here's the plan: we trash the environment through fossil fuel emissions and deregulating refineries, global warming causes temperatures to rise (at least initially), and increasing home heating costs are irrelevant because you don't need the heater anymore.
we render the medicaire and medicaid programs ineffective, the ill and infirm all die off, premiums go back down. ingenius.
we demonstrate the ineffectiveness of big government by inflating it ourselves, then cry "look! government doesn't work! we must privatize! down with regulation and oversight!"
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
the "juliana hatfield" concert
i was going to lie to the blogworld and proclaim that friday night's some girls concert in baton rouge was life-changing. i was front-and-center, juliana hatfield cooing for me and me alone, playing all my favorites. freda love gave me her drum sticks.
alas, the "some girls" playing at the bastard club, the spanish moon (henceforth boycotted), were not the indie pop trio comprised of two-thirds of the blake babies, but a lame and formulaic metal band. i'm assuming. we didn't bother going once we found out.
obviously i'm disappointed, but more than anything i'm pissed at the club for its obvious deception. several of my attempts to contact them to confirm that the band playing was that of juliana hatfield went unanswered. i have no doubt in my mind this was intentional.
i woke up saturday morning (afternoon) with two rocks in my coat pocket. i theorize that, in my drunken ire my intention was to hurl them at the club. i'm glad i didn't, but i WILL be hurling some scathing and ill-tempered e-mails to the club's owners. probably not wanting for expletives.
alas, the "some girls" playing at the bastard club, the spanish moon (henceforth boycotted), were not the indie pop trio comprised of two-thirds of the blake babies, but a lame and formulaic metal band. i'm assuming. we didn't bother going once we found out.
obviously i'm disappointed, but more than anything i'm pissed at the club for its obvious deception. several of my attempts to contact them to confirm that the band playing was that of juliana hatfield went unanswered. i have no doubt in my mind this was intentional.
i woke up saturday morning (afternoon) with two rocks in my coat pocket. i theorize that, in my drunken ire my intention was to hurl them at the club. i'm glad i didn't, but i WILL be hurling some scathing and ill-tempered e-mails to the club's owners. probably not wanting for expletives.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
ado about nothing
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/nixon77b.wmv
we're spending upwards of $300 billion in iraq over a war that ultimately began when 3,000 americans were killed.
millions die of poverty in this country every year but we gut social services to finance tax cuts for people making over $300,000 and no-bid contracts to huge corporations.
it seems illogical doesn't it? this kind of thing happens when emotions trummp intellect.
people who support this war and this administration aren't stupid by any means, they're just emotionally immature. they lack the ability to reason and rationalize prior to letting their instincts dictate their behavior.
it's wrath and revenge that underlie support for a pointless war perceived as retribution for those 3,000 murders on seven-eleven.
but so few get irate about the millions dead from poverty in this country, the supposed greatest in the world.
our medical capabilites are beyond that of any other nation (i still believe), yet the only people who can afford them are the same ones who get the president's tax cut.
all this controversy and ire and back-and-forth over the war are so utterly needless, as is the war itself. our priorities are so misguided and myopic.
we're spending upwards of $300 billion in iraq over a war that ultimately began when 3,000 americans were killed.
millions die of poverty in this country every year but we gut social services to finance tax cuts for people making over $300,000 and no-bid contracts to huge corporations.
it seems illogical doesn't it? this kind of thing happens when emotions trummp intellect.
people who support this war and this administration aren't stupid by any means, they're just emotionally immature. they lack the ability to reason and rationalize prior to letting their instincts dictate their behavior.
it's wrath and revenge that underlie support for a pointless war perceived as retribution for those 3,000 murders on seven-eleven.
but so few get irate about the millions dead from poverty in this country, the supposed greatest in the world.
our medical capabilites are beyond that of any other nation (i still believe), yet the only people who can afford them are the same ones who get the president's tax cut.
all this controversy and ire and back-and-forth over the war are so utterly needless, as is the war itself. our priorities are so misguided and myopic.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
unitary executive?
i wake up early almost every day to watch washington journal on the 'span. this morning the issue was the warrantless spying on americans being conducted by the nsa, authorized by the president. more generally the debate was freedom versus security, and this quote from ben franklin: "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.".
republicans call in saying, among other things, "if new york was blowed up they wouldn't have any freedom", "if you have nothing to hide then what are you worried about", "clinton did it*, lincoln did it, xxxx democratic president did it" and also "derrrrp!".
all of these are completely false narratives. the REAL issue at stake is not liberty or security at all; we should have both and CAN have both. the problem here is that the president is doing something illegal. and why? there are legal ways in which to eavesdrop on americans, so why not do it legally? what's the difference? it's expediant and almost NEVER denied, so what possible reason could he have in circumventing the legislature?
(i know the answer to that, you probably know the answer to that)
what angers me every time political debate takes place is that republicans don't debate the actual topic when they know they're on the wrong side -- they find something parallel or close to said topic, something they can put on a bumpber sticker, or something that may in fact be worthy of debate.
in this instance they're making the argument that sacrificing a little liberty for security is acceptable (forget the fact that it's being done illegally. they conveniently ignore that tidbit). they're rallying for something that isn't in question.
they do the same thing when opposition to the iraq war arises. they say "you're demoralizing the troops! you're not supporting the troops! derrrrp!" when, in fact, the issue has nothing to do with the actions of our military. we question the civilian leadership, they counter by calling us un-american.
what else will the president be allowed to do in the name of national security if the illegal wire-tapping isn't ceased? we are on our way to a monarchy friends, or at least an oligarchy. how likely is it that samuel alito (he'll probably get confirmed) and a federalist-dominated supreme court will rule against this unitarian executive?
i called landrieu twice already.
*the default response to any bush wrong-doing shown to a republican is "but... bu bu bu bu... CLINTON!" also "derrrrp".
republicans call in saying, among other things, "if new york was blowed up they wouldn't have any freedom", "if you have nothing to hide then what are you worried about", "clinton did it*, lincoln did it, xxxx democratic president did it" and also "derrrrp!".
all of these are completely false narratives. the REAL issue at stake is not liberty or security at all; we should have both and CAN have both. the problem here is that the president is doing something illegal. and why? there are legal ways in which to eavesdrop on americans, so why not do it legally? what's the difference? it's expediant and almost NEVER denied, so what possible reason could he have in circumventing the legislature?
(i know the answer to that, you probably know the answer to that)
what angers me every time political debate takes place is that republicans don't debate the actual topic when they know they're on the wrong side -- they find something parallel or close to said topic, something they can put on a bumpber sticker, or something that may in fact be worthy of debate.
in this instance they're making the argument that sacrificing a little liberty for security is acceptable (forget the fact that it's being done illegally. they conveniently ignore that tidbit). they're rallying for something that isn't in question.
they do the same thing when opposition to the iraq war arises. they say "you're demoralizing the troops! you're not supporting the troops! derrrrp!" when, in fact, the issue has nothing to do with the actions of our military. we question the civilian leadership, they counter by calling us un-american.
what else will the president be allowed to do in the name of national security if the illegal wire-tapping isn't ceased? we are on our way to a monarchy friends, or at least an oligarchy. how likely is it that samuel alito (he'll probably get confirmed) and a federalist-dominated supreme court will rule against this unitarian executive?
i called landrieu twice already.
*the default response to any bush wrong-doing shown to a republican is "but... bu bu bu bu... CLINTON!" also "derrrrp".
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
wire-tapping, jerking off
george says the former is necessary to protect americans. i agree. that's why f.i.s.a. exists, that's why you can obtain warrants posthumously within 72 hours, that's why virtually every request for a warrant has been approved by the f.i.s.a. court. where's the rub? why do it ILLEGALLY when measures are in place to do it legally and easily?
is it possible they're not just intercepting international calls as they claim? seriously, probably not. george is very trustworthy. sometimes quakers fly planes into buildings. sometimes i fuck a fresh can of crisco while listening to steve winwood.
jack abramoff's father chided george clooney for his remarks about abramoff at the golden globes. apparently abramoff's daughter was watching and was brought to tears (what is it with republican family members crying these days) as a result of the jerk-off joke.
yeah, the fact that her dad is an admitted criminal had nothing to do with it. grandpa says that "we have had to endure two years of unmitigated, outrageous falsehood directed at my son and his record of achievement on behalf of his clients and friends. the blood thirsty media, guilty of untold character assassinations during contemporary times, have even outdone themselves in their lust to create a cartoon which does not come close to resembling this fine man, my son."
does grandpa know that sonny plead guilty to these unmitigated falsehoods?
new osama bin laden tape: what we should glean from this is that osama and howard dean are the same. forget the fact that bin laden is still alive four years after all that "smoke 'em out" and "dead or alive" jive. bravo chris matthews, you are an inspiration.
is it possible they're not just intercepting international calls as they claim? seriously, probably not. george is very trustworthy. sometimes quakers fly planes into buildings. sometimes i fuck a fresh can of crisco while listening to steve winwood.
jack abramoff's father chided george clooney for his remarks about abramoff at the golden globes. apparently abramoff's daughter was watching and was brought to tears (what is it with republican family members crying these days) as a result of the jerk-off joke.
yeah, the fact that her dad is an admitted criminal had nothing to do with it. grandpa says that "we have had to endure two years of unmitigated, outrageous falsehood directed at my son and his record of achievement on behalf of his clients and friends. the blood thirsty media, guilty of untold character assassinations during contemporary times, have even outdone themselves in their lust to create a cartoon which does not come close to resembling this fine man, my son."
does grandpa know that sonny plead guilty to these unmitigated falsehoods?
new osama bin laden tape: what we should glean from this is that osama and howard dean are the same. forget the fact that bin laden is still alive four years after all that "smoke 'em out" and "dead or alive" jive. bravo chris matthews, you are an inspiration.
Monday, January 23, 2006
molly ivins letter
I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President
by Molly Ivins
I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.
If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.
What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?
Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes, "There is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between those who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of the party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful elections in 2006 and 2008."
This supposedly pits Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, emboldened by "a string of bad news from the Middle East ... into calling for premature retreat from Iraq," versus those pragmatic folk like Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.
Oh come on, people -- get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war -- from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily.
You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.
Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this -- that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.
Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."
Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.
by Molly Ivins
I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.
If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.
What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?
Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes, "There is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between those who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of the party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful elections in 2006 and 2008."
This supposedly pits Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, emboldened by "a string of bad news from the Middle East ... into calling for premature retreat from Iraq," versus those pragmatic folk like Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.
Oh come on, people -- get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war -- from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily.
You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.
Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this -- that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.
Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."
Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
phillipses...
football sunday: i'm passively rooting for seattle because jake delhomme is from breaux bridge (re: i hate louisiana and take pleasure when the community at large is disappointed, especially in regard to sports). in the afc game i don't REALLY care, but i'm pulling for the steelers. i'm grateful to denver for beating the patriots (and tom brady, ass) but colorado is a red state, pennsylvania a blue. that's a good enough reason to take sides in a game for me.
yeah i changed my internet name again. i've diagnosed myself as a bipolar, schizophrenic scatterbrain so... there. a rose by any other name would still be snarky and misanthropic.
yeah i changed my internet name again. i've diagnosed myself as a bipolar, schizophrenic scatterbrain so... there. a rose by any other name would still be snarky and misanthropic.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
ha ha you have to eat it
the person who invented balogna (baloney) needs to be ground up, wrapped in red plastic, sliced and placed between two pieces of bread. i don't eat poultry or pork or beef of any kind, and sometimes it's hard to explain why to meat-eaters (my parents for instance). it occurred to me today though that the best argument or method of convincing someone to go off meat completely is to shove a slice of balogna in their face. you don't even need to do that -- just unwrap it within 50 feet of them, or put it in your office's fridge, then invest in peanut butter.
where does balogna come from? what animal is it? what part(s) of that animal are used? how is it processed? how and why did "baloney" become a euphemism for "shit"? am i brave enough to google it?
my theory is that it was invented during the depression. use your imagination after that.
where does balogna come from? what animal is it? what part(s) of that animal are used? how is it processed? how and why did "baloney" become a euphemism for "shit"? am i brave enough to google it?
my theory is that it was invented during the depression. use your imagination after that.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
m.l.k.
this post is a day late and as always a dollar short, but i got sidetracked yesterday. eat me.
generally i view martin luther king day as more of a day to recognize all current and historical figures who surrendered their lives in furtherance of societal good. who can say who the earliest of these people were. they're often referred to as "christ-like" figures, although jesus christ certainly wasn't the first persecuted for their beliefs. i'm a big fan of socrates (and plato, who was his student), who opted for death over exile in 399 b.c.
i love this painting ("the death of socrates" by jacques-louis david). i like to think of socrates, finger pointed in the air, shouting "shove it up your puckered assholes!"
martin luther king jr. of course fits the mold of a martyr. i'm not a great fan of u2, but there's a version of "pride" where quotes from martin luther king are overlayed sporadically and it honestly gets me emotional.
i also think of john and bobby kennedy, thomas more, abraham lincoln, and to a much lesser extent kurt cobain. there's something intangibly awe-inspiring about those who put principle above their own lives and that's the ideal we should all endeavour for.
if doubt exists that racism is alive and well here in 2006, yesterday during a meeting one of the other guys (the boss's son, actually) who works here said something to the effect that he was surprised that all schools in louisiana were off for a day recognizing martin luther king. i find it abhorrent, but i can't really say fie in front of the boss, his son, or his son-in-law (also working here). as soon as i find another job i'm going to encorporate "fucking ignorant racist" into my workplace vocabulary.
generally i view martin luther king day as more of a day to recognize all current and historical figures who surrendered their lives in furtherance of societal good. who can say who the earliest of these people were. they're often referred to as "christ-like" figures, although jesus christ certainly wasn't the first persecuted for their beliefs. i'm a big fan of socrates (and plato, who was his student), who opted for death over exile in 399 b.c.
i love this painting ("the death of socrates" by jacques-louis david). i like to think of socrates, finger pointed in the air, shouting "shove it up your puckered assholes!"
martin luther king jr. of course fits the mold of a martyr. i'm not a great fan of u2, but there's a version of "pride" where quotes from martin luther king are overlayed sporadically and it honestly gets me emotional.
i also think of john and bobby kennedy, thomas more, abraham lincoln, and to a much lesser extent kurt cobain. there's something intangibly awe-inspiring about those who put principle above their own lives and that's the ideal we should all endeavour for.
if doubt exists that racism is alive and well here in 2006, yesterday during a meeting one of the other guys (the boss's son, actually) who works here said something to the effect that he was surprised that all schools in louisiana were off for a day recognizing martin luther king. i find it abhorrent, but i can't really say fie in front of the boss, his son, or his son-in-law (also working here). as soon as i find another job i'm going to encorporate "fucking ignorant racist" into my workplace vocabulary.
Friday, January 13, 2006
bye bye uteri
i'm not writing much more about say-anything strip search shoot first sloppy seconds sammy, i just wanted to use the alliteration.
thanks corporate media--way to make the story about his wife crying. the hearings have been portrayed as the "seinfeld" of congressional proceedings--a show about nothing.
forget that sammy okayed police shooting an unarmed 15-year old in the back of the head while he was fleeing. he'll get confirmed and we're effed in the A, yet again. i feel this way and i'm male, i can only imagine the terror women must (or should) feel right now at the notion that a (another) judge who believes roe v. wade isn't settled law and the right to privacy is not implied in the constitution (constructionist dickholes) is about to be on the supreme court.
thanks corporate media--way to make the story about his wife crying. the hearings have been portrayed as the "seinfeld" of congressional proceedings--a show about nothing.
forget that sammy okayed police shooting an unarmed 15-year old in the back of the head while he was fleeing. he'll get confirmed and we're effed in the A, yet again. i feel this way and i'm male, i can only imagine the terror women must (or should) feel right now at the notion that a (another) judge who believes roe v. wade isn't settled law and the right to privacy is not implied in the constitution (constructionist dickholes) is about to be on the supreme court.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
sloppy seconds alito
i have little doubt that samuel alito has a.) little to no respect for personal privacy (abortion abortion abortion), b.) has a very narrow interpretation of the constitution, c.) believes in allotting the executive branch authoritative powers over practically everything, and most disturbingly d.) is a white supremecist.
this is an article from the nation concerning his membership in c.a.p. (concerned alumni for princeton), which is/was ostensibly an upper-class kkk.
ronald reagan chose a small town in mississippi called philadelphia to launch his 1980 presidential campaign. the only significance about this location is that three civil rights' workers were murdered there in 1964. reagan made reference to "states rights" in his speech, which everyone knows is a code word for southern racist sympathizers.
it was a gigantic wink-wink to white supremacists that he was sympatico.
alito has said that he only listed c.a.p. on his 1985 application to curry favor with his potential employer, and that the views expressed by the organization are not necessarily his. so, either alito is a supreme court nominee willing to lie to attain a job or a bigot wishing to roll back 50-plus years of civil rights progress.
either way i'm going to have to disapprove.
this is an article from the nation concerning his membership in c.a.p. (concerned alumni for princeton), which is/was ostensibly an upper-class kkk.
Alito CAPs His Bidalito took advantage of his membership in c.a.p. in '85 when applying for a job in the reagan administration. why would that be?
Eyal Press
Campus newspapers aren't generally known for making waves inside the Beltway. Recently, however, the Daily Princetonian published a story that merits attention from senators gearing up for the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, George W. Bush's nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. As Chanakya Sethi reported in a November 18 article for the paper, in 1985 Princeton graduate and conservative Republican Alito sought to impress his colleagues in the Reagan Administration, where he was applying to become deputy assistant attorney general, by touting his membership in an organization called Concerned Alumni of Princeton.
Launched in 1972, the year Alito graduated, CAP had an innocuous-sounding name that disguised a less benign agenda, which included preventing women and minorities from entering an institution that had long been a bastion of white male privilege. In a 1973 article in Prospect, a magazine CAP published, Shelby Cullom Davis, one of its founders, harked back to the days when a gathering of Princeton alumni consisted of "a body of men, relatively homogeneous in interests and backgrounds." Lamented Cullom Davis: "I cannot envisage a similar happening in the future with an undergraduate student population of approximately 40% women and minorities, such as the Administration has proposed." Another article published that same year bemoaned the fact that "the makeup of the Princeton student body has changed drastically for the worse" in recent years--Princeton had begun admitting women in 1969--and wondered aloud what might happen if the university adopted a "sex-blind" policy "removing limits on the number of women." In an unsuccessful effort to forestall this frightening development, the executive committee of CAP published a statement in December 1973 that affirmed unequivocally, "Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy."
By the time Alito was readying his 1985 job application with the Reagan Administration, the admission of women and minorities was well established at Nassau Hall, but this did not stop CAP from lamenting the consequences. "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place," fretted a 1983 Prospect essay titled "In Defense of Elitism." "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children." By this point the editor of Prospect was Dinesh D'Souza, who brought to its pages a new level of coarseness aimed at those who did not know their place. "Here at Princeton homosexuals are on the rampage," complained a 1984 news item in Prospect--this after a gay student group had dared to protest being denied permission to hold a dance at a campus club. Another article poked fun at Sally Frank, a Princeton alumna who was suing the university for denying women access to all-male eating clubs. It noted that a Rhode Island woman who'd won a discrimination suit against a mining company had subsequently died in an on-the-job accident. "Sally Frank, take note," it quipped.
Some argue that Alito's membership in the organization hardly proves he shared such views. "It would be outrageously inaccurate to say Sam was deeply involved in the group, and he certainly wasn't in charge of choosing the articles," T. Harding Jones, who edited Prospect during the 1970s, told me, adding that CAP's main goals were strengthening the alumni's voice and championing a more ideologically balanced curriculum. Diane Weeks begs to differ. Weeks graduated from Princeton three years after Alito did and went on to work with him as an assistant US Attorney in New Jersey. In an interview she took pains to stress that she considers Alito "a man of integrity" with a first-rate legal mind. But, she added, "when I saw CAP on that 1985 job application, I was flabbergasted. I was totally stunned. I couldn't believe it." CAP, she said, "made it clear to women like me that we were not wanted on campus. And he is touting his membership in this group in 1985, thirteen years after he graduated. He's not a young man by this point, and I don't buy for a second that he was doing it just to get a job. Membership in CAP gives a good sense of what someone's personal beliefs are. I'm very troubled by this, and if I were on the Senate I would want some answers."
She is not alone. On the same day the article in the Daily Princetonian appeared, People for the American Way requested access to the records of CAP currently stored at the Library of Congress, in the archive of former National Review publisher William Rusher, so that the full story of its formation and, perhaps, of Alito's role in it can be learned. In the meantime, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee might take the time to leaf through some of Prospect's back issues and formulate questions for the candidate. Is the Princeton graduate slated to replace the first female Supreme Court Justice proud of his affiliation with an organization that attempted to prevent women and minorities from receiving the same education he did? If not, why did he flaunt his membership in it? What does this say about his character, and about the kind of place he would ultimately like America to be?
ronald reagan chose a small town in mississippi called philadelphia to launch his 1980 presidential campaign. the only significance about this location is that three civil rights' workers were murdered there in 1964. reagan made reference to "states rights" in his speech, which everyone knows is a code word for southern racist sympathizers.
it was a gigantic wink-wink to white supremacists that he was sympatico.
alito has said that he only listed c.a.p. on his 1985 application to curry favor with his potential employer, and that the views expressed by the organization are not necessarily his. so, either alito is a supreme court nominee willing to lie to attain a job or a bigot wishing to roll back 50-plus years of civil rights progress.
either way i'm going to have to disapprove.
Monday, January 09, 2006
title
it's a trepidacious time when i'm bored and melancholy. when i'm in this state of mind i get about a halfstep away from blowing a wad on nothing but cd's i've never heard of from cd baby. it's tantamount to women eating ice cream after a breakup i guess.
buying cd's is one of the simple things i find contentment in (short of actual "happiness"). like the first diet pepsi (caffeine) of the morning, certain songs, watching tv in bed before going to sleep, going to sleep, xanax, coffee on saturday, the weekend edition of "the today show" (MUCH less annoying than the couric/lauer weekday abortions), george w. slaughtering the english language, my cat, crossword puzzles, heroin, copulation, copulation with heroin, and more that i can't call to mind presently.
i also used to love going to cd warehouse to fish through discount bins. there were times when i'd walk out with 10+ cd's. unfortunately, and like several things i enjoy, cd warehouse no longer has a retail store in lafayette (or the whole of louisiana, actually). now i'd have to go to the mall to physically buy cd's, and it'd be a cold day in lafayette before that happened.
buying cd's is one of the simple things i find contentment in (short of actual "happiness"). like the first diet pepsi (caffeine) of the morning, certain songs, watching tv in bed before going to sleep, going to sleep, xanax, coffee on saturday, the weekend edition of "the today show" (MUCH less annoying than the couric/lauer weekday abortions), george w. slaughtering the english language, my cat, crossword puzzles, heroin, copulation, copulation with heroin, and more that i can't call to mind presently.
i also used to love going to cd warehouse to fish through discount bins. there were times when i'd walk out with 10+ cd's. unfortunately, and like several things i enjoy, cd warehouse no longer has a retail store in lafayette (or the whole of louisiana, actually). now i'd have to go to the mall to physically buy cd's, and it'd be a cold day in lafayette before that happened.
monday? is it monday?
on occasion my personal contacts seem standoffish towards me. this may be actual or a complete fabrication of my mind given its default pessimistic nature. regardless, at such times i go into total recluse mode -- i.e. i make no attempts to communicate with the outside world. it's a semi-scientific method of evaluating my worth to people in my limited personal circle of acquaintences.
it's also somewhat belligerent pride, or prideful belligerence. i refuse to grovel for company and/or validation from people i know (or don't know). they can suck it. or maybe i'm just feigning anger to eschew loneliness and depression
a side effect is that i've actually grown very comfortable with solitude, perhaps to a fault. is talking to yourself in order to have stimulating conversation a harbinger that you maybe spend too much time alone? i don't actually talk to myself (unless you count inner monologue), but mine is essentially the same question.
i'm worried about becoming comfortably numb.
on the other hand friendship is (or should be) a two-way street. i don't think wanting to be met halfway is excessive.
it's also somewhat belligerent pride, or prideful belligerence. i refuse to grovel for company and/or validation from people i know (or don't know). they can suck it. or maybe i'm just feigning anger to eschew loneliness and depression
a side effect is that i've actually grown very comfortable with solitude, perhaps to a fault. is talking to yourself in order to have stimulating conversation a harbinger that you maybe spend too much time alone? i don't actually talk to myself (unless you count inner monologue), but mine is essentially the same question.
i'm worried about becoming comfortably numb.
on the other hand friendship is (or should be) a two-way street. i don't think wanting to be met halfway is excessive.
they all love their petroleum
i'm genuinely starting to overtly dislike ALL evangelicals. i posted the whole wall street journal article below. i never read the wsj -- i read about this article on the huffington post. it's not long.
now when they say they anointed the seats with "oil", is that actual, flammable oil? couldn't that be construed as attempted arson (aside from just completely daffy)?
if islamic suicide bombers are considered religious extremists, how should we classify this evangelical voodoo? i can't call it religious moderation. moderates practice their faith and contentedly allow others to practice theirs unfettered.
obviously there are varying degrees of religious fundamentalism -- some involving dynamite vests, and some involving anointing inanimate objects (george bush, for example). frankly though i'm starting to think that even the moderates, all religions, are dangerous.
Ministers Say They Blessed Seats Ahead of Alito Hearing
By JUNE KRONHOLZ Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNALJanuary 5, 2006 7:20 p.m.
WASHINGTON -- Insisting that God "certainly needs to be involved" in the Supreme Court confirmation process, three Christian ministers today blessed the doors of the hearing room where Senate Judiciary Committee members will begin considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito on Monday.
Capitol Hill police barred them from entering the room to continue what they called a consecration service. But in a bit of one-upsmanship, the three announced that they had let themselves in a day earlier, touching holy oil to the seats where Judge Alito, the senators, witnesses, Senate staffers and the press will sit, and praying for each of the 13 committee members by name.
"We did adequately apply oil to all the seats," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, who identified himself as an evangelical Christian and as president of the National Clergy Council in Washington.
Rev. Schenck called the consecration service the kick-off in a series of prayer meetings that will continue throughout the confirmation hearing.
Capitol Hill police said they weren't aware that the three had entered the hearing room earlier, but added that hearing rooms typically aren't locked because "they're not of interest to anyone." Lt. Dominick Costa said the Judiciary Committee room will be swept for bombs and perhaps for electronic bugging equipment before the hearing begins.
The three ministers insisted they weren't taking sides in the Alito debate. "This is not a pro-Alito prayer," insisted the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. With abortion, public prayer, gay marriage and right-to-life issues among those topping public debate, however, "God…is interested in what goes on" in the nomination hearing, Rev. Schenck said.
The two men, along with Grace Nwachukwu, general manager of a group called Faith and Action, read three Psalms outside the committee room, knelt to say the Lord's Prayer and marked a cross in oil on the committee door before leaving.
Rev. Schenck said he and Rev. Mahoney had blessed the same room before hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts last year. That hearing "went very well," Rev. Schenck said.
now when they say they anointed the seats with "oil", is that actual, flammable oil? couldn't that be construed as attempted arson (aside from just completely daffy)?
if islamic suicide bombers are considered religious extremists, how should we classify this evangelical voodoo? i can't call it religious moderation. moderates practice their faith and contentedly allow others to practice theirs unfettered.
obviously there are varying degrees of religious fundamentalism -- some involving dynamite vests, and some involving anointing inanimate objects (george bush, for example). frankly though i'm starting to think that even the moderates, all religions, are dangerous.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
love enters through the nose
i'm struggling to understand the concept of "body spray". is it deodorant? is it cologne?
it seems like the valentine's day of hygiene products -- a fabricated, randomly-conjured method of bilking more money out of people for something they don't even remotely need (granted, some people smell awful and are in dire need of cleaning, but if they can't master the soap stage then an aerosol isn't going to do much but combine with the b.o., like spraying lysol after you leave a heinous triple-x shoot-down in the bathroom).
are soap, deodorant and cologne not enough? why do we need another step in there? i refuse to buy any. i hate commercialism. suck it axe.
for guys looking to bag women when they go out the spray-on stuff is only mitigating the odds, since pheromones naturally secreted by the body are attractants to the opposite sex, and masking them only reduces your chances. theoretically you'd be better off not even showering before going out.
that must be it -- i blame my responsible hygiene practices for rendering me sexless throughout high school.
okay, college.
it seems like the valentine's day of hygiene products -- a fabricated, randomly-conjured method of bilking more money out of people for something they don't even remotely need (granted, some people smell awful and are in dire need of cleaning, but if they can't master the soap stage then an aerosol isn't going to do much but combine with the b.o., like spraying lysol after you leave a heinous triple-x shoot-down in the bathroom).
are soap, deodorant and cologne not enough? why do we need another step in there? i refuse to buy any. i hate commercialism. suck it axe.
for guys looking to bag women when they go out the spray-on stuff is only mitigating the odds, since pheromones naturally secreted by the body are attractants to the opposite sex, and masking them only reduces your chances. theoretically you'd be better off not even showering before going out.
that must be it -- i blame my responsible hygiene practices for rendering me sexless throughout high school.
okay, college.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
the city on a hill
this is somewhat a continuance of my previous post.
the wire-tapping scandal made me think of how results-based this administration is. if the outcome is desireable or somehow noble in their view then the means are justified.
apply this to the torture issue, the war in iraq, tax cuts at the top (and supply-side economics), election fraud, and now our national security and privacy. if they have to cheat, sacrifice innocent lives or act otherwise nefariously to ensure what they perceive as national security and furtherence of the american ideal (good luck defining that) then the methods by which those goals are achieved are irrelevant.
but isn't the underlying american principle that a civliized and free society can be maintained through righteous means? aren't the measures by which we glean and maintain freedom the critical aspect of having that freedom? it would be easy to just nuke any country threatening us, kill anyone suspected of a crime, recess-appoint someone congress would not approve of, torture someone who may have pertinent information and lock up protesters, all in the name of maintaining "freedom".
but doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the american principle?
we are supposed to be better. we are supposed to rise above the inhumane tactics of our enemies. "an eye for an eye" isn't good enough for us. in order to maintain that america is the greatest country on earth and preach morality we have to actually live morally and emphasize principle, regardless of circumstance or emotion.
the 2001 attacks were horrid (why do i even need to say that), but our actions since have been almost purely vengeful and paranoid and opportunistic.
revenge is not the same as justice. it is a weakness. it is failure. it is the inability to keep emotion from trumping reason. the desire to retaliate against someone or something regardless of their implicated responsibility is only blind, carpetbombing bloodlust, which has been an almost subconscious manipulator in our culture during this regime.
the wire-tapping scandal made me think of how results-based this administration is. if the outcome is desireable or somehow noble in their view then the means are justified.
apply this to the torture issue, the war in iraq, tax cuts at the top (and supply-side economics), election fraud, and now our national security and privacy. if they have to cheat, sacrifice innocent lives or act otherwise nefariously to ensure what they perceive as national security and furtherence of the american ideal (good luck defining that) then the methods by which those goals are achieved are irrelevant.
but isn't the underlying american principle that a civliized and free society can be maintained through righteous means? aren't the measures by which we glean and maintain freedom the critical aspect of having that freedom? it would be easy to just nuke any country threatening us, kill anyone suspected of a crime, recess-appoint someone congress would not approve of, torture someone who may have pertinent information and lock up protesters, all in the name of maintaining "freedom".
but doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the american principle?
we are supposed to be better. we are supposed to rise above the inhumane tactics of our enemies. "an eye for an eye" isn't good enough for us. in order to maintain that america is the greatest country on earth and preach morality we have to actually live morally and emphasize principle, regardless of circumstance or emotion.
the 2001 attacks were horrid (why do i even need to say that), but our actions since have been almost purely vengeful and paranoid and opportunistic.
revenge is not the same as justice. it is a weakness. it is failure. it is the inability to keep emotion from trumping reason. the desire to retaliate against someone or something regardless of their implicated responsibility is only blind, carpetbombing bloodlust, which has been an almost subconscious manipulator in our culture during this regime.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
lie vs. lie
it turns out that i had the flu for the past several days and didn't even know it. i've never had the flu so i thought it was the usual congestion/cold bout i experience generally once a year.
i should call all the "ladies" i've "been with" over the past six days and advise them to get vaccinated but "unfortunately" my cell contact list was purged due to the wash/rinse/repeat cycle.
i am feeling better though. also since i worked on monday i'm going to have friday off. i may pretend that new year's eve is this weekend and celebrate appropriately. but meh, what does it matter. i need no occasion to imbibe.
the president is saying the illegal wire-tapping he's been authorizing -- i don't think he actually qualified it as "illegal" himself, but it is -- is warranted to ensure our security, but it's a completely moot rationale for eavesdropping. there are legal measures by which such spying can be conducted, with approval of the FISA (foreign intelligence surveillance act) court. so if legal means were and are readily available and completely viable for the purposes the president cited, why do it in the clandestine manner he did?
listening in on 500 people a day (according to the new york times) amounts to tens of thousands a year. plus this has been occurring since early 2002. with that volume of calls being intercepted how feasible is it, especially taking into account this administration's track record of rancor for the bill of rights, that they're only monitoring international calls with al quaeda suspects?
not. bloody.
here's the rub i find in all of this: the president and his parrots claim that we were attacked because certain people "hated our freedom". and, if i understand correctly, his plan to thwart future attacks is to whittle away at those freedoms? isn't that tantamount to preventing someone from killing you by committing suicide?
it's all about (or SHOULD be about) finding a balance between civil rights and security. frankly though that isn't even the issue here since this wire-tapping fiasco probably has very little to do with collecting data about actual al-quaeda operatives. and even if it were, there are legal measures in place for them to be conducted.
is the FISA court a big hinderance to the data mining? the bush administration submitted 1,758 applications to the FISA court in 2004 of which NONE were rejectd. his explanation that they had to be conducted in a timely manner doesn't hold water either, because FISA court aapproval can be obtained posthumously after the eavesdropping takes place, within 72 hours.
so i don't see any way in which this spying is defensible. of course they'll employ the usual false narratives and argue that it was necessary to protect the american people blah blah blah i-ran-into-a-tree-again NINE-ELEVEN, but i'll bet my right bloated testicle that the bulk of those intercepts were not of international terror suspects.
benjamin franklin said "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither".
i'll also throw out a relevant hellen keller quote: "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is a daring adventure or nothing at all."
i should call all the "ladies" i've "been with" over the past six days and advise them to get vaccinated but "unfortunately" my cell contact list was purged due to the wash/rinse/repeat cycle.
i am feeling better though. also since i worked on monday i'm going to have friday off. i may pretend that new year's eve is this weekend and celebrate appropriately. but meh, what does it matter. i need no occasion to imbibe.
the president is saying the illegal wire-tapping he's been authorizing -- i don't think he actually qualified it as "illegal" himself, but it is -- is warranted to ensure our security, but it's a completely moot rationale for eavesdropping. there are legal measures by which such spying can be conducted, with approval of the FISA (foreign intelligence surveillance act) court. so if legal means were and are readily available and completely viable for the purposes the president cited, why do it in the clandestine manner he did?
listening in on 500 people a day (according to the new york times) amounts to tens of thousands a year. plus this has been occurring since early 2002. with that volume of calls being intercepted how feasible is it, especially taking into account this administration's track record of rancor for the bill of rights, that they're only monitoring international calls with al quaeda suspects?
not. bloody.
here's the rub i find in all of this: the president and his parrots claim that we were attacked because certain people "hated our freedom". and, if i understand correctly, his plan to thwart future attacks is to whittle away at those freedoms? isn't that tantamount to preventing someone from killing you by committing suicide?
it's all about (or SHOULD be about) finding a balance between civil rights and security. frankly though that isn't even the issue here since this wire-tapping fiasco probably has very little to do with collecting data about actual al-quaeda operatives. and even if it were, there are legal measures in place for them to be conducted.
is the FISA court a big hinderance to the data mining? the bush administration submitted 1,758 applications to the FISA court in 2004 of which NONE were rejectd. his explanation that they had to be conducted in a timely manner doesn't hold water either, because FISA court aapproval can be obtained posthumously after the eavesdropping takes place, within 72 hours.
so i don't see any way in which this spying is defensible. of course they'll employ the usual false narratives and argue that it was necessary to protect the american people blah blah blah i-ran-into-a-tree-again NINE-ELEVEN, but i'll bet my right bloated testicle that the bulk of those intercepts were not of international terror suspects.
benjamin franklin said "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither".
i'll also throw out a relevant hellen keller quote: "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is a daring adventure or nothing at all."
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
citrus is the new cherry
in la-la it reached 81 degrees yesterday, and the temperature has been comparable for several days now. i have had my air conditioner on during the months of december and january for the first time that i can remember. couple the radical climate changes with being packed onto an airplane riddled with winter nose-blowers and allergy mongers, as i was last week, and it's not surprising that i'm downing robitussin and cough drops on tuesday the way i usually down tanqueray on friday.
yesterday was a federal holiday for everyone but me so i couldn't even go to my g.p. for a cortisone injection -- never have i wanted to overpay for a shot in the ass more than now. t'ain't no justice in this world.
it's not just cold weather that makes you sick, or just hot weather, it's the flip-flopping (additional 2006 resolution: never use the term "flip-flopping" again) between the two that throws my system into chaos. the fever comes and goes, my throat is inconsistently (thank god for small miracles) sore, my nostrils are fickle and i keep coughing to dislodge something that may not exist. i hunt the phantom loogie.
i'm greatful for hall's sugarfree citrus cough drops and tylenol pm (as always).
a little cold treatment/movie trivia for the kids -- name the movie the following quote is derived from (no cheating): "he snorts nasal spray? do you know where i can score some?"
yesterday was a federal holiday for everyone but me so i couldn't even go to my g.p. for a cortisone injection -- never have i wanted to overpay for a shot in the ass more than now. t'ain't no justice in this world.
it's not just cold weather that makes you sick, or just hot weather, it's the flip-flopping (additional 2006 resolution: never use the term "flip-flopping" again) between the two that throws my system into chaos. the fever comes and goes, my throat is inconsistently (thank god for small miracles) sore, my nostrils are fickle and i keep coughing to dislodge something that may not exist. i hunt the phantom loogie.
i'm greatful for hall's sugarfree citrus cough drops and tylenol pm (as always).
a little cold treatment/movie trivia for the kids -- name the movie the following quote is derived from (no cheating): "he snorts nasal spray? do you know where i can score some?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)