Fat Charlie

May 15, 2007

Falwell

Tucker has just called Falwell "bold" for the 9-11 comments.

Look, we lefties have a hard job today. If we look into our heart of hearts, we don't feel grief for his death. That's just the truth of it. He peddled intolerance and hatred, cloaking in a cross. He blamed Americans for 9-11. He blamed gays for Katrina (but God left the French Quarter alone, Jerry!). He was callus in that face of AIDS. To the right, it's standing on principal. To the left, it lacks compassion.

I'm thinking of his death as a turning point in this country. The right-wing Moral Majority he claimed to speak for has gone in a different direction from him: look at Rick Warren. I don't agree with him, but he's damn different from Falwell and he has a message so much closer to Jesus. Falwell represented the old, Warren represents the new. The new, even if we don't agree with it, is sooo much better than the old. It has compassion, it speaks of poverty, it lives in the now. There's room for agreement. Room for working together on certain issues like poverty.

Falwell represented a certain portion of the country and they are there, in great numbers, but they are not a majority. (I'm speaking to you, Joe Scarborough.) He didn't even represent a majority in the conservative movement. (More like 30-45%, I'd say.) He was powerful, but he was marginalized, too... and MSM has to take a breath from their extreme eulogy to say so.

Powerful and marginalized... people, right and left, just didn't buy into the words that were coming out of his mouth anymore.

Posted by emily at 4:16 PM | Comments (0)

May 7, 2007

Rout II: Taste Ben Wallace's Tears

Of course, I was rooting for the Bulls in the first round. Beating Miami is the patriotic duty of any self-respecting NBA team. Miami sucks. You don't have to say any more then that.

But now, it is war. It is business. And Chicago can go suck an egg. Which apparently, they are doing.

These routs won't continue. Chicago will win at least one. But it is pretty, pretty while it lasts. And Chicago won't win. Cry all you want, Windy City. Bulls blogs are in a real bad mood tonight, but you had to EXPECT this. This is the Pistons, my Sheed, Rip, Chauncey, C-Webb and the Palace Prince... they don't just roll over and play Shaq.

Posted by emily at 11:54 PM | Comments (0)

May 6, 2007

Playoff Thoughts

1) I believe. I believe in Golden State. I think they'll beat Utah. Nobody else is thinking this way, but NOBODY was thinking that could beat Dallas. Don't lie and say you were. You thought Dallas would kill them and eat them for lunch. And look how that turned out.

2) Thank God those cranky old grandfathers, the Miami Heat, are out.

3) Bulls v Pistons. HA! All those Bulls punks saying that the Bulls are going to sweep everyone. HA! These are still the Baby Bulls. And they're going to get spanked by my Pistons. It may take seven games, I'm not delusional. But the Bulls got it handed to them yesterday and that does not bode well for them.

4) Spurs V Suns. Good series. Good teams. Hard to know who to root for, but I'm going Suns. Nobody can predict this one, but I think Suns may have an advantage. No doubt in my mind this is going to seven.

5) Kobe. Just shut up. Being the "greatest" means making it beyond the first round of the playoffs.

6) TMac and Yao: sorry, guys. I really wanted TMac to get out of the first round, unlike my glee that Kobe has gone fishin'.

7) Is it just me or is The Jet getting kind of annoyed with Sir Charles recently?

By the way, this has been the best playoffs in a long time. Great games. Dallas and Miami out, so there's drama.

Posted by emily at 5:51 PM | Comments (0)

April 21, 2007

Macho Macho Man

I haven't been blogging of late because of studies. Last exam in an hour or two, so I'll back on the horse again.

On Virginia Tech: I don't think you can prevent this. Really, I don't. I'm not really hot-blooded on this issue of gun control. I'm fine with you owning a gun because you have a constitutional right to do so. And I'm not into stripping away constitutional rights WITHOUT amending the constitution. So there you have it.
But we talk so much about laws and not culture. Let's delve into the culture. I'm not really so fond of the blue/red paradigm; I think its a gross over simplification. However, there is a culture out there that really, really loves guns. It's pretty abscent in NYC and nonexistant in England, but I see it in Michigan and we're supposedly a "blue state".
So you have the right to bare arms, why is that so fetishized? Why does the pseudo-Western libertarian "defend thyself" mindset thrive in America? (Look to John Derbyshire for the most disgusting use of this: blaming the victims of Virginia Tech because they didn't defend themselves.) I'm not judging it, or maybe I am, but I don't want to live in a country where everyone is armed. And that's not because I have utopian view of humankind; it's because I have LESS of one. I've been in situations in my life where there's a chance that if people had been armed, people would be dead. I don't trust human beings and I don't divide them into "good" people and "bad" people. Everyone can be "bad." Anyone could slip down the slope.
My brother is right in his post about guns, but it doesn't address some pro-gun people's fetish. A gun is a holy instrument. A gun is about manhood, pride, protecting oneself. That's a cultural thing, not a thing that can be addressed by a law. Being on the other side of the culture, I can't understand it for the life of me. And I wish that, instead of gun owners trying to convince me otherwise, they would respect the fact that I don't want a gun, I have no desire for one and that's okay.
Having lived in a place where guns were banned, I remember that all my fellow British classmates, conservative or liberal, first critique of the "yanks" was our guns. People actually believe that if you stepped of the plane in LaGuardia, you'd be shot. (Granted, this was about five months after Columbine.) But they weren't pointing to any laws. They were pointing to our culture. They were pointing to the caracture of the "trigger happy American."
Some people's hobby is knitting and some people's hobby is collecting guns. Fine. And if its important to you, fine. But at some point this culture war between those who want to take away everyone's gun and those who want everyone to be armed reached an impasse. I'll leave you alone if you stop pushing your gun in my face, okay?

Posted by emily at 12:03 PM | Comments (0)

March 29, 2007

Thinking About Bush Always Makes The Head Hurt

Thought: Both John Dean and Hunter S. Thompson did opine that Bush was worse than Nixon. Really, doesn't that just say it all? But I am confused. Part of the meme on the Bush admin. is that they are incompetent. Well, if they were, they wouldn't be able to hide any criminal behavior from us (and yet part of me thinks: give it time.) But maybe the "incompetency" masks a deeply sinister criminal operation. Which one is it!?!

It's the same thoughts you have about Karl Rove. Logically, he was just lucky. He BARELY won in 2000, did a wee bit better in 2004... and people were scared shitless in '02 and '04 because of 9-11. 9-11 was the butter on his bread. Without that, would Bush have ever won reelection? No. So Karl Rove: really not that brilliant. But maybe he's lulling me into thinking that... to suprise me with Re-Animated Reagan/Re-Animated Goldwater '08.

You don't know with these peeps whether they are evil, incompetent or both. Nixon was evil. I don't know of a president in modern history more incompetent than George W. Bush... maybe Hoover? (And that's not even modern history.)

BTW, don't watch Karl Rove rap. It'll make you vomit in your mouth.

Posted by emily at 7:33 PM | Comments (0)

March 26, 2007

A Letter to The Panel of The Chris Matthews Show

Dear Sirs and Madams,

Much internet hubaloo has gone on over your dismissal of the attorney-gate. I didn't make it all the way though the show the first time around... I had to venture over to the more bipartisan and fair musings of one George Will. But having watched it again, I am perturbed.

Mostly, I am upset at one Norah O'Donnell. (Or Noran, as she is referred in smarter quarters.) Look, lady, I'm sure you talk to a lot of people in DC. I'm sure all of you go to cocktail parties and weenie roasts and tailgates and whatever the hell else you people do.

But you don't speak for us. Nobody elected you, but beyond that, we never trusted you, either. Just because you don't care about it doesn't mean the ENTIRE rest of the country doesn't care about it. You're not there to CARE. It's an issue and you are supposed to report on it in some fashion or another. But I don't give a hoot about what all of you preening peacocks care about, okay?

You all drooled in the 90s over Congressmen shooting pumpkins and Christmas card lists and stained dresses. Because you didn't like Bill Clinton. He just wasn't your type of guy. You didn't care for him. But you like Bush, or at least, you feel he's more... cocktail party amendable. I don't know what you see in him. It's like the friend with the boyfriend that beats her and sleeps with the cocktail waitress. We see that you're being used, but you keep staring at the bulge in his flight suit.

To recap: Don't tell us what to care about. You have been derelict in your duties for years. Every new Bush escapade that comes to light the Washington MSM treats either as a complete suprise, a complete affront or a complete insult to their dignity. Put the pieces together. Stop sipping on your cocktail and nibbling at the weenie.

And if you can't do that, in the words of the glorious Henry Rollins concerning Ann Coulter, then just shut the fuck up.

Sincerely,
Angry Viewer #5252

Posted by emily at 10:14 PM | Comments (0)

March 19, 2007

Surge This

The MSM gets punked again. "The Surge Is Working!!"

You put an extra amount of police officers in any city and crime will go down. That doesn't mean a unity government. That doesn't mean the middle class is returning. Sadr has not been captured. And these police officers aren't permenant.

I just don't think it's a simple answer of work or not work. The death toll going down is good, great news. But there was a chemical weapon attack over the weekend. That's new, not an IED.

Posted by emily at 3:33 PM | Comments (0)

March 15, 2007

Glenn Beck calls Hilary Clinton a bitch

This is what the right is about? Namecalling?!?

I fully admit to calling George W. Bush a "motherfucker" everyday between brushing the tops and bottoms of my teeth, but I don't do so on CNN. I do so on this blog, not read by many.

And, not a month after the right threw a shitfit over anonymous posters at HuffPo saying they wished Dick Cheney dead, the anonymous rightie posters are out today saying they wished KSM had succeeded in killing Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Howie Kurtz, you gonna write about this?

Poor right wing. Poor MSM. They're going down hard and they don't know what to do anymore. They're like Donnie being told by Walter to shut the fuck up.

Posted by emily at 11:40 PM | Comments (0)

March 12, 2007

Coo Coo Ca Choo, Mrs. Greenspan

Andrea Mitchell, on Harderballs sans Tweety, said that the public supports a pardon for Scooter Libby. Well, CNN polled aforementioned "public" and only 19% supported a pardon. Question: Did she poll the other "ps" in our putrid capital, like pols, pundits and parasites?

Andrea Mitchell is MSM like yesterday's Cobb Salad. The blue cheese is rather stinky. My mixed feelings on Davey Brooks continue, but at least he said that he doesn't support a pardon and that Libby was probably guilty AND that Libby was a nice guy. All of these MSM Washingtonians blathering about how Libby gave twelve kidneys to orphans and carried Mother Theresa across hot coals to rub aloe on lepers... that does not change the goddamn motherfucking FACT that he was found guilty by a jury of eleven of his peers.

Wanna increase public confidence in the media? Don't do what Andrea Mitchell did. Don't go on the air with no numbers and say that the public wants Libby pardoned, when the public does NOT want Libby pardoned.

Don't whine about what a nice guy he is. We know. We don't care. "Nice guy" is not a defense of perjury. "Nice guy" doesn't get you a pardon.

Next time you say these things, Beltwayheads, say this, too: We've put many an innocent man to death in this country. We've exonerated people (see Innocence Project) through DNA evidence after. So, if you want to gripe about injustice in the judicial system, maybe you should start there. Because nobody's giving Scooter a lethal injection anytime soon.

Posted by emily at 10:53 PM | Comments (0)

March 7, 2007

Family Values?

Weekly Standard has a blurb about America's Mayor™ and his family troubles. Anyone who saw the Post or Newsday in the late 90s on the MetroNorth into Grand Central already knows about Donna Hanover, etc... It was interesting that they compared the Andrew kerfluffle to Ron Reagan's famous "problem children". (Patti in Playboy, Ron in the ballet, both are liberals, Patti was growing weed during War on Drugs, etc, etc, etc...) But why then does the GOP always run on strong families when their best-liked pols have dysfunction up the wazoo?

I guess the GOP idea is that you don't have to get along with your adult children. Maybe. Or maybe Rudy should have just let the kid climb up the damn podium back in 1994.

The ice in Iceland is very... icy. Sipping vodka on a fjord...

Posted by emily at 6:43 PM | Comments (0)

March 6, 2007

Long Term Memory Loss

Fuck bipartisianship. Fuck it, fuck it, fuck it. I've watched too many righty-rightys on the tube today flat out ignore events of the 1990s. Fucking hypocrites, one and all. I wasn't so angry when all this was happening to Bill Clinton as I am now.

Whitewater/Travelgate/Vince Foster/Monica Lewinsky
Prosecutor with a political agenda? Check
Millions of taxpayer dollars spent? Check
No one found guilty of any underlying crime? Check, check, check and check (Especially check on Vince Foster. FIVE independent investigations found that Vince Foster committed suicide.)
Perjury? Check

Bunch of fucking hypocrites. And, mind you, none of the Clinton events had to do with a war in which thousands of people died. None of them concerned national security. And yet the right today has paraded around like this is the worst travesty of justice they've ever seen. And if you think that, fine. But then come out and repudiate at least PART of the Clinton escapades in the 90s. It's the decent thing to do.

Silly me. I thought the right could be decent. They're showing a remarkable lack of that quality recently, heh?

Posted by emily at 7:37 PM | Comments (0)

March 5, 2007

The Iraq-Capades

It's been a fine shitstorm of fuck-ups, eh? And as we approach the glorious five year mark to our great misadventure in Mesopotamia, Fat Charlie looks back and piles on.

(not in chronological order... well, in somewhat chronological order)

Overture
1998- PNAC letter to President Bill Clinton urging action on Iraq. Signed: Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Fred Kagen, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle...
Clinton bombs Iraq- 1998 Operation Desert Fox.
Bush V Gore
9/11
Afghan war
Taliban "falls"

Act I
Link to Al-Queda
WMDS
Regime change
mushroom cloud
"he's the guy who tried to kill my Dad"
"slam-dunk"
"The British government has learned... yellow-cake from Niger."
"greeted as libertators"
Shock and Awe
Mission Accomplished
Troop movements in the sand
Jessica Lynch
statue goes down
"What I didn't Find in Niger"
looting
Viceroy Bremer
Order to de-baathify Iraq
Order to disband the Iraqi army
Fallujah
Five contractors burned and hung from a bridge
No-bid contracts go to Halliburton
Medal of Freedom to George Tenant
Finding Saddam in a spiderhole
Insurregency
Al-Sadr
Democracy for Iraq

Act II
Killing Saddam's sons
"Bring 'Em On"
Sunni Triangle
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Mahdi Army
a whistleblower
Sy Hersh
Abu Ghraib
Lyddie England
"college pranks"
purple fingers
Saddam's trial
Scooter's trial
Bob Woodruff nearly killed
no body armor
"you go to war with the army you have"
"last throes"
The Downing Street Memos

Act III
Al-Askari shrine bombing
"civil war?"
"I'm the decider"
The generals revolt
"civil war..."
bodies with holes drilled in the head being found in Baghdad
Malaiki
"brain drain"
training the Iraqi army
missing billions in reconstruction money
2006 midterms
Rumsfeld fired
Iraq Study Group report
"cut and run"
"defeatocrats"
The Surge
civil war
Iranians are behind this
British pulls troops
Walter Reed
Kevin Kiley
38 die, 105 hurt in Baghdad market blast, AP Wire, 15 minutes ago...

And no end in sight.

Posted by emily at 11:15 PM | Comments (0)

March 2, 2007

Father Mulcahy and the Connecticut Screech

"I was going to talk about John Edwards but these days, you have to go into rehab if you say the word 'faggot,'" - Ann Coulter, at CPAC today. (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan).

I don't know why I found this shocking. It came out of the mouth of Ann Coulter; she hasn't been reasonable or polite since... hmmm.... And maybe I'm just naive and sheltered when it comes to the modern state of conservatives. I don't know many. I know a fair amount of libertarians, people who may come down hard on taxes and size of government issues. But I can't think of a single person in my life who would ever make a statement like this. I don't know many people who even use that word anymore, except in England, where it means something else.

All polls indicate that the GOP is going to lose ground on the gay issue the older our generation gets. We are signifigantly more tolerant of gays than our elders. Most in the conservative mainstream that you hear from on a regular basis (Sullivan (obvious) Will, Brooks, Krauthammer (sp?), Kristol, Barnes, Instapundit, K-Lo, J-Pod, et, al) don't use words like that, ever. Even if they're against gay marriage.

Yes, I know, it's ANN COULTER. She's to the right what the sad, pathetic fools at HuffPo who were lamenting Dick Cheney not being blown up are to me and my reasonable lefties. Many in my above list (including Sullivan and Brooks) are on record with their profound dislike for the woman. (I think Brooks once said something like nothing creates more liberals in America than Ann Coulter.) But she was on the same stage as George Will (whom, when I was younger, I used to confuse with Father Mulcahy from M*A*S*H) and Rudi Guiliani. (Rudi, who lived with two gay men. Rudi, who has dressed in drag... and I support him 100% on those things. Have you ever lived with gay men? I highly recommend it. And I like wearing a suit and tie... well, off subject again.)

And she was endorsing Mitt Romney, who I believe in '94 said he'd be more of a friend to gays than Ted Kennedy. Which, short of actually coming out, I don't know how you accomplish.

The fact that CPAC had her sharing the stage with such people just shows what the GOP and conservative movement have become. Yes, there are smart, wonderful conservatives out there. But look what it's come to.

Andrew Sullivan (a conservative) says it best:

"When you see her in such a context, you realize that she truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism, especially among the young. The standing ovation for Romney was nothing like the eruption of enthusiasm that greeted her. One young conservative male told her he was single and asked for her cell-phone number. Other young Republicans were almost overwhelmed in her presence. "When are you going to get your own show?" one asked, tremulously. Then there's her insistence on Christianism as the central message for Republicans: "There are more people voting on Christian moral values than on tax cuts." This from an unmarried woman who wears dresses that are close to bikinis on the morning news. Hey, it's Democrats who are Godless.

Her endorsement of Romney today - "probably the best candidate" - is a big deal, it seems to me. McCain is a non-starter. He is as loathed as Clinton in these parts. Giuliani is, in her words, "very, very liberal." One of his sins? He opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton. That's the new standard. She is the new Republicanism. The sooner people recognize this, the better."

Posted by emily at 5:06 PM | Comments (0)

MoDo and The Gang

The power of MoDo (Maureen Dowd, NY Times columnist, author of "Are Men Necessary?, answer:no) was apparant last week with the whole Geffen/Clinton/Obama flat-foot shuffle. Did it really mean anything in the long run? No.

That people are suprised by the cat claws of MoDo is truly shocking. Just because she like to flog "Rummy" and the Bushites doesn't mean she's holding water for the other side. She won a Pulitizer snarking on the Clintons, remember? And the column prior to that about Obama was pure lukewarm snark.

I don't mind the Crazy Lady™. Nick Kristoff, Mr. International, seems to disappear in the pages. Bob Herbert doesn't seem to have a role. I have lots of love for the Krug and Frank Rich... who on the left doesn't? Tom Friedman I'm meh about. (I think he said 6 more months in Iraq 6 months ago; why doesn't he say leave now...) Davey Brooks, well, he wrote his Sunday column on hip parents. Neo-cons apparently have nothing left to say.

Crazy Lady doesn't talk about ideas, she snarks about personalities. She's writing the meanest slam book entries of all time. It's funny and you can see a bit of Dorothy Parker peaking out. Does that mean I trust her judgment? No, I don't. Even though she dated Aaron Sorkin. Even though she slayed Judy Miller.

(Coda: I think my new favorite columnist may be Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. I don't know, he seems so friendly and kind and even-tempered.)

Posted by emily at 12:40 PM | Comments (0)

February 28, 2007

Muppet Chain Gang

Awaiting word on the Trial of The Century... so, we've dismissed a juror, there's been a question the Judge didn't understand, but it didn't matter anyway because the jurors answered it themselves... and more GOP flakeheads whining about "not being a crime." I love the limited memory wipe to their activities in 1998.

Whatever. Convict and see if Libby goes to Fitzgerald to squeel like a Miss Piggy. Then, we get dirty on Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. Then, impeachment. Then, the clouds break and the sun shines through and people dance in the street and children cry tears of gold...

Posted by emily at 3:54 PM | Comments (0)

February 27, 2007

Fuck The Dow II

Watching my new fav program "News War" on PBS... I yet again find myself angered at the business world when it comes to journalism. Every talking head on this program that is on the business end of journalism is talking out of their ass about what the public wants. Fuck you. This is the horrible dividend of deregulation and the end of "equal time" rules at the FCC... newspapers and the evening news has to be at a profit.

It's NOT about what the public wants to know. It's not about catching pedophiles at a house. Murrow spins in his grave so fast at this point, he could be an alternative energy source. Cutting corners and wanting ratings has made us stupider. Watch CNN and you know what I mean.

David Westin sickens me. SICKENS ME! "I put teenage sex on the news because that's what people want and it gets me ratings and it makes the investors happy." That's what he would say if he was honest. We all know it's the truth. But he says it is news. No, teens having sex, not news.

Thank god for Koppel on this thing. He just speaks my soul on this. I know I'm blogging right now, but I have great respect for the history of journalism and to see it die so slowly and painfully saddens me.

Sorry to put it like this: if you get surprised by the next threat out there, remember the news was not serving you at this moment. It was serving the public's salvatory glands. Not it's brains.

Posted by emily at 10:50 PM | Comments (0)

February 26, 2007

Goodfella

Well, I was happy to see Marty win, finally! I had totally forgot who he lost to in 1990, when he was up for Goodfellas... Kevin Costner. Blech. He SHOULD have won for Goodfellas... and I also have a soft spot in my heart for The Last Temptation of Christ. It pissed off a lot of Christians and got itself firebombed in France. Fight the power, Marty!

It was the most moving moment in the Oscars, but you knew it was coming when Coppola, Spielberg and Lucas came out the present Best Director. I mean, they're going to present the award to the guy who directed "Babel"? Of course not. You only get the three Young Turks from the 70s together to fete the Fourth Young Turk: Martin Scorsese. And it was very sweet, I have to say. Especially the part where they pointed out Lucas hasn't won a directing Oscar... well, he wasn't going to win for the last three Star Wars films. Woof! "American Graffiti", on the other hand, or the first "Star Wars"... well, I've gotten off topic.

Anyway, cheers for Scorsese. But maybe it's better NOT to win. The list of those great directors who never won an Oscar: Robert Altman (discount honorary), Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Sidney Lumet, David Lynch, Tim Burton, Igmar Bergman, Charlie Chaplin, Alan J. Pakula, Peter Weir, Spike Lee, Cecil B. De Mille, Federico Fellini, Norman Jewison, George Lucas...

And they gave one to Costner. Just think about it.

Posted by emily at 3:36 PM | Comments (0)

February 9, 2007

Is Al Gore Our "Safety School"?

Yahoo! makes a big smelly deal of the headline "HE'S NOT RUNNING." Read the text and it's the same wish-wash as always. Maybe a bit more definite.

The question is why do so many Democrats want him to run. There are obvious answers: he won before (the popular vote at the very least, and most likely Florida as well), he's been prescient to the point of psychic on the hot issues of the day (literally, hot as in warming globe and Iraq), he has huge name recogonition, etc...

But outsider, activist Gore is much preferred to RunningForPresident Gore, who was, well, a robot. Why ask him to drain his blood and sweat and become a piece of wood again?

Another answer beckons: Dems are nervous about Hillary and Obama. Al Gore is our Michigan State. Hillary is our Harvard and Obama is our Yale. If we don't get those, we want a safety to fall back on. But Michigan State has just rejected us, apparently.

Posted by emily at 10:58 AM | Comments (0)

February 6, 2007

Joe Klein V. Ariana Huffington, Mickey Kaus, et al...

Here's my beef: Time Magazine, employer of Mr. Klein, recently gave precious deadtreespace to... you guessed it... Bill "Uber-Neo-Con" Kristol. Joe Klein reserves the right to be wishy-washy... he's a triangulator (sp?) after all, a 3rd way man. Wishy-washy is Clintonian crack. But being "not sure" on Iraq four years ago means you are 50% more credible than Kristol, who while being more consistant than Klein, is more consistant in the sense he wants to bomb every fucking thing on the planet that blinks at us the wrong way.

I'm sure The Huff (as I refer to her in my head) would gladly (and has gladly) thrown many a stone at Kristol. But why let him leave your sights and go after Mr. Primary Colors?

Posted by emily at 5:14 PM | Comments (0)

The Deliberative, Democratic Body

I haven't really known what to think about the resolutions in the Senate. I do know that this liberal-lovefest with Chuck Hagel will come to an end eventually; the guy's a conservative, not a maverick. But he's not a Bushite and so he sounds heroic at the moment.

How many of those suckers, er, GOP senators, will have the balls to stay with Bush until '08? I say many will. The GOP is the party that praises loyalty and partyline above everything else. That's really all they care about, isn't it?

I'm not for bipartisanship. I'm really not. There are good people in the GOP but John Dean is right. They have a dictator-loving streak a mile long. Follow the leader. And that's where Hagel and Collins and Warner, to some extent, are brave... because apparently they didn't get the memo about what the GOP really is about.

There's a lot of reasons to squirm about the Dems, especially if you're on the left, left, left like me, but Nader's argument seems 1,000 years ago. Gush and Bore make me want to puke? Well, maybe in 2000. But I'm going to cry when Al Gore wins his Oscar; tears of pain to see him finally win the prize when he wins the popular vote.

We Dems are disorganized. We're vulgar. We're the party of abortion, gays, Al Sharpton, house music, pot smokers, swear words, Government cheese, big society, multiculturalism, Reggae music, yoga, stem cells, Buddhist monks, Dennis Kucinich, hippies, sensitivity, socialism, Marxism, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs", Jane Fonda in a tank, Clinton's blow jobs (received, not given), peanut farmers, "We Shall Overcome", tax the rich, give to the poor, rip the goddamn creche from city hall... and Gary Hart.

I am a Democrat because I approve of all of the above, especially the Reggae music. I believe government can be the answer, not the problem. I don't believe the market solves everything; I believe the market works to better the market, not the people. I believe in people, not business. But that doesn't mean I think business is evil. I just think its not the end-all, be-all of what America is about, what American can do. I think we all have an obligation to take care of the sick and the poor. I believe in a level playing field.

But those aren't the reasons a lot of people nowadays lean Dem. George W. Bush has been the gift that keeps on giving for us. But to just be offended by the GOP's stance on many social issues (and most people I know who are my age are, to some extent, put off by the anti-gay) and the Iraq war does not a Democrat make. We can argue the size of government till the blue chips come home... but I think the real debate is not the size, but what it does. Government is going to remain huge; just deal with it. The FDA and FCC and the Fed are not going away. So what is it do you want them to do? Nothing? Sit there and collect a salary while e-coli goes into our Spinich? (and for you conservatives: Sit there and collect a salery while vulgarity and Janet Jackson's breast™ go into our airwaves?)

So, getting back to Chuck Hagel... I disagree with him on 99%, but right now is, to use Dick Cheney's evil mind, a 1% doctorine time. He won't get rewareded in the GOP for this. He'll get shunned. Because while they say "shrink government", "free market", that's not what they're really about... the modern GOP is about loyalty. You can say you're a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control New Yorker and as long as you haul Bush's skanky Iraq water, you'll be on top of the polls (IE: Rudy Guiliani).

Posted by emily at 1:17 PM | Comments (0)

January 15, 2007

Having Cake, Eating It, Too

The Right's anger at Barbara Boxer's comments to Condi... I'm confused. I've read numerous things by many right wing peoples (David Brooks comes to mind) that, well, hint at or outright say that women are better serving the world by being "Moms". Conservatives don't like feminism, remember? Trust me, read any Conservo-blog and you'll read "feminism" and "fascists" as synonymous.

So, why then the reverse? Why the sudden claims of solidarity with Steinem and Friedan? Oh, right. It serves their purposes right now! Don't worry, soon they'll be back to saying that birth control demeans women.

(BTW, I think Boxer made a boo-boo, but not a sexist one. I just think it's stupid to say that only people with family members serving in the military are able to judge the impact of the war.)

Posted by emily at 1:35 AM | Comments (0)

January 10, 2007

George W. Nixon Speaking Tonight On Surge: Must Wrap Television in Bullet Proof Material

(Note to NSA: The title of this post is not a threat to the President. I am not going to harm the president. Just my television set. Metaphorically. I don't own a gun. Thank you.)

Interesting how many GOP senators up for re-election in '08 are plugging in their surge protectors. He'll get a slight bump in the polls. (Some people have no idea that 20,000 is a drop in the bucket, that we've done it before...) But the idea that this is actually change is laughable. Criminally laughable.

Another note on the title: I actually feel I must direct some apologies to the man whose bones are resting in Whittier, California. To say Bush is like Nixon is ultimately a cruel slight against Nixon.

Posted by emily at 6:32 PM | Comments (0)

November 20, 2006

Our Side Takes Aim in The Sex Wars™

Democrats call for ouster of U.S. health official

By Andy Sullivan Mon Nov 20, 5:27 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Several Democratic lawmakers asked the Bush administration on Monday to replace its new family-planning chief because he has worked for a health provider that opposes the use of birth control.

Dr. Eric Keroack's record as an opponent of birth control and abortion makes him a poor choice to oversee a $280 million reproductive-health program, seven House of Representatives Democrats said in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt.

"We are concerned that Dr. Keroack has promoted policies -- including the refusal to distribute contraception even to married women -- that directly conflict with the mission of the federal program," the letter said.

Keroack last week was named head of HHS's Office of Population Affairs, which funds birth control, pregnancy tests, breast-cancer screening and other health services for 5 million poor people annually. HHS estimates that the program helps to prevent 1.3 million unwanted pregnancies each year.

The office also oversees a $30 million program that encourages sexual abstinence among teens.

An HHS spokeswoman said Keroack is a skilled doctor and a nationally recognized expert on preventing teen pregnancy.

"We have confidence that he'll perform his duties effectively and in accordance with the law," HHS spokeswoman Christina Pearson said by e-mail.

Keroack previously served as medical director for A Woman's Concern, a chain of Boston-area pregnancy clinics that advise against the use of contraception and advocate abstinence as a way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Keroack has spoken at abstinence conferences across the country and has written that people who have more than one sex partner have a diminished neurological capacity to experience loving relationships.

His appointment does not need to be approved by the Senate, but Democrats will have the power to force him to testify when they control Congress next year.

One of those who signed the letter, California Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), will be chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, while New York Rep. Louise Slaughter is expected to chair the Rules Committee. Others sit on committees that oversee HHS and control its budget.

"Less than two weeks ago the American public made it clear that they want a middle ground approach to our nation's most pressing problems," New York Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey (news, bio, voting record) said in a statement. "Unfortunately, this appointment says loudly and clearly that the president simply did not get that message."

Posted by emily at 8:32 PM | Comments (0)

I Feel A Draft In Here

So I have some mixed feelings on this. I know it makes the anti-war crowd that's over 35 smugly confident. Rangel introduces the bill and it gets defeated (even though there are some hawks that are shouting for more troops in Iraq, bombing Iran, etc... and we don't currently have the troops for that.) Part of me feels that Rangel is bluffing. He's anti-war and certainly doesn't want escelation. (I've met Charlie before, not that he'd remember me.) But Rangel says he's not bluffing and I know those who want the draft so that Americans feel the sting of this war a bit more.

But America is ALREADY against the war. Not enough against it, this I know. But they're not waiving flags and slapping ribbons on the SUV anymore. This bill will probably include women and have no deferments. Now, that may not survive... but it does have me looking at my roadmap for the quickest way to Canada.

To wit: I understand what Rangel's doing, but maybe I understood it more two years ago, when people were calling the anti-war movement a bunch of traitors and terrorists. Then, a draft wasn't going to pass, but it allowed Rangel to shove the false patriotism of the chickenhawks up their own ass and shout to them, "you think this war is so important? send your own damn kids." Now with the meso-quagmire-civil-war of 2006, a draft may yet go through. If thise hawks really want to win this war, if they actually believe they can... it would need more troops. (Not that I agree with this. It's unwinnable. But they don't see it that way.)

I'm sure Rangel will pull the bill before it completely backfires.

Posted by emily at 7:30 PM | Comments (0)

November 17, 2006

The Sex Wars Continue...

(I should really consider going into reproductive law.)

Moon-bat nut-job wack-bitch K-Lo over at The Corner seems to believe that it is undeniable that birth control demeans women. She doesn't see how anyone can see it any other way. Is she a virgin? Waited til marriage? What does she have against condoms?

There's just no logical response for that. Birth control LIBERATED women from their reproductive cycles. It allowed them to CONTROL how many children they had. It allowed families to save money and people to move into the middle class. It allowed women more choices, careers... to have children later in the life. It's a constitutional right for both married and single people.

Oh yeah. And it REDUCES the amount of FUCKING ABORTIONS!!!

Just declare a war on sex, Bushpeople. Then you can proceed to lose, just like you lost the war on drugs and terror.

Posted by emily at 5:40 PM | Comments (0)

November 9, 2006

R.I.P.

Ed Bradley 1941-2006

Posted by emily at 1:44 PM | Comments (0)

November 8, 2006

Not only did we get rid of the bums in Congress...

According to the Times, GOP officials say Rummy's resigning.

Oh glorious day!

Posted by emily at 12:55 PM | Comments (0)

November 7, 2006

I Feel Like Josh Lyman...

..."I want the numbers"!! Who the fuck decided not to leak the exit polls!?! And they said by five, there'd be numbers. Where the fuck are the numbers? HoffPo, Slate, Wonkette... no numbers.

Off the check the Times, then I have to go to class.

Posted by emily at 5:07 PM | Comments (1)

Brighton Gas Station Memoirs

Driving back from voting in Tyrone Township (don't ask), I stopped for gas in Brighton. The young gas station attendant was being told by a customer not to vote. Well, if she did vote, he said, she should vote for DeVos, but the basic gist of the conversation was that they were all horrible, no point in voting, blah, blah, blah.

So, young lady and old bastard, when you get fucked in the ass with gas prices, lack of jobs and education, war, melting ice caps and no health care to lance that boil on your ass, don't complain. Sit there and take it. You couldn't bother to push a button, press a screen, fill in a circle for ten minutes one Tuesday in November. People died, they fucking DIED, not sixty years ago for this right.

And for this older man to advise young people not to vote: shame. What kind of society is this when the elders pat the youngsters on the back for not doing a civic duty. Yes, voting should not be a right, but a duty.

Posted by emily at 4:12 PM | Comments (0)

November 6, 2006

FUCK YOU!

No!! We're going to lose. In fact, we're going to lose so badly that the Congress and Bush will pass legislation that will permenantly ban the Democratic party. And the Green party. And the Swingers party. Hell, there will be no more partying. None!

The Republicans cheat. So it doesn't matter what we want. They are robocalling as I type this. They are committing fraud and if one guy gets caught doing it, he'll gladly step off the plank, 'cause the GOP HAS ALREADY WON!

They've already won. The DieboldBot has already decided it.

Posted by emily at 8:33 PM | Comments (0)

I See You Shaking Your Head...

We're going to lose tomorrow! You cannot convince me otherwise! Dammit, I'm right! In fact, the only seat we're going to keep in the house is Charlie Rangel out of NY!!! It'll be Charlie and 434 ass-holes!!!

WE ARE GOING TO LOSE!

Posted by emily at 8:26 PM | Comments (0)

I'm A Loser Baby, So Why Don't You Kill Me...

Again, we are going to lose tomorrow.

I'm telling you, we're going to lose. No house, no Senate. Just forget whatever hope you've had the past few months. No hope.

First, there's the computers. Second, there's the GOP's GOTV. Third, the trial of Hussein and timing thereof (which also ment a curfew, so less violence in Iraq the past few days.) Fourth, just the entire dirty trick bag, robocalling, turning people away who are minorities, etc, etc, etc...

We're going to lose. Just accept that. But look to '08. We'll get 'em then. Not now.

Posted by emily at 8:16 PM | Comments (1)

November 4, 2006

No Sex For You!

FYI: now the abstinenceistas are targeting 20-29 years olds in their anti-sex drive. By the abstinenceistas, I mean the Federal Government. I thought we were done with this shit once we were done with high school.

Oh well. 90% of 20-29-year-olds have had sex, so they'll be pushing a SUV up a mountain with a spoon. But I'm a bit insulted that they think we're not responsible enough to have sex. The absintenceistas just don't know how to have fun, do they? Unlike the mega-preachers and the Congressman from Florida...

Posted by emily at 9:51 PM | Comments (0)

November 1, 2006

Go Home

Go home.
Do not speak to the press.
Do not call in to Imus.
Do not campaign.
We know they twisted your words.
We know you were calling Bush, not the troops, stupid.
We know you "botched the joke."
You aren't a good joke teller.
You are not Jon Stewart.
This is okay; we all have our strengths. Yours is not telling jokes. Yours is not giving stump speeches.
Go home.
Have some ketchup.
Let Bill take over.
Let Obama take over.
You are not Obama.
We know they are mean, nasty, terrible sons of bitches who will drag anything out of the sewer to through it at their enemies.
We know they insult people with Parkinsons, people with war injuries.
We know you weren't wrong.
But we've gone too long on being right, now we've got to smart.
Go home, John Kerry.
It's too dangerous out there now.

Posted by emily at 9:14 PM | Comments (0)

October 23, 2006

Tigers and Michigan

There's nothing negative you can say about the Tigers going to the World Series. But those in Southeast Michigan (or, indeed, the entire state) should temper the hope and joy it brings. Sports is a distraction. It is not a distraction that is good or bad. There is no value judgement to it. But a Tiger turnaround does not mean a GM turnaround, a Ford turnaround, or, indeed, a Detroit turnaround. We don't get a city out of a winning season.

At best, this is a cold beer, or a tranquilizer... it numbs the city and state, distracts it from the problems. But it can't fix things. The past 40 years in this State have been one of erosion. (To be fair, this phenom is in all the upper Midwest/Northeast Industrial Corner... Ohio, Pennsylvania...) Maybe if this state stopped worshiping the internal combustion engine, stopped expecting The Big Three to rebound to past glory and started building new industries and businesses, we'd see some progress. But as long as the Gloved State's entire identity is wrapped up in the car, we will never get out from under its wheels.

Posted by emily at 7:54 PM | Comments (0)

October 9, 2006

Remember, We're Still Not Going to Win Back The House and Senate

Don't watch the polls or the pundits. We are going to lose. You have to hit rock bottom to rebound, my friends. And I think we need to hit rock bottom to get ourselves together and come back strong. Buckley started National Review when conservative thought was fringe and bizarre. We gotta get more fringe and bizarre in order to get a coherent philosophy to counter conservatism.

And yes, I know... in the meantime, what happens to the country? Well, I'm bitter so I'm about to say who gives a fuck. These are the bozos they wanted, the war they wanted (the American people loovveed the Iraq war in the beginning, remember?)... you get what you pay for. And we shouted in 2000 and we shouted in late 2002, early 2003 and we were "left-wing lunatics"... When us "left wing lunatics" and the liberals can unite together and maybe form a few magazines and get ourselves some real leaders... that process took the conservatives 30-some years. We've still got twenty or so years left to plan.

Posted by emily at 8:24 PM | Comments (0)

October 8, 2006

Maze Inside the GOP Mind and Tactics

Something goes bad for the GOP. (Iraq, Foley, 9/11 intelligence, Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Katrina, where's Osama, etc...)

GOP's central brain switches on.

What to do?
First tactic: Blame Democrats
Second tactic: Blame the media
Third tactic: Blame the terrorists
Fourth tactic: Blame Clinton
Fifth tactic: Blame secular culture
Sixth tactic: Blame the victim
Seventh tactic: Blame Clinton again
Eighth tactic: Blame the bloggers
Ninth tactic: Blame France
Tenth tactic: Blame the 60s
Eleventh tactic: Blame George Soros
Twelfth tactic: Blame the gays
Thirteenth tactic: Blame PBS/NPR/NY Times
Fourteenth tactic: "9/11 changed everything"
Fifteenth tactic: Third time's the charm, try blaming Clinton again

Brought to you by the party of personal responsibility.

Posted by emily at 10:12 PM | Comments (0)

October 6, 2006

The Amish Are Better Than Us

The news this last week has been frightening to parents of school-age children, obviously. But was I the only one in the nation NOT shocked and surprised by the Amish reaction to the school murders? The MSM has scratched its head bloody on the idea of "forgiveness". Of course, the mainstream "Christians" in this country are not so hep to forgiveness, either. When two thousand people died, a large amount of mainstream people in this country clamored for heads, Wild West posters and sneered at the innocent Pakistani down the street. We also invaded a country that had nothing to do with the events of that day. Why? Oil, yes... Bill Kristol, yes... 1% doctorine, yes... obsession, yes... but it felt good to Joe and Jane America because it was revenge. Stinky, hot revenge... that was what Iraq was for 9/11. Nevermind that we shot the wrong horse.

But the Amish, who devote their lives to Christian humility, have no need to go all Rambo. It's against the scripture. The need for revenge and that kind of anger is a poison. (See: Nancy Grace). It's the easiest thing, the human thing... hard not to want it when you feel violated and wronged. But Christ does not stand for it. Witness (bad pun) those people in Lancaster who want to help the shooter's family and see what truly following the scripture looks like. (Nevermind that the shooter's family is just as innocent as anyone else and suffering shame and pain... mainstream American usually doesn't worry about that. We'd have that family marched through the street in shame. Again, it doesn't matter who we blame or have revenge on, just as long as it is someone or some country to make US feel better.)

Posted by emily at 12:26 PM | Comments (0)

October 5, 2006

Again, David Brooks disappoints... but not George Will

Rational Conservatives Watch:

Brooks column in today's Times: I feel, strongly, that it is always dangerous to equate art and real life to explain a greater point. What's even stranger is to use "The Vagina Monologues" to somehow explain how a "tear in our moral factor" lead to the Mark Foley affair. One thing I know about the Foleygate: there was no vagina involved.

Still, I think Brooks misses one of the main reasons his party is in trouble by saying that whatever party addresses our society's moral problems will be a winner. First, the GOP (and Brooks) has a very wishy-washy standard when it comes to torture. And that's saying it politely. What's more immoral: sex or torture? I tend to think torture. Then again, it's not Americans we're torturing, so why would we care? (sarcasm) It's Americans who are having dirty, naughty sex, thinking about dirty, naughty sex or allowing the Vagina Monologues to be published.

But I lose my point. Second problem with trying to get GOP their trademark moral sheen back: it was never really there. And this is what (I think) George Will is pointing out so beautifully. The GOP made a big mistake painting themselves as consistantly "more moral" than the Dems. When you have a big tent, you can't always control who comes in. You can't equate belief in a political philosophy with being a more moral party than the other side. To our eternal credit, we Dems don't generally do this (maybe we do with things like torture, but I digress.) We know we're pot smoking, sex-having, gay-loving hippie heathens. But maybe we can get a balanced budget.

Let's elect leaders who run g'vts effectively, not moralizers who are going to "restore the moral tear." The best moral examples for a culture are probably dead ones... they can't IM 16-year-olds from beyond the grave and thus disappoint. And what do you do to restore a moral tear? Get sodomy laws back on the book? Ban "Brokeback" and the "Vagina Monologues" and Todd Soldtz (spelling?)'s "Happiness" and Proust and "Madame Bovary" and "Tropic of Cancer"....

Whose morality? What sex is wrong? There's some we can all agree on, but I've heard rightie-rightie-righties (that's three "righties", so we're talking real zealous crusaders) say shit like sex only for procreation. You want that law on the books? WHO makes the line? I thought consentual adults was a good line to draw.

Today's column in the Post: As I've commented before, it used to be disturbing to agree with George Will. But yet again, he comes out looking way wiser than Brooks on this. I think Will is probably just as disturbed that he's been agreeing with Dems on some things recently.

And the true fact: if the Dems can't win this time, we need to implode the party, go our seperate ways, and find another line of work. I'm suggesting circus work.

Posted by emily at 2:01 PM | Comments (0)

October 2, 2006

The GOP Spinners Can't Fucking Subtract!!

To all you GOPers comparing Foleygate to Monicagate:

Monica was born in 1973. The affair with President Clinton started in 1995. She was 21/22 when this began. This is well above the age of consent. So, Mr. Ben Stein... for all the times you've played math teachers, apparently, you can't subtract. Because 21/22 is nowhere near 18 or 16.

And, dare I say, there's a large difference between a 21/22 year-old woman and a 16 year old boy. Maturity, experience, ability to perceive consequences for your action. Even if Lewinsky wasn't the brightest crayon in the box and she sure couldn't keep her mouth shut (well... you know what I mean)... she was old enough that we as a society don't protect her from her mistakes. It is called age of consent laws.

There is not to be compared to the Clinton/Lewinsky mess. As in, one is against the FUCKING LAW!

Posted by emily at 8:46 PM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2006

War of the World (Wha?)

There's a lot of noise in this world. Sometimes that noise forms words. Most words should be ignored, save professors who are telling you what's on the exam and Bob Dylan's new album. But its impossible to ignore everything that comes to your ears.

I ignore nothing. I am fucking crazy in that way. But let me tell you what I hear nowadays. I hear "the clash of civilizations". I hear about our struggle. I hear about our battle to preserve our way of life.

How is our way of life in danger? (BTW, the same people who want to preserve our way of life... they don't much like our way of life. They're the ones who called SpongeBob gay.) Are we about to become a part of The Caliphate? Are they going to make me wear an hajib?

I'm sorry, but I don't see our way of life in danger. What's in danger is our security... and that was always in danger. We just didn't heed any warnings. We cannot use our American ingenuity to rid ourselves of death, war and terror. I was in NY on 9-11 and on 9-12, I believe I smoked some pot, watched some Star Trek and took a long bubble bath. That's the American way. And if it wasn't in danger on 9-12, it's not now.

Stop clouding my brain with such noise, neocons!

Posted by emily at 12:39 AM | Comments (0)

September 6, 2006

The Shortest Chess Game In The World or How Karl Rove Will Fuck Us In The Bum, One Last, Sweet Time

The chess game**

1) Black Move, Pawn to A2: The Rumsfeld "appeasement" speech angered many people who were shocked that the Defense Secretary would say such a thing. These people have no idea how bad the well is poisoned. Is it that astonishing that Rumsfeld thinks of us that way? Or that he would paint such a black and white picture?
But it was a perfect move for the base. Bush cannot say such things. His megaphone is too big. Rumsfeld has so much job security, St. Peter at the gate envies it. He won't get fired, can't get fired. He can only resign and he cannot concieve of that. So he can be tactically used to rile up the base and if he upsets the mainstream, who cares? Nobody likes him anyway, besides the 32% stalwarts.

2) White Move, Pawn to C2: Finally, the Democrats make a move that's not so fucking stupid you want to join the Green party. Calling for censure (pussies) of Rumsfeld is just angry enough not to be too angry for the unwashed masses and it calls the GOP out. It's high noon, except the GOP has their shotguns and the Dems have Super Soakers. No matter; we had nothing to lose.
Eyes and ears and gooey things between said ears make it impossible to deny that Iraq is going badly. And that's saying it in the most polite terms I've heard in a year. If they had had their vote, Dems would have had GOPers on record with a vote of confidence for Rumsfeld, which would have cost them in November. Or the GOP would have to say Rummy's doing a bad job. Smart move.

3) Black Move, Knight to B4: As Jon Stewart says, they're going to get "all 9-11 up in this bitch." Only the 9-11 bitch may have retired her Pradas by now... who knows? The electorate has mood swings. The electorate makes you wait months until it's ready to make up it's mind. The electorate, in fact, is the bitch in this situation.
But I've lost my point. Shoving 9-11 up our ass has worked before. Now, ABC is going to air a docu-drama that lays the blame at Clinton's feet. I'm not going to absolve Clinton of anything, because I don't know enough to comment on what he did or did not do. I have not read the report from the 9-11 commission. (It is strange that ABC is denying Clinton access to the film, but Rush Limbaugh is apparently allowed an advance copy.)
This is wise of the GOP. Wise... it's fucking brilliant. Soon, they'll figure out a way to blame Katrina, the lack of immigration reform, Iraq, Abu Gharib, Gitmo and the DeLay scandals on Clinton. You apparently can teach a dog new tricks ("cut and run", "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here") but they will come back to their old tricks when stuck in a jam. Blame Clinton, blame Clinton, blame Clinton.

4) White Move, Back to Beginning: The most evil move of all, though, came today. Bush has moved some of the worst of the terror suspect to Gitmo, meaning Hamden applies to them, meaning its "pass my framework for a legal system for these guys or they'll walk free".... "allow torture or evil-doers go free". So the Dems either give Bush a legislative victory (and sully our nation and our legal traditions) or they'll look... yes, say it with me... WEAK ON NATIONAL DEFENSE. Well, I'd rather be a pussy than a sadist or running a gulag. But this won't fly with the majority. They don't care about our legal traditions.
They want to feel safe and the true fact that we will never be safe won't help the Dems. The real world has always been a scary place and one of the worst parts of naming this... thing "war on terror" is that people are convinced we can end evil and terror. (Thank you, neo-cons.) Well, suck it up. We can't. We can get the people who mastermined 9-11, we can shake and bake the Middle East until it's smoldering and bloody, but we can't stop evil. It's always been there.

Game over. We aren't going to get back the House, kids. Not yet. The GOP will retain the House and the Senate. The threat of terrorism is serious and even though this political party hasn't done (at all) what needed to be done, fear will keep their inept asses in Congress.

(However, if this story out of Pakistan (a truce calls for Pakistani troops to leave where Bin Laden supposedly is) catches fire, it may help the Dems.)

**I don't know how to play chess. I'm sorry if the movements and pieces are all wrong.

Posted by emily at 11:04 PM | Comments (0)

August 19, 2006

Thank Heaven For Little Girls

One little girl has been dead ten years and the whole world seems to be frothing at the mouth. "We've caught the killer, we haven't caught the killer, we shouldn't have blamed the mother, we should have blamed the mother..."

One little girl. How many people died in Katrina? How many people in Iraq? Lebanon and Israel last month? From AIDS? People raped and murdered in the Sudan?

Is it because her parents dressed her in adult clothes and shoved her on stage in those ridiculous kiddie pagents? I thought it was because we were bored in 1996: two years away from the Presidential Blow-Job, four years away from Hanging Chads... we had finished our glass of OJ and we needed a new murder to wet our panties over. But this is not the 90s... Oasis hasn't had a hit in ten years.

We're supposed to be a more serious nation since The Day That Changed The World. But we're not and never will be. And I can make my own peace with that. But one more picture of that little girl or that creepy man and I'll kill someone myself. I don't care. I never cared. One dead little girl doesn't mean a whole lot in a world full of dead children. And it's all because she was cute, white and sexualized.

Posted by emily at 3:52 AM | Comments (0)

August 2, 2006

Cable News: I Watch So You Don't Have To

Hardballed: I watched Chris Matthews, the bland potato-eater, the other day. Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now! was on. (I don't know if that plays in Michigan, it does in NYC and I had friends who worked on her show.) She was calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East. Matthews asked the crowd who was in favor of a ceasefire between Isreal and Hezbollah. Many cheers. He asked who wasn't in favor of a ceasefire. No one said a word.

And Matthews had the gall to look mad at this, annoyed that his fellow Americans didn't agree with his professional opinion, the overwhelming opinion of the mainstream media. Cynical thought: does MSM want this war to continue for ratings? For the promos and graphics? Because Anderson Cooper had to buy an extra flak jacket?

Matthews is also irritating for his pro-pro-pro-Guiliani stance. There are worse people we could make president, I grant you. There are better people as well. Matthews believes that Guiliani will be our next president because of 9/11. 9/11 just doesn't work anymore as a political tool, though. The Bush people have used it too much.

Guiliani will have major problems on the right flank, as he is pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-gun control. This will not play well south of the Mason-Dixon or in the red parts of Michigan, Ohio, etc... He's had multiple divorces, too, which you and I could care less about, but the moral majority will. He's a blue state GOP, a New York Republican, the only kind NYC elects. Joe Lieberman is further to the right than Guiliani.

Plus, Guiliani has NO expeirence in foreign affairs, none, if you don't count the cab drivers and cuisine of NYC. Presiding over a city under attack does not mean you know anything about diplomacy, the UN, the complicated tangos of the world. Now, he'd probably do better than Bush, because at this point my dead dog Sprocket would do better than Bush. But we don't need better than Bush. We need a miracle, to quote the Grateful Dead.

I don't know why Matthews salivates over Rudy. Matthews is annoying to the core and the five minutes I watch him before Keith comes on give me a headache. All cable anchors are smug, even Keith; it's in their contracts. Smug comes in different degrees, though. The Matthews Smug is all-knowing, always right, in frustration with those who disagree. Inside the Beltway ugly.

Headline News Is Pure Evil: I do want a channel that will just give me news. No talk, no personality, just headlines, stories, etc... Give me twenty minutes on the serious, ten minutes for weather, sports and entertainment... wash, rinse, repeat. That doesn't exist anymore.

Headline News has the Nancy Grace/Glenn Beck combo on in primetime. It's an attempt to make Fox look like NPR. Nancy Grace thinks she's Nancy Drew, but everybody's guilty except the white girls who find themselves missing. Oh, those poor pure, virginal blond teenagers who are raped/stabbed/drugged by those nasty men... sometimes men of color. Thank you, Ms. Grace, for regurgitating Birth of a Nation over and over to us. Or some proto-feminist misreading of Andrea Dworkin.

True crime sells, but Truman Capote, you ain't, Nancy.

Glenn Beck... you almost have nothing to say. It's just O'Reilly/Gibson/Carlson/Limbaugh... did the Right really need another loud, interrupting Squawkhead? All we really have is Keith and PBS. (Stewart and Colbert, yes, but we really do need to remember: not news programs.)

And this Squawkhead is perhaps the most... squawk-y. He opens up his diatribes with the idea that he doesn't know much. He's a common idiot, he tells us, but he has opinions and he's going to let them loose. This is the 00s culture writ-large; the ascendence of Bush and Paris Hilton. Why give air time to someone who knows anything? We all should be happy not to know much. Stupidity in numbers is the US of A and we should be proud of that.

Remember when we liked smart people in this country? Degrees and academia were admired? Okay, maybe that was never the case in all areas, but it seems as if education and thinking is constantly put down by the mainstream nowadays. Members of my own family (ctriv can guess) are in this vein and I find it maddening. The human brain is fertile and it should not be wasted.

In Praise: So, what is worth watching in cable news nowadays? Not much. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report, again, are not news shows, no matter how much we want them to be. (Although Jon seems to be the only one in "news" that is subtlely calling for a ceasefire.)

Countdown is good, if only for Keith. It's not a great show in what it covers, necessarily, because it covers the same trite everyone else covers. There aren't any shows that delve into deep issues that aren't on the MSM radar: health care, failing schools, Sudan, Russia's non-democracy, gap between rich and poor...

This is not to say that Mel Gibson puppet theater isn't richly entertaining and Keith does follow basic rules of kindergarten: he doesn't interrupt his guests and uses words beyond those we learned in the fifth grade. And Countdown is the only show whose spin is spun on the left side, but you don't often see Keith give an opinion, contrary to popular belief. His guests do and his interviews are quite good, especially John Dean and Al Gore.

The common string of Countdown, Daily Show and Colbert is humor. Serious lefty shows remain on PBS, the greatest network of them all. Is this what we have on the left, humor? Is this our weapon? We're so beaten down in this country, all we can do now is laugh? Like Uma Thurman at the end of Kill Bill, rolling on the floor, laughing and crying?

Better to laugh than to join them, I guess. Still, it would be nice if the left could at least have a voice on cable. Neither Keith nor Jon nor Steven are really a voice for the left: too subtle, too funny... they rarely step out of the box and display true rage at what's going on. Rage apparently is still the wheelhouse of the right. And what do they have to be angry about?

Guiliani for President, I guess.

Posted by emily at 3:29 PM | Comments (2)

July 19, 2006

Question for Those Smarter Than I

I'm trolling through the internet, trying to find out things the lazy way. (Although I suppose the television is the laziest way; at least my fingers are moving.) There are sites where people post, where people have long discussions; one of whom is famous and hosting by a fabulous Greek who used to sleep with Al Franken. I saw it on the aforementioned "television" ten years ago.

This is my question: why would you post on a site where you know nobody will agree with you? Are people hankering that much for "conflict"? (And is it really conflict?) 'Cause they can go to Iraq or Lebanon, with their extra time.

And a follow-up: Do we lefties go to, I don't know, The Ann Coulter Crap-a-torium.com and do the same thing to them? Or do right-wingies just love conflict that much that the war in Iraq isn't enough for them?

Posted by emily at 1:49 AM | Comments (1)

July 17, 2006

Fawaz Gerges: Postcard from Lebanon

Sarah Lawrence Professor Fawaz Gerges (Professor of Middle-East studies) was just on Anderson Cooper. He and his family were in Lebanon on vacation.

Most everyone knows I went to Sarah Lawrence and I hope he and his family stay safe. This is his column from the Washington Post on Monday, July 17, 2006.

This is a sad city. The smell of war fills the air. There is no talk except war talk. Life has come to a standstill in this vibrant and lively city, built layer upon layer on top of vanished civilizations.

I came from northern New Jersey, where I live in a hamlet called Succasunna, to a suburb 20 minutes from the Beirut city center with my three children three weeks ago. My visit had a dual purpose.

First, I wanted the children to spend the summer with their grandparents, learning Arabic and enjoying themselves. Lebanon is great in the summer: beautiful beaches, spectacular mountains, delicious food.

Hundreds of thousands of tourists, mostly from Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, fill its hotels, restaurants, and shopping and entertainment centers. Beirut is the shopping destination of the Arab world, and Lebanon is the most liberal society in the region, with free media, nightclubs, arts and music festivals, and a rowdy political class.

Second, I wanted to interview activists and Islamists for two books I am writing on the making of the Arab world and the jihadist movement. Beirut was my first stop on a 15-month research journey through the region. I never expected to find war in Beirut this summer. I thought that the turmoil was confined to Iraq and Palestine.

The latest round of fighting erupted when Hezbollah, or Party of God, a Shiite resistance group (the United States considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization), infiltrated the Lebanese-Israeli border and attacked an Israeli military post. Hezbollah fighters killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two.

Israel retaliated by attacking Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, including airports, bridges, seaports, electrical and water plants, communications centers, highways and other targets. It also imposed a full blockade on Lebanon by air, land and sea and sealed it from the rest of the world. More than 100 Lebanese civilians have died, and the numbers are increasing by the hour. Hezbollah struck back by firing rockets deep into northern Israel, hitting the port of Haifa and killing and wounding dozens of civilians and soldiers.

My children have had difficulties sleeping because of the constant presence of warplanes. I assured them that we're safe -- just 20 minutes away from Beirut's international airport, the country's only civil airport, which was shut down by bombing.

The bombing and blockade have sowed fears among Lebanese citizens who have experienced war before and dread its ghosts. Lebanon witnessed a crippling internal conflict that lasted from 1975 until 1990 and nearly tore the country apart. More than 100,000 people died and 200,000 were injured.

Israel became embroiled in Lebanon's affairs and invaded the country in 1982. It occupied a small strip of territories in the south until 2000. The current round of hostilities has its roots in that bloody chapter, which gave birth to Hezbollah and turned it into the most powerful paramilitary non-state actor in the Middle East. Armed and financed by Iran and Syria, Hezbollah's military and organizational prowess dwarfs that of Palestinian Hamas.

As the fighting escalated, Beirutis flocked to supermarkets and gas stations to stock up on necessities such as bread and butter and fuel. Food disappeared from the shelves, and gas stations ran out of gas. The supermarkets, usually well stocked, are almost empty.

A neighbor in her seventies, Um Toni, complained to me that she did not find bread, an essential commodity here, in the market."What is going to happen to us?" she asked wearily. There is a real danger that food and fuel shortages, coupled with the blockade, could easily turn into a humanitarian crisis.

People are anxious and fear the worst. With no way in or out of the country, a sense of panic is taking hold. The streets of Beirut, often congested, are deserted. How to survive if the hostilities last longer than a few days? Tens of thousands of tourists find themselves stranded in what appears to be a war zone. Thousands of Lebanese and foreigners fled along one of the few routes left -- through Syria -- before the roads and bridges were destroyed.

Children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable in urban warfare. Like other fathers, I am worried about my own children and what to do with them. I cannot afford to take risks with their lives.

The only way out of this predicament is for the international community to resolve the deadlock between Israel and Hezbollah. A U.N. delegation was dispatched to try to broker a cease-fire or at least to prevent further escalation. I hope that the United States and the European Union exert pressure on both sides, particularly Israel, to exercise restraint and refrain from punishing the civilian population.

I feel an extreme sense of urgency, not just as a concerned human being but also as a father. What was supposed to be a vacation has turned into a nightmare.

Fawaz A. Gerges is the author of the recently published "Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy." He holds the Christian A. Johnson chair in Middle East and international affairs at Sarah Lawrence College. His e-mail address isfgerges@slc.edu.

Posted by emily at 11:56 PM | Comments (0)

July 14, 2006

The Cowboy is Replaced by the Shadow

Jon Stewart's opening bit last night was poignent; waking up to Israel bombing Lebanon is really a "Holy Fuck" moment that our generation perhaps hasn't seen since our childhood. Watching the Mainstream Media for awhile, it wasn't until I got the Dulcet Network and Jim Lehrer that Lebanese casualties were actually, you know, talked about. Or the words "humanitarian crisis" and "Gaza" in the same sentance.

And Bush was talking about a pig. So we've gone from reading about a pet goat when the planes hit the towers, strumming a guitar while New Orleans drowned to talking about a roasted pig as the Mideast burned. A roasted pig that is against both Judaism and Islam to eat. I haven't quite put my finger on what irony that is, but there is irony there, for sure.

We are the defanged tiger in all sorts of hot spots, from North Korea to the Mideast. Not only do we not have any leftover military, we don't practice diplomacy at all anymore. The "Cowboy" showed the world an embarrasing amount of swagger; the "Shadow" uses cautious words, but doesn't sit down at any table to talk this shit out. We sent an envoy to Israel 17 DAYS! after the captured soldier in Gaza!! We send the undersecretary to China to talk about North Korea!!

At the very least, we should be sending Condi. (Not that I like her, but she does have a job and I believe sitting down at the fucking table is exactly it.) But nothing really gets done in this world until POTUS makes a phone call or goes into the room and shows the power that presidents have been wielding from Truman to Clinton. It's unfortunate that Bush is the President for so many reasons, one of which being he can't wield properly.

You know who we need right now? Jimmy Carter. Put down the hammer, Jimmy, and get to work. Who cares if the State Dept. deplores you; you actually get stuff done. You actually sit down at the table and talk/

Posted by emily at 3:39 PM | Comments (2)

July 12, 2006

Davey Brooks is "selective"

David Brooks has been recently attacking the Daily Kos and other leftie websites, comparing the attempted ouster of Joe Lieberman to the Spanish civil war, or something like that. I've compared all sorts of things to the Spanish civil war in my lifetime, including the lines at my grocery store, so I'm not going to accuse Mr. Brooks of hyperbole. And I don't read the Daily Kos or Huffington Post regularly, so I'm not about to say that they're not out to get Lieberman.

But to not acknowledge the angry, frothing boogeymen in the right's closet when you accuse the left of being mean and nasty, Davey, is selective at best. Maybe you missed the memo: the right has been accusing your boss, your paper, your dead trees, ye old Grey Lady of treason. Someone said Bill Keller should be sent to the gas chamber. I'm aware of no leftie that has advocated gassing Lieberman. They're just in favor of replacing him on the Democratic ticket. Wise, unwise, fair, not fair... that's democracy in action. Conn. is a blue state, an anti-war state and Lamont has the right to voice the population's objection to Lieberman's stance.

Davey, I watch you on PBS and I must say, it's hard to stir any grand anger towards you personally because you seem genial. Of course, I've only seen you on the Dulcet Network (the best network on the dial, in my opinion) and not on Fox News. Maybe you can spit and foam at the mouth with the best of the Hannitys and O'Reillys.

Perhaps you choose not to defend Keller in a column, or bring some silver to save him from the gallows pole, because he's definetely not going to the gas chamber and Lamont may win the nomination. I understand the difference between a right-winger's wet dream and the electorial process. But to say we lack civility when those on the far right, with alarming regularity, threatenen to kill, or deport, or charge with treason any number of left-wing, middle-wing or no-wing figures they happen to disagree with (G. G. Liddy's target practice, I recall) is selective.

There's plenty of meanness on the right, but perhaps this does not bother you. Frequently, I hear the non-frothing right defend the frothers on the grounds that the frothers are joking. Gas chambers being the high point of all political hilarity, I assume.

Davey, it boils down to this. If you want civility, ask it from all sides. Call out your fellow right-wingers when they hope people get killed, San Francisco gets attacked (Bill O'Reilly) or any number of "jokes" which "civil" people don't usually make.

Posted by emily at 5:26 PM | Comments (0)

June 26, 2006

SUPPORT THE NEW YORK TIMES!

Well, they were wrong about WMDs and Judy Miller and Jason Blair, but that shouldn't stop us from supporting them now in their our of, yet again, scapegoat.

We need a watchdog press and this new smear campaign is nothing more than an attempt to muzzle the watchdog. NYT is not perfect, but it is the best in the country and we should stand by it. Remember the Pentagon Papers?

Will Bush be hiring "plumbers" now, too?

Support NYT. If they go down (which they won't, hopefully), then the free press is endangered. Remember, they didn't steal these documents. Someone leaked them to them. Ellsburg went to jail, maybe this leaker will too. But The Supremes refused to stop publication. Of course, this was back in the early seventies.

Posted by emily at 8:25 PM | Comments (0)

June 19, 2006

Tim Russert Should Really Find A New Subject

Ah, yes, the importance of fathers. Russert offers a soothing balm on our troubles: why write a book about the degredation of the American political sphere when you can write about daddies? And make everyone feel warm and gooey.

He didn't actually write it. These are just letters from the first book "Big Russ and Me". I suppose all of us who had good fathers, including me, can just write a book about them now. Or maybe we can't. Maybe you can only be an elite journalist to get this kind of book deal.

The big journalist stars, Russert, Brokaw and their ilk, write about the generation before them with almost a glossy sheen. The Greatest Generation. Big Russ and the Greatest Fathers. If you were born prior to 1930, you get a big fat gold star. Your sweat got us through the depression, your blood got us through WWII and you were too busy saving the world to shed any girly tears about it all.

The great white-washing of history continues because you never hear how it was this generation who kept segregation up and running. This generation justfified the internment of Japanese. This generation whose brightest minds got us into Vietnam. This generation who brought commercialsm, materialism and the military/industrial complex to great heights in the 1950s.

They accomplished a great deal and lived through great trials, our grandparents. Of course, if your grandparents actually came from Europe, out of WWII, they lived through a much darker and bloodier epoch. Perhaps that's why some of the original agitators of the 1960s were children of European immigrants who had a feeling in their gut that satifisaction doesn't come from a new washer and dryer alone.

It is perhaps our greatest fault in our retelling of American History that we bath ourselves in the good and ignore the bad, as if there can't be two sides to the same coin. Every "generation" (as if they are homogenous) does good and does bad.

Implicit in the Russert/Brokaw argument is that the 60s generation, my parents, were worse than their parents. We've adapted a conservative mindset about the 60s. The words "excess" and "selfish"... so often used. Was it excessive and selfish for Cheney, Goodwin and Schwerner to take that fateful bus trip to the deep south? Was it excessive and selfish for the students on UofW Madison to sit in on Dow Chemical's recruitment effort? What is excessive and selfish about earnest people trying to change the world, bring equality and end a vicious war?

Russert knows when he speaks of fathers, he's spoonfeeding us Norman Rockwell. There are good fathers out there; of this there is no question. There are questionable fathers out there. Bad fathers. Fathers who abandon their children. Fathers who beat their wives. Fathers in that questionable middle, who perhaps don't do anything "bad", who support their families financially, but are emotionally unavailable to the children. The father/child dynamic is complicated; just as the "generational" idenity. What Russert and Brokaw peddle is a certain truth, but not a total truth.

One final note: if Russert is so atuned to the goodness of fathers, why wasn't he, a mere two weeks ago, standing up for families with two fathers?

Posted by emily at 5:39 PM | Comments (0)

June 7, 2006

I Heart Ann Coulter

I heart anyone who has the amazing ability to make Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly and their ilk seem like moderates.

Because that takes a level of skill. She reminds me of the fifth grade on a pure gut level. She's taunting me, thowing a kick-ball at my head. But better angels appear on my shoulder. One can't get angry with her. One can't get angry by what she says. Because that's what she wants you to do.

She wants liberals to hate her, because in her mind, this will validate her opinions. And deep down, one has to believe she is frightened of us. Hatred that intense can only be ignited by fear. Why is she afraid of us? Did one of us steal her lollypop? Did one of us dump her in the 12th grade?

I give her the attention she so desperately craves and pat her on the back is she realizes that, to the vast peoples, she is nothing more than a circus act. We all witness what comes out of her mouth and pen with our hands in the air, but this does nothing more than encourage her to greater acts of self-parody. As she tars and feathers 9-11 widows, I will hand it to her. There is perhaps no group more immune than 9-11 widows. Ann always goes after the sticky brass ring.

I will gladly let her shoot me with the bullets she does not have. Because, in her paradigm, I am one of the traitors, one of the godless, a deacon in that church of liberalism she so desperately wants to carve stained glass for. She gives us all the credit in the world for a level of organization we don't have and can't have. She wants me shot, or at least exported to Belgium, and I will gladly take my one-way ticket.

Those angry with the GOP and the President are many: true liberals, progressives, lefties and socialists in this country are still few. To fear us as Ann does means we must have some power and perhaps in Connecticut it still looks that way. But if she's really so afraid and so hateful, she should move to Salt Lake City and be among those who agree with her. Why she stays among those she hates... mystery.

Ann, I'm guilty of everything you've accused "us" of. I want gay people to be able to marry, burn a flag at the cerimony, and then recycle the charred remains for some stem-flag research. I want the illegal immigrants to take over the country, the Constitution re-written in Spanish and Jennifer Lopez to replace the Statue of Liberty. (If she's turned into a statue, she can't make any more movies.) I'm proudly guilty. I'm glad you're there, assigning me my guilt.

Ann, we need more like you. To tar us, flame us, turn us into demons. I welcome it. You will never convince the majority of Americans to agree with you, but you also fail to convince the majority of Americans to disagree with us. When a parady hits you with their venom, you only stand to look good.

Posted by emily at 3:03 PM | Comments (1)

June 6, 2006

All The Kiddies Are Cynical Tonight

Gay Marriage Amendment: How transparent is this? I mean, is it made of glass? Is it made of see-through plastic? Are the American people stupid enough to fall for this? Am I scared to my own answer to the last question?

Very, yes, yes, yes and yes.

Let's see what's wrong with the world today: Iraq, Haditha, the resurgance of fighting in Afghanistan, Iran, instability in Somalia, AIDS, immigration, global warming, gas prices, interest rates, inflation, the deficit. That's the short list. You know, right off the top of my head with no real thought put into it. There's much more.

And what is the Congress doing? Gay marriage amendment, flag burning and a repeal of the estate tax.

I usually think I'm beyond cynical, but this is just beyond me. How the voters won't be disilusioned and disgusted... but you know what? We'll stop the damn gays from marrying! And that will solve... none of the above problems I have listed.

Nevermind what I personally think: that straight people have done enough damage to that sacred institution of marriage. When Britney Spears can get married like she's getting a tattoo, when the divorce rate is still 50%... we don't need gay people to damage the institution. These focus on family groups never talk about the divorce rate.

I've known many gay couples in long, long-term relationships that would like to get married. I know gays that don't want to get married. (I know straights in the same situations as well.) Denying a specific group their civil rights... Equal protection clause of the 14th. And I will look Scalia in the eye and say it. Marriage has been defined by the Supreme Court as a fundemental right. Thus, it is within the fundemental right strand of equal protection, thus the scrutiny is bumped up to strict and thus, the law/amendment must be narrowly tailored and interest must be compelling. (A- in both Con Law I and II, baby!)

But the saddest, most depressing thing for me about this whole thing: Bush made his big speech on the 25 anniversary of the CDC MMWR report which described the symptoms of five men in Los Angeles. (See below). There would soon be cases reported in San Francisco, Miami, New York and Paris. The media would soon label it GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) By the end of 1981, there was a new word for it: AIDS. Like his political father, Ron Reagan, Bush said not one goddamn fucking word yesterday about a disease that has killed 25 million people worldwide, with 2 million estimated new infections every year (and that's low-balling it). A disease in which people in this country suffered so much in the early years; they lost jobs, insurance, family, friends and their lives. They died a horrid death, made that much worse by fear and prejudice. It didn't matter how they got the disease, whether they were gay or straight, a blood transfusion, an infected needle, an infected partner... and it is now a pandemic, leaving orphans across Africa, denial in Russia and a scary complacency in the US. People still die of AIDS here. And the virus has shown great adaptablity: someday, the triple-cocktail may not be enough. But, on the anniversary of the beginning of one of the most tragic chapters of American and World history, let's deny gays the right to marriage. Clearly, in 25 years, we've learned nothing about tolerance.

Posted by emily at 1:26 AM | Comments (0)

June 5, 2006

25 Years Ago Today

Pneumocystis Pneumonia - Los Angeles

MMWR Weekly, June 5, 1981 / 30(21);250-2
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In the period October 1980-May 1981, 5 young men, all active homosexuals, were treated for biopsy-confirmed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia at 3 different hospitals in Los Angeles, California. Two of the patients died. All 5 patients had laboratory-confirmed previous or current cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and candidal mucosal infection. Case reports of these patients follow.

Patient 1: A previously healthy 33-year-old man developed P. carinii pneumonia and oral mucosal candidiasis in March 1981 after a 2-month history of fever associated with elevated liver enzymes, leukopenia, and CMV viruria. The serum complement-fixation CMV titer in October 1980 was 256; in may 1981 it was 32.* The patient's condition deteriorated despite courses of treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX), pentamidine, and acyclovir. He died May 3, and postmortem examination showed residual P. carinii and CMV pneumonia, but no evidence of neoplasia.

Patient 2: A previously healthy 30-year-old man developed p. carinii pneumonia in April 1981 after a 5-month history of fever each day and of elevated liver-function tests, CMV viruria, and documented seroconversion to CMV, i.e., an acute-phase titer of 16 and a convalescent-phase titer of 28* in anticomplement immunofluorescence tests. Other features of his illness included leukopenia and mucosal candidiasis. His pneumonia responded to a course of intravenous TMP/.SMX, but, as of the latest reports, he continues to have a fever each day.

Patient 3: A 30-year-old man was well until January 1981 when he developed esophageal and oral candidiasis that responded to Amphotericin B treatment. He was hospitalized in February 1981 for P. carinii pneumonia that responded to TMP/SMX. His esophageal candidiasis recurred after the pneumonia was diagnosed, and he was again given Amphotericin B. The CMV complement-fixation titer in March 1981 was 8. Material from an esophageal biopsy was positive for CMV.

Patient 4: A 29-year-old man developed P. carinii pneumonia in February 1981. He had had Hodgkins disease 3 years earlier, but had been successfully treated with radiation therapy alone. He did not improve after being given intravenous TMP/SMX and corticosteroids and died in March. Postmortem examination showed no evidence of Hodgkins disease, but P. carinii and CMV were found in lung tissue.

Patient 5: A previously healthy 36-year-old man with clinically diagnosed CMV infection in September 1980 was seen in April 1981 because of a 4-month history of fever, dyspnea, and cough. On admission he was found to have P. carinii pneumonia, oral candidiasis, and CMV retinitis. A complement-fixation CMV titer in April 1981 was 128. The patient has been treated with 2 short courses of TMP/SMX that have been limited because of a sulfa-induced neutropenia. He is being treated for candidiasis with topical nystatin.

The diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia was confirmed for all 5 patients antemortem by closed or open lung biopsy. The patients did not know each other and had no known common contacts or knowledge of sexual partners who had had similar illnesses. The 5 reported having frequent homosexual contacts with various partners. All 5 reported using inhalant drugs, and 1 reported parenteral drug abuse. Three patients had profoundly depressed in vitro proliferative responses to mitogens and antigens. Lymphocyte studies were not performed on the other 2 patients.

Reported by MS Gottlieb, MD, HM Schanker, MD, PT Fan, MD, A Saxon, MD, JD Weisman, DO, Div of Clinical Immunology-Allergy; Dept of Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine; I Pozalski, MD, Cedars-Mt. Siani Hospital, Los Angeles; Field services Div, Epidemiology Program Office, CDC.

Posted by emily at 11:42 AM | Comments (2)

May 8, 2006

Show Me Your Tay-Tay Love

Piston prevents King James from staging a Palace coup
BY MITCH ALBOM
Detroit Free Press

AUBURN HILLS, Mich. - Everything about Tayshaun Prince is quiet, from his soft steps to his low, thin voice, which sometimes needs to coaxed from his lungs like toothpaste from a tube. He could come home after midnight and not wake anyone in the house. If an NBA player ever took the nickname "Whisper," he'd be the one.

LeBron James is all noise. He can't help it. Every step he takes is sponsored. Even in his TV commercials, he plays multiple characters - too big to fit in one role. At 21, he is the next coming of the Next Big Thing, and is arguably the most popular athlete in his sport. His nickname is, humbly, King James.

On Sunday afternoon, the Prince had to guard the King.

"The poor guy," Prince's coach, Flip Saunders, lamented, "he always has to take whoever the best player is . . ."

Well, who was the poor guy Sunday? Prince outscored LeBron, out-three-pointed LeBron and out-blocked LeBron. And this Game 1 blowout victory was best defined by a moment in the second quarter, where James was heading for a lay-up and Prince flew in like a prehistoric bird and swatted the ball away with wicked authority.

And then, on the other end, Prince hit a long three-pointer to put the Pistons up by 17.

The Cavaliers called time.

They could have called a cab.

Prince trumps King.

Witness that, LeBron.

Wait till you hear his comments

"He never saw me coming," Prince, 26, would later say, matter of factly, of the block that sent a jolt through the Palace. "It was kind of a bad pass. ... It gave me time to get back to him ... It was a perfect situation for me. ..."

This, remember, is Prince talking, not LeBron's coach.

But that is typical of this humble, laconic forward with the long arms that seem to sway like a wooden puppet's from his thin, high shoulders. He led Detroit in scoring Sunday, and yet you easily could have overlooked it. In fact, when that time-out was called after his dagger three-pointer, you saw everything you needed to see about No. 22.

He didn't walk to the bench banging his chest. He wasn't whooping up the crowd. Instead, he stepped gingerly around his teammates like a man wading through a parade. His eyes were down and his mouth open, the way kids have their mouths open when they are playing and something captures their attention. He took his seat and he listened to what was being said.

The next boastful move from Tayshaun Prince will be the first.

Even when he has plenty to brag about.

"Can you talk about the job you did on LeBron?" he was asked after the 113-86 thumping as the second round started.

"The task is tougher on my teammates," Prince said, "because they have to be ready to help ...

"If he gets the ball off the glass, gets the rebound and goes full court there's no stopping him. . . . .You gotta just try to deny the ball as much as possible. . . .

"I thought we did a poor job, myself and my teammates, of letting him get into the paint a little too much . .. but those things happen with a superstar like him. . . ."

Wow. You would have thought the Pistons lost by 10, instead of winning by 27.

His impossible missions

But that's Prince. You won't ever see a commercial where he plays multiple characters, You won't ever see a commercial where he's the star of a video game. With those raised shoulders and those unblinking eyes, he seems to be caught in mid-shrug, the posture of a guy who doesn't see what all the fuss is about.

And that suits him. Remember, Prince, only in his fourth season, has been assigned, in playoffs past, to cover Kobe Bryant, Dawyne Wade and Manu Ginobili. And in his quiet way, he is already in the film footage pantheon for swooping playoff blocks on Reggie Miller and Allen Iverson.

Now you can add Sunday's block on James to that resume. LeBron didn't score a point in the second half of this game. He finished with 22, well below his 35.7-point average in Round 1 against Washington, and two points fewer than Prince's career playoff high Sunday of 24.

Will it be that way in Game 2? Maybe not. But in a game where Prince was supposed to be lucky just to catch a breath while guarding James, he instead hit all four of his three-point baskets, added three rebounds and two assists, and looked at times like the younger of the two men.

"I was just trying to came out and be aggressive," he said.

Mission accomplished. In the tunnel after the game, Prince stood talking to a few friends, a baseball cap turned sideways on his head. No entourage. No Nike crew. No boasting. In a royal court, his last name would put him one notch down in the pecking order. But on the basketball court - at least for Game 1 - this Prince was King For A Day.

Posted by emily at 1:12 AM | Comments (0)

April 28, 2006

Playoff Boo-Ha!

Miami Heat: Oh, get over yourselves. Shaq was horrid last night, absolutely horried. And there's MJ in the box MOCKING HIS ASS. I'm so sick of this Diesel/Wade lovefest. Have they won a championship together? No. Are they going to? Even if they beat Detroit (fat chance, bucko), they still have to play, well, the Spurs most likely. And the Spurs will murder them.

Sacremento Kings: I do like the Spurs and the Kings aren't gonna win, no way. But Game 2 was a thing of beauty. David and Goliath, David without his best weapon (Ron "beer cup" Artest).

LA Clippers: Sam Cassell (sp?). There is nothing more to say besides this: Elton Brand. Kick Denver's ass, please. I like Mello, but I like you better.

LA Lakers: So if Nash wins MVP, like everybody says is going to happen, what happens if Kobe beats him in this series. Everyone thought it would be easy for Pheonix, and it may yet be. I don't want the Lakers to advance. Why? I don't like them. Prove you deserve more than Chauncey, Nash.

Detroit Pistons: Get out your brooms, kiddies. Wait, wait, don't want to jinx it. Milwaukee whining about the refs: this is the play-offs, bitches. Pistons in four, and then Pistons in four, and then Pistons in four and then Pistons in five. (Is that unrealistic?)

Posted by emily at 4:05 PM | Comments (0)

April 6, 2006

Blitzkrieg Jesus's Bitches!

Learn something new everyday:

There is apparently a war on Christians going on right now. (No, this is not a war on my brother and an army of his clones. How cool would that be? A million ctriv fighting injustice, one excellent bottle of Pinot at a time...)

This apparently what brought down Tom Delay. How I yearn for the days when our leaders were brought down by blow jobs! By the way, don't try picture the Hammer getting a hummer. You'll lose your cookies and your mojo.

I've heard of the war on Christianity. I remember the war on Christmas. But does he really think we athiest-pinko-commie-queers have the time to single out every single one of you cross jockeys for persecution? There's too many of you fuckers. You control everything. You're on my money and I had to say I was "under" your deity every morning before school.

It's not so much a war on you, per se. Why would we fight a war we could never win? It's more like an insurrection. Or freedom fighters, if we had that much organization, which we don't. We don't like ORGANIZED religion, remember? Why would we meet up with each other when that's one of the things we're looking to avoid?

Now I am a Buddhist, so I'm not so much against organization of religion. (Although it is debatable whether Buddhism really is a religion.) Am I against Christians? For the most part, no, although I'm not really thrilled with a few of their flock recently. Calling on God to strike down Supreme Court judges? Stevens is going to live to 350 just to piss in Robertson's face. Recommending we assassinate a soverign leader of a Latin American country? The war on Christmas? Who is this jerk declaring war on Christmas? Because I like the gifts and "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation."

(On a side not, please, everybody, stop using the word "war" to describe things that are not wars. War is when people kill each other in an organized fashion. War, in the olden days, was declared by soverign nations. War involves guns, rape, pillage, conquest and Patton.)

Conservative Christian Republicans are such a bizarre lot. They won. They have the Congress. They have the WH. They have the judciary. But they don't try and convert others by positive means. Instead, it is a constant demonization of the others. For most of the wack-jobs, the others are still the large majority of Americans. But if you broaden the scope and just say Christian Americans, then you have the a huge majority. Enormous. Even if they lie when the pollsters ask if they go to church on Sundays.

Us athiest-pinko-commie-queers are in such small numbers, we can't declare "war." We're too busy with consensus procedures anyway to cause much harm. All we can do is get as much sex and swears on the television as possible, pollute the children's minds with our ape to human ideas and hand out the condoms like candy. And that's just on my Blackberry for Tuesday.

Posted by emily at 2:04 PM | Comments (2)

April 5, 2006

The Best of Best of Tom Delay

"Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour [the minimum wage in 1996] are hard to resist. Fortunately, such families do not exist."

"A woman can take care of the family. It takes a man to provide structure. To provide stability. Not that a woman can't provide stability, I'm not saying that... It does take a father, though."

"Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills."

"So many minority youths had volunteered…that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself." --Tom DeLay, explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not fight in the Vietnam War

"Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?" –Tom Delay, to three young hurricane evacuees from New Orleans at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept.

There a few other great ones that I can't find and quote exactly. You know the tune: Feminists are lesbians who kill their children. The EPA is worse than the Nazis. "Activist judges."

And now, in the immortal words of Jerry Garcia, "He's Gone."

Praise Jesus.

Posted by emily at 3:16 PM | Comments (0)

March 24, 2006

Bill Walton

His lack of love for the Pistons annoys me.

I watched Pistons/Heat for about two and a half quarters on ESPN until I figured out that Blaha/Lambeer were on Channel 8.

What a punk, that Bill Walton. He was like a Miami announcer. He practically had an orgasm everytime Dwayne Wade made a shot. What he never said was that Detroit shut Wade down to his lowest point night of the season. That the Dice kicked it up and Lindsey Hunter was phenom on D.

Oh yeah, and still the best record in the NBA. Slump my ass! You have to give it up for them sometime, Bill. Even Charles Barkley likes us now.

Punk.

Posted by emily at 1:06 AM | Comments (0)

March 19, 2006

Strip Clubs, et al...

Lansing: I told a Mormon way too much about my life. Why am I naturally suspicious of the religious? And why do I play it off as if I'm not leary of them? Mormon dude tells me his bro is a heroin addict; I tell him about Gabriel? And I know those reading FC (meaning my brother) may have a countering opinion, but I don't think heroin made G-boy a bad person. His inability to let go of the past did. Not like the Mormon would understand such things.

So we tell the Mormon were going to a strip club. Natch, he did not follow us. (the mormon has a crush on me. Fuck! Just me luck.) Now, if you're a hetero chick, naked women are interesting for about five minutes. Well, the first three or so strippers didn't do much with the pole. The next two had skills, dude. They did major acrobatics with their shaven who-ha hanging out in the air.

Still, you can't help but feel sympathy for them. Some of the dudes at the club were cute, but many were bald, fat, Karl Rove-esque creatures who stuck their face between their legs and between their tittties and drooled all over their bikini wax. I hope they make a lot of money. Besides, they looked bored.

Back in college, I went to a strip club in Yonkers. Not as flashy as this joint. Women were definetely bored. We tipped them a lot, just for their trouble. I wanted to tip some these chicks, but there was no g-string. Alas, I sipped water instead.

Posted by emily at 2:38 AM | Comments (0)

February 23, 2006

It's Funny the Things that Leap Out at you.

I don't have the exact quote, but this is the paraphrase

(concerning the ports) Bush: I know members of Congress are concerned, but I want to assure them that the government looked into this...

The gist: Bush made it sound like "the government" DIDN'T INCLUDE CONGRESS. The port situation is something I'm not really sure about in total: I think there is some racism going on here, but I don't know if I trust Dubai either. They welcomed Michael Jackson with open arms. That has to cause some concern.

But what's more important is that Bush apparently doesn't think Congress is part of the government. That's more disturbing. In the past few months, Congress and the Judiciary has given the Executive more slap downs than in the prior five years. But in comparison to Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, the Congress has been a bunch of suck-ups.

Hopefully, even though I'm not sure on the ports (which are porous anyway), this heralds a return of Congress. But I'm also not holding my breath.

Meanwhile, Bush should pick up a constitution.

Posted by emily at 1:50 PM | Comments (0)

February 7, 2006

Laugh-In Looks At The News...

NEWS ITEM!

Around the world, they are rioting. We in this country (or we, the newsmedia in this country) scratches its complex, perfectly coiffed head and shrugs it's Armani shoulders and says plainly: Well, they don't have free speech. They don't understand. Quell reactionaries!
Yet this country, and now I mean the actual people in this country, have become convinced over the last thirty years of Arab hatred of us by one repeated image. People in Tehran, in Palestine, in Damascus, in wherever, burning the American flag. We point at the television, aghast. They burn a piece of cloth! We must buy their oil like a crackwhore and prop up dictators so they don't have free speech.
At least the Prophet Mohammad was a man, not a flag. We hold symbols higher than principles, too, Franny. Witness many, many bills that would hand out jailtime for BURNING A PIECE OF CLOTH.

NEWS ITEM!

Funny to see Bush sitting there at Coretta Scott King's funeral. You know what she and her husband lived under for many years? Wiretaps.

NEWS ITEM!

Not only are we at Fat Charlie mourning the death of Coretta Scott King, but recall that Betty Friedan died recently as well. The sixties icons may be shuffling off the mortal coil, but let us not lose the greater message. Equality, peace, justice... not just advertising lingos or John Lennon songs.

Posted by emily at 4:38 PM | Comments (0)

February 1, 2006

Unenumerated Penumberas Eminating From A Bench

Con Law: If you have background, you start to become even more disturbed. This is what I am finding. It's all peach cobbler that we look up to the bench as some awesome force in our democracy. But the bench is troubling, and it's not just the new justice or the new chief justice I speak of.

I lose more respect for the jurisprudence of Rehnquist everyday and gain a grunging understanding of Scalia's consistancy. (save his total bullshit waivers on state's rights to suit his needs, RE: GLOCKSBURG and three weeks ago, OREGON V GONZALES.) That's not to say I agree with Scalia; HAMDI is the only case thus far. But footnote 6 of MICHAEL H is about the worst piece of baklava I've ever tasted. To say that all fundemental rights must be defined in specific terminology... is I, II, III, IV.... especially XIV amendments specific? Does it say "right to bare arms" or does it say "right to carry this M-16 with a permit?" You can't have your cake and eat it, too, Tony.

But to flail one's arms at the idea that voting practices need to be consistant (and one must prove intent and disperate impact) in all sorts of election cases and THEN go down the one-hit wonder path of BUSH V GORE (which can only be stare decisis for my ass.) RE: DAVIS V BANDEMER (White's opinion): "An equal protection violation may be found only where the electoral system substantially disadvantages certain voters in their opportunity to influence the political process effectively." How can Bush have claimed Equal Protection when the court ruled in this case that "relying on a single election to prove unconstitutional discrimination is unsatisfactory?" How are the voters disenfranchised by a recount? Since when do "vote counting standards" get strict scrutiny?

(Although O'Conner and Rehnquist concurred in the judgement of BANDEMER, they wrote a seperate opinion on justiciability, of which I quote: " to turn these matters over to the federal judiciary is to inject the courts into the most heated partisan issues.")

My prof likes to trash O'Conner's "undue burden" standards in CASEY (I don't know why people whine about ROE; CASEY is much more important in the modern world.) I'd like an "intent" standard; law intends to inhibit a woman's right to choose, it gets struck. If "intent" is the mantra of equal protection (disperate impact seems almost impossible to prove), then why can't intent be the mantra of abortion cases?

And why is Rehnquist defending KORMATSU (spelling wrong, I know)?

The Supreme Court: highest law of the land, inconsistant as the day is long.

Posted by emily at 12:59 PM | Comments (0)

January 17, 2006

Kennedy Is My Homeboy!

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 13 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that federal authority to regulate doctors does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting for the first time.

The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses, the court majority said.

"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

Kennedy is expected to become a more influential swing voter after O'Connor's departure. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins the liberal wing of the court in cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment.

The ruling was a reprimand to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who in 2001 said that doctor-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" and that Oregon physicians would be punished for helping people die under the law.

Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

"If the term `legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he wrote.

Scalia said the court's ruling "is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position."

Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people — those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.

The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."

Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately.

Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unan