tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70267902024-03-18T23:13:00.756-04:00Windmill TilterGRATUITOUSLY OVERUSING PARENTHESES SINCE 2005.MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-6062579288652562292009-04-22T22:53:00.007-04:002009-04-22T23:20:13.295-04:00Torture Defenders<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM6CyfE8oNErPn6FWkp51QqLlukOPfQBwg3RnsUIwKBedsikbvwfvz70oc6gInOZ-4bKt8qvu9Zc371ZtxwNnd_5ddAQdpUzdlNy04mTT2vl9DxNIxJ3nD-dY8Y7T_KA5BCQYTow/s1600-h/nickelback.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 254px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM6CyfE8oNErPn6FWkp51QqLlukOPfQBwg3RnsUIwKBedsikbvwfvz70oc6gInOZ-4bKt8qvu9Zc371ZtxwNnd_5ddAQdpUzdlNy04mTT2vl9DxNIxJ3nD-dY8Y7T_KA5BCQYTow/s320/nickelback.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5327720724135529010" border="0" /></a>
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: lucida grande;font-size:130%;" >The thing is, I can kind of understand the conservative position on the torture scandal. </span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: lucida grande;font-size:130%;" >
<blockquote></blockquote>
Bear with me. </span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: lucida grande;font-size:130%;" >
<blockquote></blockquote>
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. </span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: lucida grande;font-size:130%;" >
<blockquote></blockquote>
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. </span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: lucida grande;font-size:130%;" >
<blockquote></blockquote>
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. </span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: lucida grande;font-size:130%;" >
<blockquote></blockquote>
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. </span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: lucida grande;font-size:130%;" >
<blockquote></blockquote>
These people always existed, they just didn't have such powerful representatives.</span>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-88994921542846404382008-10-21T17:18:00.007-04:002008-10-21T18:26:38.385-04:00Taxes Do Not Equal Socialism<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp-QuXtTcaM9g6jh2iCzwhDvKMeZz6s-JQxRNuv6EFMbwV1hdAHRq8NVD46J1DRqD2-wuwwup-91at2OSQYP9q-VPGYNOqEgafo1lPAFwvJS5ojvmJY_F4OXTt_neDKCjfyHQNAA/s1600-h/Communism+-+Lenin.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp-QuXtTcaM9g6jh2iCzwhDvKMeZz6s-JQxRNuv6EFMbwV1hdAHRq8NVD46J1DRqD2-wuwwup-91at2OSQYP9q-VPGYNOqEgafo1lPAFwvJS5ojvmJY_F4OXTt_neDKCjfyHQNAA/s320/Communism+-+Lenin.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5259732284141866562" border="0" /></a>
<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The last post reminded me of something I saw yesterday on CNN.</span>
<blockquote></blockquote>
<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">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. </span>
<blockquote></blockquote>
<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">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).</span>
<blockquote></blockquote>
<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Here's what Powell said which should be memorized by all liberal talking heads: </span>
<blockquote></blockquote>
<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">"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?"</span></blockquote>
<blockquote></blockquote>
<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">There's no reason to get more or less complicated than this.</span></span>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-85773277758720804912008-10-21T16:49:00.007-04:002008-10-21T18:06:58.832-04:00"Small but Steady"<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8ctWJAnEUt70y_VKQCj1yF45NHwNJ9BhqrG2_vJDTzd42f7JCPssXa3IzFNne5XWpSSL8sYT6cJSK-llkuZ3h0TMobvf5_VN4MZ9VbeUCSy9pEntB2EAGEaPGdmGlCVaKAwjIvQ/s1600-h/mighty_mouse-01.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8ctWJAnEUt70y_VKQCj1yF45NHwNJ9BhqrG2_vJDTzd42f7JCPssXa3IzFNne5XWpSSL8sYT6cJSK-llkuZ3h0TMobvf5_VN4MZ9VbeUCSy9pEntB2EAGEaPGdmGlCVaKAwjIvQ/s320/mighty_mouse-01.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5259732112873164338" border="0" /></a>
<span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >CNN chyron this afternoon: "Obama's Small But Steady Lead".
</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
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'."
</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
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.
</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>
I guess if I ever date a CNN producer, I should tell her I'm "small but steady".
<blockquote></blockquote>
Vintage CNN. All balance, all the time.</span>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-68908551319778705682008-08-26T22:05:00.007-04:002008-08-27T09:32:58.348-04:00Olberdouche With A Side of Chris, Please.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjevR0jPwju1AlvliXH0BmwCz5IEDiALAEceMQ1OJgWqaij_LbfscN25JZ6TiVh5a520D_2V811SWF-VD70-TQLOoHv19akRp03G7hbWnV0X-k3TzgD-uUvkA-PpaPQyCO8v4T5bw/s1600-h/001.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjevR0jPwju1AlvliXH0BmwCz5IEDiALAEceMQ1OJgWqaij_LbfscN25JZ6TiVh5a520D_2V811SWF-VD70-TQLOoHv19akRp03G7hbWnV0X-k3TzgD-uUvkA-PpaPQyCO8v4T5bw/s320/001.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5239028086833363138" border="0" /></a>
<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:100%;">Even Chris Matthews has lost it.
<blockquote></blockquote>
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.</span><span style="font-size:100%;">
<blockquote></blockquote>
</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:100%;">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.</span><span style="font-size:100%;">
<blockquote></blockquote>
</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:100%;">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).</span><span style="font-size:100%;">
<blockquote></blockquote>
</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:100%;">I usually hate Matthews even more than Olbermann but I cannot blame him for standing up this freak on a power trip.</span><span style="font-size:100%;">
<blockquote></blockquote>
</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:100%;">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.</span><span style="font-size:100%;">
<blockquote></blockquote>
</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:100%;">Isn't it clear by now? The liberals finally (kind of) get a network and Keith Goddamn Olbermann, you're ruining everything.</span>
</span>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-49246206929377252442008-07-09T01:04:00.009-04:002008-07-09T01:49:57.109-04:00Baseball Heaven (not in Iowa)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrlKsc24T3ukD2CiDw5GE4gz9w7yLlnAATEYbsu9PBiBEAb9uhecCyFpcoOZO_et5xaTqhd7KWDU8lbp8-Rhk-PvYEN-K-2a9ZO0ZUEiGfHuU3Q0h8Q3-FcPuAIz3Yixyp84q1HA/s1600-h/HulkSox.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrlKsc24T3ukD2CiDw5GE4gz9w7yLlnAATEYbsu9PBiBEAb9uhecCyFpcoOZO_et5xaTqhd7KWDU8lbp8-Rhk-PvYEN-K-2a9ZO0ZUEiGfHuU3Q0h8Q3-FcPuAIz3Yixyp84q1HA/s320/HulkSox.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5220885210480411122" border="0" /></a>
<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >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.
<blockquote></blockquote>
Those fans are in the heaven zone.
<blockquote></blockquote>
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).
<blockquote></blockquote>
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.
</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
Yankees fans may </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >never </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >have had this.
</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
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.
</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
... but ...
</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
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.</span>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-40344873008407131012008-06-28T16:19:00.010-04:002008-06-28T18:50:25.190-04:00Now in "Worse Than O'Reilly" Flavor<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-fn6MdCBZOcvDaETSbugQ8Vf5iSFI_CGus8PL168jLbQIPugJY_utMQ3TXxwk8ySQKn0PB5BZII296EzKPxbov9cDm9UIbfD1rxRlTSSZBmgIoD8rJlJo6bTb2qSsM1M74Jj7HA/s1600-h/halloween_olbermann.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-fn6MdCBZOcvDaETSbugQ8Vf5iSFI_CGus8PL168jLbQIPugJY_utMQ3TXxwk8ySQKn0PB5BZII296EzKPxbov9cDm9UIbfD1rxRlTSSZBmgIoD8rJlJo6bTb2qSsM1M74Jj7HA/s320/halloween_olbermann.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5217060823551269874" border="0" /></a>
<span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >Again, liberals should abhor Keith </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" >Olbermann</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >. Specific candidate advocacy. That's pretty much what </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" >Olbermann's</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > show has become.
</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/index.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Greenwald</span></span></a>
</span><blockquote style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-size:130%;">"</span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Olbermann</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> added that </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">telecom</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> amnesty was a 'shameless, breathless, <b>literally textbook example of Fascism</b> -- 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 </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">FISA</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> protections. Now that </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Barack</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Obama</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Obama</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> <a target="_blank" href="http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_on_fisa_telecom_immunity.php">justifies that support</a> by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed."</span></blockquote><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >
<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/27/olbermann/index.html">And this</a> after Keith <a href="http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/26/222646/124/440/542648">replied weakly on Daily <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Kos</span></span></a>:
</span><blockquote style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-size:130%;">"In his </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Kos</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> reply, </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Olbermann</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> pronounces that my piece yesterday was 'simplistic and childish' but then adds the standard dismissive Journalist defense: 'I don't know much about Mr. </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Greenwald</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> and <b>I didn't read his full piece</b>.'
...
</span><p> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Olbermman</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> then denies that he was justifying </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Obama's</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> support for the </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">FISA</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> bill but then goes on to do <b>exactly that</b>:</span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror . . . . <b>So why hand them a brick to hit him with -- <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Obama</span></span> Voted Against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">FISA</span></span> -- if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">FISA</span></span>.</b></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">How can </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Olbermann</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> accuse me of distorting his commentary and deny that he's rationalizing </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Obama's</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> support for the bill and then write the above -- which does nothing but justify </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Obama's</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> support for the bill? That's exactly the mentality I was criticizing yesterday -- that </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Obama</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> 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 </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" style="font-size:130%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Obama</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"> has repeatedly vowed to reject, and it's that precise mentality that has to be extinguished, not perpetuated."</span></blockquote><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >
With all the coverage on the liberal </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">blogosphere</span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >, and with almost all the blogs agreeing with </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Greenwald</span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > (some don't even reference it and I assume they're pro-Keith </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">truthers</span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > who are </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25" >embarrassed</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > 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 </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">O'Reilly</span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > does. </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Olbermann</span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > is engaging in open advocacy of a candidate.
</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >
<blockquote></blockquote>
We all </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28" >observed</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > his sycophantic treatment of </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">Obama</span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > 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.
</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >
<blockquote></blockquote>
Here, he is not.
</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >
<blockquote></blockquote>
He is unquestionably wrong on the issue (because he claimed to be an advocate against unprincipled politicking) and Glenn is 114% right.
<blockquote></blockquote>
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 </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">MSNBC's</span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > 8 o'clock hour. "Hi, I'm </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Barack</span></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Obama</span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >, 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 </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34" >hypocrisy</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >. No longer can we we bring up when </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Hannity</span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > campaigned for Rudy.
</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >
We as liberals are generally much more principled and </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36" >knowledgeable</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > and one idiot who got lucky and filled a vacuum is now our "leader" by our choice. He is far less </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37" >representative</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > of us than Rush or </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">O'Reilly</span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" > or Glenn Beck are representative of the right. Now everyone thinks we're all like </span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39" ><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">Olbermann</span></span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >. This just extends the mindless charade indefinitely and sets back our fight in the "truth" war back a decade.
</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
Please, Keith.
</span><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
You're ruining everything.</span>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-71389570537458495472008-06-17T20:55:00.017-04:002008-06-28T18:38:44.987-04:00Liberals Should Abhor Keith Olbermann<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtQNg2-ec6AfYWRnd1358dKd9qJ1LKWPeiblm0UqYFw1Q6_PN0PCDxCkDzdz0H4_NQDSc9WY0NDnhVaLmRdPWUOy810gKj4B9jgRbWzs3EQY076jCgdnbUnovPdc74cxxMDBugvA/s1600-h/olbermann_nazisalute.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtQNg2-ec6AfYWRnd1358dKd9qJ1LKWPeiblm0UqYFw1Q6_PN0PCDxCkDzdz0H4_NQDSc9WY0NDnhVaLmRdPWUOy810gKj4B9jgRbWzs3EQY076jCgdnbUnovPdc74cxxMDBugvA/s320/olbermann_nazisalute.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5213024827250334514" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;">
<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >This will be a regular feature at the Tilter.
</span></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >Why should we abhor this man? Because he's just Bill O'Reilly in hipster glasses.
</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >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.
</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
Please tell me the difference between this and the eliminationist rhetoric from the likes of <a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/02/eliminationism-in-america-ix.html">Michael Savage</a>. (</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-family:Verdana,Ariel,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;font-size:130%;" ><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">"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."</span>)
<blockquote></blockquote>
</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >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.
</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" >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 <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/index.shtml">Somerby</a>, 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).
</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:130%;" ><blockquote></blockquote>
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.
<blockquote></blockquote>
You're ruining everything Keith Olbermann.</span>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-21060091199128097442007-04-28T18:04:00.000-04:002007-04-28T18:09:23.027-04:00MetabloggingThis is how one special person found my blog:
<blockquote>Referring URL:
<a title="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=guy fucking a windmill&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8" href="http://search.yahoo....e=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8" fr="'yfp-t-501&toggle=" cop="mss&ei=">http://search.yahoo....e=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8</a>
</blockquote><p></p><p></p><blockquote>Search Engine:
search.yahoo.com</blockquote>
<blockquote>Search Words:
guy fucking a windmill</blockquote>
As my girlfriend is the only one who reads this blog, I think we need to talk.MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1155072051853314122006-08-08T17:02:00.000-04:002006-08-08T17:20:51.876-04:00The Rudeness of Gay MarriageOver at <a href="http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/none-of-your-fucking-business-one-of.html">The Rude Pundit</a>, 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:
<em><blockquote><em>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. </em></blockquote></em>
<em></em>
<em><blockquote><em>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. </em>
</blockquote></em>
<em><blockquote><em>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..."</em> </blockquote></em>
<em></em>
<em><strong><blockquote><em><strong>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. </strong> (Emphasis
mine.)</em></blockquote></strong></em>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1152772775403947852006-07-13T02:34:00.000-04:002006-07-13T02:59:59.670-04:00Lyric BloggingGive 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:
<blockquote></blockquote><div align="center">
<strong>Santa Can't Stay</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>Dwight Yoakam</strong></div><div align="center">
Cold tears fall from his eyes
</div><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><div align="center">
As he turns into the night and walks away
</div><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><div align="center">
Lucille runs outside
Just to see if there might be a sleigh
</div><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center"></p><div align="center">Little Bobby stares down
</div><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><div align="center">At the plate where cookies still lay
</div><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><div align="center">And tries to understand
</div><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><div align="center">Why momma said Santa can't stay
</div><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><div align="center">Chorus: Momma said Santa can't stay
</div><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><div align="center">Said she told him that twice yesterday
</div><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center">Then a car just like Dad's
</p><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center">Pulled out and drove away
</p><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center">After mom said Santa couldn't stay
</p><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center">They both heard him coming
</p><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center">Saw Mom run down the hall and holler, "Wait!"
</p><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center">Doug you're drunk don't come inside
</p><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center">I'm not joking I've had all this I can take
</p><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center">He threw a present really hard
</p><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center">That almost hit Mom's new boyfriend Ray
</p><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center">And yelled ho-ho lucky for you she's here
</p><blockquote><p align="center"></p></blockquote><p align="center">And said that Santa can't stay
</p>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1152663615044504412006-07-11T20:13:00.000-04:002006-07-11T20:22:43.613-04:00Good Old FoxI'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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemente">Roberto Clemente</a>, 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.
<blockquote></blockquote>
I bet they thought they were being poignant.MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1152300668440861992006-07-10T20:19:00.000-04:002006-07-10T20:29:10.450-04:00Hollywood PhonyTo my vast readership:
<blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>I implore you all to visit the blog of my friend Eric, <a href="http://www.hollywoodphony.com/">hollywoodphony.com</a>, 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, <a href="http://chadrobuckle.blogspot.com/">chadrobuckle.com</a>, or you
can find it on ITunes.</blockquote>
<blockquote></blockquote>
Your pal,
<blockquote></blockquote>MJBMJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1152459089710046472006-07-09T09:52:00.000-04:002006-07-09T16:26:08.156-04:00ViolenceHere are the bookend paragraphs of a <a href="http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/07/08/hollywood-to-america-you-must-watch-our-smut/">recent post</a> on the blog for a pleasant little organization called "Stop the ACLU":
<blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/08/entertainment/e185214D44.DTL">companies
to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them</a> of gratuitous nudity,
over-the-top profanity, and puerile <em><strong>violence</strong></em>. For
years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines
scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.
</p><p></p><p>
...
</p><p></p><p>
With the
incredible success of films like <strong><em>The Passion of
Christ, Lord
of
the Rings, and other family-friendly films</em></strong>
one
would think
that the movie industry would see that there is an
untapped market
to be
exploited.
(Emphasis mine.)
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote></blockquote>Don't those two movies contain pretty much non-stop violence? Well, I went to <a href="http://www.cleanflicks.com/">CleanFlicks.com</a>, 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.
<blockquote></blockquote>
So I checked out their <a href="http://www.cleanflicks.com/lovDetail.php?detailID=6">editing standards</a>:
<blockquote><p>We edit out:
</p><p>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.
<em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>Graphic Violence
This does
not mean all violence, only the graphic depictions of decapitation,
impalements, dismemberment, excessive blood, gore
etc.
</strong></em></p><p>Nudity
This refers to male and female front and back
nudity.
</p><p>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.)
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote></blockquote>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 <a href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm">lying for the Lord</a>.MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1152035580557624852006-07-04T13:53:00.000-04:002006-07-04T14:00:30.420-04:00Happy Fourth and the Birth of a New NameI 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.
<blockquote></blockquote>
Now, here's a puppy:
<blockquote></blockquote>
Awwwww. <a href="http://picasa.google.com/blogger/" target="ext"><img style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; BACKGROUND: none transparent scroll repeat 0% 0%; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px" alt="Posted by Picasa" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/pbp.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" /></a>
<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/277/3363/320/Puppy2.0.jpg"><img style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; MARGIN: 2px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/277/3363/320/Puppy2.0.jpg" border="0" /></a>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1152032468808649162006-07-04T13:00:00.000-04:002006-07-04T13:06:44.346-04:00UghThus ends my dumb fascination with this sad creature's blog:
<blockquote></blockquote>
<a href="http://stephanieklein.blogs.com/greek_tragedy/2006/06/barely.html">http://stephanieklein.blogs.com/greek_tragedy/2006/06/barely.html</a>
<blockquote></blockquote>
Don't mind me, I'll be in the corner drinking razor blades.MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1148070166740646192006-05-19T16:06:00.000-04:002006-05-19T16:31:31.220-04:00The Of Vinci CodeI have no desire to see this movie, but <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/who_wants_to_argue_with_gandal.php">PZ over at Pharyngula has a decent post on the topic</a> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Zion">Priory of Zion</a>, 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Zion#The_Hoax">complete hoax</a>.
<blockquote></blockquote>As usual, I wish I had written this, but <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/who_wants_to_argue_with_gandal.php">PZ did</a>:
<p> </p><blockquote><p>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. </p></blockquote><p>Now to piss some people off: <a href="http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002135.html">How can there be descendantss of</a> a <a href="http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002146.html">man who never existed</a>? </p>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1147897031151890592006-05-17T16:11:00.000-04:002006-05-17T16:21:36.056-04:00Lyric BloggingThis is the <a href="http://brucespringsteen.net/songs/TheRising.html">most inspiring song ever written</a> consisting primarily of sad themes.
<div align="center"><strong>The Rising - Bruce Springsteen</strong> <blockquote></blockquote></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">Can't see nothin' in front of me</div><div align="center">Can't see nothin' coming up behind</div><div align="center">I make my way through this darkness</div><div align="center">I can't feel nothing but this chain that binds me</div><div align="center">Lost track of how far I've gone</div><div align="center">How far I've gone, how high I've climbed</div><div align="center">On my back's a sixty pound stone</div><div align="center">On my shoulder a half mile line</div><div align="center"><blockquote></blockquote></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">Come on up for the rising</div><div align="center">Come on up, lay your hands in mine</div><div align="center">Come on up for the rising</div><div align="center">Come on up for the rising tonight</div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">Left the house this morning</div><div align="center">Bells ringing filled the air</div><div align="center">Wearin' the cross of my calling</div><div align="center">On wheels of fire I come rollin' down here</div><div align="center"><blockquote></blockquote></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">(chorus)</div><div align="center"><blockquote></blockquote></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">Spirits above and behind me</div><div align="center">Faces gone, black eyes burnin' bright</div><div align="center">May their precious blood forever bind me</div><div align="center">Lord as I stand before your fiery light</div><div align="center"><blockquote></blockquote></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">(chorus)</div><div align="center"><blockquote></blockquote></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">I see you Mary in the garden</div><div align="center">In the garden of a thousand sighs</div><div align="center">There's holy pictures of our children</div><div align="center">Dancin' in a sky filled with light</div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">May I feel your arms around me</div><div align="center">May I feel your blood mix with mine</div><div align="center">A dream of life comes to me</div><div align="center">Like a catfish dancin' on the end of the line</div><div align="center"><blockquote></blockquote></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">Sky of blackness and sorrow (a dream of life)</div><div align="center">Sky of love, sky of tears (a dream of life)</div><div align="center">Sky of glory and sadness (a dream of life)</div><div align="center">Sky of mercy, sky of fear (a dream of life)</div><div align="center">Sky of memory and shadow (a dream of life)</div><div align="center">Your burnin' wind fills my arms tonight</div><div align="center">Sky of longing and emptiness (a dream of life)</div><div align="center">Sky of fullness, sky of blessed life (a dream of life)</div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">(chorus)</div>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1147367562674571832006-05-11T13:10:00.000-04:002006-05-11T13:13:45.386-04:00LyingI posted this comment on <a href="http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/05/11/jeb-for-president/">another blog</a> in response to a comment up the thread by someone who claimed that there is no Bush fatigue:
<blockquote><p>“Bush fatigue. It ain’t gonna happen.” </p><p>
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.” </p><p>
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. </p><p>
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.
</p></blockquote>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1144440735599041432006-04-07T15:59:00.000-04:002006-04-08T07:33:32.710-04:00BroomstickThis is what <a href="http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/04/06/a-thought-about-patriotism/">I posted on another site</a> in response to a comment by a particularly annoying, persistent and dishonest troll who bitched that his patriotism was questioned:
<blockquote><p>“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.” </p><p>
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. </p><p>
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.
</p><p>
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. </p></blockquote>
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.MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1144275571265777792006-04-05T17:13:00.000-04:002006-04-06T16:21:50.973-04:00McCain - Still dead to me, but with a slight redemptionSenator Fuzzy Feelings sank deeper into the morass of being dead to me by <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/28/121748/577">agreeing to give the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's college, Liberty University</a>, which is the most <a href="http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=6899">fundyest of fundy schools</a>.
<blockquote></blockquote>
But he slightly redeemed himself by admitting that he is "<a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/05.html#a7797">going into crazy base world</a>". 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 <a href="http://mayberrymachiavelli.blogspot.com/2005/02/i-also-miss-real-john-mccain.html">pro-torture actions </a>and <a href="http://mayberrymachiavelli.blogspot.com/2006/02/john-mccain-dead-to-me-or-not.html">fake lobbying reform pose</a>, how can he go wrong at this point. Officially, still dead to me, though only in the 6th ring now.
<blockquote></blockquote>
And I think Stephen Colbert got the hint because he hasn't done a "dead to me" bit since <a href="http://mayberrymachiavelli.blogspot.com/2006/02/john-mccain-dead-to-me-or-not.html">I called him out</a>.MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1143569305868088472006-03-28T13:03:00.000-05:002006-03-28T13:11:59.126-05:00Flying Spaghetti Monster hate mailThe guy who runs the <a href="http://venganza.org/">Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster </a>apparently receives a mess of hate mail. <a href="http://www.venganza.org/email_neg.htm">Enjoy</a>. Some samples:
<blockquote><p>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
</p><p> </p><p>
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
</p><p> </p><p>
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
</p></blockquote>
Consider me converted! Praise Jesus!MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1139420569864814972006-02-08T12:20:00.000-05:002006-02-08T12:42:49.923-05:00Brokeback MountainI'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 <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18712">this review</a> 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:
<blockquote>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. </blockquote>
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.MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1139338298540745462006-02-07T13:45:00.000-05:002006-02-07T13:53:46.200-05:00I'm famousApparently I've gotten a job writing for the American Prospect and TMP Cafe. Go <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/37">here</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/reasonstoloveny/15365/index.html">New York Magazine</a> for accomplishing so much at such a young age. I'll be right back, I just have to go chew on some glass.MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1139332814060016512006-02-07T12:13:00.000-05:002006-02-07T12:20:14.073-05:00Short lyric bloggingNow THIS is a love song (the chorus, which I've highlighted, just kills me):
<div align="center">"Soul Meets Body" - Death Cab for Cutie</div><div align="center"> </div><div align="center">I want to live where soul meets body</div><div align="center">And let the sun wrap its arms around me</div><div align="center">And bathe my skin in water cool and cleansing</div><div align="center">And feel, feel what its like to be new</div><div align="center">Cause in my head there’s a greyhound station</div><div align="center">Where I send my thoughts to far off destinations</div><div align="center">So they may have a chance of finding a place</div><div align="center">where they’re far more suited than here</div><div align="center">I cannot guess what we'll discover</div><div align="center">We turn the dirt with our palms cupped like shovels</div><div align="center">But I know our filthy hand can wash one another’s</div><div align="center">And not one speck will remain</div><div align="center"><strong>I do believe it’s true</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>That there are roads left in both of our shoes</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>If the silence takes you</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>Then I hope it takes me too</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>So brown eyes I hold you near</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>Cause you’re the only song I want to hear</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>A melody softly soaring through my atmosphere</strong></div>MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7026790.post-1139330397917238292006-02-07T11:32:00.000-05:002006-02-07T11:39:57.930-05:00John McCain - Dead to Me or Not?In a little homage to the Phony's now defunct <a href="http://deadcelebrityornot.blogspot.com/">Dead Celeb or Not site</a>, John McCain is .....
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/6/222443/3990">Still dead to me</a>:
<blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>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.
</blockquote>
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 <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/colbertnation/lists.jhtml">stole my "dead to me" idea</a>. I guess I'll still watch him because the show is "incredibly funny" or something like that, but he crossed the line this time.MJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02215936836061213219noreply@blogger.com0