energy that will now have to be expended on this issue rather than on further needed prosecutions (because manpower only stretches so far), on the possibility that a bad actor will be set free because the President of the United States authorized a segment of our government to cheat the law because to follow it was too much work for him.

Thank you, President Bush; it's as if you ran out and whacked the statue of justice right on the knee, a la Nancy Kerrigan.

Oh dear.

In Feministing, we learn that the Abstinence Clearinghouse, which, as it sounds, is a group that promotes saving sex for marriage, has come up with a dandy little piece of merchandise. To spread the good word (about not spreading your good legs)...they're selling lollypops.

Cherry-flavored (they have got to be kidding me) lollypops. Cherry-flavored lollypops with the words "Don't Be a Sucker! Save Sex For Marriage." written on the stem. Well, that ought to do it, especially since there's no way for a lollypop to be nibbled on provocatively...

Seriously, is it just me, or does anybody else think this idea was thought up by some bright spark getting off on the idea of budding young virgins licking and wrapping their moist lips around and sucking on hard...

Sorry, I was miles away for a moment...

Whee.

Alexander Cockburn via Egalia:

But who would do the impeaching? The Democrats have lost as much credibility as the President and the Republicans. Ever since the New York Times loitered a year late into print with its disclosure about the NSA spying program (only the latest in a sequence of unconstitutional infamies by that Agency stretching back for decades, mostly against domestic political protesters) I've seen it argued that if the Times had gone with the story last year, Kerry might be president.

But if the Democrats had cared about the Constitution they could have broken the story themselves last year. Democratic congressional leaders knew, because the whistleblowers from the NSA desperately tried to alert them, only to get the cold shoulder. Kerry's prime advisers ­ Richard Clark and Rand Beers ­ on such matters knew, because they'd previously been Bush's top functionaries in the war on terror.

We're heading into a year when the Democrats could be making hay, by actually doing the right thing. In 2005 is a pointer, they never will. The latest evidence is that Rahm Emanuel, in charge of selecting Democratic Congressional candidates for 2006, is choosing millionaires and fence-straddlers on the war. He shunned Christine Cegelis, who nearly beat sixteen-termer Henry Hyde in 2004, and whom Illinois polls show to be a popular contender to succeed Hyde. But Cegelis has the disadvantage in Emanuel's eyes of not being very rich and of agreeing with John Murtha on immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Emanuel picks Tammy Duckworth, who embodies the cynicism of the "Democratic strategists", being a double-amputee woman Iraq veteran who is not from the district, has a hot-air position on the war and is thought to espouse a "pro-business/centrist platform".

Guess that's just more ammunition for those occasional members of my vast reading audience who think I only mention it when Republicans do retarded things.

"Lad-ka!"

Sorry to hear this afternoon of the death of actor Vincent Schiavelli. He was one of those "that guy" character actors who turns up in a hundred films or TV shows whose distinctive looks always made him recognizable.

He was one of the inmates in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and, in a radical departure from playing a mental patient, a network executive in Man On The Moon. Something of an inside joke there, because over 15 years earlier, he'd done a few great guest appearances on Taxi as Andy Kaufman and Carol Kane's reverend.

He was also memorable in Better Off Dead as a teacher who asks a recently dumped teenager if they'd mind if he took out their ex-girlfriend. In Ghost, he was the tormented spirit who teaches Patrick Swayze how to use his incorporal being. He was one of the Penguin's gang in Batman Returns and an untrustworthy magician in Lord of Illusions. Buffy fans will remember him as Jenny Calender's gypsy uncle.

I don't have much personal to add, I can't claim that he was one of my favorite actors or even that I knew very much about him. I remember he was once married to the woman who played the cabbie that had an affair with Latka on Taxi and who also played Mrs. Beasley on Moonlighting, but they later divorced.

I guess I just wanted to say that I always enjoyed his work, and I'm sorry he's gone.

Why I won't miss Ted Koppel

I mean, apart from his being a spin doctor for the party line, fatuous, unfair, unbalanced and untrustworty...he said this:

I mean, the only difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration was 9/11...If 9/11 had happened on Bill Clinton's watch, he would have gone into Iraq.

What an idiot. No wonder he confused The Daily Show with real news. Which it's not...more's the pity.

"Hat tip" to PSoTD, who adds

This should be Exhibit A as to why the news media has to quit interviewing itself. Why? Because the news media is full of people that are full of themselves, and that bear very little responsibility in their real jobs for what they say. How could Ted Koppel presume to know what would have happened if Clinton was President during 9/11? Does he have any idea what a Republican Congress may have done to Clinton after such attack...Perhaps Koppel...would have invaded Iraq, perhaps [he] would have shown the same kind of diligence to detail that George W. Bush did, the same kind of interest in what the U.N was saying that Bush displayed, the same kind of diplomatic skills that Bush brought to bear.

Or in the immortal words of the Banana Junior 6000--"Ted Koppel is a waffle."

Happy Hanukkah to Steven Spielberg

On Thursday, November 18, 2004, I wrote:

...about the refusal of a third of ABC televisions stations to air "Saving Private Ryan," out of fear the FCC would come down on them. Apparently the film dares to suggest that soliders might occasionally use profanity, or that blood is spilled and bones are broken in war.

You know what I've been idly wondering? Whether Spielberg will have anything to say about this apparent censorship of a film that by most accounts is near and dear to his heart. It would seem that if anyone in "liberal Hollywood" has the power and wealth to stand opposed to the Bush empire, he would be the one. Or Tom Hanks, for that matter. He's supposed to be as hot as any actor can get ("Polar Express" notwithstanding). And again, he's made it clear in the past that "Private Ryan" was more than just another film to him.

But so far, near as I can tell with a quick "Yahoo!" search, niether man has had anything to say on the subject. Maybe they remembered they're going to have movies opening in the red states in the next four years. Maybe they remembered what happened to Lenny Bruce & Mort Sahl.

On December 25, 2005 Roger Ebert wrote:

Spielberg said he has been particularly struck by charges that his film ["Munich"]makes him "no friend of Israel."

"I am as truly pro-Israeli as you can possibly imagine. From the day I became morally and politically conscious of the importance of the state of Israel and its necessity to exist, I have believed that not just Israel, but the rest of the world, needs Israel to exist.

"But there is a constituency that nothing you can say or do will ever satisfy. The prism through which they see things is so profound and deeply rooted and so much a part of their own belief system that if you challenge that, you challenge everything they believe in. They say the film is too critical of Israel. The film has been shown to Palestinians who think it is too pro-Israel and doesn't give the them enough room to air their grievances.

"Some of my critics are asking how Spielberg, this Hollywood liberal who makes dinosaur movies, can say anything serious about this subject that baffles so many smart people. What they're basically saying is, 'You disagree with us in a big public way, and we want you to shut up, and we want this movie to go back in the can.' That's a nefarious attempt to make people plug up their ears. That's not Jewish, it's not democratic, and it's bad for everyone -- especially in a democratic society."

"My film refuses to be a pamphlet," Spielberg said. "My screenwriter Tony Kushner and I were hoping to make it a visceral, emotional and intellectual experience, combined in such a way that it will help you get in touch with what you feel are the questions the film poses. He said he was taught by his parents, his rabbi and his faith that discussion "is the highest good -- it's Talmudic."

He repeated that he was wounded by the charge that he is "no friend of Israel" because his film asks questions about Israeli policies. "This film is no more anti-Israel than a similar film which offered criticism of America is anti-America," he said. "Criticism is a form of love. I love America, and I'm critical of this administration. I love Israel, and I ask questions. Those who ask no questions may not be a country's best friends."

and

"[Emerson's article] brought together some sources and some criticisms I hadn't seen," Spielberg said, "and it made me want to be more specific about the responsibility of a Jewish artist.

"Everybody is sort of saying they wish I would be silent. What inspired me by what I read in Emerson's article is that silence is never good for anybody. When artists fall silent, it's scary. And when Jewish artists fall silent about Israel, it's maybe not so much because we think asking questions will do damage to Israel, but because we're intimidated by the shrillness and hysteria with which these questions are received sometimes.

Of course, in November 2004, George W. Bush had just been elected (not reelected), we were all holding a funeral for our liberalism, and asking questions just wasn't done. And by the time "Saving Private Ryan" had been censored, it had already won all the Oscars it was going to.

Maybe those are just a couple of the reasons why, on that point, Spielberg was remarkably silent. Now, with "Munich" in play, suddenly he's the poster boy for Talmudic discussion. To paraphrase Bart Simpson: I'm not calling him a hypocrite, but...I can't think of a way to finish that sentence.

Merry Christmas for...

...The commander of American-run prisons in Iraq. Courtesy of TPM:

The commander of American-run prisons in Iraq says the military will not turn over any detainees or detention centers to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting United States standards for the care and custody of detainees.