And more. Heh. Heh heh.

WIGU: A COMIC ON THE INTER NET

This rocks. I am laughing at my desk. Yes, this is what I do at work.

WIGU: A COMIC ON THE INTER NET

Awesome. I may have finally found something I can have faith in.

Open Letter

Why are we such bullies? I don't want to be part of the bully country. I love it: "Well, I don't care that the rest of the world would like to focus on international poverty reduction; we want free markets! And no Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty!"

And we always get what we want.

U.S. Wants Changes In U.N. Agreement (WP)

Oh, and? If you pre-order the soon-to-be released Death Cab record "Plans" from amazon, you can listen to the whole thing digitally now. And it rocks.

Amazon.com: Music: Plans

Aside from the fact that they're taking this news brief from Rollingstone.com, which seems a strange journalistic tactic, at the very least, whoohoo! New B & S album! And something to make me sad, only because I can't go to London on September 25:

"Rolling Stone also notes that Belle and Sebastian will be touring the U.S. next spring. For now, your only chance to see Stuart Murdoch shake his lil tush on the catwalk Stateside will be at the Across the Narrows festival in New York City in October. Or you can trek to London on September 25 to see the band perform their classic If You’re Feeling Sinister in its entirety as part of All Tomorrow’s Parties’ “Don’t Look Back” series. Or you can sit in your room and weep into your diary until the flowers bloom again."

One of my favorite albums. In it's entirety. Performed live. Le sigh.

Belle & Sebastian news (Pitchfork)

Why are we regressing back to 1952?

A Perilous Journey From Delivery Room to Bedroom - New York Times

Drawn to reading this article by the promise that it revealed HST's not-so-nice side, I was ultimately disappointed by the kind of "uncovering" Ambrose takes. These paragraphs in particular kind of pissed me off:

The fact is they [drugs and alcohol] did not work for him. The drugs and alcohol - an immovable, prominent fixture in his social philosophy and life - appear to have ruined him. His writing lost its verve; sometimes, in the later years, it seemed little more than the work of someone stumbling toward being average. His health deteriorated. I can't know how happy his life was, but some press reports indicate a miserable, unholy shambles at times.

The way he finally ended that life - sticking a .45-caliber handgun in his mouth and pulling the trigger while his wife was on the phone with him and his son and grandson were close by in the same house - bespeaks a horrifying moral degradation.

All Ambrose is doing is showing his own opinions on what constitutes good writing, a good life, and moral certitude. That HST's writing might have "lost its verve" is a highly subjective statement. And Thompson's choice of a way to die doesn't inherently show any moral degradation: one could look at it as dignified, courageous. I'm not necessarily saying that I look at it that way, or that I'm familiar enough with HST's later work to say whether it had "verve." I just want to point out that what touts itself as an examination of Thompson's life doesn't really reveal anything by Ambrose's own thoughts about Thompson's life. There isn't anything objective, or compelling, about it.

The Cincinnati Post - The dark side of gonzo

This picture is awesome. Apparently, this veteran wore his specially-designed ear flaps during one of Bush's "Rally the Heartland and Defend the War" speeches this week.

I think I should get a set to wear around the office. I mean, what? Did I say that?

Holy buddha. Really? Yes, really.

Amazon.com: Books: Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed

I find it more disturbing that this program is receiving federal funding at all than that it has a religious component. On what grounds did "Silver Ring Thing" get a grant? To do what? Do I really live in a country where the Department of Health and Human Services considers this a valid way to deal with reproductive health issues?


Federal Funds For Abstinence Group Withheld (WP)

More proof that the trickle-down theory is nothing but a fanciful dream of the neo-cons. Actually, I'm sure they know it's crap, they just like to talk pretty to get the votes. Higher corporate profits do not equal better living for all.

Why a booming economy feels flat | csmonitor.com

What a smarmy, snarky jerk face. Now I'm even more appalled at the lack of real resistance to this guy. I wish that this information was enough to deny this man confirmation, but unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely to be the case.

Roberts Resisted Women's Rights (WP)

I think I just like her description of Bill O'Reilly as "bitter semi-employed dad."

Wonkette - Autumn of the Patriarchs

Why are these people crazy? Justice Sunday?

Conservatives Rally for Justices (WP)

Weird...Santa Cruz? At the Boardwalk? (I like the pseudo-plug for the place in the middle of the paragraph.)

The fact that he was in Scotts Valley the next day is even weirder.

"I spotted AG Alberto Gonzalez on 7/22 at the Santa Cruz CA. Beach Boardwalk with his family and the requsite security following 20 paces behind. It was right after Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court -- I guess the AG realized that this would be a good time to get out of DC for a vacation. The Santa Cruz Boardwalk has been in business for about 100 years and has rides like Double Shot, Climb 'n Conquer, Fright Walk, and the Giant Dipper. I was sure it was the AG, and on Sunday 7/24 I confirmed it when he appeared from a remote in Scott's Valley, CA on the Sunday morning talk shows."

Wonkette - Wonk'd: Jenna Has Better Taste in Music Than You

Simulataneously funny, and very, very sad. But mostly funny.

Andy Dick as political speechwriter/advisor to Bushie

I am suddenly thinking about "Oryx & Crake," and the totally bio-engineered world Atwood created in that novel. Step one?

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | When meat is not murder

Yup, they're serious. I hope no one shows up.

DefenseLINK News: 'Freedom Walk' to Commemorate 9/11, Celebrate Freedom

Ok, this is starting to get weird. Perhaps god really does it out for the Boy Scouts? Maybe we really should take this as a sign...but of what? Boys shouldn't go camping in strange uniforms? Knot-tying is one of the dark arts?

Girl, 8, Killed by Tree at Boy Scout Camp - Yahoo! News

Every now and then I'm reminded that I really am a computer geek at heart. I'm in an HTML training course today, and I'm all nerdy and excited and already thinking about going home and designing more pages for this site and...and then I remember that I always get really excited about coding, but it never really goes anywhere.

That's because I like to be very good at everything I do, all the time. That's why I enjoy drinking beer so much--I rock at that. If I don't know everything there is to know about web design (which I don't) I feel like I should wait until I do know everything there is to know. Not exactly a practical goal.

In my quest to fill my life with more interesting activities, however, I'm going to make a concerted effort to allow myself to be imperfect. At least until I become perfect. I suppose it's never too late to learn perserverance. Or something.

Oh, and read this, too. "The Lorax" as an argument for stronger property rights? Interesting...

This is what I love most about literary interpretation. Anyone who says they're "over analysis" is obviously missing the point.

The Commons Blog: The Lorax Revisited

I love these kinds of interviews: rambling, in-depth, and conducted in a written, rather than spoken, medium. Oh, and I love the Silver Jews.

Silver Jews: Pitchfork Interview

I think today is the day my ipod decided I needed to hear nothing but really, really sad songs I haven't heard in a million years. I obviously needed to hear some songs from Beck's "Sea Change" (arguably the saddest record ever recorded), followed by a little Bonnie 'Prince' Billy (whose "Ease Down the Road" is a strong contender for that title). And toss in some Cat Power while you're at it! Just to mix it up, maybe some Pinback--still depressing as all hell, but a little more rockin. I forgot I had such a vast collection of sad bastard music.

I guess that's a good sign--it's been such a long time since I've wanted to listen to all my sad bastard music, I forgot I had it!

Wow. Second to last paragraph: did I actually write that? Did I actually love Boston once? I do recall that subway ride home from the aeroport, and feeling an overwhelming sense of adoration for this city.

I certainly don't feel that anymore. ESPECIALLY not when I'm on the subway.

The Smarmy Alligator

It's always interesting to discover that something you didn't think was a big deal has probably actually been pissing you off for a long time. I usually discover these things around 2 am, after 72 beers. I usually discover them when I've just made angry phone calls to poor, unsuspecting friends.

I think telephones should have breathalyzers, and should be rendered useless if you register a BAC of some high, high number. This should apply to text messaging as well. Doubly so, because there, you're also risking some nasty spelling errors.

Grrrr.

"A toothless, under-funded shell with inadequate support from President Bush." Does that surprise anyone? I think it's always been clear that civil liberties aren't Bushies biggest concern.

Civil Liberties Panel Is Off to a Sluggish Start

I've recently found myself in a strange predicament. I suppose it's not really a predicament, more like a situation. For lack of a better word. A technology-related conundrum. I've been seeing someone for a very short time, but I generally like him, more than I like most people I date. And seeing as he's a technologically adept and socially connected person, of course he has an internet presence. (The whole notion of our various internet presences is weird, in and of itself, but a topic for another time perhaps.) He has a myspace presence, to be precise.

I have no problem perusing the profiles and comments and blogs of random strangers. I have no problem perusing the online ramblings of my friends. But for some reason, I feel remarkably uncomfortable reading the online ramblings of this guy. I feel like a stalker, like I might be mistaken for an obsessive girlfriend.

Maybe I'm worried that I'll find something that makes me like him less. Maybe I'm worried I'll find something that makes me like him more, but it will be weird, because it won't be something he shared with me, it will be something I discovered in a detached world of 1's and 0's.

It makes me think of something I talked about with my mom when she was out here visiting. My little brother has a myspace profile, and my mom likes to check it out occasionally, to keep tabs and check up and all that normal mother stuff. She claims that she has free reign to do this, because he's put this up in a public space, and created this internet self that anyone can see. And while I see her point, I argued that myspace was not an internet space she could reasonably be expected to inhabit, and never would were it not for my little brother; therefore, I think she should leave it alone and give him that private space.

While I am a person who could reasonably be expected to be on myspace, I still feel the same way about this. It feels invasive. It feels like stalking or something. Friends have made the same argument my mom did about this: it's out there, and public, and so totally free game, and don't I ever google the people I meet? I guess I'm still just not sure how to negotiate the space between our real presences and our internet presences. And if I like the real presence enough, I think I'd rather just leave the internet presence alone.

Read The Imperial Presidency by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. for some cool background information about the history of executive power and privilege. Peter Baker's article this morning in the WP offers an interesting look at how the Dubya administration is further changing the limits and definitions of presidential power, but Schlesinger's book reveals that all of this is nothing new, and that the pendulum probably will swing back. Hopefully soon.

Privilege at Stake With Nominees

Curiouser and curiouser. I can't decide if I think this is awesome, or frightening, in a sick kind of culture overload way.

How the West Was Wonked (Washington Post)

Yeah, this Roberts character is icky. But he'll be confirmed, and honestly, I can't really see how he could not be. I don't think it's acceptable to deny confirmation simply because one's interpretation of the law happens to be repellant to you.

Bolton, on the other hand, should not be holding the office to which he was appointment, in a sneaky behind-the-back maneouvering kind of way. He is distinctly unqualified for it, in ways that go beyond differences of opinion. Double icky.

A Charter Member of Reagan Vanguard (Washington Post)

And only because I haven't done this in awhile, and summer and long weekends need some unadulterated optimism:

Things I love right now

CJR Daily, barbecue and jello salad, red sandals, Davis Square, old dresses from the 1950s, red ales, the Washington Post, Robert Penn Warren, the West Wing, floating holidays, Newbury Comics, Shatner-style karaoke, getting my driver's license soon so I can take weekend trips out of Boston, re-watching old movies (it's like comfort food, only on film), hamburgers on the broiler, creamsicles, really hot days when you can't do anything but lay on the couch in a slip with your eyes closed, kisses, walking down the street in the sunshine listening to Badly Drawn Boy for the first time in years, summer thunderstorms, being lazy, the knowledge that I don't have to come to work for five whole days.

Happy summer.

Wow, what a shocker. "Bush administration once again distorts facts for political gain."

This is my favorite part:
The definition used for measuring support, he said, had broadened to the point that even assistance as trivial as editing a government health official's speeches could allow the Bush program to say it had supported treatment for everyone receiving antiretrovirals from that nation's public health system.

Read about it here. Or don't. Because it doesn't seem to matter how many news articles reveal Bush doublespeak, no one seems to get it anyway.

"...more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."

Um. But. We already found that the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. Did everyone forget that?

(Read the poll results here.)

I watched Garden State last night. I heard a lot of lackluster reviews, so I wasn't expecting much, and maybe that's why I was pleasantly surprised. It did have a pretty cheesy ending, and it certainly is nega-uplifting. But I liked it. I liked most of it (yeah, the ending is really cheesy). It was stylistically appealing, and of course, the music's hot, and it was full of unexpected moments and twists. I thought it was kind of awesome. Mostly, until the really cheesy end.

Of course, it didn't do much for my already morose mood. But I thought it was definitely worth seeing, and many people told me it wasn't really. And that's a bonus.

Reaffirmed: I don't like Natalie Portman so much.

Every now and then I'll read something that reminds me that there are still some ass backwards parts of the world. Like this story.

What, are people still trepanning to release the evil spirits, too? It's strange to think about how mental illness has been dealt with through history. Maybe someday people will look back and feel just as appalled at our just-keep-drugging-them methods...

Wow. Talk about revisionist historicism:

Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended
the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW's, ended the war in the Mideast, opened
relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved
Eretz Israel's life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does
anyone remember what he did that was bad?

Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable.
He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary
that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose. He lied so he could
stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going. That was his crime. He was a
peacemaker and he wanted to make a world where there was a generation of peace.
And he succeeded.

It gets better. He eventually accuses Woodward and Felt of genocide. And of course, he brings up Clinton, the neo-cons biggest bogeyman.

I don't understand how people can have such wholly different understandings of history and politics and basic events. And such wholly different ideas about what constitutes a decent human being.

What did Nixon do? He was a politician who lied, in order to further solidify and concentrate his own power, who did everything in his power to make the work of the White House opaque. He was a paranoid megalomaniac who broke the law to further his own power-hunger. Peacemaker my ass.

Deep Throat and Genocide (The American Spectator)

I thought all the "activist judges" were crazy liberals.

Judge: Parents Can't Teach Pagan Beliefs (Indianapolis Star).

Protecting our freedoms and keeping the world safe for democracy.

?Threatening? T-shirt barred from TCC - Tucson Citizen

I should start keeping a log of all the times members of Congress, the Cabinet, and State legislatures call on God for help in making important political decisions. Here's the most recent, from Senator Voinovich:

"After hours of deliberation, telephone calls, personal conversations, reading
hundreds of pages of transcripts, and asking for guidance from Above, I have
come to the determination that the United States can do better than John
Bolton," Voinovich said.

Interestingly, despite God's and his friends' advice that Bolton might not be the best ambassador, he's decided to go ahead and give his tepid approval, allowing the vote to go to the Senate.

These people make my brain hurt.

Voinovich to Vote for 'Bullying' Bolton (Yahoo! news)

Setting aside my mind sense of distress at the fact of the 54th annual National Day of Prayer on Capital Hill, this is just too much for me. Tom DeLay, embattled Republican representative, gave a speech denouncing the sin of pride.

"Just think of what we could accomplish if we checked our pride at the door, if
collectively we all spent less time taking credit and more time deserving it,"
DeLay told the 54th annual National Day of Prayer gathering on Capitol Hill. "If
we spent less time ducking responsibility and more time welcoming it. If we
spent less time on our soapboxes and more time on our knees."

Ahh, such warm words from the King of Taking Responsibility.

Greater contradictions follow: "No matter what your faith, no matter what your political persuasion, your prayers for our increased humility, for our ever-humbler service to God and neighbor are needed and wanted."

Er.

I don't care if he spends the rest of his life on his knees, as long as he does it where he can't hurt anyone. Can this speech be considered his swan song? Can he just stop already? Blech.

Man, Washingtonian speech is getting trickier everyday. I love the subtlety of statments like this:

Asked if Bolton was a good choice [as ambassador to the United Nations],
Armitage replied, "It was the president's choice and I support my president."

Way to answer the question, Dick.

Bad news bears. The House Appropriations allocations aren't looking so hot. The biggest cut: I'll let you guess. Ready? Did you guess the EPA, Health and Human Services, and Education? Good job! Federal land conservation? Cut. Safe and drug-free schools programs? Cut. Energy and water programs? Cut (good thing we're trying to lessen our oil dependency). Community development block grants? Yeah, who needs those?

What I bet you didn't guess: "Among the winners are Congress itself, which would receive a 4.9 percent increase" (from the WashingtonPost).

Awesome.

You can see a break down of the allocations here, and read about it from the Washington Post here.

So, I've revived my page just in time for me to have absolutely no time to write anything on it at all. Another example of my excellent foresight. Would that I had time to really read the news these days; as it is, I just read Wonkette and pretend I'm well informed.

But if you have a question about postcolonial literary theory, I'm all over that. I can explain to you the minute workings of imperialism in E.M. Forster's novels, and maybe even throw in some stuff about Joseph Conrad, just for kicks.

Of course, I can't tell you anything about Merchant of Venice, which is problem considering I'm going to have to tell a class full of people, including my professor, something about it in a few days. Wheee!

Only five more days before this school debacle is over, and I can say it's officially summer. Ok, it would be officially summer if the temperature would just stay over 60. Boston sux.

Screw you freepin idiots. Screw all of you morons who voted for Dubya and only NOW start complaining about how he doesn't represent you, and you don't agree with his ideas for Social Security and tax cuts and Iraq. Fuck all y'all. Fuck you and your low approval ratings. Fuck you and your uncertainty about private accounts. Fuck you.

If you'd paid the least little BIT of attention to politics, as you SHOULD have been doing, having been given the PRIVILEGE of the right to vote in this FREEPIN country, if you'd spent half a freakin second reading a newspaper before you went and cast your ballot for this PUPPET of the ultra-conservative right (who are, by the way, only puppets themselves for the corporate interests who really run this county), we wouldn't be sitting here, engaged in useless partisan battles while we watch the White House attempt to piss away every benefit every given to people who aren't worth $12 million.

I fucking hate the mindlessness of American democracy, and I don't give a shit anymore how many people tell me it's my duty to stick around and watch it all go to hell, just so we don't entirely give the country over to the moronic vote. You know what? My vote doesn't begin to counterbalance all the fucking idiots who can't be bothered to pay a lick of attention because they're too busy watching American Idol.

Guess what? Nationalism means shit to me. America? As a concept? As a nation to which I feel allegiance? I'm sorry, but I cannot, I refuse to feel allegiance to a nation represented by the apparent idiots running this one. All of those great things that are supposedly meant to attain to American citizenship? I think Ashcroft did enough to diminish those elements that I don't feel hugely compelled to remain an American citizen because of them. Give me a good reason--I'm begging for one. I don't want to expatriate myself (a shitload of hassle), but I do feel compelled to follow the spirit of representational democracy, and at least live in a country that even pretends to represent me.

I have tried to think historically, and to recognize that this is not the first time America has gone through freakish religious (slash moron) revivalism. History is cyclical. Someday sanity will revisit the nation. But I might be dead by then, and I'm not so sure I'm willing to spend the best years of my life in the midst of a fundy Christian nightmare.

How did this happen? When I was in high school, people seemed mostly sane! What is going on here!? Please, I need insight, because my brain is starting to ache in my attempts to figure this all out.

PS- God is dead.

You've come a long way, baby.

Ergh. I think our theory is right: someday in my lifetime, there will be a point when one giant corporation owns everything, including (especially) our entire governmental structure. There are signs of the coming apocalypse.

I especially love the paltry "help to the middle class" reasoning Congress uses as they give and give and give to their corporate puppeteers:

"Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., said the legislation would save American families an average $400 a year in higher interest rates now charged to consumers to recoup losses from those who abuse bankruptcy proceedings. "

Riiight. The benevolent credit card companies only charge high interests rates because they're forced to by the gamblers and compulsive shoppers, who declare bankruptcy for fun and profit. Once these secretly wealthy n'er do wells (you know, the millionaires and celebrities declaring bankruptcy) are curbed from their Chapter 7 tax code addiction, the credit card companies will lower interest rates. Because, obviously, their existence in our glorious capitalist system is only to allow consumers access to all the goods and services produced in this glorious capitalist country.

The free market rules. Obviously.

I feel nauseous.

The return of the aristocracy.

The estate tax issue drives me up the wall. The rhetoric used to discuss it, the lame compromises proposed by the Democratic faction, it all just makes me wrinkle my brow in disgust and frustration. Can someone please stop these scary neo-conservatives before they dismantle the entire government, and send us all into a scary, Hobbesian, tooth-and-nail world? Blech.

I don't read editorial's very often, but Rich's piece in the Times today is right on. Ahh, religious hypocrisy and mass media death obsession. I'm so proud to be an american.

While usually waaayyy over the top, Whitehouse.org does often make me laugh. And this article really nails, in a brutal and offensive kind of way, some of the strange idiosyncrasies of the Catholic church. Just don't read it if you'll be at all offended by a Pollack Pope joke, or the reference to Terri Shiavo as a "vegetard."

Um, scary? More like "power run amok," I think. Where does the constitution say Congress should have greater authority over the judiciary than the appointment of judges? Someone needs to bring these people back to earth: Passing bills to limit court jurisdiction in matters related to God's place in society? Mass impeachments of judges who've "overstepped their authority"?

I think it's especially touching that DeLay, after insinuating that it is the judiciary's overzealousness that led to recent violence against judges, has the gall to claim that he is aiming for "serious and rational discussion."

Oh that man hurts my spleen.

Hmmm. Well, I don't have a Gmail account, and I haven't really investigated Google's privacy policy on my own, so I'm not sure how much to take this article at face value. But it's interesting, nonetheless. Especially when read in conjunction with this.

This is my kind of activism. Pointed, concise, and funny as hell, in a completely ludicrous kind of way.

Besides, David Horowitz is an ass.

I'm back! Sweetles. (That was a special word just for Crystal.)

And I haven't had nearly enough coffee today. But at least I managed to accomplish this, despite being only pseudo-functional. Wheee!

Ok, more coffee. But I'll be making more irrelevant and half witty comments here soon. I'm sure you're all thrilled.

I'm wary of people who use the word "evil" in a state/military-building context, as did Mr. Allawi, Iraqi prime minister, when discussing the need for a bigger Iraqi military:

"We all know that the evil terrorist powers try to destroy the Iraqi structure
and economic facilities, and attack the oil facilities," Mr. Allawi told Iraqi
soldiers, police officers and reporters in Baghdad.

It's just thrown out there, seemlingly without a second thought. And it so immediately dismisses the opposition, without having to really consider their positions or desires, without having to look at why they are doing what they are doing. They're evil, therefore invalid, end of story.

It makes me very, very uncomfortable.

(NYTimes)

Hee hee.

"Every day, more than 1,000 people - 380,000 in 2003 - are caught watching television without a license. "

Doesn't it seem a bit disingenuous, in the face of recent disclosures by drug companies that their FDA-approved products are actually not so safe, to claim that drug importation is unfeasable because drugs from Canada aren't regulated by the FDA? Personally, I think I'm more inclined to trust Canada's regulatory agencies than our own. (Washingtonpost.com, NYTimes.com)

Compassionate conservatism in action.

There is finally an organized, vocal group of people, former military lawyers, actively opposing Gonzalez's nomination as Attorney General. Their opposition, not surprisingly, is based on his apparent acceptance of torture in interrogation proceedings, and his dismissal of international law. This is important and good.

Unfortunately, they are already murmuring about their lack of power and possible willingness to just let it go in the face of such seemingly strong support of Gonzalez. According to the NY Times:

Mr. Hutson said talks with other retired senior military officials had not yet
produced a decision on how to oppose the selection, though testifying at the
hearings was a possibility. He said that while several opposed the nomination,
some were unsure if opposition would be "worth the effort" because of little
expectation the nomination could be derailed.

The point of a confirmation hearing is to get all the evidence, all the information, in order to make an informed decision about an appointment. If everyone has already made up his mind before hand, what's the point of even having them in the first place? Evidence should be presented, if it exists, and opinions should be given. Then, let the cards fall where they may. But to say that opposition isn't even "worth the effort"? Lame.

Can anyone explain to me what this is supposed to mean?

In introducing Leavitt in the Roosevelt Room of the White House yesterday, Bush
made no mention of the Kerik debacle, which was unusual for an administration
known for its discipline...

(Baker and Connolly in the Washington Post)

I've been awfully silent lately; that's because I've actually had work to do at work, and hence, not so much time for pontificating needlessly on the internet. Ahh well. I'll be back someday soon. Being useful at work probably won't last long. Sigh.

And just for kicks, here's my sweet and touching essay on the holiday season: "Merry Christmas, I Fucked Your Snowman."

This is not a good time to be a woman. Despite the fact a majority of people in this country still support abortion rights, the Senate seemingly does not.

And in the ridiculous legislation file today: The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. Which would require women who want abortions after the 20 week mark to be informed that the fetus can feel pain, and be offered pain relievers. For the fetus. I'm not kidding.

Dark days, getting darker.

Wow. It's stuff like this that makes me want to stop paying taxes, Thoreau style. I never cease to be shocked by how ignorant people can be, but what's frightening is that our government is paying stupid people to ensure that high school students end up equally stupid. Sweet.

Uh-oh. Here we go again:

'President Bush increased the administration's pressure on Iran on Saturday, saying there were indications that the country was speeding forward in its production of a key ingredient for nuclear weapons fuel, a move he said was "a very serious matter'' that undercut Iran's denials that it was seeking to build weapons.'

I just hope we demand a little more hard evidence this time, before we let Bush & Co. start dropping bombs.

I saw Control Room this weekend: phenomenal. What is most compelling about it is how clearly it shows the complexity of war, and the media's roles in war, and the complexity of the relationships between the Arab world and the Western world.

This made me step back and realize that there are no right and wrong sides in this situation. It's been so easy, I think, to become subsumed in a totalizing position on this war--distaste (er, hatred) for Bush & Co., and certainty that we should not be in Iraq, quickly balloon into a simplified perspective about all of it. Watching this movie drew out my understanding of the endless ambiguities, the impossibilities of rightness or wrongness in the Middle East right now.

Be very afraid.

Even Howard Dean hears the call for a more responsible media. From his speech at Yale for a "The Media and the Election: A Postmortem" symposium, he cracked the whip on our failing media institutions, pointing out that corporate ownership, and a too-heavy focus on entertainment, are making it impossible for the media to fulfill their role in the democratic process.

And another excellent article on media failures by Frank Rich. This one is, well, much more chilling. And I applaud him. We need to hold the media accountable, we need to point out their failures, and we need to make sure they stop happening.

Some words of wisdom regarding the networks from Alessandra Stanley. (And an example of my favorite kind of writing--humour and sarcasm as trojan horse for pointing out the very sad and pathetic parts of our political and popular culture.)

Hmm. Curious.

This is what I like to hear:

'In a conversation with the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, Mr. Powell once referred in frustration to Mr. Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz as "[expletive] crazies," according to a recent British biography of Tony Blair.'

And other fun tidbits from Kristof.

Christopher Hayes's article on undecided voters is both funny and painful. But the most significant point comes at the very end, after he's revealed just how little connection people have with politics, and how separate they believe it is from their lives. He writes,

As far as I can tell, this leaves Democrats with two options: either abandon
"issues" as the lynchpin of political campaigns and adopt the language of
values, morals, and character as many have suggested; or begin the long-term and
arduous task of rebuilding a popular, accessible political vocabulary--of
convincing undecided voters to believe once again in the importance of issues.
The former strategy could help the Democrats stop the bleeding in time for 2008.
But the latter strategy might be necessary for the Democrats to become a
majority party again.

This is not even a question in my mind, and the former suggestion not an option. Adopting non-policy-based language just to get candidates elected directly contradicts any efforts to seriously re-engage citizens in politics, and re-create that political language Hayes is talking about.

People were more engaged in politics, and shared a common language and understanding of how policy fit into their lives, up until the last twenty years or so. It is not impossible, although it's not easy, to bring this engagement back. But it's worth it, and if we allow the degeneracy of politics the Republicans have instituted to continue, with our blessing and collusion, it will just become harder.

Yet more proof that the right wing likes to use "ethics" and "morality" when it suits them, and disregard them when it doesn't.

The House is trying to change current rules so that a member who is indicted by a state grand jury can still hold a leadership position. It's assumed they're doing this so that, in the eventuality that DeLay is indicted in Texas, he can retain his leadership position.

Aha, but "House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the House, in part by highlighting Democrats' ethical lapses. They said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats..."

They claim that they're changing the rule now because DeLay's potential indictment is nothing more than political revenge by partisans in Texas. It's amazing how they can turn everything around and blame it on the Democrats.

Er, scary:

'Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work,'' a copy of an internal memorandum shows.
"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."'

Does anyone know of any very thorough books on the history of CIA? I've become a bit obsessed in recent months (again, blame Chomsky). I'm reading The Cultural Cold War right now, which deals primarily with CIA propaganda campaigns after World War II, in Europe and elsewhere, to promote "liberty" and "freedom," as defined in a capitalist democracy. It's interesting, and includes a lot of history of the development of the Agency, but I want more.

Oh, gross. This is not the right way for the Democrats to gain votes and strength in the national spotlight. This just makes liberals look even more weak in our standards and beliefs, more easily changeable.

We cannot water down or change fundamental and important aspects of our beliefs in order to win votes. We can't become mini-Republicans to win, because then it will mean nothing that we did win. I don't argue against trying to win more religiously-minded people to the Democratic party, but we can't do it by pandering to the worst aspect of that population. We have to find those whose faith and religiosity includes ideas about social justice, honesty, and helping fellow citizens. We we can win over those who are backing Bush & Co. by pointing out just how far their actual policies are from Christian morality. Show their hypocrisy, and they will lose support.

Er, I hate watching people make bad choices, and knowing I have very little power to do anything about it.

In the "Too Much Analysis" category: Maps and Cartograms of the 2004 election.

Ultimately pointless, but amusing nonetheless. Acid trip geography.

What I'm reading these days: Against Love by Laura Kipsis (again), The Plot Against America by Phillip Roth, Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, Election by Tom Perotta, The Stepford Wives by Ira Levin, Heir to the Glimmering World by Cynthia Ozick. Bracing myself to read: Don Quixote.

This is probably not something Phillip Roth expected people to come away from his most recent novel, The Plot Against America, thinking about, but I'm thinking about it nonetheless. And maybe it's some kind of misguided nostalgia talking, but Robert Putnam adroitly points out that I'm not misguided feeling this way:

Technological advancements in newsmedia dissemination have weakened American communities and their relationships to politics, and the relative absence of a social base for political knowledge-gathering has drastically affected the workings of American politics.

It's a small example, and a friend of mine rightly pointed out that this is not the whole story behind our current political disengagement. But here is the picture that Roth painted in my mind: Prior to the widespread appearance of television, and television news, people had to go to theaters to watch the news, where they were surrounded by many other people, all also there to watch the news. They sat in dark rooms, and learned, collectively, what was going on in the world.

This simple act created a sense of community that we are sorely lacking, and which is a fundamental necessity in a functioning democracy. Now, we can all come after an arduous day at work, and watch the nightly news while we're cooking dinner and trying to make our kids do their homework, half paying attention, and feeling that we're actively engaged and knowledgeable, because, hey, at least we watch the nightly news. There's no effort involved, and, more significantly, there's no community involved. Everyone is in his own home, watching his own television, and not, afterwards, talking about what he just saw with everyone else who just watched the same thing.

There are new communities developing--I will use this word once, and only once, ever in the history of my writing here: the blogosphere. But one has already to be politically curious and driven to bother seeking this community out in the first place. It is simply too easy now to disavow any community, and any connection to politics, and to news events generally.

And the eternal question--how to re-engage people, in an intelligent and reality-based way, in public policy? Do we, as my friend's comments perhaps inadvertantly imply, need another Great Depression? Another Great War? Or are we too jaded and satiated by SUVs for things even of this magnitude to be able to impact us anymore?

Maybe I'm just too disheartened and full of hatred for humanity these days to formuate a rational argument, or even a rational thought, anyways.

We're going to hell, in a nicely tailored Kate Spade handbag. Sweet, dude.

The outcry over Specter's innocuous comments just points up the hypocrisy of the right wing. They attack liberals for attempting to apply "litmus tests" to any potential Supreme Court judges, claiming that it's flawed and partisan to ask a potential judge how he feels about abortion, or whether he would try to overturn Roe v. Wade. But they freak out and cry foul against one of their own when he merely mentions that an explicitly anti-abortion judge might have a hard time in confirmation hearings. Apparently, it's only considered a "litmus test" if the Democrats are asking the question. The illogic of this whole issue makes my head spin, so much, obviously, that I'm rendered inarticulate.

Charles Krauthammer has a good point: the whole "moral issues drove Bush's re-election" story is a media-concocted load of crap. He deftly juggles and re-arranges survey statistics (which seems to be a necessary skill these days) to point out that War and Foreign Policy, and Economic Issues, were, in fact, of much greater concern to the electorate.

But in his attempt to point out how something so unfounded and meaningless is picked up and ballooned out by the media in order to have a coherent story and sell advertisements, he falls prey himself to another annoying media habit: accusing the "liberals" of, well, of everything, or at least of being patently ridiculous.

Aren't the Republican Party leaders themselves claiming a great moral mandate, and attributing their win to the religious right? Wasn't it Karl Rove's great strategy to mobilize those missing evangelicals? Bush has made no secret of leading with his faith, relying on churches and other religious organizations to help him campaign. How is this suddenly a liberal bogeyman? Why is it brilliant strategizing for the Republicans to scream wildly about morality and God, but a sign of liberals' humiliation and sense of moral superiority to talk about how the Republicans are screaming wildly about morality and God?

Newpapermen irk me. I can't believe I sometimes still want to be one of them.

I thought our federal judges and Supreme court judges were supposed to be the best of the best. Why would we want someone who's barely qualified nominated to our highest courts? Someone who practiced law without a license in two separate instances?

From Washingtonpost.com's Washington in Brief:

Nomination Hearing Set for Griffith

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) has scheduled a nomination hearing Tuesday for Thomas B. Griffith, President Bush's choice for an open seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, committee sources said.

Griffith's nomination has been stalled by revelations that he practiced law without a valid license in the District and Utah. Hatch's office scheduled the Tuesday hearing before the Judiciary Committee without naming the nominee to be considered, but committee sources said Hatch has indicated it is for Griffith, a former counsel to the U.S. Senate and now the general counsel for Brigham Young University in Utah.

Hatch told reporters last week that he hoped to hold Griffith's hearing before Congress adjourns its lame-duck session in the next two weeks and Hatch's committee chairmanship ends, even if there is no time to have the Senate vote on Griffith's nomination this year.

After an unusually long investigation into Griffith's past this summer and fall, the American Bar Association on Sept. 29 gave Griffith a vote of "qualified," with a large minority voting "not qualified." That is the lowest possible passing grade the bar association gives judicial nominees.

Of the 10 Bush administration appeals court nominees who received the same rating, six were confirmed to the bench.

What are "moral issues?" A recent Zogby poll reveals exactly what I suspected in the first place--the values people voted on aren't so narrow as to include only gay marriage and abortion. The morality of being in Iraq, and the values of social and economic justice in America were higher on people's minds than either of the two "moral issues" the Republicans keep talking about. You can read a more articulate break down of that poll here.

Oh, thank buddha. At least one small piece of good news has entered my life in the past week: Ashcroft is out.

I find it pretty humourous, and awfully indicative of the non-reality based lives of Bush & Co., that he had this to say about his tenure as Atty General:

"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."

Oh, certainly.

Eh, fuck him. Maybe they'll finally uncover the statue of Justice, with her indecent bare breasts.

Larry Thompson, the oft-mentioned possible successor of Ashcroft, doesn't seem too bad. Ok, his "crack down" on corporate crime was a bit of a joke. But I feel less wary that he'll bring us into a Handmaid's Tale kind of religious right future.

In the Oh, really? How very interesting files:

"In a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, the oil services company [Halliburton] said that the Justice Department expanded its investigation into Halliburton, that government probes have found that bribes may have been made in Nigeria and that A. Jack Stanley, a former senior executive, may have been involved. "

And you don't say?

"[T]he FBI expanded a probe into charges of contract irregularities by Halliburton in Iraq and Kuwait. Lawyers for a Pentagon official said the FBI requested an interview with her over her complaints that the Army gave a Halliburton unit preferential treatment when granting it a $7 billion contract to restore Iraq's oil fields. "

And more...

"The Justice Department's Public Integrity Section is examining whether Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, when he served in the Senate, violated criminal campaign funding laws or federal disclosure laws relating to the transfer of a mailing list to his campaign committee. "

Oh, I'm not done:

"Also proceeding is special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's probe into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's employment to columnist Robert D. Novak. Novak said his sources were two senior administration officials."

(All quotes stolen straight from Dana Millbank's White House Notebook.)

Did I just read this?

"African Americans continued to marginalize themselves, again voting nearly unanimously (88 percent) for the Democratic nominee."

Yes. Yes, I did. And I read it here.

(Alright, so it is George Will, but still--wow.)

Apparently, the leaders of the left are experiencing "waves of angst."

This guy is, at least:

"'I think we have come to an ending point in a long transition that began in 1968,' said Donald L. Fowler, a former national chairman of the party. 'During that time, the old Roosevelt Democratic majority coalition has creaked and cracked away under various kinds of racial, religious, social and international forces, and this election was the end point in that transition. I think we live in a country that is majority Republican now.'"

I don't think this country is majority Republican. I think this country is really dominated by people who don't much care one way or the other, and really just want their own lives to be better. They'll vote for whoever they think will accomplish that for them, if they vote at all. Think about it: just barely 60 per cent of voters was a "record turn out." The way you do better than that is to engage all those people who don't give a shit about politics at all, and make them realize that it can, and will, effect their daily lives. I think we've started that monumental project, but it's going to take time. And all these freaked out lefties need to stop wringing their hands, and keep working.

I was hoping Kerry would keep himself visible and take on a stronger role in the Senate after this election, and it sounds like he's hoping to do so, too. Pete Wallsten writes about Kerry's future, and the future of the DNC, here. This is particularly refreshing, after all the "Kerry failed us" talk I'm getting so sick of hearing:

"'There's a tradition,' [Robert] Farmer said. 'Nixon ran and lost and then won, Reagan ran and lost, then won. In this case, you'll have to look at the field and say to yourself, 'Could another candidate have won states that John Kerry didn't win?' And my sense is that I don't think anybody could have done much better than John Kerry did.'"

I have avoided saying anything thus far post-election, mostly because my rage and frustration were so blinding, nothing coherent or meaningful could come out. But here we are, a week later, and I think I'm finally calm enough to put my thoughts (of which there are too many) into some kind of intelligible form.

The only question I've been able to ask myself, like some kind of malfunctioning Stepford-robot, for the past week is, how did this happen? How is it at all possible that this man, rather than being impeached, was re-elected? What colossal failures, and on whose watch, occured to allow Bush & Co. another term in office?

And, of course, as everyone is asking (in more or less irritating and nauseating ways), where do we go from here? There has been much chattering about the "confusion" of the Democratic party, like we're all running around in circles, with dazed looks on our faces, bumping into walls and knocking each other over. The prevalent image of the Democratic party now is one of struggle and (very polite) infighting, as we bicker over what direction the party should take, and how we go about reclaiming the "red states." (Some people have other ideas about what to do with those red states--I don't think they're entirely wrong).

There are two huge thoughts that have been taking up most of my mental space, two things that we need to take a very close look at, and bring into a brighter spotlight nationally. (Well, there are certainly more than two, overall, but I'm starting small.) First, and foremost in my mind right now (blame Noam Chomsky) is the role of the media in our national politics.

Bob Herbert, in the New York Times yesterday, argued that "ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values." I can't argue with that, and I've been saying it for months. Herbert points out all the completely untrue things that Bush supporters believed as they cast their ballots last week: that Iraq is definitively connected to Al Qaeda, that weapons of mass destruction certainly were found in Iraq, that Bush is not, in fact, a big, fat, evil lying man. (Er, alright, that last part wasn't actually in Herbert's column.) The American people have been hugely mislead, and many have not been set straight.

Of course we can blame Bush & Co. for that. They based their campaign on distortions and lies, and have made it a signature element of their administration to ignore facts they'd rather were not true. But there is something else we can blame, as well, and I was a bit perturbed that Herbert didn't mention it in his column.

The mainstream media have fallen down on the job. Their role as government watchdog is a freakin' joke. Of course, this is really nothing new, but I think perhaps their complicity with government has reached new heights (or would that be depths?) of ridiculousness. I could string together a very dirty laundry list of various media omissions, biases, propaganda-machine moments, and outright lies. It is a filthy and corrupted institution in need of serious surgery. That would be step one.

And major-topic-I'm-obsessing-over number two? What the hell are "morals" anymore, anyway? If Bush & Co. could win another term thanks to all those people who cited "moral issues" as their main concern in this election, the very idea of morality is seriously up for debate. And I think it damn well should be. I think it's time for the Democratic party, and the left generally, to pick up this ball and run with it. If the right wants morality to be a pillar of electoral strategy, that isn't a problem. Because if you look closely, beyond the rhetoric and the push-button "moral" issues that have been dominating this field for the past decade, if you start thinking about real morality, there's no question who stands up to criticism here. I'm sorry, but fig fat liars who send people to die in a war meant to benefit themselves and their business partners simply do not meet my criteria for morality.

There are many, many things I've been pondering for this past week. But they all tend to center around these two poles, gravitating back and making me realize the same things, over and over. And these are the things I will continue to talk about, and much more loudly than I have been. Because we cannot let this happen again. And I'll be damned if I let them run around freely with their "mandate."

"Voters who cited honesty as the most important quality in a candidate broke 2 to 1 in Mr. Bush's favor."

Thus proving that no one in this country pays attention to anything.

I think I'm going to throw up.

Wanna know what Bush has given his corporate backers? This Public Citizen report (available at the excellent misleader.org site) will tell you.

From Maureen Dowd:
"President Bush is like one of the blissfully ignorant teenagers in "Friday the 13th'' movies, spouting slogans like "Freedom is on the march'' while Freddy Krueger is in the closet, ready to claw his skin off."

We should be so lucky.

I've never loved Tom Friedman, but I like this. Specifically, this:

"How do we begin to repair this jagged hole [the lack of a moderate center in politics]? There is no cure-all, but three big things would help. One is a different U.S. approach to the world. The Bush-Cheney team bears a big responsibility for this hole because it nakedly exploited 9/11 to push a far-right Republican agenda, domestically and globally, for which it had no mandate. When U.S. policy makes such a profound lurch to the right, when we start exporting fear instead of hope, the whole center of gravity of the world is affected. Countries reposition themselves in relation to us.
...When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade."

Now that baseball is over, I can get back to obsessing about the election.

"The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a protégé of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man - a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed," he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again. " - George Soros

(I think it's freakin' hilarious that Cheney inadvertently directed people to Soros's website during the debate.)

Saying it does not make it so. The Bush administration can continue to claim it was necessary and right to go to Iraq, but they are liars. Bush says, "He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction." This is blatantly untrue. It is exactly the opposite of what Duelfer's reports said, which is that Iraq no longer had the knowledge, materials, means, or, really, intent to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Why can't I get away with that?

Fighting the War on Terror.

Wow.

Oblivious isn't even the word. Oh, wait, what is it? Willful ignorance.

What a surprise!

More in fundamental, ideological differences between me and the Bush administration:
Tax cuts for big businesses don't automatically equal new (well-paying) jobs. Sometimes they only equal bigger paychecks for CEOs. Capitalism isn't an inherently moral economic system. I don't think I really need to give proof of this. Making America a "good place to do business" doesn't necessarily make America a good place to work.

Wasn't the trickle-down theory already proved a failure?

Liars.

Sanctions were working. The UN was doing its job just fine.

Why did we really go to war in Iraq, Mr. President?

More in TWPWEH files:

There is increasing evidence that Bush's No Child Properly Educated, ahem, I'm sorry, I mean No Child Left Behind education initiative is a monumental failure. Here's more, pointing out that testing data is insufficient in most states, and that little to no guidance was ever given for implementing these plans. Yay!

Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose dedicate a chapter of Bushwhacked to the educational failures in Texas under Bush's "leadership," including (and most damning, in my opinion) the method of encouraging students to drop out in order to raise test scores. It reminds me a little of "Pump Up the Volume." Is that terrible? The point is Bush took a bunch of bad policies and made them national. Brilliant.

Testing is not educating.

"Panders to voters."

An interesting to phrase to apply to a presidential candidate, or anyone running for public office in a representational democracy. How does someone whose job it is to represent voters "pander" to them? He is SUPPOSED to do what they want. That's his job. "Panders to large corporate donors," ok, I understand that. "Panders to international opinion," alright, I can see that. "Panders to voters"?

That that phrase can make sense in election season shows that we have greatly lost perspective on what a representational democracy is meant to be.

Rummy's sexy look: