If you know a young girl who wants a doll

Or for that matter a young boy--see, all those playings of the Free To Be You And Me record when I was six or seven didn't go to waste--may I suggest you get them one of these for Christmas?

Why? I'll let the TGW explain. Egalia?

The anti-feminist fury of the radical right seems to be getting more intense with the efforts to promote a Christmas boycott of American Girl dolls. The Pro Life Action League says it has received "over 500 boycott pledges since announcing the boycott of American Girl."

The rightwing groups spreading the news of a call for a boycott include: The American Family Association, Priests for Life, Operation Rescue, Stand True Ministries, Aid for Women and Illinois Right to Life, Focus on the Family and Concerned Women of America and, of course, the Southern Baptists.

The doll company's sin is that it has partnered with the non-profit Girls Inc., in a campaign to promote high self-esteem among girls. The radical right has a problem with Girls Inc. The nonprofit supports birth control and freedom of choice. Girls Inc., also supports girls who are lesbian or bisexual [gasp].

Kathryn Hooks...director of media and public relations for the American Family Association...charges that Girls Inc., "supports abortion as a 'woman's freedom of choice, a constitutional right' and 'convenient access to safe, effective methods of contraception.'" Girls Inc. offends Ms. Hooks further because it offers books on the subject of sexual orientation.

God forbid that our daughters should have birth control and books too!

Thanks, Egalia. So you see what I'm talking about. It's a chance to do something nice for a child while flipping off the radical right at the same time, and how often does that come up? If it weren't for the fact that he'd only be interested if the dolls were of dinosaur firemen, I'd order one for my nephew.

A happy little picture of a dog

Just 'cos it made me smile. Credit to One Odd Goose.

This is my man

If the next presidential election were next week, I'd want to be voting for John Edwards. I know, big deal, right? No such "endorsement" matters a damn until 2008 when we know who else is involved and what's happened since. God knows, if you'd told me in 2001 that three years later I'd be having to hold my nose and vote for John Kerry...

But I digress. Why have I decided to "come out" so early for Edwards? Here's why. In my old blog, on January 30, 2004 at 4:13 PM, I said:

Senators like John Edwards and John Kerry flatly failed to do their jobs...And the next generation will judge them just as surely as mine did those who got the US into Vietnam, Republican or Democrat. Although, that's easy to say with 20/20 hindsight, and I'm not sure if, at the time, the futility of Vietnam was as evident as Iraq II was. And it was, from the very beginning. Dean's presumptive frontrunner status may have turned out to be greatly exaggerated, but he will always have this over every one of the candidates except Clark and, of course, Kucinich: He was right about Iraq, and they were wrong.

I would love to see which of them will be the first to say it (come on, John Edwards! Confession is good for the soul!).

In the Sunday, November 13, 2005 Washington Post:

The Right Way in Iraq

By John Edwards

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

In AmericaBlog, John says

This is a very big deal.

Edwards is saying what far too few Democrats are willing to say. They got tricked into voting for the war in Iraq, and now they regret it. Edwards goes one step farther, taking personal responsibility in any case for his vote. He and Kerry should have done this last year, but it's still good he's doing it now, and it sounds very much to me like this is a man running for president in 2008.

I say this is a big deal because top Democrats are finally willing to say publicly that they screwed up, they should have never voted for this fiasco, while at the same acknowledging that Bush hardly played an insignificant role in tricking the Congress and the American people into supporting this war.

Until or unless someone better comes along, that's my man.

The conscience of a conservative

Ah, William Kristol. He's on the very short list of Bush-supporters for whom I can find some respect, sometimes; in spite of himself. This is not one of those times. He responds to recent survey info:

57 percent of Americans endorsed that proposition that the president "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq," compared to 35 percent who thought he "gave the most accurate information he had." Five months ago, those numbers were 44 percent "misled" versus 47 percent "accurate information." Eight months ago, shortly after Bush's second term began, there were only 41 percent who thought Bush had "misled" them, while 53 percent credited the president with being "accurate."

Now, why have those percentages risen? If I had to speculate, I would say it's at least partially a product of the almost unrelenting bad times Republicans have been having in Bush's second term.

The electorate is unhappy over things like (but by no means limited to) the CIA leak investigation, and it's making them take a long look back at the President. That'd be my best guess, anyway. Does it surprise you to learn that Kristol sees it differently?

No new information has appeared in those eight months. All that has happened is an unanswered assault by Bush's enemies. The White House figured the election was over and didn't recognize that the anti-Bush campaign would continue.

Remember that right-wing blogger last month who responded to President Bush's job approval rating slipping to 39% with 17 surly paragraphs? And only mentioned once, in passing, the issue that, it seems obvious to me, is most responsible for Bush's failing fortunes: Iraq?

This is kind of like that. To Bush's supporters, he can never fail, he can only be assaulted by his political enemies. I'm at a loss to think of anyone who I like that much, in or out of the political arena. I mostly hated the last two Pet Shop Boys albums...

But funnily enough, Kristol himself provides another answer, in the very next paragraph, to the question of why more people trusted Bush a few months ago.

Lies can work when unrefuted. In a healthy democracy, they tend to boomerang when confronted and exposed.

But I don't wish to be mean to Mr. Kristol. I believe he feels pricklings of conscience that lead him sometimes to say the right things, even if he still feels the need to hide them in the wrong ones.

For example, look at his conclusions here. Shy of a couple of rewordings and grammar points, it's something I could say. Only I'd mean it as prediction, and he means it (or so he would tell you) as warning:

If the American people really come to a settled belief that Bush lied us into war, his presidency will be over. He won't have the basic level of trust needed to govern. His initiatives, domestic and foreign, will founder. Support for the war on terror will wane. The lie that Bush lied us into war threatens the Bush presidency in a way no ordinary political charge does.

I think many, if not all of us, can agree that most of that is true. It's just that we disagree on why it's true, and whether or not it's a bad thing.

Lies, Lies, Lies, Yeah

Just a little more on the Nathan Thurm school of defending the President (We're not being defensive! You're the ones who are being defensive!).

ReddHedd made a good entry today quoting a Washington Post analysis. The Post seems to have jumped onto this "competence" fad that's all the rage in the press these days. I'd feel better about this fad if I weren't sure with an almost sickening certainty that if Bush's popularity ever again noses above 50%, we'll see it ("competence") fade. But for now, they're doing a fine job.

Senators on both sides of the aisle failed to do their jobs adequately, and allowed short term political considerations for upcoming elections to trump responsibilities for oversight through advice and consent.

The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.

But that in no way excuses the Administration from failing to provide the fullest possible picture of the pros and the cons of the intelligence information.

ETA: Sadly, No! on one of the odder responses by a Republican blogger to the Washington Post article, another little lesson in misrepresentative linking.

It always seemed kind of creepy to me anyway

Feministing on the birth-control "patch:"

The makers of the patch, Ortho McNeil, had previously denied the accusations of serious risks such as blood clots and strokes, claiming that the potential risks in the patch and the pill were more or less the same. Yet new information has found (and added to the label) that women who use the patch will be exposed to 60 percent more estrogen than women on the pill. DAMN.

While the patch and the pill both have the same amount of estrogen in them, hormones from the patch go directly into the blood stream while the pill is digested and loses a significant amount in the process. In result, women die and suffer from blood clots at a rate three times higher than women on the pill.

I never found a sticker on my ass very appealing to begin with, but hopefully now women will think twice before putting this serious amount of hormones into their bodies. Scary stuff.

Something Up With The Stars

The forecast's in and the outlook's calm
There's something up with the stars right now
But fate won't let her be run aground
We're pulling right into the future now

The future is calling
The satellites can see us
The angels are the schemers

Don't let the sky fall down
Or let the wind blow south
The captain's heart give out
The future is calling you down

And fate won't let her be run aground
There's something up with the stars right now
The angels are scheming above the clouds
We're pulling right into the future now

The future is calling
The satellites can see us
The distance that's between us

The moons have designs on you now
Don't let the wind blow out
The captain's heart give out
The future is calling you down

It's pulling right into the future now
The future is calling

~Electric Music Aka

A Karl Rove Thanksgiving

Here's part of the intro to a long, but good article from AmericaBlog:

You know, oftentimes one can be tempted to use hyperbole to challenge one's opponents. Take this sentence for example:

The corrupt cronyism of the Republican Party is utter and complete, encompassing the Executive Branch and both branches of Congress.

Now, you might read that and think, oh, that's just a bit excessive, I'm sure that there are good people in the Republican party. Even if I disagree with their methodology, they are trying their best.

This time it's different. This time it's far worse than anything we've seen in quite a while. You judge people in life on the company they keep -- who people choose to associate with tells you a lot about them. In politics, judge people on the leaders that they choose to follow -- the example set by political leadership sets a tone and an agenda.

This struck a chord with me because sometimes I feel twinges of guilt about the sweeping generalizations I sometimes make about the Republican party in this blog. A little of this comes from my old friend Moya, who is pretty, giving and until recently from the "Libertarian wing of the Republican party."

She changed her registration when she just couldn't take it anymore, but I know there are...or were...good people in the Republican party because she was one. The reason the temptation keeps cropping up to say that there aren't is because for a long time now I've been wondering:

Where are they?

Thieves like us

I stole this from JeopardyGirl, who stole it from someone called Babs. If you want to take it, be my guest.

How it works is you name a band or artist, and then the answers to the questions have to be in the form of titles of their songs.

Artist/band: Pet Shop Boys
Are you male or female: Music For Boys pt 3
Describe Yourself: Paninaro
How do some people feel about you: What Have I Done To Deserve This
How do you feel about yourself: If love were all
Describe where you want to be: Se a veda e' (That's the way life is)
Describe what you want to be: (Never) Being Boring
Describe How you Live: Left To My Own Devices/In Denial
Describe how you love: Love Comes Quickly
Share a few words of wisdom: We All Feel Better In The Dark

As usual with these things I've had to cheat a little, nerdishly providing links to lyrics if I don't think the point fully comes across in the song title. I slightly altered the name of another for the same reason. I know, I know. It's A Sin...

This is a great shame

I've just read that a writer from the UK named Harry Thompson has died. He was known over there as a TV writer and producer for shows such as Da Ali G Show. I admit, I've never seen the joke about Ali G.

But I know Thompson as the writer of one of my prized books, his biography of Peter Cook, who coincidentally I mentioned just a few posts ago somewhere around here. I think Eric Idle encapsulated it best in the review that made me buy it, as something like:

"Either the funniest book ever written about a sad man or the saddest book ever written about a funny man."

He'd also written a biography of Tintin's creator, Hergé, that I've never found although I've looked once or twice. According to the death announcement:

[Thompson's]first novel, This Thing Of Darkness, was on the Booker prize's long list, [he] was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer in April. He did not smoke.

He died on Monday night having married Lisa Whadcock, his girlfriend, that day.

Frankly, I can do without that kind of cheap irony in life.

It's pretty. It's so pretty.

From Raw Story via TGW:

According to Friday's Wall Street Journal: "Six in 10, including 43% of Republicans, say there should be a public investigation and hearings into exposure of operative Valerie Plame's identity." The statistic is published in the paper's Washington Wire.

"Fully 69% of Americans hold Cheney personally responsible for the matter; 54% hold Bush responsible.

"Republican congressional leaders don't plan to go along. Among conservatives, 60% say other administration officials aside from Libby may have acted illegally.

For some reason this made me miss Tip O'Neil.

Call me crazy, but I think Tip would have known what to do with polling data like this. I wonder if there are any living Democratic leaders who can put the spotlight on the fact that Republican leaders are blatantly denying the will of the people.

Mr Reid? Mrs. Clinton? Mr. Kerry? Mr. Clinton? You claim to lead us. This would be a good time to step up.

I always saw myself more as Charlie Brown* or Snoopy

You are Rerun!


Which Peanuts Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Or Linus. But I must admit I do fit the profile above in many ways.

*In fact, I even played Charlie Brown years ago, in one of the many thousands of productions of You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown. Schulz said it was the most-performed musical in the history of the theater.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha...

On a blog called Crushed by Inertia, Lons has a good post that starts out giving his-or-her reasons for disliking Jay Leno.

I understand that he has to try and appeal to the widest possible audience, and most Americans don't want their post-news fall-asleep hour to be too edgy, outrageous or exciting. But, Jay Leno is just such an unfunny, fawning simp. He wasn't funny even before he had a TV show, when he was free to appeal to any audience he chose.

I disagree about that; there was a time when Jay Leno was coming up in the '80s and was doing Letterman a lot that I thought he was the funniest man in America. However, I think the treadmill of doing the Tonight show night after night has smoothed him out, not that he had that many rough edges in the first place. Men with rough edges don't get network talk shows interviewing sitcom stars.

But more importantly, I agree with Lons' broader point, which is about

not just Jay Leno, but a lot of political comedians of his ilk. I think that sometimes, they take real problems and issues and make them frivolous. I think that sometimes, genuine and truthful observations about our world are turned too quickly into just another cliched punchline.

Bill Maher, to me, would be more chiefly guilty of this today, but that's a matter of opinion. But this is something that I've been thinking about for a while as well. As much as I've loved & love some political comedians from A. Whitney Brown to the late, great Bill Hicks, I also remember what Peter Cook used to say: The peak of satire was 1930's Berlin--and look how much that did to prevent the rise of Hitler.

What bothers me sometimes about political comedy is that it seems to be a way of letting off steam about things that we all know are true--but that nobody's doing anything about. Like, get this...

2,061 Americans have died in Iraq...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...because our president is a liar...ha ha ha ha ha ha....

"The Hammer." As in "dumb as a box of."

The case against Tom DeLay hinges on whether he knew about and condoned a well-documented conspiracy to circumvent election laws. Earle’s Grand Jury made it clear when they issued indictments that the case against DeLay was practically bombproof. Somebody must have told the Grand Jury about DeLay’s involvement, but who?

As it turns out, Tom DeLay.

--John F. in Balloon Juice

To repeat: Their "defense" is, he's not a liar. he's just an idiot

In fact, just as big an idiot as Bill Clinton! Or John Kerry! Or Harry Reid! So there! Neah!

Boy, wouldn't it be great if we had a president who could defend himself on tbe grounds that he's less of an idiot than his political opponents?

Yeah, I know, that only happens on television.

Today a Bush aide, and then Bush himself, took their new spin out for another drive. This being that because other people may have been wrong about WMDs in Iraq, that makes everything all okay that George W. was "wrong" about WMDs in Iraq.

But as Steve Cobble says, in a longer but recommended post:

The question on the table is not whether Bill Clinton was wrong about WMDs in Iraq; nor is the question whether John Kerry or Harry Reid or other top Dems are hypocrites for supporting the war then and criticizing it now.
The question on the table is whether the Bush Administration lied, distorted, exaggerated, and hyped the supposedly "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq in the run-up to the war.
The question on the table is whether the Bush Administration first decided to go to war--without telling America--and then cherry-picked existing intelligence while Cheney muscled and pressured analysts to "find" new "intelligence" by playing up rumors and downplaying objections.
The question on the table is whether Bush & Cheney & Rice & the WHIG committed impeachable offenses, misleading and tricking their fellow citizens into a war of choice, which they falsely portrayed as a war of necessity.

Elsewhere, Daily Kos points out another hole in Bush's logic:

For the last two major election cycles, 2002 and 2004, Republicans made electoral gains on the assertion that Democrats were weak on defense and only the Big, Bad, Republican Party could save the nation from the evil terrorists and their nefarious dreams of mushroom clouds over American cities.

Now, Bush is saying that he can't be criticized by Democrats because Democrats were with him all along?????

ETA: Think Progress lays out the reasons why the claim that Congress had access to the same information Bush did and thought Iraq was a threat is false. For any of you who need those reasons laid out.

Where you gonna get 'em, John?

Okay, just so you guys know, I've had about four hours of sleep. I couldn't find the new bottle of sleeping pills that I bought just last night (and I may be addicted to sleeping pills, but that's another issue).

My point is that I am in even less of a mood than usual to pretend there is any sanity in the plans of men and women who just will not face the reality of the situation.

In a speech on Thursday that highlighted the growing unease of some Republicans with lack of the progress at defeating the insurgency, Senator John McCain of Arizona said, "There is an undeniable sense that things are slipping in Iraq."

But Mr. McCain warned that proposals for withdrawing forces next year "are exactly wrong" and called for the American military presence to grow by 10,000, to 165,000.

"Instead of drawing down, we should be ramping up, with more civil-military soldiers, translators and counterinsurgency operations teams," he told a packed audience at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research institute.

Via The Talent Show

The Defense Department opened its new recruiting year with good news: announcing yesterday that the Army met its goal for October. But officials also said that the Army lowered the October recruiting goal by about a third from last year's.
Via AmericaBlog

This is gonna sound like a bizarre sidebar, but I'm going somewhere. When the indefensible remake of Psycho came out a few years ago, I fantasized about interviewing the "creative" team behind and in front of the camera and asking them only one question:

Why?

And no matter what answer they gave, the next question would always be: Why? No matter what bullshit rationalization money-grubbing excuse they had. Next question: Why?

Now I find myself wanting to say to John McCain (and anybody else who favors sending more troops)...where you gonna get 'em, John? Uh-huh, that's great, but where you gonna get 'em, John? Terrific, but where you gonna get 'em, John?

If you're a lawmaker and you support sending more troops to Iraq, I want to see you front and center on the senate floor calling for the re-instituion of the draft. Otherwise, I want you to shut the fuck up.

Where you gonna get 'em, John?

I like to be the ruthless and sarcastic one in my relationships

The Keys to Your Heart

You are attracted to those who are unbridled, untrammeled, and free. In love, you feel the most alive when things are straight-forward, and you're told that you're loved. You'd like to your lover to think you are stylish and alluring. You would be forced to break up with someone who was ruthless, cold-blooded, and sarcastic. Your ideal relationship is lasting. You want a relationship that looks to the future... one you can grow with. Your risk of cheating is zero. You care about society and morality. You would never break a commitment. You think of marriage something you've always wanted... though you haven't really thought about it. In this moment, you think of love as commitment. Love only works when both people are totally devoted.

What Are The Keys To Your Heart?

Not so sure about this "caring about society and morality" bit, though...

"The Phantom Spear?" Well sure, if you believe that lying ex-girlfriend of mine.

Your Superhero Profile

Your Superhero Name is The Phantom Spear Your Superpower is Mutant Your Weakness is Kittens Your Weapon is Your Electro Lasso Your Mode of Transportation is Stilts

What's your Superhero Name?

How'd they know about my Electro Lasso, though?

Great. I'm the color of a homosexual dinosaur.

Your Hair Should Be Purple

Intense, thoughtful, and unconventional. You're always philosophizing and inspiring others with your insights.

What's Your Funky Inner Hair Color?

I demand a recount

You Are 40% Weird

Normal enough to know that you're weird... But too damn weird to do anything about it!

How Weird Are You?