Windmill Tilter

The thing is, I can kind of understand the conservative position on the torture scandal.

Bear with me.

I find arguing with the lay torture defender is infinitely harder than hearing Dick Chaney defend his sadistic policies. To cite a great example by Cenk Uygur, all you have to ask them is "Would it be ok to describe cold-blooded murder as 'so-called' murder?" Then why do reporters use those words and others like them, and why is it ok to label the controversy a 'political' controversy.

The reporters are arbitrarily drawing the line. The proper line would be if the law calls it torture, or if it is universally understood to be torture and the law is ambiguious regarding specific definitions (as ours are, the Geneva Conventions, as well), it must be called torture by reporters and commentators who claim to be objective. The proper analogy for this behavior is to the conservative insistence on calling the Democratic Party the "democrat" party. Factually incorrect (the party gets to chose its own name, as you and I do) and only done to assuage the primal impulses of their viewers and/or themselves.

At least with Cheney and other Bush operatives you know that they truly believe that a controversy about even blatant murder should be described as 'political'. Because they believe that Article 2 grants the executive literally unlimited powers during wartime, and wartime is to be defined and described ONLY by the president.

This is extraordinarily radical and yet it has been mainstreamed by the press as a whole, and especially by Fox News' small plurality of the viewing audience.

These people always existed, they just didn't have such powerful representatives.

The last post reminded me of something I saw yesterday on CNN.

Yesterday on Wolfie's show, they ran a report about the recent claims by the McCain crew that Obama is a socialist. Found nowhere in the report? Any mention of what socialism is or if Obama is one. Of course, after the report, which consisted mainly of interviews with people on the street, we were treated to two opposing operatives claiming over and over that Obama is/is not a socialist but no insight into why this factual claim is true or false.

If Donna Brazille cannot cogently and tersely explain, the way Colin Powell (a goddamn Republican, btw) did, that to describe a tax increase as a foray into socialism is to render the word meaningless, she shouldn't have a job and someone at the DNC needs to leave her at the dogtrack and offer up a better Dem talking head for CNN to eventually neuter. And can someone besides the goddamn Republican Colin Powell inform viewers that simply saying a sentence that kind of sounds like "redistribution of wealth" is not to advocate actual Marxian redistribution of wealth? Either all taxation is socialism or there is a difference. There is no in-between and someone needs to articulate that on a mainstream show. Either they assume it's obvious and everyone gets it (very untrue) or they don't understand themselves (entirely plausible).

Here's what Powell said which should be memorized by all liberal talking heads:

"And now I guess the message this week is that ... Mr. Obama is now a socialist because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money.... Taxes are necessary for the common good and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more and who should be paying less and for us to say that that makes you a socialist I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate. And I don't want my taxes raised, I don't want anybody else's taxes raised, but I also want to see our infrastructure fixed, I don't want to have a 12 trillion dollar national debt and I don't want to see an annual deficit that's over 500 billion dollars heading toward a trillion, so how do we deal with all of this?"

There's no reason to get more or less complicated than this.

CNN chyron this afternoon: "Obama's Small But Steady Lead".

The sub-chyron (I guess you'd call it) read, "CNN Poll of Polls: Up by 9-Points". Seems to me that one or the other can be correct, but no both. Seems to me that 9 points in late October is not only not "small" but almost insurmountable. But, seems to me, of course I could be wrong so I waited to see what Wolf Blitzer had to say. Sure as shit, his intro to the report included this: "Nine points! That's the highest it's been since we've been doing these 'Poll of Polls'."

Obama 51, McCain 42, Unsure 7. The fact that Obama is polling at a majority is even more damning because even if all the undecideds eventually went for McCain he still could not win. Now I know this isn't set in stone, but I'm not making any claims as to the accuracy of the poll itself, only the Chyron.

I guess if I ever date a CNN producer, I should tell her I'm "small but steady".

Vintage CNN. All balance, all the time.

Even Chris Matthews has lost it.

And it's only the second day of the convention. And his hair looks like it's been "tussled" by a creepy older gentleman who looking to sleep with his mother.

He defended himself against a perceived slight by Keith by sputtering something that didn't even make sense when Keith wasn't even (for once) picking on him. I'm sure this is because he's so frustrated over the baldly inappropriate cheerleading and the resulting loss of credibility and not just a grown man acting like a child who wants to hit back but doesn't know how without seeming foolish. At least the rest of us can be pissed because of that loss of credibility stuff.

The lack of morale is palpable among others on the team. Tom Brokaw must be wondering why he hung on this long. Judy Woodruff is looking even frownier (if that's possible these days). Eugene is unable to muster his usual level of guffawing during his conventional wisdom spews. Rachel is angrier than I've ever seen her and she's unashamedly taking it out on Pat (Though it could rightly be due to merely having to sit next to him, but he seems to have embraced his mascot roll of cranky white dude with humor and aplomb, though he really had no choice other than to get angrier, which he's tried and failed at too many times already and he probably sees his only chance for good notices in this debacle is playing the unserious goofball and he's taking it. Which is actually a little refreshing, and sad at the same time for what it exposes, that Pat F-ing Buchanan is the most likeable person on the screen).

I usually hate Matthews even more than Olbermann but I cannot blame him for standing up this freak on a power trip.

Maybe the saddest thing is that Matthews is certainly going to be the one to go. His show's been hanging on by a thread for a while now (terrible ratings) and now this. He's the Hilary of MSNBC. He irrationally feels that his "turn" has been usurped by a snot-nosed punk. Who gives a crap any more about these fools.

Isn't it clear by now? The liberals finally (kind of) get a network and Keith Goddamn Olbermann, you're ruining everything.

Just saw the highlight of Brewers fans chanting "Let's go, C.C.!" as the big man took the mound in his first start as a Brewer.

Those fans are in the heaven zone.

That's when it's the first time in a long time (or ever) where you're inspired by your team and you LOVE those players and you feel it when they lose and it's innocent, not encumbered by perpetual suspicion (Sox) or crusted with the arrogance of perpetual winning (Yanks).

Most teams' fans have this anytime their team makes an unexpected playoff run. Sox fans were only able to have this (in my life as a fan) in '86, '88 and after Johnny Damon's grand slam finally clinched the 2004 ALCS.

Yankees fans may never have had this.

The thing is, Sox fans have now lost this even with the continued winning. We lost this some time in the last two years. The fans are as passionate and present as ever but the result now is an unpracticed over-confidence that just comes across as belligerence. We're never happy and we take a loss or a bad decision or play as an actionable injury to our person. We can't have the heaven again until the Sox lose for an extended period of years.

... but ...

Yanks fans can have this as soon as THIS YEAR. They aren't the best team, they are VERY mediocre and the fans act like they've actually lost hope. Because of the Yanks annoying history of always winning, the stasis of unrequited playoff appearances, most of them exhaustingly average, makes them feel like Pirates fans. A team of broken players past their prime playing with passion led by a sensational and dominant everyman (Joba) would ignite Yankee fans and probably the city. It should. If it doesn't, then maybe I don't know Yankees fans as well as I thought I did.

Again, liberals should abhor Keith Olbermann. Specific candidate advocacy. That's pretty much what Olbermann's show has become.

Greenwald

"Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a 'shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government.' ... Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed."

And this after Keith replied weakly on Daily Kos:

"In his Kos reply, Olbermann pronounces that my piece yesterday was 'simplistic and childish' but then adds the standard dismissive Journalist defense: 'I don't know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn't read his full piece.' ...

Olbermman then denies that he was justifying Obama's support for the FISA bill but then goes on to do exactly that:

Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror . . . . So why hand them a brick to hit him with -- Obama Voted Against FISA -- if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute FISA.

How can Olbermann accuse me of distorting his commentary and deny that he's rationalizing Obama's support for the bill and then write the above -- which does nothing but justify Obama's support for the bill? That's exactly the mentality I was criticizing yesterday -- that Obama should be excused for supporting this assault on core Constitutional liberties and the rule of law because doing so is necessary to avoid appearing Weak on Terrorism. That's the behavior which Obama has repeatedly vowed to reject, and it's that precise mentality that has to be extinguished, not perpetuated."

With all the coverage on the liberal blogosphere, and with almost all the blogs agreeing with Greenwald (some don't even reference it and I assume they're pro-Keith truthers who are embarrassed by that fact), one thing you don't see is anyone calling it what it is, what the implications are because of what it is, and thereby why it's worse than what O'Reilly does. Olbermann is engaging in open advocacy of a candidate.

We all observed his sycophantic treatment of Obama during the primaries but we had a weaselly way of justifying it because the criticisms of Clinton were all true and defensible. We could all fool ourselves into thinking his words were issue based. Even the over the top attack on Clinton over her reference to Bobby Kennedy. We forget that a big part of his criticism was independent of the controversy of whether she purposefully meant to scare voters by planting in their head the a feeling of anxiousness over whether the country could calmly handle the assassination of a president or president-elect. It was mostly not about her intention but the effect and how she should have been conscious of the potential fear and censored herself. He was almost always right on the issues.

Here, he is not.

He is unquestionably wrong on the issue (because he claimed to be an advocate against unprincipled politicking) and Glenn is 114% right.

This is nothing more than specific advocacy of a specific candidate. He simply cannot continue to host or co-host the debates. MSNBC's credibility is on the line. Hell, you might even see conservatives call for campaign rules to apply to MSNBC's 8 o'clock hour. "Hi, I'm Barack Obama, and I approve of this pimping." You've seen them do crazier things. But what I'm most worried about is the substantial defense they now have against accusations of hypocrisy. No longer can we we bring up when Hannity campaigned for Rudy. We as liberals are generally much more principled and knowledgeable and one idiot who got lucky and filled a vacuum is now our "leader" by our choice. He is far less representative of us than Rush or O'Reilly or Glenn Beck are representative of the right. Now everyone thinks we're all like Olbermann. This just extends the mindless charade indefinitely and sets back our fight in the "truth" war back a decade.

Please, Keith.

You're ruining everything.

This will be a regular feature at the Tilter. Why should we abhor this man? Because he's just Bill O'Reilly in hipster glasses.

In Worst Persons tonight he called the odious Darrell Issa "monstrous", without a heart, a "cur", and "not human". A "cur" is a dog, by the way. I looked it up.

Please tell me the difference between this and the eliminationist rhetoric from the likes of Michael Savage. ("If you take to the streets with the vermin who are trying to dictate to us how we should run America, even though they're not even entitled to vote or be here, you're going to be thrown out of office.")

Obvious civics lesson in three, two, one ... Conservatives are by nature enemy-creators because to be conservative is to seek to maintain the status quo (circa 1954). The first step to keeping what "belongs" to "us" is to define who "us" is. And by defining "us" they also define who's "not us". The simplest way (always the most agreeable to the primordial portions of conservatives' brains) to solidify this divide is to draw the line in that place between human and non-human. That is the conservative instinct.

Liberals are inclusive; we at least claim to believe that we are all the same. Keith crossed the line into parochial, shallow reasoning long ago but tonight was his most grotesque display. This is what O'Reilly does. How can liberals ever claim the upper hand if our biggest media friendly is nothing more than Sean Hannity without the Catholic angst and fear of brown people. The most damaging thing about this is that since he's the only option out there liberal big shots, from bloggers (except Somerby, of course) to succubi politicians who opportunistically attach themselves to the side of this bloated, bottom-feeder when it's "media-ly" necessary (Kerry, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama).

One of the biggest shames is that seemingly honest people with personal causes like Paul Reickhoff, Donna Edwards and Cindy Sheehan are already too deeply into this mess because there's no other option. Give Rachel Maddow a fucking show for shit's sake. This couldn't be more frustrating.

You're ruining everything Keith Olbermann.

This is how one special person found my blog:

Referring URL: http://search.yahoo....e=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Search Engine: search.yahoo.com

Search Words: guy fucking a windmill

As my girlfriend is the only one who reads this blog, I think we need to talk.

Over at The Rude Pundit, a guest poster has given one of the most succinct and entertaining defenses of legally recognized same-sex marriage I've ever read. Here's a sample but reading the whole thing is necessary if you want to get the whole "rude" experience:

I am not a Christian or Jew or Muslim. While I occasionally have a conception of a Higher Power that I choose to call god -- simply because it's a lot fucking shorter than "Spirit of the Universe" or even "Higher Power" -- I practice no religion. Further, I do not hold any part of the Bible or the Koran to be the word of god.

One of the basic fucking tenets of the separation of Church and State is that at no time should the government of the United States of America be countenanced as a theocracy. Our laws, while oftentimes influenced by religious beliefs, are not dictated by the Bible (Old or New testament) or any religious text.

The definition of marriage in a religious context is not the definition of marriage in a legal context -- period. I cite the words of the civil marriage ceremony: "By the power vested in me by the (Commonwealth of Massachusetts)..." NOT: "By the power vested in me by God..."

Separation of Church and State, while difficult to maintain at times, is crucial to the continuing evolution of a nation. As a person who does not recognize the validity of the Bible or any other religious text as being the word of god, I DEMAND that the government I support with my taxes and by whose laws I abide leave the religious beliefs of its members out of the equation when making those laws. I do not demand equality or even consideration from any religion; I consider myself and every other person not affiliated with a religion to be outside the sphere of those religions. (Emphasis mine.)

Give me one good reason why I'm up at 2:30 in the morning listening to a Dwight Yoakam Christmas song! Laugh now, but find the song, listen to it, and tell me a better Christmas song:

Then a car just like Dad's

Pulled out and drove away

After mom said Santa couldn't stay

They both heard him coming

Saw Mom run down the hall and holler, "Wait!"

Doug you're drunk don't come inside

I'm not joking I've had all this I can take

He threw a present really hard

That almost hit Mom's new boyfriend Ray

And yelled ho-ho lucky for you she's here

And said that Santa can't stay

I'm watching the All-Star game on Fox right now and they're doing one of those painful retrospectives of the history of the host team, in this case the Pittsburgh Pirates. When they got to the part about Roberto Clemente, the greatest Pirate, who died when his plane crashed into the ocean off the coast of Puerto Rico while delivering aid to earthquake victims in Nicaragua, the music Fox chose to play in the background was "Drown" by Smashing Pumpkins.

I bet they thought they were being poignant.

To my vast readership:

I implore you all to visit the blog of my friend Eric, hollywoodphony.com, who is trying to get noticed more widely. This applies particularly to the directors, producers, agents, famous people and star-fuckers who frequent my blog. He fancies himself a bit a wit and his blog is great sampling of his work. Even I have to admit at least two of his posts are mildly funny. He even has a podcast where he periodically interviews some interesting people. You can listen on his other blog, chadrobuckle.com, or you can find it on ITunes.

Your pal,

MJB

Here are the bookend paragraphs of a recent post on the blog for a pleasant little organization called "Stop the ACLU":

A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them of gratuitous nudity, over-the-top profanity, and puerile violence. For years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.

...

With the incredible success of films like The Passion of Christ, Lord of the Rings, and other family-friendly films one would think that the movie industry would see that there is an untapped market to be exploited. (Emphasis mine.)

Don't those two movies contain pretty much non-stop violence? Well, I went to CleanFlicks.com, apparently the most well-known of these companies, to check out a few things and you'll never guess which two movies (as well as The Chronicles of Narnia) are having their family-friendly content edited out.

So I checked out their editing standards:

We edit out:

Profanity This includes the B-words, H-word when not referring to the place, D-word, S- word, F-word, etc. It also includes references to deity (G-word and JC-words etc.), only when these words are used in a non-religious context.

Graphic Violence This does not mean all violence, only the graphic depictions of decapitation, impalements, dismemberment, excessive blood, gore etc.

Nudity This refers to male and female front and back nudity.

Sexual Content This includes language which refers to sexual activity or has sexual connotation. It also includes visual content of a graphic or stimulating nature. (Emphasis mine.)

I would love to see the remaining 17 minutes of these films. But of course, the violence per se is not the point for them because fundies actually don't hate violence, and I'm sure the vast majority of the violent scenes are not edited out of these Christian themed movies. One more important fact is that these are "Utahan" companies. Violence for the Lord is just as acceptable to them as lying for the Lord.

I was never totally happy with the previous name of this blog but I think this one works. One constant among people who know me is that they all tell me to settle down and not worry about the nonsense, in other words to stop tilting at windmills. I won't, but that's no reason for you people not to try.

Now, here's a puppy:

Awwwww.

Thus ends my dumb fascination with this sad creature's blog:

http://stephanieklein.blogs.com/greek_tragedy/2006/06/barely.html

Don't mind me, I'll be in the corner drinking razor blades.

I have no desire to see this movie, but PZ over at Pharyngula has a decent post on the topic and the hype. I read (listened to) the book, and wasn't impressed. On top of that, no scholars of the era or of Leonardo support any of the book's conclusions (What's more likely: that the feminine looking person sitting to Christ's right in "The Last Supper" is Joseph, who was a teenager and would have been portrayed femininely as was the custom to portray young men in Leonardo's time, or that Leonardo only painted 11 of the 12 disciples and decided to throw in Mary Magdalene for shits and giggles as a piece in some strange historical puzzle?). Finally, it seems pretty clear that the Priory of Zion, the alleged secret society charged with protecting the secret of Christ's living bloodline, the society of which Leonardo was or was not a member, seems to be a complete hoax.

As usual, I wish I had written this, but PZ did:

The Catholic church has no grounds for complaining about a badly written, ridiculously improbable, mass-market driven work of popular fiction unless it's because they see it as in competition with their similarly atrocious foundation document.

Now to piss some people off: How can there be descendantss of a man who never existed?

This is the most inspiring song ever written consisting primarily of sad themes.

I posted this comment on another blog in response to a comment up the thread by someone who claimed that there is no Bush fatigue:

“Bush fatigue. It ain’t gonna happen.”

That really is priceless.I guess an extremely low approval rating is proof of lack of fatigue, just as the majority of Americans who oppose warrantless wiretapping shows support for the NSA program, or the vast majority of Iraqis who want us out is proof that, as Dick Cheney said, “with respect to the question of were we greeted as liberators, I think we clearly are viewed as liberators by the vast majority of the Iraqi people.”

One more point, how is that not a lie? He knows for a fact that it is not “clear” at all, and that every poll conducted has shown huge majorities want us out. To claim something is “clear” is a lie when you know it’s not. How do you cons defend that? It’s time you own up and admit, as I got one of my con friends to do, that you feel there are greater goals which justify lying to the people. Then think of the company you are intellectually keeping by reaching that conclusion.

Just admit it, my friend seemed relieved after he did. It seemed a weight was off his chest now that he no longer had to throw out the patently false BS talking points regarding the NSA scandal, the lies to gather public support for the runup to the war, Social Security, etc… He no longer felt the need to say that no one lied in the runup, then pretend that I didn’t just show him a blatant example of said lying to maintain the shroud of false consistency. Now he just says that of course they lied, they had to, they wouldn’t have gotten the support otherwise. This is a great guy and great friend. Shows how cultish the idea power can make people.

This is what I posted on another site in response to a comment by a particularly annoying, persistent and dishonest troll who bitched that his patriotism was questioned:

“My love of country is questioned here 10 times a day. I ignore it because it comes from people who don’t know any better.”

Pedro,No one here has any doubt that you have a love for “America”. We just have a different definition of America. To me it’s the principles on which it was ostensibly founded, but have never been honored. To me it is American to strive for these principles. Some, you, view it as a team, and the fact that you happen to be here at the moment, or were lucky enough to have been born here, means that you must defend your team at all costs, even when your leaders are undermining those principles which real Americans strive to uphold.

I had a talk with a cop today (I work in law enforcement) who said that he would have personally arrested Volpe and his cohorts if he was working the night he brutalized Abner Louima. That is a real cop. The fake cops are the ones who covered for him and lied and watched while an innocent human being was almost killed.

The Republicans are shoving a broken broomstick up the ass of America and you feel that it’s more important to maintain that red, white and blue wall of silence.

As depressing as it is immerse myself daily in reading about the ugly sides of political thought, and ideas in general, that cop really made my day.

Senator Fuzzy Feelings sank deeper into the morass of being dead to me by agreeing to give the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's college, Liberty University, which is the most fundyest of fundy schools.

But he slightly redeemed himself by admitting that he is "going into crazy base world". His expert ability to pander to everyone from Jon Stewart to Jerry Falwell probably shouldn't earn him any points, but he set the bar so low with his pro-torture actions and fake lobbying reform pose, how can he go wrong at this point. Officially, still dead to me, though only in the 6th ring now.

And I think Stephen Colbert got the hint because he hasn't done a "dead to me" bit since I called him out.

The guy who runs the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster apparently receives a mess of hate mail. Enjoy. Some samples:

How fucking dare you make fun of my lord and savior Jesus Christ. He died on the cross for my and your sins you fucking peice of shit. You can't fucking do that you fucking fuck. Go fuck yourself you fuck!!! FUCK YOU!!!!!!! ANTICHRIST!!! YEA, YOUR THE ANTICHRIST YOU FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO GO FUCK UP ISREAL YOU FUCKING FUCK. BOBY BITCHEMSOMS = 666 666 666 PISS WHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOUR GONA BURN IN HELL FOREVER YOU LARGE FUCK. You are an ass crack. You know what an ass crack is bitch? Thats exactly what you look like. Piss whole!!!!! You should go shuve your face up someon's fucking ass you fucking fuck of a fucking fucker fucky fuck fuck fucker fucky fucker fucky fucker fucky fuck fuck!!!!! FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!! YOU RUIN EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!! YOUR LEADING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE INTO HELL YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!! YOU HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT TO DO THAT YOU FUCKING BASTARD GO FUCK YOUR SELF OR FUCK A TREE OR FUCK YOUR WIFE!!!!!!!! GO FUCK THE FLYING SPHIGETTI MONSTER YOU FUCK!!!!!! -Guido Arbia

heyo, i think you are by far the most cracked out, butt fucking, dick sucking, fagit ass bitch that i have ever seen on the face of this fucked up and corrupt earth. you really need to get a fucking life you neo-nazi bitch. i hope god kills your ass. thank you for causing hysterical laughing as a result of your retardedness. mike nobar

LISTEN DUMBASS YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE SO COOL BECAUSE YOU THINK SOME PUSSY SPAGHETTI MONSTER RULES THE FUCKING WORLD YOU STUPID FUCK YOU NEED TO FIND JESUS YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER. IF I WERE YOU I WOULD TAKE MY ASS IN TO ON COMMING TRAFFIC AND LET EVERYBODY KILL YOUR ASS. AND YOU BETTER PRAY TO YOUR GOD THAT I DON'T FIND BECAUSE IF I DO I'M GOING TO JAM AN OAR UP YOUR ASS NEVER MIND I'M SURE YOUR HOMO BOYFRIEND DOES THAT ANYWAY YOU FUCKING DICK. DOES YOUR ASS HURT BECAUSE IF IT DOES THAT MEANS THAT AN OAR IS ALREADY BEEN IN THERE. AND IF I SEE THAT LAST SUPPER PICTURE AGIAN I'M GOING TO PUT ANOTHER OAR UP YOUR ASS AND YOUR GOING TO LOOK FUCKING STUPID WITH TWO OARS JAMMED UP YOUR ASS. YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR A PUSSY AND YOUR HOMO BOYFRIEND IS A PUSSY AND YOUR SISTERS A PUSSY AND YOUR WHOLE FAMILY ARE PUSSYS BUT YOUR MOMS NOT SHE A FUCKING IDIOT FOR HAVING YOUR ASS. MY GOD WOULD BITCH SLAP THE HELL OUT OF YOUR FUCKING PUSSY ASS GOD AND SEND THAT MOTHERFUCKER BACK TO HELL AND I HOPE YOU ARE WITH HIM SO YOU AND HIM CAN BURN FOR THE REST OF YOUR FUCKING LIVES AND THEN YOUR FOLLOWERS WILL SEE WHAT A PUSSY YOUR GOD REALLY IS AND THEY WILL TURN TO MY GOD FOR AWNSERS ABOUT WHAT YOU DID AND I WILL TELL THEM THAT YOU WERE A FUCKING HOMO AND SO WAS YOUR GOD. AND IF YOU TRY YOUR SHIT IN HELL THE DEVIL WILL LIKE IT BECAUSE HE'S A FUCKING HOMO TO HIM AND YOUR GOD ARE FUCK HOMO'S TOGETHER AND THEY FUCK YOU UP THE ASS. GOD BLESS SIGNED CHARLES MCMURREY

Consider me converted! Praise Jesus!

I've found movie reviews are not to be read prior to viewing a film, but after, especially after you've had time to seriously reflect on what you've seen. Then, and only then, should you read someone else's opinion, but you must be open-minded to the author's analysis. I always allow for the fact that the reviewer noticed something (many things, usually) which I did not. In that context, reading a movie review can be as emotional an artistic experience as seeing the film itself. Reading this review made me feel like I was seeing Brokeback Mountain for a second time. And I think the thesis of the piece is exactly correct, that the movie is, and should be viewed as, a movie uniquely about the Closet. A sample:

The climax of these visual contrasts is also the emotional climax of the film, which takes place in two consecutive scenes, both of which prominently feature closets—literal closets. In the first, a grief-stricken Ennis, now in his late thirties, visits Jack's childhood home, where in the tiny closet of Jack's almost bare room he discovers two shirts—his and Jack's, the clothes they'd worn during their summer on Brokeback Mountain—one of which Jack has sentimentally encased in the other. (At the end of that summer, Ennis had thought he'd lost the shirt; only now do we realize that Jack had stolen it for this purpose.) The image —which is taken directly from Proulx's story—of the two shirts hidden in the closet, preserved in an embrace which the men who wore them could never fully enjoy, stands as the poignant visual symbol of the story's tragedy. Made aware too late of how greatly he was loved, of the extent of his loss, Ennis stands in the tiny windowless space, caressing the shirts and weeping wordlessly. In the scene that follows, another misplaced piece of clothing leads to a similar scene of tragic realization. Now middle-aged and living alone in a battered, sparsely furnished trailer (a setting with which Proulx's story begins, the tale itself unfolding as a long flashback), Ennis receives a visit from his grown daughter, who announces that she's engaged to be married. "Does he love you?" the blighted father protectively demands, as if realizing too late that this is all that matters. After the girl leaves, Ennis realizes she's left her sweater behind, and when he opens his little closet door to store it there, we see that he's hung the two shirts from their first summer, one still wearing the other, on the inside of the closet door, below a tattered postcard of Brokeback Mountain. Just as we see this, the camera pulls back to allow us a slightly wider view, which reveals a little window next to the closet, a rectangular frame that affords a glimpse of a field of yellow flowers and the mountains and sky. The juxtaposition of the two spaces—the cramped and airless closet, the window with its unlimited vistas beyond—efficiently but wrenchingly suggests the man's tragedy: the life he has lived, the life that might have been. His eyes filling with tears, Ennis looks at his closet and says, "Jack, I swear..."; but he never completes his sentence, as he never completed his life.

I've been saying for a while now that the emotional and physical scarring inflicted on gay men in most of the world over many centuries due to religion and ignorance amounts to nothing less than a holocaust. Entire generations of gay men, past and present, and the friends and lovers who love them, will never know what life could have been like with unconditional support and a mentality free from the constant managing of a "straight" persona. And Heath Ledger lives in my neighborhood and not yours (unless you live in Cobble Hill), so there.

Apparently I've gotten a job writing for the American Prospect and TMP Cafe. Go here, scroll down to the picture and you'll see what I'm talking about. BTW, this guy graduated from college in 2003. And he was recognized by New York Magazine for accomplishing so much at such a young age. I'll be right back, I just have to go chew on some glass.

Now THIS is a love song (the chorus, which I've highlighted, just kills me):

In a little homage to the Phony's now defunct Dead Celeb or Not site, John McCain is ..... Still dead to me:

Senator McCain is putting together a bipartisan task force to address lobbyingcorruption reform in Congress. Of course, when any Republican mentions the word "bipartisan" they really mean Republican and Joe Lieberman, which, in essence, isn't really bipartisan at all. True to form, ol' Joe has signed aboard McCain's task force, as has the reliable Democrat Ben Nelson. Today, an angry and vitriolic McCain express outrage that Senator Obama has refused to play in his bipartisan sandbox.

Read the whole thing for the McCain's pissy schoolyard note-passing fit of pique. And I was seriously considering bringing him back to life after his initial grandstanding over the Republican ethics scandal. But that's all it was, grandstanding. BTW, Stephen Colbert is dead to me because he stole my "dead to me" idea. I guess I'll still watch him because the show is "incredibly funny" or something like that, but he crossed the line this time.

I'm surprised no one else has picked up on this little nugget from yesterday's wiretap hearings, and remember the purpose of the hearing is for the Senate Judiciary Committee to try to pry info out of Gonzales over a program which the president feels he is justified in keeping, shhh, secret:

FEINSTEIN: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make clear that, for me, at least, this hearing isn't about whether our nation should aggressively combat terrorism; I think we all agree on that. And it's not about whether we should use sophisticated electronic surveillance to learn about terrorist plans and intentions and capabilities; we all agree on that. And it's not about whether we should use those techniques inside the United States to guard against attacks; we all agree on that. But this administration is effectively saying, and the attorney general has said it today, it doesn't have to follow the law. And this, Mr. Attorney General, I believe, is a very slippery slope. It's fraught with consequences. The Intelligence Committees have not been briefed on the scope and nature of the program. They have not been able to explore what is a link or an affiliate to Al Qaida or what minimization procedures are in place. We know nothing about the program other than what we read in the newspapers. And so it comes with huge shock, as Senator Leahy said, that the president of the United States in Buffalo, New York, in 2004, would say, and I quote, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." Mr. Attorney General, in light of what you and the president have said in the past month, this statement appears to be false. Do you agree?

GONZALES: No, I don't, Senator. In fact, I take great issue with your suggestion that somehow that president of the United States was not being totally forthcoming with the American people. I have his statement, and in the sentence immediately before what you're talking about, he said -- he was referring to roving wiretaps. And so I think anyone...

I'm watching the new Dennis Miller special. At first I thought he was just warming up with old stuff (why one would do that anyway in their comeback HBO special I don't know) but the hack jokes never stopped. Seriously, he talked about hotel towels, fat people in Vegas, Cialis and that pesky 36 hour erection, those darned new drugs with all their side effects, Attention Deficit Disorder, old flight attendants, his awesome common sensical take down of global warming (apparently the sun was also hot when he was a kid), smoking bans, CRRAAZZY Howard Dean, pussy liberals, Bush's real world toughness, suits against tobbaco and fast food corporations, illegal aliens and their wacky outfits, and on and on. It wouldn't surprise me if one day a couple of years ago Dennis had a little conversation with himself that went like this:

"You know, I think I just realized away I can get another few years out of my career before I retire to sleep on bags of money. I haven't been relevant for a while so I'll get noticed by being the token pro-war comedian (High five Ron Silver!). Then I'll parlay that into a tour and a special even though I lost my edge and creativity years ago. You don't have to tell me that I got nothing left, I kept it going with stunts like hosting Monday Night Football and the whole conservative darling thing. I know that some of my large-worded similes don't exactly have much to do with what I was talking about, but those same fat Vegas tourists will laugh."

"Sounds like a plan!"

He didn't have to be this bad.

After one of his awful pro-war jokes, or after some anti-global warming pseudo-populist bullshit, he could have taken a shot like this: "Just hold on a fucking second you conservatives, I'll get to you. It's just not your turn yet, but please don't think you're clean. I'll fucking get to you." But no. He actually did a rundown of the most annoying politicians out there while not mentioning a single Republican, with the coda being a 10 minute rant on (are you fucking kidding me) Bill Clinton. Then immediately progressing to calling the US soft in the face of terrorism. He then said he was getting sick of the Iraqi people not being loyal enough to us. Next up was how we have to save over-taxed corporations. That's all I can write, you can see where this is going.

Good crap Dennis, if you had talked from your brain (which made you famous) and not just from your heart, you could have made me believe there was something behind your new persona besides ego and money then I would have been entertained. Do you really think that good people will take you seriously merely because you don't oppose gay marriage like an animal? Tell another "hedonistic and irresponsible baby boomer" joke you f-ing hack. F you.

Maybe this rant is dated, but I've noticed lately that in even the very most casual interactions between people of the opposite sex the greeting and goodbye must, absolutely must, be accompanied by the half-hug-kiss. Only on the first meeting is a simple handshake or nod allowed. Any subsequent meeting automatically affords the participants a level of familiarity and comfort with which I was unaware perfect strangers should have with each other. I suppose I lost this battle long ago, and there is no way to reverse it, so I'll embrace it. Maybe throw in a little tongue. Maybe I'll just drop my pants before hugging someone and nature take over.

The Phony might not like this so much:

[Q:] It was six years between your second CD, When the Pawn..., and your new one, Extraordinary Machine. What were you doing all that time? [Apple:] Um, I really didn't do anything. I know I obviously had to have been doing a lot--because I'm a lot different now than I was then, but there's nothing that I can show you that I've done. I've tried to scrape my mind and rake up and little things that I might have done: I read some plays for a while; I spent a lot of time walking. That's something that still happens. I just walk around.... but the truth is that I haven't really done anything of consequence. Were you writing a lot of songs? No. [laughs]... What was with the play reading? ... I'd always wanted to read more plays, and I felt like "Oh, that'll be my thing now. I'll read all the plays that everyone knows." I went to the bookstore and bought 20 plays, and I would just really get into them. I had a great time reading them. Unfortunately, I look at them now on my bookshelf, and ask myself what they're about, and I can't remember.

How many of you knew that the phrase "quitting cold turkey" comes from the goosebumps, and "kicking the habit" comes from the restless kicking, that a heroin addict experiences during withdrawal?

Media Matters lays its daily smackdown on Bill O'Reilly:

Later in the interview, Letterman admonished O'Reilly, asserting "I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. ... I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint," to which O'Reilly replied, "I respect your opinion, you should respect mine." But O'Reilly had apparently been aware of Letterman's unrelenting style. In a 2001 column titled "The Letterman Experience," O'Reilly praised Letterman's interviewing abilities: "The late-night program hosted by David Letterman is the toughest interview show on television. That's because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table. If a guest begins to sink on this show, the bottom is a long way down."

Digby:

[I]n light of the deaths of 12 coal miners, a timely reminder that Mr. Alito is on the record as deciding that the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act should protect miners less than it does.It's also worth remembering that since reaching office, Our Fearless Leader cut MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration) funds in real dollars, fired a whistleblower, put a mining company executive in charge, reduced staff by 170, tried to slash funding even more, and exempted the MSHA from the Freedom of Information Act.He did, however, arrange a photo op with the last group of high-profile miners trapped in the ground, and said this for the cameras: "It was their determination to stick together and to comfort each other that really defines kind of a new spirit that's prevalent in our country, that when one of us suffer, all of us suffers."Mr. Bush, we are told, has given up spirits.

I'm not sure why this took so long, but I just now realized that a few years ago (especially the college years) I would have been an adamant Intelligent Design supporter. I know my inner contrarian would have loved to have had that argument. Down boy.

I have always wondered what people meant when they said they were libertarians, because when I ask them what that means they usually don't have any idea. Of course they are conservatives who feel like it gives them some credibility to pose as being above the two-party system. They aren't. They vote for Bush. And they don't seem to have a problem with unchecked executive powers. This writer says it better, obviously talking about the illegal wiretaps:

Now answer the following question: do you find all of the above perfectly okay, and, in fact, an obviously necessary part of the Globah Struggle Against Angry Foreigners? As a follow-up, are you perfectly comfortable with all of the above happening in direct violation of the law, and in complete secrecy? If you answered “yes” to either of the questions above, congratulations! You’re not a libertarian. Time to find something else to call yourself (Totalitarian? Dominionist? Kaye Grogan?)! You might even be ready for one of our other seminars, like “Eat Yourself Thin: Small Government Edition,” “9-11 Changed Everything But My Diaper,” or our special 30 day intensive course, “Ignorance By Example.” If you answered “that could never happen to me! I’m white! Baby Jesus! Baby Jesus!”, you might qualify for one of our advanced courses, such as “40′ Electrically Charged Spiked Border Fences That Shoot Lasers At Brown People: Better Than Sex?” or “White Men Unite: Take Back the Night.” If you answered “no” to any of the questions above, STOP FUCKING VOTING REPUBLICAN, DUMMY.

That Rush Limbaugh believes what comes out of his mouth. When I would argue with sane people about Rush back in the day, they would always say that he's a good entertainer but that he can't possibly believe most of the nonsense that billows from his fat maw. I would inevitably say that of course he believed it, because I believed it. I still think he believes it. That's why he sucks so bad. No one can be that passionate about something they do not feel deeply.

Usually he's too "aloof" or "above-it-all" to pull his brain away from the funny, but his latest post provokes a thought or two:

Of course, most reasonable religious people understand that public schools are a place for learning about things like math and science and English. They know that God is something that should be taught in church, or Sunday school or in the home. Like music or art. Or gym. And it's not just because some people are Jewish and some people are Muslim and some people don't believe in God and you have to cater to their whims. Even if every single person was Christian and believed the exact same thing (again, completely made up), school is not the place to teach these beliefs. You go to school to learn how to be a productive member of society and not merely a stereotype for the whole rest of the world to laugh at and hate.

The lovely Ms. Machiavelli was just making this observation last night:

I’ve been trying to figure out why God has been sending all those horrible grass fires to Texas. At first I thought it was because God dislikes George W. Bush, and so is punishing Texas. But then in fairness, I realized that God’s time is different than man’s time, and it may be that God is having a delayed reaction to the governorship of Ann Richards, which means the grass fires are the Democrats' fault. Or maybe God doesn’t like Molly Ivins and is punishing Texas because of her. Maybe he’s having a conniption fit about Brokeback Mountain. Of course, most of the sex scenes take place in Montana, while it’s only Jake Gyllenhaal’s pretend marriage that takes place in Texas. So if God was being more exact, He should send grass fires to Montana, not Texas. So maybe it is Molly Ivins.

She is smart.

This is a take I had not heard:

There is no need to yell and scream. No need to be strident and shrill. What is needed is that conservatives learn their proper role. Now by conservative, I mean people who are not creative, but who are, in the main, reactionary.In America, it has long been the case that the creative class tended toward liberality, since that is, in large part, what enables them to be creative. Creativity is a generative and generous act. But many of those who are not creative make the mistake of becoming, or being, reactive, as if reactivity balanced creativity. But this is not the proper order. The proper thing for the non-creatives to do is to be receptive, not reactive. Creativity is the yang, receptivity is the yin. All of life is infused with both characteristics. No one is completely one way or the other. There are simply aptitudes and orientations. America is prevented from evolving naturally by this miscalculation. Instead of great ideas being nurtured and developed by those who would be receptive, instead they are reacted against, shot down, and the balloon bursts…if it is ever given wind in the first place.