2005: What the fuck is going on?

I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.

Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues – loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...

Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are the words of...Ann Coulter.

ETA: Seriously: What the fuck is going on? In The Washington Times--typically somewhere between The Corner or Drudge and Fox News in the "fair and balanced" department--we read:

"I can't stomach another 'trust me' from a Republican" in the Oval Office, Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich told Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman at Mr. Weyrich's regular Wednesday conservative coalition luncheon.

ETA, again: About that "trust" issue. One theory has it that the reason Bush has been making so many colossal blunders lately is that he has been denied access to his "brain." Karl Rove has been too distracted by thoughts of the Plame ax falling, so the theory goes, to really Mayberry Machiavelli it up like the good old days.

I saw some sense in this theory. It certainly seemed like as credible an explaination as any for Bush's seemingly inexplicable "betrayal of the faithful." But if what The Washington Times is reporting here is true (and again, with The Washington Times, that's a pretty big "if"):

Senior Bush adviser Karl Rove was "very involved" in President Bush's Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, who was selected in part because she has no judicial track record, according to a Republican with close ties to the administration.
"We know that Rove was very involved in the process, and he's certainly well tuned in to the Hill and how it works," said GOP strategist Charlie Black. "I suspect the Senate leadership might have given him the advice to take into consideration on how hard or how easy someone would be to confirm."

I'm wondering now if this isn't just something they're putting out to try to shut the hysterics of the party up: Hey, you guys, it's Rove! Wink, wink. See, we're up to something! But, again in The Moderate Voice:

President George Bush's nomination of his lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme
Court is now turning out to require a sales job that may not necessarily require
an emergency visit by super salesman Zig Zigler — but all the King's horses and
all the King's men may not be able to put George Bush's agenda and trust from
some factions of his party together again.

Lord knows I've thought Bush was an incompetent for a long time. But in the last day or so, I've started to think... it may be worse than any of us have ever imagined in our most darkly cynical moments.

On the other hand, I just quoted Ann Coulter and The Washington Times (twice!), semi-approvingly, in the same post. Well, I see the the writing on the ole' wall. It's time to check myself into the funny farm.

Come visit me, won't you, and tell me how things still are in the outside world?

Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel

Media Girl has a good entry here on what she calls "The liberal spin of Harriet Miers." Some of the more prominent liberal bloggers seem to be trying to convince themselves that it's okay not to oppose Miers.

Probably because they're so enjoying the apparent tizzy into which she's thrown the conservatives (I know I am). But MG reminds us, in the words of Gershwin, that It Ain't Necessarily So...

The latest "evidence" is that, as a member of the advisory board for the SMU law school, she advocated funding a program for women speakers. There's no indication that she had a hand in the selection of actual speakers, or just how active she was in the effort.

... reading anything into this as being reflective of her actual views is simply wishful thinking.

--As it is wishful thinking to believe she supports gay rights (while opposing repeal of Texas sodomy laws?)--

--As it is wishful thinking to believe she's pro-choice (while running for office as a born-again "pro-life" conservative?)--

By lending too much credence and significance to these rather oblique reports on Miers, the SCLBs are coming off as stretching the truth to try to fit over their hopes. I can see pointing at these tidbits of information as helping to paint a fuller picture, and perhaps even offer cause for hope (against hope). But why the veritable campaign to color her liberal? I just don't get it. And I ain't buying it.

The tripping ground for a lot of people is the fear that if we "make" Bush choose another, this time s/he won't be nearly so "liberal." But even if there is hope that she is not a Bushlike nut, I oppose her confirmation on the simple grounds of qualification.

She shouldn't be, because she isn't. That seems to me concrete, and I have to go with that over a lot of "what-ifs."

Anybody else really, really, seriously I'm not kidding scared by this?

Via the BBC:

President George W. Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

You know, it's times like this I hope some responsible body within the Republican party (yeah, I know) really is looking into exit strategies for President Bush. (And Rove may be about to provide him with one)

Because if this is true...then the man is nuts. Seriously, Son of Sam territory nuts.

He's got to be stopped.

ETA: Hey. Hey. Hey hey, hey hey hey...I just had a thought. What if naming Miers to the bench was intended as a test to see just how much trust the "conservative base" still had for Bush (answer: not a lot)?

So they know how much support they have before trying this hypothetical "exit strategy." It's probably not why it happened, but it did give me pause for thought.

ETA, again: Yeah, Pam's frightened too.

I object to all this sex on television-I mean, I keep falling off...

At Alternet, a woman named Kara Jesella has a piece about a book called Female Chauvinist Pigs and what's called "raunch culture." Her argument, as I understand it (given that I am, after all, just a man) is:

It's possible, and may even be preferable, for women to enjoy the fun and sexuality of being feminine. While still rejecting the false "female" ideals embodied in things like boob jobs.

In other words, raunch culture isn't all about fake boobs, and the women who embrace it aren't all FCPs [Female Chauvinist Pigs]. Purchasing the Aerosmith DVD with all three Alicia Silverstone videos on it (which I did) or being the pleased recipient of an old copy of Playboy as a Christmas gift (that was me, too) might not be, to use a word that Levy and the FCPs both love, "empowering," but that doesn't mean I'm disempowered. Participating in raunch culture may not always be a feminist act, but that doesn't make those engaging in it antifeminists -- or deluded. I'm thinking of the happily paired lesbian couple I went to a pro-choice march with who went to a strip club on a recent birthday. Or the feminist labor activist friend who finds Brazilian bikini waxes sexy. Levy rails against a culture in which "the only alternative to enjoying Playboy is being 'uncomfortable' with or 'embarrassed' about your sexuality." But I know lots of women for whom there is a middle ground between rabid antiporn Dworkinizing and Girls Gone Wild vapidity. There are plenty of us who have put together our sexual identities from bits and pieces of our personal histories, our pop culture experiences, our love of certain parts of raunch culture that don't feel oppressive.

non-spoilery blogging about mars

Just wanted to make the general observation that Veronica Mars may have picked up just a dollop of additional signifigance in post New Orleans America.

Considering how much of the show, last season and this, is about the haves vs. the have-nots:

Those who watched the season premiere last week (if you haven't seen it yet, stop reading now or forever hold your peace) know that at the very end of the episode, a bus carrying Neptune High students home from a field trip -- those not wealthy enough to pay for a return limo ride, that is -- plunged off a cliff into the sea. Left behind at the bus's last convenience-store stop, Veronica (Kristen Bell) was spared.

The Outsiders - "The Complete Novel"

I was most curious to see this new version of a film that had so moved me in my youth. And, well, the DVD features are well worth seeing, for fans of the film. All the major cast members save Emilio Estevez and Tom Cruise, as well as Coppola and other members of the crew, participate in a short retrospective. There's also kind of a neat idea, a sequence showing the actors reading short passages from the novel about their characters.

The cast contributes a breezy commentary; Rob Lowe in particular is endearingly self-depreciating. Coppola's commentary, unfortunately, collapses under its own pretentious rationalization. It spotlights the fact that this is the most ill-conceived "special edition" since Star Wars.

First of all, changing the music was a terrible idea. Yeah, the original score was melodramatic. But you know what? So is the story. And more importantly...so are your emotions when you're a teenager. By replacing it with rockabilly and surf tunes, Coppola seems to cheapen those emotions. And drapes some of the most dramatic scenes in the film with a message that says: "Don't worry. It's just a romp." Or worse, god help us..."Tarantinoesque" irony.

Coppola was right to cut the footage he did back in 1982. Replacing it in the name of making the film more resemble "the complete novel" does not convince. Why? Real simple. A movie is not a novel. In a novel, you can have epilogues and digressions from the main spine of the story. In a movie, they just seem like anticlimaxes and padding.

Because of the age I was (11) when it first came out; The Outsiders is one of those movies that are just in my matrix. I knew the novel like the back of my hand at the time too. I'm glad to see Coppola's epic screen pictures in wide screen for the first time since its theatrical release (this is a movie that really suffers in pan-and-scan).

But I know, with the certainty that an 11-year-old knows, it was once a better movie than this.

You gotta fight for your right to...

From The BBC:

Torben Hansen, who has cerebral palsy, which severely affects his speech and mobility, believes his local authority should pay the extra charge he incurs when he hires a sex worker - because his disability means he cannot go to see them. His case is currently being considered.

In Denmark, local authorities compensate disabled people for extra costs incurred because of their disability.

"I want them to cover the extra expenses for the prostitutes to get here, because it's a lot more expensive getting them to come to my home rather than me going to a brothel," Mr Hansen told BBC World Service's Outlook programme.

"It's a necessity for me. I can't move very well, and it's impossible for me to go there."

Stupid, stupid Democrats

You know, it's getting to the point where I'm seriously starting to consider starting a "Don't Vote In 2008, Unless You Have Somebody To Vote For" movement for liberals. Because if we don't hit the Democrats, how will they learn?

Recently, they rolled out their "Agenda." A blog called Shadow of the Hegemon has a good rundown on it. But as many have noted, it has one, great big, gaping hole right smack dab in the middle of it.

Iraq!

I know I've said this before but it's so frustrating sometimes it almost makes me want to cry. Here is a president who lied his country into a war. One which he and his cabinet have waged so ineptly they've lost almost 2, 000 men and women and the hearts and minds of virtually the entire planet.

How, in any world with even the slightest basis in logic, is that not a slam-dunk for the other side?

And the answer, of course, is that the other side sucked Satan's cock on the roll-up to war and called it a sweet lollypop. And now that everybody sees it for what it is, and knows what they did, they can't spit out the taste fast enough to say what needs to be said, and do what needs to be done.

So you know what I say? I say, fuck 'em. Fuck every single last milquetoast, cowardly, tremulous, appeasing jargon-wonk fraudulent one of them. We need a leader! And until they produce one, they can just keep fucking off out of the White House.

You'll get your toys back when you show me you can use them, bastards.

ETA: At length, with a cooler head and less would-be Bill Hicks channelling, the Swing State Project addresses some of the same issues I do above.

Any Democrat serious about challenging an incumbent Republican member of Congress is wise to make Iraq a defining issue in the race. Yet the DCCC has remained silent on Iraq because the message is quite different for incumbent Democrats who...are on the wrong side of the issue. As long as the DCCC remains silent, it is clear that their message and priority is incumbent protection -- trying to minimize losses instead of winning seats.

(Empasis mine)

As long as the DCCC ignores Iraq, it is not an organization worth supporting unless your goal is to waste money on incompetence or fund an effort focused on Democrats minimizing losses.

Bloggers are calling bullshit on this strategy...

Harriet Miers: Day Three

Joe Gandelman, who calls his blog The Moderate Voice but has seemed pretty conservative to me in the past (of course, I'm a liberal Democrat) has a long but good post:

President George Bush is now playing defense in a battle no one would have predicted he would have to wage: a battle to convince many in his own party — many social conservatives and libertarians — that a nominee he picked for Supreme Court justice is qualified.

Read the New York Times report on GWB's press conference yesterday and you sense a President who has stubbed his toe, is suppressing a scream, trying to smile and making things worse when he speaks

The White House avoided a Democratic filibuster but at what cost? The Miers appointment has united social and libertarian conservatives in mutual shock and disappointment. There could, in fact, be bipartisan consensus that this is not a quality choice...or...it could be the kind of choice that professional politicos of both parties in Congress could live with — one not as bad as some of the alternatives that could lead to all out partisan warfare. Partisan activists in both parties feel all out warfare is worth it.

This all makes me think it's going to be interesting to read Bush's polling numbers in the next week or so. Meanwhile, The Heretik has our latest contestant on Who Hates Harriet Miers (or at least Bush for wanting to make her a justice)?

George Will (of all people)...come on down!

The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me.

There is no reason to, for several reasons. He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments.

Yes, I should say it's going to be very interesting watching Bush's polling numbers over the next few days...

You know who we like, here at Dictionopolis in Digitopolis?

Jon Stewart. And here's just the latest reason why. Check out his take on the problems the White House is having with its "conservative base." BTW, the first part of that video is the end of his remarks on Nicholas Cage having named his son "Kal-El," but get past it.

BTW, does anybody else think that the Bush White House looks like it's been staffed by twisted, mirror-universe, grown-up versions of the Peanuts gang? Think about it. Doesn't Karl Rove look exactly like Charlie Brown?

And as you watch the video clip, take a look at Dan Bartlett...and tell me he's not looking like a broke Linus. Of course, the question then becomes, who is Snoopy?

I'd have had a really good joke to answer that, but John Ashcroft resigned.

Is your marriage really necessary?

A friend (Colleen) of a friend (Corey) has a noteworthy post at her blog, Communicatrix.

What really pisses me off about marriage is what pisses me off about most things that stick in my craw: it's not fair. Specifically, it's not fair that some people (i.e., the ones who might meet in a titty bar) get to do it while others (the ones who might shower together after P.E.) can't. Period. I mean, I have lots and lots of issues about marriage, but I freely admit those are more about me hating the sound of the cage door slamming shut than Marriage as it might be practiced by non-lunatics (who, for the record, come in both the titty bar and P.E.-showering variety).

She goes on from there to flip through some sites proposing alternatives to marriage, such as:

My favorite of the sites, the Alternatives to Marriage Project (a.k.a. unmarried.org), has its own mongo cache of fun links, including: "Famous People in Unmarried Relationships (Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins are only the beginning!)"; jokes ("why don't melons marry? they cantaloupe"); and separate sections on being polyamorous and/or marriagefree ("as free as the wiiiind bloooows...").

I don't quite know why I think this is a noteworthy post. I don't know why it rang a bell with me. It's not for the reason you might think; because I support gay marriage.

So far as I know I don't have any strong feelings about marriage one way or the other (never been, never asked...never been asked. Never been close).

I think that I would like to be, maybe, someday, "meet the right, girl, settle down" and all that. Of course, I did once watch the girl that I was in love with get married to another guy, and that fucked me up so much I eventually wrote a play about it in which she sleeps with "me" and leaves her fiancee (there was more to it, as those of you who've read it will testify, but...)

On the other hand, I had a pretty lovely time with my friend Moya watching my friend Stefon get married a year or so ago...although I got down when I saw the pictures; I don't think I looked my best.

On the other other hand, I'm a bastard. I am "illigitimate."

How do I feel about marriage? I don't know how I feel about marriage, thank you.

I was misinformed.

From William Goldman's Which Lie Did I Tell? :

In Casablanca, by the Epsteins and Howard Koch.
Probably you remember the moment. Bogart is talking to Claude Rains in front of his club.

RAINS
And what in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?

BOGART
My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.

RAINS
Waters? What waters? We're in the desert.

BOGART
I was misinformed.

...First of all, it is wonderfully elegant dialogue. Witty, plus it makes you laugh out loud. I wish to God I'd written lines as glorious as 'I was misinformed.'

But what does it tell us?

What it tells us is this: Don't ask. What it tells us is: Bad things happened, it's dark down there, and I will die before I tell you.

There is no god

New Orleans.
Iraq.
Miers.
And I just saw that New Order's "Bizarre Love Triangle" is being used in a shoes commercial for Payless.

Mother of Christ

I'm being linked in The Washington Post.

Bush kvetches about them uppity black folk

I saw Kanye West perform for the first time on Saturday Night Live last week. Man, that dude rocks. By the way, on a completely unrelated matter,

In his press conference today, President Bush expressed confusion and disappointment about his standing in the African American community, saying:

I was disappointed, frankly, in the vote I got in the African-American community. I was. I’ve done my best to elevate people to positions of authority and responsibility — not just positions, but positions where they can actually make a difference in the lives of people. I put people in my Cabinet. I put people in my sub-Cabinet.

Side note: Is it just me, or does anybody else think he wanted to put the word "you" before "people" there?

Maybe President Bush should take a look at the facts if he wants to clear up his confusion:

– Today, 33% of black children live in families under the poverty level.

– President Bush’s political appointees in the Department of Health and Human Services doctored a report about racial disparities in healthcare. The department deleted a key section detailing racial ‘’inequalities” and ‘’disparities” in health care from its findings. Deleted: conclusion by HHS scientists that healthcare disparities are “national problems.” Deleted: key examples of health care disparities, including findings that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage cancer, die of HIV and be subjected to physical restraints in nursing homes.

– When a racial profiling report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed African Americans were more likely than whites to have their cars searched or be threatened with force after being pulled over in traffic stops, political supervisers at the bureau ordered the findings deleted. When the study’s author refused, he was fired.

From Think Progress.

Oh no, how will I be able to live with myself?

Bill O’Reilly on blogs:

Personal attacks lodged through the internet!

How are so-called “Web logs” being used as ideological weapons? And who’s behind the smear campaigns?

We’ll have a No Spin look at a dangerous new weapon in the culture wars!

Blogs. I don’t even read them. I mean, it’s so outrageous...look, that’s just a waste of time. You shouldn’t even read it. It’s garbage. Nobody cares about it. Everybody knows the simpletons who are doing it are cowards and they don’t have any influence.

That's cold, man. And here I thought lying about and yelling at people was cowardly. But no, apparently, it's blogging.

But wait, there's more

ETA: First, in our continuing series on "People who hate Harriet Miers (or at least Bush naming her to the bench)"...Pat Buchanan. Man. Firedoglake (and Steve Perry-not that one. At least I don't think) are right: Bush is screwing his fundementalist base in order to be sure he gets a lifeboat.

I have to say, there's a certain symmetry to it. Bush was placed in office by cronys in the Supreme Court, and now he's making sure his exit will be just as gentle as can be the same way. Meanwhile, from our "Black is white, night is day" category, John "Hindrocket" (again: his self-chosen nickname) of the Powerline republican blog, posts...

First, the charge of "cronyism" that we are hearing in many quarters is unfair. The fact that Bush knows Miers personally and trusts her isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.

Bush needs to keep the party's conservative base aggressively in his corner. He also needs to show that, notwithstanding his mostly-superficial second term problems, he can get what he wants from the Senate when the chips are down.

Emphasis mine. To recap: Bush is the first president in 200 years to lose a city. He launched a war that a majority now believe was mistaken and badly planned and has now cost the lives of almost 2,000 soldiers.

If those are superficial second term problems, I wonder what the boys at Powerline would consider a signifigant one? Oh right, I know. A man getting his cock sucked. I guess if it happens to you rarely, you would consider it a signifigant event.

PAUL adds: ...I think it's cronyism in the bad sense when the president reaches down to the second tier to pick a friend even if she is qualified. I do concede that it's better that Bush picked one of his cronies than one of John Kerry's.

God, you can "hear" the fear and terror in their "voice" can't you?

"Uh...uh...Bush chose somebody who's not one of us and isn't really as qualified as we might like but..but...(there has to be some way I can still cling to my illusion that he is a great man)...but....ahhhhhh! John Kerry! The boogeyman! Ahhhhhh!"

ETA, again: Writing for Right Wing News, John Hawkins (he who separated the Democrats into groups) responds to a suggestion that conservatives should just trust Bush by asking:

why should conservatives trust George Bush after the terrible judgement he has shown on so many issues?

It goes without saying that Bush is worse than Lyndon Johnson in the big spending department. In his entire time in the White House, he has never even vetoed a single pork laden bill. Then there's the enormous Medicare prescription drug benefit which will create a massive expansion of government and add a trillion dollars to the debt next 15 years.

Since his election in 2004, Bush has spent months senselessly flogging Social Security when almost everyone acknowledges it isn't going anywhere. Even on the war in Iraq, an area where many conservatives agree wholeheartedly with his policies, it has been frustrating to watch Bush twiddling his thumbs instead of making a real effort to buck up public support for the war.

You know, things like the above give me just the teeniest glimmer of hope. Because it makes me think right-wingers are waking up to the fact that agree with his policies or not, Bush is quite simply hands-down an incompetent.

It doesn't make me feel any more compassion for those who voted for an incompetent rather than betray their precious ideology, but it does give me a glimmer of hope.

Oh, and Tom DeLay's been indicted again

Via the Washington Post:

April Castro
The Associated Press
Monday, October 3, 2005; 6:34 PM

AUSTIN, Texas -- A Texas grand jury indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering Monday, less than a week after another grand jury leveled a conspiracy charge that forced DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader.

Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through a political action committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington.

If you stand just right, this could start to seem like a really good day to be a Democrat.

PS: How much do you want to bet that somewhere, right now, a right-wing nut is making a "joke" about the reporter's last name?

If you want to torture Jon Stewart, just hum "Morning Train" (I'm guessing)

...and other things I learned reading this Guardian profile.

Born Jonathan Stewart Leibowitz, he started using his middle name as his surname in 1987. "I'm not a self-hating Jew," he once said. "Actually, to borrow a line from Lenny Bruce, I just thought Leibowitz was too Hollywood." He started his career doing stand-up (his first big gig was as the opening act for Sheena Easton in Las Vegas) and still goes on the road from time to time. But the tone of The Daily Show is less a gagfest than a repertoire of shrugs, smirks, rolling eyes, raised eyebrows and damning asides, expressing frustration and despair at the powers that be. Relating Bush's decision to have a day of prayer following Hurricane Katrina, Stewart frowned. "OK," he said, followed by a long pause and plenty of laughs, "but - and I don't want to be crass here - isn't a hurricane an act of God? Shouldn't we have a day of shunning?"

When Condoleezza Rice admitted to the Senate that she had seen a presidential daily briefing in August 2001 ... "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States' "... Stewart just stared at the camera for 20 seconds. Then he covered his face in his hands, lifted his head up and moaned. "You're fucking kidding me, right? Please say, please say, you're fucking kidding me."

I know this probably isn't supposed to be my reaction to this, but...

Whatever happened to tits? The above is, apparently, Bloomingdale's in New York's new look for fall. Ladies, speaking for myself (but I don't think I'm alone here), I don't like you to look as though the only reason you'd cuddle up against me is for warmth. I don't like you to look so brittle I'm afraid you'll snap in two during sex. I know Corpse Bride is the number three film at the box office at the moment but please don't take that as any sort of indication of male tastes.

You know what I like? Women's bodies. Honest-to-god, real women's bodies. With all the tits, rough-and-smooth textures, warmth, heat, please-god curves and softness that implies.

Call me a traditionalist, but that's what I like.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Okay, here's what I've got so far on Harriet Miers, Bush's next nominee for the Supreme Court. Shorthand: Conservatives are pissed, Liberals worried about her lack of qualifications.

[John Podhoretz]
I am going to assume that this is a classic Bush head-fake gambit. If I'm wrong, I will spend the weekend banging my head against a concrete wall. This is the Supreme Court we're talking about! It's not a job for a political functionary!

Meanwhile Amy Sullivan puts it like this:

It's possible that with a six-week bar review course, any of us would be more qualified than Harriet Miers to sit on the Supreme Court. Bush chose hackery. Let the debate begin!

Ms. Miers is reportedly a "moderate conservative." Did I mention that conservatives are pissed?

Roger Pilon, founder and director of the Cato' Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies, released this statement: "I know of nothing in Harriet Miers’ background that would qualify her for an appointment to the Supreme Court. It is noteworthy that the White House chose to make this nomination two hours before the Supreme Court begins its new term under the direction of a new Chief Justice, John Roberts, thereby taking the spotlight from that critically important event in the nation's history."

Yes, Sorkin-basher John Podhoretz hates her. The lovely Amy Sullivan hates her. The Cato Institute hates her. Who likes her? Funny you should ask.

The White House noted some Democrats had urged Bush to consider the Dallas-born Miers but would give no names. One of those, however, was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

"I like Harriet Miers," said Reid, who had voted against John Roberts as U.S. chief justice in Roberts' confirmation vote last week. "In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

There may be a crunchy frog in the assortment that we'll uncover later, but for now...

The politics of dancing
The politics of ooo...feeling good
The politics of moving
Is this message understood?
-Re-flex, "The Politics Of Dancing"

"It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president," said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine.

(I actually kind of like Kristol, who is at least occasionally honest, for a conservative, middle-aged straight male pundit expert on lesbians)

Oh, and one other thing.

Records show Miers has given money over the years to both Republicans and Democrats, including $1,000 to Democrat Al Gore's presidential campaign in 1988.

In 1987 she gave $1,000 to former Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen. Bentsen was the Democratic vice presidential nominee who ran against Bush's father in 1988.

Okay, boys and girls, all together now, what are conservatives?

Atrios points out:

Wingnuttia is rather angry at the choice. I don't think this is because they're really concerned that she's not conservative enough for their tastes, although that's part of it. They're angry because this was supposed to be their nomination. This is was their moment. They didn't just want a stealth victory, they wanted parades and fireworks. They wanted Bush to find the wingnuttiest wingnut on the planet, fully clothed and accessorized in all the latest wingnut fashions, not just to give them their desired Court rulings, but also to publicly validate their influence and power. They didn't just want substantive results, what they wanted even more were symbolic ones. They wanted Bush to extend a giant middle finger to everyone to the left of John Ashcroft. They wanted to watch Democrats howl and scream and then ultimately lose a nasty confirmation battle. They wanted this to be their "WE RUN THE COUNTRY AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT" moment.

Hee hee hee hee hee...

ETA: Ah, the other shoe. Stirling Newberry cautions:

All it takes to get the left to roll over is a well coordinated right wing campaign that Mier is unacceptable to the right. The right did the same thing with Roberts - screamed that he wasn't acceptable. This is part of the strategy people - have the right scream so that the muddled middle has to think that she is one of them.

When "US v Rove" comes before the court, you'll see what this really means - Bush is lawyering up the court, appointing two long time conservative hacks to the bench to block anything that might lead back to him.

More Bennett follow-up

On MyDD, found via The Republic of T, found via One Odd Goose:

Here's what's being overlooked in all of this. The hypothetical example that immediately popped into Bennett's head was based on a premise equating black people with criminals. He could have made a similar example of aborting the male fetuses of upper-class white families to reduce the rate of child molestation. And as he pointed out on the show, likely having realized that his example was an incredibly insensitive one, "[o]ne could just as easily have said you could abort all children and prevent all crime to show the absurdity of the proposition." Bennett's been very effective in muddying the waters around the controversy, trying to make the whole thing a debate about abortion and not race.

The fact of the matter is that Bennett's brain is wired in such a way that he immediately associates "black" with "crime." Unfortunately, many white people's brains are likely wired the same way. This doesn't make them prime candidates for Klan membership, but it does reveal the latent racism that sadly pervades too much of our society. The problem is much larger than just Bill Bennett's stupid comments.

Finally, an acceptance of responsibility, and some accountability around here

Unfortunately, it's not from Judy Miller, the GOP, or President Bush. It's from liberal Hollywood:

One of Hollywood's basic tenets is that when things go wrong it's somebody else's fault.

Which is why it's so startling, suddenly, to hear studio executives and producers taking responsibility for the rows of empty seats in movie theaters this year.

"It's really easy for all of us to blame the condition of the theaters, gas prices, alternative media, the population changes and everything else I've heard myself say," said Sony Pictures Vice Chairman Amy Pascal, whose summer releases "Bewitched" and "Stealth" flopped. "I think it has to do with the movies themselves."

In May, Entertainment Weekly pondered whether even George Lucas' "Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith" could do battle with the forces keeping moviegoers at bay. "Can Revenge of the Sith Halt a Serious Slump at the Box Office?" the magazine asked in a headline. "Or Are the Movies as Doomed as Darth Vader?"

The movie grossed nearly $400 million domestically but failed to ease Hollywood's anxiety. In June, an Associated Press-AOL poll found that 73% of adults preferred watching movies at home.

In August, after studios had watched such expensive films as "The Island," "XXX: State of the Union" and "Kingdom of Heaven" go belly up, Robert Iger, who took over as chief executive of Walt Disney Co. today, speculated to Wall Street analysts that it might even be time to release movies simultaneously in theaters and on DVD.

All along, theater owners said they knew better. Audiences, they contended, were weary of films with lame plots whose advertising campaigns seemed to be better thought out than their story lines. They pointed to such sleeper hits as the documentary "March of the Penguins," which drew huge crowds via word of mouth without the benefit of splashy marketing, as evidence that if you give them a good reason, people will get in their cars, drive to theaters and pay dearly for a tub of popcorn.

Everyone's repeating it around the club: Happy birthday, Groucho and/or Bud

Mark Evanier tells me that today is (maybe, sort of, no one really knows what with show business being what it is), the birthday of two of the biggest figures in American comedy: One of the two greatest "straight men" of all time, Bud Abbott (only Carl Reiner is his equal) and one of the great comedians, Groucho Marx.

Abbott and Costello were, of course, the very model of a two-man comedy team. I know a lot of people like their films but I tend to prefer them on radio, probably because I like verbal humor more than slapstick.

One exception was The Time Of Their Lives. A very atypical Abbott & Costello picture (fans of the day rejected it for that reason, according to some reports). It features Costello and Marjorie Reynolds as Civil War ghosts, and Abbott as the descendant of a man who betrayed them.

On radio, no one would say they were at the gold standard of Burns & Allen or Bob Hope. But surrounded by a sometimes amazingly good supporting cast that included Mel Blanc, they made shows that stand the test of time, in some cases better than Hope did. (He who lives by the topical gag...)

It's hard to know what to write about Groucho when so much has already been written. For the record, I thought Steve Allen's piece on him in one of the Funny People books was as good as any I have read. Nor do I want to just get into a recitation of favorite lines (marriage is a great institution...).

I think what I want to say is this: I doubt there are many comedians, even today, who don't have, at some time or another, a little Groucho voice in their heads. It's the voice telling them to examine a line for all its most exotic posibilities (a book is man's best friend, outside of a dog...).

Even though Groucho wrote little or none of his own material, he voiced it so perfectly that it became his (Well, love goes out the door when money comes innuendo). Working with his brothers or with others, he was, in a real sense, the very voice of comedy (I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member).

Who the hell else could make the words "That will be all; you may go, Jamison" into a punch line? Who could be so funny just dictating a letter? Or...

"I said beat it!"
"Oh, you said beat it. Boy, I wish I had said that. Everyone's repeating it around the club."

Turn the other cheek

It's important to do that, of course. "Let he who is without sin" and all that. There does come a time when a scapegoat turns into a dead horse--and as A. Whitney Brown taught us all, there's no point in beating a dead horse...I mean, apart from the pure joy of it.

Via Hoffmania. First quoted section is from a local Texas station, second from the New York Times:

Brown also testified it isn't the government's job to provide ice in the wake of a hurricane or other disaster.

Brown told the House panel that it's wrong for the federal government to be providing ice to keep "beer and diet coke cool."

He says that is why the government stresses people should have several days of non-perishable food on hand.

Stumbling Storm-Aid Effort Put Tons of Ice on Trips to Nowhere

When the definitive story of the confrontation between Hurricane Katrina and the United States government is finally told, one long and tragicomic chapter will have to be reserved for the odyssey of the ice.

Ninety-one thousand tons of ice cubes, that is, intended to cool food, medicine and sweltering victims of the storm. It would cost taxpayers more than $100 million, and most of it would never be delivered.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It isn't that they're fuckups. We in America have a lot of love for fuckups--look at our comedy superstars, for god's sake. So it isn't that. It's that they don't care.

The vile Rumsfeld belittled the looting and destruction of some of the oldest artifacts and pieces of artwork on the face of the earth. Michael Brown doesn't care that his fuckup kept people hungry and sick and in extreme cases led to their deaths. "Beer and Diet Coke."

George W. Bush thinks his WMD fuckup is funny. On the pretext that Iraq had WMDs, almost 2,000 American soldiers have now lost their lives, and I don't even know how many have been physically and/or psychologically wounded. It's not that he's a fuckup, it's that he doesn't care.

Every year and a half, or so it seems

...I see a Saturday Night Live that I'm favorably impressed with. Tonight, it was Steve Carell hosting their 31st season premiere. See you in 2007.

Those darn gals are just so stupid

This is beautful. Joining the chorus of Republican overkill in response to ABC's new show "Commander In Chief" is a woman blogger whose name is new to me, Debbie Schlussel. From what I can tell, she seems to be something of a lower-rent, lower-profile Ann Coulter. Whose name she invokes in the first paragraph of her badly formatted web-site bio, so it's a safe bet she wants to encourage the comparison.

Anyhoo, as previously discussed, I don't hold much of a brief for "Commander In Chief." (Hey now, that rhymes). I thought the pilot was witless and derivative. The most interesting thing to me about it has been and now remains the fact that Republicans are all so aflutter, you'd think they were chickens and Geena Davis had just shown up with a hatchet.

And after all, as Schlussel argues, ladies can't be trusted with the tools of men.

...this is what a female President will be like as brought to you by Oprah and the women of "Desperate Housewives"--and the legions of female fans who love them. Do you want them picking the leader of the free world?

I don't.

Here's why. Every presidential election year, Harvard's Shorenstein Center conducts 26 polls. Each time, the school finds that women didn't quite know what was going on. Men, on the other hand, were more likely, during the preceding day, to have thought about the elections, talked about it, and read or heard about it on the news.

So if she's right, obviously, this means women shouldn't have the vote at all, should they? Back into bondage with you, sister suffragette(Ohhh, wham bam thank you ma’am!).

I do give Schlussel credit for one thing, though. She manages to come up with a joke that makes "Commander" writer Rod Lurie look positively Sorkinesque.

It gets worse from there: a joke about how if women were running the show instead of Moses, the Jews would have asked for directions, and been in Israel in a week, instead of wandering the desert for forty years.

No, they'd have spent forty years searching the tent closet for the outfit of the day and asking, "Does this make me look fat?"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...because, you know how gals are obsessed with physical appearance. Fortunately, Schlussel is free of this character defect...

Of course, an anti-female joke on the level of the Moses joke would never make it on the air--without Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and the whole gang of feminist hags bitching and clamoring for sensitivity training.

...Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and most other liberal women that have been mentioned in the role of President are hardly attractive--or even straight-looking

Now, I'll admit I've never had much of a crush on Madeleine Allbright, but Hillary Clinton I've always thought was at least attractive. Though moreso before she was subjected to enough unprecedented hatred and humiliating scandal to put a dent in Jodie Foster's self-esteem.

I choose not to deal with the non-sequitur and likely homophobic "straight-looking" comment and move on instead to Schlussel's next bizarre assertion:

From soap operas to "Desperate Housewives," to "Oprah" to "America's Next (Non)Top Model," to "Sex & the City" syndicated re-runs, TV is dominated by women. The problem is that there aren't enough men. And the men that are on TV (unless you count pro football) are incompetent, unemployed fools, absent dads, and loser criminals and drug users.

Now, granted, I don't watch much televison and clearly, I'm not watching the same shows as she is. Of those I do, "Boston Legal" is about lawyers, not loser criminals (avoid the obvious joke). "Supernatural" is about a couple of dudes. Chris on "Everybody Hates Chris" doesn't have an absent dad. "Veronica Mars" certainly doesn't either. Even the girliest show I watch, "Gilmore Girls," has Luke, who is competent enough to own his own succesful business and the farthest thing from a fool.

And though he may be currently unemployed and a one-time drug user...well, you go tell Jack Bauer he's an incompetent and foolish absent dad, and a loser. I'll wait in a corner to collect the body.

As a side note, Schlussel mentions she finds the idea of women coaching men's sports "absurd." I've never made any secret of my ignorance of sports but I'm under the impression that men coach women's sports. So why...but then, perhaps that's a question that shouldn't be asked.

In fact "questions that shouldn't be asked" seems to be a theme both in the general Republican response to this series, and the specific right-wing blogger I cited earlier about the George Clooney movie.

In both cases, critics seem absolutely unwilling to let a piece of entertainment fall or rise on its own merits. There was a time, when I saw conservatives doing the same thing about "The West Wing," that I thought that when you see everything in terms of politics, you assume everybody else does too.

Now I think it's more than that. They really are--there's no other word for it--threatened by the thought of things like journalists doing their jobs and strong women. Any representation of these as even potentialy good things must be banished and scorned.

Which would lead one to the question: What are they so afraid of?

ETA: And thanks to Lauren and Feministe for making this a Sunday Read. I'm in some interesting company...

I will shine a blinding light through those hearts

Judd at Think Progress thinks he's found a real story in the White House trash.

When an administration has to reveal something they don't want people to pay a lot of attention to, they do it on Friday. Because fewer people read the paper on Saturday. What don't they want a lot of people to pay attention to today?

Just this:

Dick Cheney was directly involved in the "Wilsongate" leak scandal.

So you gotta ask yourself: Just how much higher can it go?

I've got a feeling 2006 is gonna be a good year...

ETA: How much higher can it go?

Pretty high, apparently.

Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:

Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.

This would explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Oh dear.

As I've mentioned once or twice both here and on the old blog, George Clooney has a new movie coming out to which I'm very much looking forward. It is the story of Edward R. Murrow and the fall of Joe McCarthy.

The film is evidently a labor of love for Clooney, who directed, co-wrote, and stars in it as Murrow's producer. Whatever his levels of skill at any of those crafts (I like him as a movie star but haven't seen his previous film as director), no one can doubt his willingness to put his money where his mouth is.

According to an article written for The Wall Street Journal and syndicated to The Seattle Times, which is where I saw it:

To keep costs down, Clooney took only $1 as co-writer of the screenplay, and he endorsed his $120,000 directed-fee check back over to the production. As an actor in the movie...he was paid the SAG minimum.

At one point, Clooney says, the insurance company for the film yanked its policy because it feared his back problems...would prevent him from finishing. To get the policy reinstated, Clooney volunteered his home, valued at $7 million, as collateral.

Right-wing blogger Don Surber writes:

I see where George Clooney is doing a movie on Edward R. Murrow vs. Joe McCarthy.

Well, actually, he has done such a movie. A little thing called tense. But more importantly, Mr. Suber also wants to know:

...how about for his next little-guy-takes-down-the-big-guy flick Clooney does the Ray Donovan story? You know, the Reagan appointee who faced false prosecution? I even have a title for it: "Where Do I Go To Get My Reputation Back?" Those were Donovan's words after an after-the-fact acquittal.

Ah yes, Ray Donovan. For those of you who don't recognize the name, Donovan was Reagan's first Labor Secretary (not a "little guy"). He distinguished himself by easing requirements for the labeling of hazardous chemicals in the workplace. An investigation regarding a union payoff by his former firm did not, at first, produce sufficient evidence to prosecute. But neither did it exonerate him. Two years later he was indicted, saying the investigation was (sound familiar?) "obviously partisan." He resigned after being ordered to stand trial, but it's true he was aquitted of those specific charges. But to assume his "reputation" was spotless beforehand seems to be stretching it, according to contemporaneous reports.

Everyone has done McCarthy to death. How about something fresh, Clooney?

Really? According to that same WSJ article, in a June test screening:

Less than half of the audience knew about the communist witch-hunts of the 1950's that serve as a backdrop to the plot.

Clooney has also said in TV interviews that people who've seen the film, in which McCarthy is represented by TV and film clips of the genuine article, have asked who the actor playing him is.

If you know the story, and especially if you've seen tape of the broadcasts, you know Clooney is right when he calls it a peak of broadcast journalism. Does that sound like something "Everyone has done to death?" Or does that sound like something that, if well-told, at least has the ingredients for a critically praised, maybe even award-worthy movie(think Redford's Quiz Show)? No one expects a blockbuster. It'll be a good movie or it won't, but the unshaded light in which Surber is attempting to put it-

Ronnie Earle is more Hollywood's caveman politics style: Conservative evil, liberal good.

-is both disingenuous and dull.

Following Up

...on that Suicide Girls story, Lauren's found an interesting thing or two.

Something on Dictionopolis, the kingdom of words

On Daily Kos, Armando has a smart post about an unfortunate, though perhaps minor phenomenon: Lefties defending, at least in part, Bill Bennett's recent statement about aborting black babies bringing down the crime rate. Al Franken was doing this a little bit on his show yesterday (I watch the Sundance Channel version), and Armando's found examples of Matt Yglesias and Brad DeLong doing the same.

DeLong simply misses the point - arguing that Bennett was not calling for such a measure. I don't think anyone sensible thought he was. Of course the real issue was the correlation of African Americans with criminal propensities.

My thing is, I simply don't believe the spin that Bennett was using Swiftian satire to make a point. I think in William Bennett's mind, crime=black and vice versa. Like most of those who believe similarly, he's smart enough not to say such things around people most of the time, but here he slipped, and there was a microphone in front of him at the time.

But let's say I'm wrong. After, all, I don't know the man. Let's say some of Bill Bennett's most cherished friends are black people. Still, as Armando writes,

Bennett's choice of examples was unfortunate, apt to cause consterntion and hurt among African-Americans...[and]...insensitive...The timing of their tone deafness also is worth noting. We have spent a month discussing the racial component of the government response to Hurricane Katrina. And a racial divide has been revealed.

This is a lose/lose situation for Bennett, and I would not be quick to defend him. At best, he is an insensitive crumb, at worst, a virulent racist. Either way, he deserves no more than scorn.