Not that it matters

...but I always liked the movie The Neverending Story. It came out when I was about 13, and, "lonely boy escapes into fantasy", I mean, hello. To say nothing of the song by Limahl and Giorgio Moroder.

But, oddly, perhaps, what stays with me (at this moment, anyway) are its metaphors for despair. The giant "rockbiter" left behind when all his friend have been swept into nothingness, sitting there looking at his hands and saying "They look like such big, strong hands, don't they?"

And the strange turtle-like creature who preceeds almost every utterance with the words "Not that it matters..." and when asked if it doesn't care says "We don't even care that we don't care."

Not that it matters, but I want to add a voice of agreement to this entry in firedoglake giving the reasons why Alito should be (and should have been) opposed. And why Democrats who don't (and didn't) do everything they can to stop him being placed in a position such power will be on the well-deserved end of a lot of ire when he's confirmed.

Not if. When. Because he's already been cleared through to the Senate, and "a filibuster is unlikely."

The entry also contains as close to perfect an articulation as I've seen of my feelings on a woman's right to choose.

I don't want people to have more abortions. If I could, I'd wave a wand and make all babies be born under ideal circumstances to parents who would love and care for them.

But I happen to live in the all-too-real world, where sexual abuse and violent rape and all those other nasty things happen, where children wake up and wonder if there will be any food for them to eat -- right here in the US of A -- and where other things that most people can never even imagine happen within families and neighborhoods and all over the place.

And I know enough to know this: I don't speak for God, and neither should anyone else. That's why it is an individual choice -- you make peace with your own soul, your own faith and your own family and friends based on your own, individual and hideous circumstances in each case -- and beyond that, it's no one's business. And I say this as someone who struggled with fertility issues for close to seven years and fully understands how very precious that life is. But I've seen enough horrible things in my life in the law to know that there are just some circumstances where you cannot know unless you happen to be walking in those particular shoes...those very dismal, very difficult shoes.

Not that it matters.

They look like such big, strong hands, don't they?

Bear in mind that I still hate anime

But this graphic from "Spirited Away" is, I grant you, very pretty.

Well, that clears that up

Via AmericaBlog, where it's pointed out that this sounds an awful lot like "I am not a crook.":

"It's amazing that people say to me, `Well, he's just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" said Bush.

The weasel Tucker Carlson strikes back

Via Crooks and Liars:

MADDOW: I'm actively angry that this is being turned into a political attack on Democrats, when Osama just threatened us.

CARLSON: It's not a political attack on Democrats. It's merely an acknowledgement that Osama is stealing all your best lines. Time to take a new one.

MADDOW: That is absolutely ridiculous.

CARLSON: Sure. It's totally true.

MADDOW: What about when he said, "This is going to be a generations long war and we need patience. That's George W. Bush.

CARLSON: Yea, that's one of the lines Bush uses, but it wasn't...

Weasel. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Fucking own your attacks, Carlson.

Yo, dumbass Democrats

You see this here poll?

A poll last week showed Senator McCain could trounce Senator Clinton, the Democrat favourite, by 52 to 36. The 16-point lead revealed that he has a decisive advantage among independents and swing voters.

"The more scandal and corruption in Washington, the better it is for McCain. He is at a high point right now," said Chuck Todd, editor-in-chief of National Journal's Hotline news service, which commissioned the poll.

Senator McCain went on to stake out an independent position on the war in Iraq, which he considers to have been botched, and he led a successful campaign in Congress to ban the use of torture and the cruel and degrading treatment of detainees.

In Congress, he is leading his party's efforts to get out of a mire over lobbying and corruption after Jack Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, was indicted for attempting to bribe politicians.

Republican senators are queueing up to support McCain's reform bill, which would ban privately funded travel by members of Congress and impose stricter limits on gifts from lobbyists.

Do you get it? In other words, he's getting support because he's actually being seen to be doing something. I could argue the truth of some of the assertions of that story, but the truth isn't the point.

If growing up under Reagan in the '80s taught me nothing else, it was that perception is everything. McCain is filling a void that the dumbass Democrats should be filling, but aren't. And they won't, until they learn that they have to throw Hillary (and the Hillaryesque) to the fucking timber wolves.

They were great in the '90s, but they fucked it up. And it's not the '90s anymore. Stop bringing cake to a knifefight!

Follow the money

Bloomberg.com has a report on Abramoff that Gets It Right.

U.S. President George W. Bush calls indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff "an equal money dispenser" who helped politicians of both parties. Campaign donation records show Republicans were a lot more equal than Democrats.

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.

"Abramoff's big connections were with the Republicans," said Larry Noble, the former top lawyer for the Federal Election Commission, who directs the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

"It is somewhat unusual in that most lobbyists try to work with both Republicans and Democrats, but we're already seeing that Jack Abramoff doesn't seem to be a usual lobbyist," Noble said.

This is not a bi-partisan scandal. I'm sorry if it seems I'm harping on this, but--call it a hunch--I have a feeling that the President Bush version is out there. And the more that version gets repeated and reheated, the more democrats are going to be convinced not to look at a gift horse at all.

As the saying goes, a lie gets halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. And that saying came before the internet.

Thank God

(AP) [via USA Today] — The new president on The West Wing will be a real short-timer: NBC announced Sunday it was pulling the plug on the Emmy-winning political drama after seven seasons in May.

The West Wing announcement wasn't much of a surprise. Although this season's story line with a presidential campaign involving a Democrat played by Jimmy Smits and Republican portrayed by Alan Alda has been strong critically, ratings have sunk with its move to Sunday nights.

The decision to cancel it was made before actor John Spencer, who played former presidential chief of staff Leo McGarry, died of a heart attack Dec. 16, said Kevin Reilly, NBC entertainment president.

You get the feeling from recent interviews with Alison Janney and Richard Schiff that they knew it was coming, and that without John, they don't mind much.

"There's a point when you look at the ratings and say, it feels like it's time," Reilly said.

The series finale will be May 14, preceded by a one-hour retrospective. The campaign to replace the fictional Josiah Bartlet as president will be settled, NBC said.

Producers Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme, who created the show and guided it through its early years, will not be involved in the finale, Reilly said.

That's disappointing, but I note with eternally springing hope that he did not say they would not be involved in a "farewell to Leo" episode, as some of us want them to.

ETA: So much for springing hope. According to a spoiler obtained by TWOP (via the Aaron Sorkin mailing list)

When [Leo's] death is noted on the show, it will be just five days to election -- too late by law to change ballots and likely to affect the (fictional) vote that will culminate the season of the show,which has been failing in ratings in recent years and suffered further in a move to Sunday nights this season.

I may still be wrong, but that doesn't sound like Sorkin or Schlamme will be involved with that either. Sigh......come on, Studio 7!

The West Wing won four Emmy Awards for best television drama in a row for its tales of political intrigue. At its prime, it also offered NBC two valuable benefits: critical acclaim and the most upscale audience on television, an important drawing point for advertisers.

And then Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme left.

He who lives by the photo op, dies by the photo op

It's not exactly news that George W. Bush cares more about the way things look than the way things are. The war in Iraq is proof of that if any were needed; he tries everything he can to make it look like something other than the massive screwup it is. And he keeps the flag-draped coffins hidden.

So you can understand that what absolutely scares the living shit out of him is the idea that there might be photos out there that would make him look bad. George Bush understands that most of the country either doesn't or can't read, and he uses it to his advantage. If more people either could or did read, there's no way Bush gets elected even once, let alone twice. But everybody knows how to look at pictures.

When the Abramoff scandal began to blow up, White House aides were quick to deny that the president knew, or even remembered having met him. This was the story they were afraid of:

As details poured out about the illegal and unseemly activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, White House officials sought to portray the scandal as a Capitol Hill affair with little relevance to them. Peppered for days with questions about Abramoff's visits to the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said the now disgraced lobbyist had attended two huge holiday receptions and a few "staff-level meetings" that were not worth describing further. "The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him," McClellan said.

The President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed. TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication, they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them. And that has been a fear of the Bush team's for the past several months...

Now, if we had any democrats who were actually interested in...oh, what is that word...oh yeah, fighting, instead of triangulating, calculating and equivocating and so frightened to offend? They might know what to do with a golden opportunity like this.

But since we don't, we should probably just start thinking about which denomination of currency we want to see the President's face on. Since he is, after all, a great and good man.

It's really an honor just to be nominated

The nominations for Wampum's "Koufax Awards" are now up. Improbably, this blog has been nominated in the category of "Best New Blog."

Don't get too excited...I think every blog that anyone wrote in and mentioned gets listed for this round. I don't expect to make the cut when they narrow it down to a top 10 or so.

But that does not mean that I'm not emotionally needy enough to ask you to head on over there and vote for your old pal Dictionopolis In Digitopolis. To prove to me, in the words of Dan Connor's bowling team:

"There's someone worse than us! There's someone worse than us!"

Good luck/bad luck, who knows?

Looks like Disney is buying Pixar. As Amid says on Cartoon Brew:

At this point, it's easy to see it going either way: either Lasseter and company will shine their creative light upon Disney helping to revitalize the Mouse's slumbering animation division or Disney's corporate bureaucracy will drag down Pixar with it and we'll enter a new era of films like THE INCREDIBLES MEET WOODY AND BUZZ.

They should be so lucky

This won't happen, her career is going too well

An article in something called the National Ledger relays rumors that Jennifer Love Hewitt is going to pose for Playboy.

Hot Stuff reports that the squeaky clean hottie feels she is losing film roles because of her image and may be willing to bare all for a centerfold spread.

The Star reports a 'source' told the magazine:

"She told me that maybe a sexy magazine layout with her showing her assets might give her a little edgier image and she might be considered for a femme fatale role."

It won't happen anytime soon, though, because if those of us who have kept one guilty-pleasure eye on Love's career know one thing, it's this: The worse that career is going, the more skin she's showing. When she starred in The Tuxedo (which-full disclosure-I kind of liked, but-fuller disclosure-I also saw on a plane after a night of no sleep):


But right now she's got a TV show that's a hit, so I won't hold my breath. However, a boy can dream...

So I ask her: What percentage of articles about you do you think mention your breasts in great detail?

"Oh, about ninety-eight percent," she breezily replies.

It is in fact, I suggest, perhaps seventy percent, but this is nonetheless remarkable. I wonder what she makes of this.

"I think mine have a career of their own," she says, and laughs. "Separate from me. Frankly, theirs is going better."

~Rolling Stone, "A Day In the Life of Jennifer Love Hewitt"

Ladies & gentlemen, Ms. Molly Ivins

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I love Molly Ivins, and would even if she weren't a liberal, if only because she writes like a dream. Fortunately, she is a liberal, and one who has come to declare:

I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

You ["pragmatic" Democrats] sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.

Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress.

Read the whole thing.

Tom Cruise is a pissy little queen

Case in point.

That sound you hear is me bumping my head on the desk

Firedoglake has a good entry about how no, we're not imagining it: Democrats are actually making a concious decision to do nothing about a little thing like the President Of The United States Of America authorizing illegal wiretaps on US citizens. Nothing.

Redd quotes an article by Walter Shapiro, in which he wrote

To underscore his concerns about shrill attacks on Bush, the Democratic operative forwarded to me later that afternoon an e-mail petition from MoveOn.org, which had been inspired by Al Gore's fire-breathing Martin Luther King Day speech excoriating the president's contempt for legal procedures.

For the record, I signed that petition. If you want to too, here it is. The more political operatives (for either party) show their contempt for MoveOn.org, the more convinced I am of the need to give them my support.

Back to Shapiro:

A series of conversations with Democratic pollsters and image makers found them obsessed with similar fears that left-wing overreaction to the wiretapping issue would allow George W. Bush and the congressional Republicans to wiggle off the hook on other vulnerabilities.

Redd Hedd replies:

Discussion like this makes me want to tear my hair out, because what consultants are really saying is "the hell with doing what is right or protecting the Constitution, it doesn't play well in Peoria."

Here's my response: maybe what hasn't played well up to now is the way you have been describing it. Maybe what we need is a better message.

You know, something like, "The President has already authorized illegal wiretapping. What's to stop him from authorizing house searches without a warrant, compiling a list of all firearms owners without any legal justification and other infringements on what you ought to be able to do as an American citizen?"

Sometimes, governing is about doing what is right, even if it requires you to do a lot of hard work that you wouldn't otherwise have to do -- and which might cut into your fundraising time.

It makes Redd want to tear her hair out. It makes me want to start a drive to get people to pledge that they will not vote for a Democrat unless one shows up.

There should be a category for Californian, Pauly Shore-like speak, buuud-y!

Your Linguistic Profile:

50% General American English

25% Yankee

20% Dixie

5% Upper Midwestern

0% Midwestern

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

The people casting the Spider-Man movies are perverse

They cast Kirsten Dunst, a blonde, as the redhead Mary Jane, and now they're casting as the blonde Gwen Stacy...

Speaking of the long-term consequences...

The Brad Blog has an email by Specialist Douglas Barber, an Iraq War vet. As Brad describes it,

In his email, Barber describes what many families go through when they witness their sons and daughters coming home in flag-draped coffins, hidden from view by the Bush Administration. And, even more telling in this case, some of the horrors veterans suffering from [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] face once back on the homefront.

Here's just a couple of paragraphs of Barber's letter:

All is not okay or right for those of us who return home alive and supposedly well. What looks like normalcy and readjustment is only an illusion to be revealed by time and torment. Some soldiers come home missing limbs and other parts of their bodies. Still others will live with permanent scars from horrific events that no one other than those who served will ever understand.

PTSD comes in many forms not understood by many: but yet if a soldier has it, America thinks the soldiers are crazy. PTSD comes in the form of depression, anger, regret, being confrontational, anxiety, chronic pain, compulsion, delusions, grief, guilt, dependence, loneliness, sleep disorders, suspiciousness/paranoia, low self-esteem and so many other things.

Oh, and here's the punch line: Barber committed suicide a few days ago.

Sweet motherfucking tapdancing christ, will you look at what we've done.

Too true, tattoo

There are three things men can do with women: love them, suffer for them, or turn them into literature. -- Stephen Stills

I've done all three in my time. I'd be doing one now, but Amy Yasbeck is still in mourning. Sigh...

This night the dream was leaving

In the past I've been known to use an "abusive boyfriend" metaphor for the Republican party; the kind who says "you know I only hit you because I love you." The Raw Story's Nancy Goldstein has a column in which she pegs just what kind of boyfriend the Democratic party is turning out to be. Excerpts follow, read the whole thing.

Effective immediately, the Democrats will be known as the lyin'-ass boyfriend party - the perfect date for progressive voters looking to be stood up, bullshitted blind, or left holding the tab.

The Democrats are setting themselves up for a lot of us to be visiting someone else on the side. They're inviting a spoiler like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot to start romancing us in '08. We thought getting their asses kicked three elections (two presidential, one midterm) in a row would teach them something, but it seems they've learned nothing. I could just spit at them.

...the Democrats really can't differentiate themselves from the Republicans. As the Alito hearings have shown, they all get along like a bunch of dorm mates, with occasional spats that can easily be resolved over a pitcher at the pub or a few reps at the gym.

Their kids will never be drafted; their daughters and wives will always enjoy access to contraception and abortions; their queer kids will live well within the long shadow of their protection (and payroll, as Mary Cheney and John Schlafly will attest).

Damn them all.

ETA: Pam has a good entry speaking to a similar subject: Just how genuine is the lefts' commitment to people with whom they cannot personally identify?

If they [the left] could step outside of themselves just for a moment, they'd see how absurd this all is. I'm not holding my breath, though.

She goes on to compare this phenomenon with one she has observed working in magazine publishing:

The reality is that many progressive non-profits and magazines have this problem. I think it's for many reasons -- jobs in publishing tend to pay poorly at the bottom of the food chain; these jobs are considered somewhat prestigious jobs -- even the low-level ed assistant positions are often filled by friends of friends, the daughter of your sorority sister, etc. They hire people they know -- and these folks don't know many people of color. It's the classism-on-the-Left issue rising up again, something that comes up in brief flurries, gets hands wringing for a bit, and then dies down to business as usual.

Earlier in the entry she quotes Shakespeare's Sister:

Not a shred of recognition that perhaps the ideological stagnation from which the Left suffers may be a result of its major power players still being predominantly white, straight, and male—which, by the way, wouldn’t be a problem if those particular straight, white males could and did speak eloquently to progressive issues of concern to women, gays, and minorities, but they don’t. And it’s not because they can’t—Paul the Spud can speak just as passionately about women’s issues as I can, and I can speak just as passionately about gay issues as he can. Extricating oneself from the responsibility of speaking to issues beyond one’s own demographic is a choice, and marginalizing the concerns of women (for example) as "identity politics" is indicative of nothing more than the unwillingness to identify with women.

I'm not a wolf, but I feel like crying

Good post on Hullabaloo about the long-term consequences of the neo-cons' Iraq screwup. Sometimes I think I can't even look at all the ramifications, it's too scary. Digby quotes an article from First Post--

The Iraq fiasco has demonstrated the limitations of American power in the Middle East, for all the world to see. If the neo-cons had only bothered to make serious plans for the reconstruction of the country, Tehran might now take Western sabre-rattling rather more seriously.

--and adds his own comments:

I have written before about how powerful countries must maintain their mystique or risk having crazy people make mistakes. Once it shows that its military is not omnipotent and that its intelligence is crude, it emboldens madmen to play their cards.

There's more if you can take it.

Oh, and in case I haven't mentioned it lately

Americans really, REALLY want Bush impeached.

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

"The American people are not buying Bush's outrageous claim that he has the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Americans believe terrorism can be fought without turning our own government into Big Brother," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik.

You can read more about it here.

As you do, remember that some 52% or so of Americans already wanted Bush impeached "if" he lied about why we went to war in Iraq.

Who knows whether it'll lead anywhere...at the moment I'm feeling very sick and depressed about the Bush administrations seeming ability to squirm out of anydamnthing. To say nothing of the traditional media's willingness to hold them accountable.

But we should also remember, contrary to the spin, that it is not only Democrats who think illegally spying upon Americans is beyond the pale. From AmericaBlog:

Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) is being led by some of the biggest right-wingers in the right wing: Grover Norquist, Paul Weyrich, David Keene, Alan Gottleib (who is a leading gun rights guy) and Bob Barr. They are NOT happy with their fearless leader on this one

So Al Gore made a speech yesterday...(UPDATED w/Additions)

Many of the liberal bloggers have been praising it to high heaven. I dunno, I skimmed it, and I'm not hearing the music. But then, I probably still haven't fully forgiven Gore for the 2000 campaign.

Yes, he's usually right, but that doesn't make him "the conscience of the Democratic party," as some now want to dub him. But enough smart people don't see it my way for me to want to listen.

People like Digby, who has a link to the speech, so you can see for yourself, and his own comments. I agree with him (when he agrees with Gore) saying one of the things we must do is

...demand comprehensive hearings and go where the facts lead. I and others in the blogosphere have been calling for a select committee to invetigate the wiretap leaks so that we can have legal counsel rather than elected bloviators lead the questioning. This is absolutely necessary.

Here's Josh Marshall; another place I think he [and Gore] is right here is when the former says:

The point Gore makes in his speech that I think is most key is the connection between authoritarianism, official secrecy and incompetence.

The president's critics are always accusing him of law-breaking or unconstitutional acts and then also berating the incompetence of his governance. And it's often treated as, well ... he's power-hungry and incompetent to boot! Imagine that! The point though is that they are directly connected. Authoritarianism and secrecy breed incompetence; the two feed on each other. It's a vicious cycle. Governments with authoritarian tendencies point to what is in fact their own incompetence as the rationale for giving them yet more power. Katrina was a good example of this.

ETA: Daily Kos has Gore's reply to the response from the Attorney General.

The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.

My favorite plantation is dalmation

Little joke in the headline for you Disney fans.

Anyway, so apparently earlier today Hillary compared the Republican-controlled house of Representatives to a plantation. And our fair n' balanced friends in the traditional media and on the Republican sites are pulling up their skirts in horror like stereotypical cartoon housewives to a mouse.

Many of the Democratic-leaning sites can tell you what's so hypocritical about Republicans shrieking over this. I liked Hullabaloo's take on it best:

I wonder if anybody thought this article by Joseph Farrah of World Net Daily called "Racism on Dem plantation" (available today only on Google cache for some reason)was out of line. Or how about this one on on Townhall by Cal Thomas who refers to "the Democratic Party and its plantation mentality." And then there's Rush Limbaugh who's been know to refer to anybody who's in the leadership position in the Democratic Party" as "pimps" who attempt to deceive black people into remaining on the "Democratic plantation."

Here's the thing. When the Republicans talk about the "plantation" they are specifically talking about race, claiming that the Democrats are using (presumably stupid) Black Americans against their own interests.

Hillary was talking about the fact that the Republican leadership treats their own caucus like they are slaves.

Now which of those views is racist?

Yet, the Republicans are all over this and they will probably end up getting her to apologise because Democratic politicians have never learned how to respond to being called racist. Until they do, the Republicans are going to use this ridiculous epistemic relativism against them.


Update: As a couple of comenter remind me, perhaps the most famous of these plantation comments cane from none other than Newtie:

"...on the eve of his great electoral victory ten years ago, the speaker-to-be told a reporter he was leading a "slave rebellion" against the Democrats who "run the plantation."

I was younger, with my Murtha...

Crooks and Liars has quotes and clips from John Murtha's Sunday appearance on 60 Minutes. I watched the show and thought he came off quite well, very thoughtful, articulate and statesmanlike.

Certainly it would seem hard for any but the most vicious to assault his character. Unfortunately, we're dealing with the right wing. Anyway, here's part of what Murtha said:

[Bush is] trying to fight this war with rhetoric," Murtha responds. "Iraq is not where the center of terrorism is. So when he says we’re fighting terrorism over there, we’re inciting terrorism over there.--- He said before there’s weapons of mass destruction. He said there’s an al Qaeda connection. There’s many things he said turned out not to be true. So why would I believe him...

This is my big hobby horse for the moment: Why do the traditional media insist on playing this game where President Bush has any credibility on any subject whatsoever? He is a liar. It's what he does, it's who he is. If he says the weather outside is nice, you know you'd better take your warm coat.

How many times does he get to lie to us before they start treating him with one-half the contempt with which they treated Al Gore or Bill Clinton?

I'm going to use a word I don't often use

Ahem. I gather through the grapevine recently, that on my once-loved show The West Wing they have decided to write out Toby Ziegler, arguably my favorite character, by having him fired for leaking classified information.

Richard Schiff,the actor who played Toby, speaking to Upstage Magazine:

Did you like the way they resolved Toby’s character?
Between you and me - and you can print this - Toby wouldn’t have done that in ten million years! But, you know, it’s not my show.

Ahem.

BOOYEAH!

Thank you.

(I knew there was a reason I loved Toby...)

Writers are nuts (for those of you who haven't heard)

I was just re-reading an interview with author Greg Rucka. He's a novelist and comic book writer; I've only ever read his Kodiak series of novels. Actually some I read, some I listened to as books on tape. I liked them a lot. (And, I have just learned going to his website to set up that link, there's a new one due this fall. Hallelujah.)

But anyway, he says (among other things) in this interview, when asked for "Words of wisdom for those about to write their first novel;"

You have to develop the ego that says "My work has merit," the ego that says "Not only does it have merit, but I believe in it."

What's weird is that I have trouble saying my work has merit...but I can easily say that about Keitha and Annabel. I believe these are a truly terrific couple of characters who I just happen to have created.

And I know, logically: To say I think they have merit and that I believe in them (Colley's not too shabby, either) is as close to saying I believe that about my work as makes no odds; they are, after all, my work.

It just doesn't feel right to say it like that.

Writers are nuts. Repeat.

Get hep, come on, and follow through

Taking a tip from Bob, here's what I am:

Currently writing

Technically nothing, but I'm ramping up for the next draft of the prose version of My Girlfriend's Boyfriend. I'll bet you'll be able to tell when I've started it, because I'll stop talking about Keitha, Colley, and the rest here for a while.

Currently reading

The Drama of the Gifted Child, Alice Miller
Elia Kazan, Richard Schickel


Currently watching (actively, that is - not just because it's on)

TV - 24, Gilmore Girls, Supernatural, Boston Legal, Veronica Mars. I think I've decided to give Everybody Hates Chris a rest for a while.

Well, of course

you are JENNY! you are sweet, shy, and innocent,
but you've got a darker, sexier side...and you
cant hold it in forever! you're the closet
freak of the group!


Which Character from The L Word are You???
brought to you by Quizilla

Mia Kirshner, everybody's favorite bisexual...

You celebrate what you like, and I'll celebrate what I like

Today is the day we set aside to honor and remember Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, about whom so much has been said that it's hard to know what to add. So I won't except to say that on the off chance anyone reading this has never been exposed to his writings or speaking, get yourself a copy of the Letters From a Birmingham Jail or a audio or film copy of a couple of his speeches and marvel.

There just isn't a public figure around today with that kind of a natural, god-given if you like, gift for speeches that ring almost 40 years after they were first delivered. Bill Clinton came close, but kinda fucked up the legacy.

That said, I refuse to believe that the good Reverend King would not have wanted me to receive my mail, especially when I'm expecting the new Graham Chapman biography.

On a personal tip, today is the anniversary of the day I lost my virginity, back around 1988. For those of you who even now are becoming uncomfortable, don't worry, I'm not going to describe the act or the day in any detail whatsoever.

But it's an important day in anybody's life, and thanks to MLK day, I always have an easy way to remember it. If you can I find it's always best to plan the important dates in your life around those that have other signifigance.

I had a girlfriend for a couple of years where the anniversary of our becoming "officially" boyfriend and girlfriend fell on New Years. Which was a good way to avoid those sitcom cliches of the guy forgetting and the girl getting mad.

Though actually, given my tendency towards romanticism and truly frightening memory, the odds of my forgetting it before she did were probably not that good in the first place.

A new day dawns...

Tick...tick...tick...tick...

Deep breaths, everybody. The fifth season of 24 has begun.

I say take deep breaths, because this is what I imagine it's like on a roller coaster (I've never been) when you've reached the peak and have started the ride. The 24 producers pride themselves on upping the stakes and they sure did that, especially for those of us who have watched all the previous "days."

If you have not seen the premiere and plan to, stop reading this post now. I am not kidding.



David Palmer and Michelle Dessler-Almeida are dead, Tony is severely injured, and Jack Bauer has been framed for the attacks.

I appreciated that within the context of 24, they allowed Jack a moment to acknowledge what Palmer meant to him, and I take it on faith that a moment is coming like that for Michelle. I avoid spoilers as religiously as I can, but dramatically, before the end of the day Tony needs to be at the right end of a gun with the person who killed Michelle at the wrong end.

For a show with at least one creator who is an avowed Republican, 24 is really good at presenting a character who can be seen as a mirror for George W. Bush, and not a flattering one. President Logan is obsessed with appearances to the extent of ignoring good advice from his intelligence people...that sound familiar to anybody?

Two more hours tomorrow.

Tick...tick...tick...tick...

(Freaky coincidence department: It occurs to me that three of my favorite TV shows feature a character named Logan. It's the name of Rory's romantic interest on Gilmore Girls, Veronica's once and maybe future romantic interest on Veronica Mars, and the President on 24, who is nobody's romantic interest except maybe his own.)

ETA (Freaky coincidence department 2: The new season begins with the assination by sniper of a great, black leader. Happy Martin Luther King day, everybody.)

If I were in the market to buy some fridge magnets...

...I think I'd buy these.

This has been an unpaid commercial endorsement.

Ever wonder where Paris Hilton gets her ladylike ways?

Mrs. Hilton partying the night away with her daughter.

Shelley Winters, R.I.P.

Mark has a nice memory and a classic story about Shelley Winters here.

One film she was particuarly good in late in her career was Heavy, written and directed by James Mangold, currently a man of the hour for the Johnny Cash bio-pic. And The Poseidon Adventure is arguably the greatest of the "disaster" movies-speaking of remakes that don't need to be made. I probably first saw her in Pete's Dragon, which is certainly a flawed movie, but I don't care because I was six when it came out. I remember seeing Whoever Slew Auntie Roo on TV long ago and liking it. And I usually liked her as the grandmother on Roseanne.

Cool!

Cordelia Chase
45% amorality, 63% passion, 18% spirituality, 45% selflessness

Cordy is one of those characters who's sometimes misunderstood. True, you have a healthy self-interest, and an interest in the finer things in life, but that doesn't mean that you don't have a heart of gold and a bit of passion in your soul.

In later years, Cordelia proved just how loving and good a woman she was, and (whether man or woman), I suspect you're kind of like her.

THE 4-VARIABLE BUFFY PERSONALITY TEST

The L Word, Jerry, Dean & Me (A re-statement of purpose)

I promised posts on both The L Word and Martin & Lewis in recent days. This one is meant to fufill both those promises. It's not as much of a stretch as it seems. Lewis' new book about his partner helped me organize a few thoughts about what I think are the weaknesses of Showtime's lesbian soap opera. He writes:

Pathos was, to Dean Martin, the worst kind of flag-waving. Just keep em laughing, was his philosophy. Keep it cool...

Flag-waving, in this instance, means the kind of performance that is excessive, or even fanatical, in begging for an audience's love. In other words, the kind Lewis gave 95% of the time and from which Martin distanced himself.

I said I was going to try to post about what style of show business I think each man represents; well, Lewis is the side that makes me feel ashamed of even wanting to be in show business. There's undeniable talent, but there's no charm, there's no coaxing, there's no, for lack of a better word...seduction. Martin, on the other hand, was all about seduction. There's little charm or seduction (not speaking only sexually) on The L Word, either

As a writer, if I have to lay something out (no play on words intended) for an audience, I'd rather not do it. And yes, this is another thing I hate about The L Word: They flag-wave their pathos, and the characters speak in billboards.

One woman tells her mother her shrink "doesn't have a problem with my sexuality." Another stands and makes a big speech to her father insisting that he recognize her love for her then-estranged partner as just as gosh-darned real as his for her late mother. A third...well, this is my favorite. A character on the show is, in the first season, gay but not comfortable being physically affectionate with women in public. She has a speech that begins...it actually begins..."I'm gay, and when I deny that, I deny the best part of myself..."

Cut to Ben shouting "Oh, shut up!" at the screen.

I suppose I can see how some people might see scenes like these as breaths of fresh air or even that these women are insisting upon their dignity, but to me they're doing just the opposite...and they're about as subtle as Jerry Lewis.

And that's saying nothing about last season's "male gaze" subplot with the male housemate hiding cameras to spy on a few of the women having sex. Get it, get it, huh, cause straight guys only think of the lesbians as sex objects...get it, get it, huh? Clever.

Dignity of characters is of increasing importance to me, and one thing I think you'll never (or rarely) see mine do is beg for someone's esteem or respect. I'm not just talking about my gay characters, but yeah, Keitha would die first.

I like characters who know they're deserving of estreem and respect, and if you don't, they have no time for you. I like brave characters, which I think Keitha is (for that matter so is Nancy-for those one or two of you who know my first play). And one of the rules of bravery, at least for me, is that you don't talk about it.

It's not exactly a new observation, but one of the reasons Martin & Lewis hit so big is because they balanced each other. Martin had in spades the dignity that Lewis simply never wore comfortably, even on those rare occasions when he tried.

If Lewis represents the shameful side of show business then Martin, oddly, represents the side to which I aspire. He pleased, but was not eager to please.

The L Word is not exactly a guilty pleasure for me (it's not like, say, the Blue Collar Comedy Tour movies...). It's more like...you know when you have a sore tooth and you can't stop touching it with your tongue? That's the feeling I have when I look in on an episode; how long can I watch this before having to zap away or mute?

Why do I keep trying? I dunno. Maybe because it seems like I should like it (which, of course, is a dumb reason to do absolutely anything). Maybe I'm just trying to figure out why it's successful enough in the ratings and with the critics not to be cancelled. Certainly I think I know something about the eagerness of lesbians to see themselves represented on television, even if it's not on a great, or even good show.

Maybe I'm just looking for a window into a world that I can use when returning to "my girls." Maybe because on a show that prides itself on offering six-or-so different lesbian or bisexual women characters, I can't believe I can't find one to identify with...given my writing proclivities.

Of course not, stupid, you don't identify with "lesbians" you identify with us. Face it, it's a commitment.

Shut up, Keitha.

Smile, though your heart is aching

Last night's Masters of Horror (spoilers)

Sigh..."the cliche" rears its ugly head...

Lesbian woman is posessed by bug and becomes a killer, then is revealed to have harbored a crazy, obsessive love for her lover even before they met (prior to the "infestation"). She metamorphises into a bug-creature and kills her lovers straight male friend. Her lover is then also bitten and possessed by bug. In last scene we see that both are pregnant and expecting a brood, or swarm, call it what you will.

I don't know whether to start bashing it for what seems to me obvious and overwhelming homophobia, or just throw up my hands, roll my eyes and say "whatever."

Books I read about writing

Here's 10 books (approximately) that I've read and re-read:

Writing Down the Bones and Wild Mind by Natalie Goldberg. These are pretty well known in creative writing circles. I have to admit I used them a lot more before I heard Goldberg reading an excerpt from her own novel and thought it was terrible. Those who can do...

Harlan Ellison's Watching. For me just about any book by Ellison is a lesson in writing; I chose this collection of film reviews to represent them all.

The Art & Craft of Playwriting, by Jeffrey Hatcher. I doubt I could have written my first play without this book, and that play did get produced. Sure it was in Tennessee, and I ain't too happy with some of the things they did to it, but it got produced, goddamn it.

The Screenwriter's Bible, by David Trottier. Early last year when I started trying to turn a play of mine into a screenplay, I got every book I could on it from the library. This is the only one I felt compelled to get my own copy of.

Laughing Matters, by Larry Gelbart. I get a lot of inspiration from other writer's memoirs. Like the Ellison, this one by a hero of mine is meant to represent a host of others.

Which Lie Did I Tell? By William Goldman. My favorite of Goldman's nonfiction, for me it is superior to the classic Adventures In The Screen Trade to which it is a sequel.

On Writing, by Stephen King. And late last year when I started trying to turn that play turned screenplay plus a prequel screenplay into a novel, this is the book I wanted to have on hand.

The DC Comics Guide To Writing Comics, by Dennis O'Neil. I don't write comics, I have no expectations of writing comics, but this has been useful for things like structure and subplots.

Oscar-Winning Screenwriters On Screenwriting, by Joel Engel. Maybe the best thing about this book is screenwriters talking about knowing what their gifts are.

And the two West Wing Shooting Scripts books by Aaron Sorkin. Hey, if you don't know I think Sorkin pretty much walks on the water as a writer by now...

A rare and vulnerable spark

Back in November I blogged about Judith Belushi Pisano's new book about her first husband, John Belushi. If you're interested, I have now read the book, and my review is up at Amazon.com.

Feel free to vote for me if you find the review helpful...

They could have just asked him

Yesterday on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart's guest was a man who's written a book on The Supreme Court and thought, as most people seem to do, that Alito was going to be confirmed. That the Democrats had been hoping to "trick" him into making some gaffe in his testimony.

A gaffe that would have revealed his Bush-worshipping, anti-women's rights, anti-civil rights, way-the-fuck-out-of-the-mainstream, homophobic, Reagan-loving ass for what it is. But, said Jon's guest (whose name I don't remember) that was never going to happen; Alito had been too well prepared to be tricked into showing those cards.

But here's the thing. Put aside everything we've learned about his record in the past few months. Everything that, if this was a country with any sense of reality, would have resulted in his being laughed out of the senate. But put that aside.

The democrats didn't have to finesse and finagle and try to artfully steer him into giving himself away. They could have just asked him.

On Anderson's Cooper's show (via Pandagon), Alan Dershowitz said this:

...if I were a senator, I’d ask [Supreme Court nominees] the following question. I would say, “You have said that your personal views are utterly irrelevant to how you will decide cases. We don’t agree with you on that. But since you’ve said that, let’s ask you some really hard questions about your personal views.”

“Is your mother right when she says that you personally strongly oppose a woman’s right to choose abortion? What do you personally think of gay rights? What do you personally think of affirmative action?”

He couldn’t say, “Well, I can’t give you those answers because it will come before me.” No, no, no, no. You’ve told us that your personal views are irrelevant. We think they’re relevant, so give us the answers. I think it’s a very, very hard question for him to duck.

[Or ask him] Bush vs. Gore. Where were you on the night that Bush vs. Gore was announced? What did you say to your friends when the decision came down? What did you actually say? Did you write e-mails to anybody? Did you agree with the decision, not what would you do in the future?

They could have just asked him.

Sometimes I think democrats and republicans aren't donkeys and elephants anymore. They're frogs and scorpions. Yeah, the scorpion will sting you. It's in their nature; you don't expect anything more from them. But the frog was stupid enough to give the scorpion a ride across the water on their back.

The problem with this anaology is that, in the tale, at least the frog and the scorpion both die. And in this version, the frog may drown, but the scorpion is going to be appointed to one of the most powerful benches in the land.

And he can't be removed except by retirement or death.

They could have just asked him.

Days like this I wish I drank more.

And that's not all

John has a good post about "why Republicans don't get bigotry."

They think bigots hang out in white hoods with burning crosses in their front yards. Some do, but most don't. And to suggest that it's only guilt by association when you choose to join a group whose main purpose is to embrace and promote bigotry, then you render the definition of bigotry meaningless.

He's probably right, but the thing is, that's not all: Bigots don't get bigotry. That's one of the reasons statements by people who feel compelled to start out with "I'm not a bigot, but-" are so meaningless. Maybe two times out of a thousand you'll find an exception, but for the most part, nobody cares to cop to their true face.

So of course Republicans don't get bigotry...they're bigots.

Darkness makes me fumble for a key (UPDATED)

Update: And Mark has a good idea.

Years ago in a bout of the same masochism that once caused me to eat at a Norm's Restaurant, I watched most of the Clarence Thomas hearings. I don't know why I did it...just hoping for a moment of honest candor that never came. Didn't hear it from the Senators of either party, didn't hear it from the nominee. I still don't know about Anita Hill but she wasn't aspiring to a lofty position in our government so she didn't matter as much. What I think I was waiting for was for some Democrat to say, when it was his time to speak, "Judge Thomas, all this crap about what you said to someone about privacy rights in a law lecture twelve years ago is irrelevant. The president nominated you for this position because he thinks you'll advance his Conservative agenda. I intend to vote against you for precisely that reason. Thank you. I'm done." Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and all the rest could say that today to Alito but it wouldn't get them as much camera time.

An AP article on Yahoo! says Alito appears headed for confirmation. Enjoy control over your uterus while you can, ladies. And boy, what a loser Kanye West was with his "George Bush doesn't care about black people." If that were true, would he have nominated somebody who belonged to a bigoted, sexist. homophobic organization to the highest court in the land?

I believe, 30 years from now, the issue that most Democratic Senators of today will have trouble looking people in the eyes about is, of course, the Iraq war. As they have to accept more and more responsibility for allowing themselves to be deceived into a quagmire, they will find themselves unable to justify the loss of thousands of lives and millions of dollars.

But the second is going to be that they allowed the re-ordering of the Supreme Court, leaving the door open for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and ensuring a deaf ear is turned to civil and human rights.

After a war, a Supreme Court justice is a president's most lasting legacy.

As usual, the best blogging on the hearings is to be found in Firedoglake.

ETA: Oh, boy. Bob Geiger picked up on something that I'd missed prior to this.

Ted Kennedy (D-MA) went after Alito primarily on his membership in the ultra-conservative Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) including reading a startling clipping from a 1984 edition of the organization's magazine that commented on AIDS research being done at that time on monkeys and said "Now that the scientists must find humans, or rather homosexuals, to submit themselves to experimental treatment. Perhaps Princeton's Gay Alliance may want to hold an election."

"Humans, or rather homosexuals." In a weird way, I admire them for just coming out and saying it. None of this "loving the sinner but hating the sin" crap. Just: "Humans, or rather homosexuals."

I find myself wanting to test Godwin's Law.

ETA, again: But you can also find some good reporting in Hullabaloo, where Digby wrote:

I think it's time for Ted Kennedy to haul some little girls who were strip searched in to testify. You wanna play? Bring it.

If you don't know to what he's referring, it's about one of Alito's more indefensible votes.

More fun with anti-feminism

Writer and entertainer George Carlin once commented to an interviewer that while philosophers had been wondering for thousands of years "why we are here...I know why I'm here. I'm here for the entertainment."

(Quote is approximate)

In that spirit, here's a couple of more responses to Kate O'Beirne's reportedly anti-feminist tome. A blogger called B Muse judges a book by its cover. And Amanda of Pandagon (which has added a really ugly new logo) shows why she's a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

See, though I know Jonah Goldberg as the poster child for armchair warriors that he is, I've instinctively shied away from reading much of his prose. Some might call it cowardice, I call it self-preservation.

Tom Stoppard got a big "me, too!" from me when he said:

I have an enjoyment of language...Reverence? Well, I probably do, because I go into a kind of pain when it's used loosely and inaccurately.

Anyone who had the misfortune to be sitting near me during Star Wars Ep. Three, or my next-door neighbors when I make my masochistic attemps to watch The L Word, can attest to that. But Amanda walked 20 miles into the jungle with gun and camera, and returned with souvinier snapshots of a man whose writing style is ennobled by the word "fatuous."

Initially writing in support of his friend O’Beirne's book, Goldberg devolves...not that he has that far to go, hee hee...into writing about What Feminists Believe. Apparently:

Feminists honestly believe they are speaking for all women; I think this way, I am a woman, I must represent all women.

As you may imagine, Amanda has some thoughtful things to say about that, and a few more of Mr. Goldberg's joyful observations. Those of you who appreciate seeing a bright girl bloody the nose of a pampered rich kid are recommended there post-haste.

O'Reilly casts his mind back...oh, those were the days

With the Alito hearings still going on, gross-out king Bill O'Reilly apparently is coming over all nostalgic about early 2003, just before the war started. He's picking on the Dixie Chicks again, claiming they "have not recovered to this day" from lead singer Natalie Maines' controversial comment.

Of course, that was a lie. Here's the thing, though, and it's something we should remember. "Dixie Chicked" has become a verb meaning to suffer a negative impact on your career as retribution for making an unpopular political statement.

As you'll recall something very similar happened to Bill Maher, and IIRC Madonna pulled a video so it wouldn't happen to her. If it was having a chilling effect on people with the kind of money and power behind her that Madonna has, what do you think it did to younger, less-secure entertainers?

Which I'm convinced was the reason behind Clear Channel pulling the Chicks from radio playlists; they wanted a head (or three) on a pike that they could point to and say "See? This is what you get!"

But what we should remember is that it didn't work.

As Media Matters tells us,

In March 2003, group member Natalie Maines incited controversy after telling a London audience, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." Initial anger over the statements and a limited radio boycott did reportedly have an impact on the group's album sales. However, the Dixie Chicks' 2003 North American tour proved that any backlash was short-lived. In May, a mere two months after the controversy first erupted, the tour opened in Greenville, South Carolina, to a sold-out crowd. The tour then spent the summer crisscrossing North America and grossed $61 million, making the Dixie Chicks tour the top-grossing country tour of 2003. By the end of the year, their album, Home, ranked fourth on 2003's Billboard Top 200 Album chart, with the group itself finishing the year as the top-selling country group/duo and the third-highest-selling pop group/duo.

The trio's music has also consistently won major awards. Since the anti-Bush comments, it won the Best Country Vocal Performance by a Duo or Group Grammy in 2005. The group's song "I Hope," whose proceeds will go to victims of Hurricane Katrina, has been nominated in that category and in the Best Country Song category for the 2006 Grammys, which will be awarded February 8.

In other words...please, please, Dixie Chick me. I can stand not recovering from having top-five sellers and winning major awards. Media Matters doesn't get into this but I'd imagine the group also gained a lot of new listeners from the controversy, people like me who began paying special attention and found we truly enjoyed the music.

But seriously: I hope this information is out there where younger artists can see it. The first, greatest example in recent years of how dissent can harm your career, and it isn't true. It's not real.

You'll recollect Bill Maher is doing pretty okay these days too.

More remakes that don't need to be made

Matt and Ben Reunite On Screen
The famous friends are supposedly planning to remake Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. According to OK Magazine:

The actors will take on the roles made famous by Paul Newman and Robert Redford in the 1969 classic.

Damon will reportedly play the Sundance Kid, while Affleck will recreate Newman’s role as Butch Cassidy, according to America’s OK! magazine.

Via OhNoTheyDidn't.

This idea, if true, is indefensible. When are Hollywood people going to realize that the trick is you remake movies that aren't very good (think Ocean's 11) in their original form, not the ones that are?

Now that's funny

Bob Geiger corrects his own Abramoff post:

I guess this shows that I really did make an effort to honestly root out any Democrats who personally got money from Jack Abramoff – either directly or through a Political Action Committee (PAC) – because it looks like one of the few Democrats I cited as getting money from an Abramoff-linked PAC is actually a Republican!

Reader Marilynn Murray, of Rockwall, Texas, wrote to let me know that Congressman John Hall, who actually was a Democrat when he got money from the conservative Arena PAC in the 1990s, is actually part of the GOP.

"Please correct that information. That old fool used to be a sort of Democrat. Thank God he decided he is really a Republican," wrote Marilynn.

"Gay-adjacent?"

Sony Music on Tuesday said it was launching the first major music label dedicated to nurturing lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gendered artists.

The label also comes as Wilderness Media plans this weekend to launch a syndicated national radio show called Twist targeting the gay and "gay-adjacent" communities, debuting on FM stations and the Web. The weekly two-hour radio show will feature music, celebrity interviews, entertainment reports and relationship and lifestyle advice and news in a "morning show" format.

"Gay-adjacent?" I think we've finally found the genre I write in; not gay...but "gay-adjacent."

Pam has put together a collection of reactions from pro-Bush GOP website The Free Republic. It seems they're rather irritated by this. I can only assume on the premise that if we let too many gays into show business, the blacks will be next, and after them, the Jews...

They've responded with the wit that is the province of the pro-Bush GOP, who are well known to be funnier than any bunch of fags you might care to name, like that bitter, ugly Nathan Lane.

"The first CD release will be "Songs Inspired By Bareback Mountain", including the hits, "Homo On The Range," and "Bathhouses of Laredo.""

"Yeah, like the gays don't already have gay or gay-friendly artists like Judy Garland, Barbra Streisand, Liza Minelli, Bette Midler, Cher, the Village People, George Michael, Elton John..."

I resent this person for leaving out Frankie Goes To Hollywood and Lea DeLaria.

"Gangsta artists shoot each other Country Artists may cuss at each other Gay/Lesbian artists simply kick, pull hair and scratch each other's eyes out."

Oh, the comedy.

In a semi-related story, this is why I don't want to publish my Keitha stories under a female pseudonym: I'd get killed.

Read it in the books, in the crannies and the nooks, there are books to read

A woman named Kate O'Beirne has a new book out called: Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports. And yes, she's serious (evidently).

The lovely and lethal lady Jane of firedoglake has said she's sharpening her knives, but she hasn't had a chance to get to it, what with the Alito hearings and all. But in the meantime, you can enjoy Jesus' General's Amazon review, excerpted herewith:

But I think it's her frequent attacks against the television show, "Sex in the City," that I value most about this book. By promoting the myth that women should enjoy sex, that show has done more to destroy the institution of marriage than even homosexual unions. I think most men will agree with me when I say that there isn't a woman alive who isn't thoroughly repulsed by sex. Telling them that it should be a pleasant experience rather than a vomit-inducing one only serves to cause them to resent their husbands when the impossible isn't delivered. Hopefully, this book will help destroy that myth.

As much as I enjoyed this book, I can't give it more than a single star because it has a fatal flaw. It promotes the most destructive myth of all, the existence of lesbianism. Mrs. O'Beirne discusses it throughout the book as if it is something that is real. She doesn't seem to be able to understand that women can't have sex with each other. They don't have little soldiers.

PS: Jane also reminds us that Mrs. O'Beirne is the author of this remark:

I have long thought that if high-school boys had invited homely girls to the prom we might have been spared the feminist movement.

Oh, I like her...

Caption this photo

"I cut down trees, I wear high heels, suspenders and a bra..."

I'll accept that

You Are Sex On the Beach!

When comes to drinking, you like it to go down smooth. You really don't like the taste of alcohol - just its effect on you. So, you're proud to get drunk on fruity, girly drinks. Because once you're liquored up, the fun begins!

What alcoholic drink are you?

Stupid short-memoried public

Little Steven Van Zandt of the E Street Band made a cameo appearance on The Colbert Report last night. Appearing, in true Daily Show style "from" South Africa. Where, he announced, he had been playing the Sun City resort.

Judging from the audiences (lack of) reaction, no one remembered that in the '80s Van Zandt was the driving force behind the anti-Apartheid Sun City single with its chant "I ain't gonna play Sun City."

I suppose I just remember because the album put together around it remains one of the rare examples of a "charity" record that can still be listened to for pleasure. Rather than a sense of resigned duty.

But still: Stupid, short-memoried public.

Madonna, really, it's getting embarassing

Or, "and you thought Reese Witherspoon had a lot of airbrushing done." This is sad. She's coming off like a desperate housewife, you should pardon the expression. Woman, you're 47. Grow into it.

...and yes, there are 47-year-old women I find attractive (Sharon Stone, Holly Hunter, Jane Wiedlin, Annette Bening, Angela Bassett, Belinda Carlisle, Jennifer Tilly, Bebe Neuwirth...) You know what they have in common? They spend very little time dressing like they're hoping to lure the pizza boy in for a quickie.

Letterman doesn't get on board Love Train with O'Reilly

You may have heard tell of an incident that occured on The Late Show With David Letterman last week. Gross-out king Bill O'Reilly had a little of his bad karma thrown back in his face when Letterman dissented with him.

I haven't said anything about it here because I didn't see it. Mark had some thoughts, though, about why he doesn't think it was the rout some people think it was, or certainly not a fair fight. Meanwhile, Bob Geiger's posted some excerpts that are well worth reading, including:

O'Reilly: .... Cindy Sheehan called the insurgents 'freedom fighters,' we don't like that. It is a vitally important time in American history. And we should all take it very seriously. Be very careful with what we say.

Letterman: Well, and you should be very careful with what you say also.

[audience applause]

O'Reilly: Give me an example.

Letterman: How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?

O'Reilly: Because I think she's run by far-left elements in this country. I feel bad for the woman.

Letterman: Have you lost family members in armed conflict?

O'Reilly: No, I have not.

Letterman: Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?...See, I'm very concerned about people like yourself who don't have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ.

Not bad, huh? Who would have thought the old dog had it in him? Although, I must admit I was not completely surprised when I heard about this, because I remember when Rush Limbaugh was on the program a few years back. Letterman asked him:

"Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night and just think to yourself, I'm just full of hot gas?"

Not K9 units!

A very silly joke about something that isn't very silly at all:

According to a headline in The Raw Story,

Unsealed docs reveal massive NSA spy op on
Quaker anti-war group; WMD team at protest

Documents: Spying on balloons; K9 units, more

Dear god. They'll stop at nothing.

Thank you.

Ink 19 Update

Superstars#1 Hits Remixed. Sarah McLachlan, Pink, Christina Aguilera, and more-the verdict is in.

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.