<$BlogRSDUrl$>

picture me giving a damn...

7.27.2004

 
alright, i'm off to Brussels for a two-week sojourn or, as i like to call it, an extended actionpacked whirlwind drinking-bout across the pond. Where the fancy (and not so fancy) booze will be constantly flowing, skirmishes with Eurothugs and preening America-haters will be inevitable (and, hopefully, exhilarating and life-affirming!) and blogging from me will more than likely be light.

Y'all hold down the fort for me. Adios, muchachos.

7.26.2004

 
ah, geez...do i have to link to this? why yes, yes i do. only because i care.

via dave barry

 
True liberals are fighting a multi-fronted war: against those smarmy reflexive America-bashers within the U.S. and their numerous allies across the planet, against insane Fascists who strive for nothing less than the utter destruction of the United States, and against those who envision a sort of theocracy within our own country- the religious right who want to shove their reactionary agenda down our throats. Those who maintain that social liberalism and a robust WoT are complimentary and, indeed, mutually vital to our future are in good company, but our numbers aren't exactly overwhelming. Criticism of those within our ranks is a good thing, but we still have much bigger fish to fry and many more people to persuade and enlist for our cause...

 
and Sullivan responds with a one-two punch...

the problem with most of his critics, both from the "left" and from the "right", is that they're the true one-issue blowhards who succumb to inflexibility and myopia and who start to bluster when they encounter someone who does not view the whole Bush-Kerry matchup as an easy black and white decision. I'll continue to maintain that, despite his many flaws and gaffes, Sullivan is still much more honest and thoughtful than most writers out there.

 
there's been much sneering at andrew sullivan's apparent endorsement of john kerry in The Sunday Times; some of it is warranted but much of it is mere hyperventilating. First of all, i'm not so sure Sullivan has actually endorsed FrankenKerry. The closest he comes is stating, at the end of his piece, that he is "moving slowly and reluctantly toward the notion that Kerry may be the right man." I don't read that as an endorsement. Not exactly the affirmation I'd be looking for if I were running for president; he sounds like he's conflicted, having a healthy argument with himself, and considering the idea. And who can blame him? Mr. Sullivan, a gay man, is someone who has every right to feel disillusioned, even disgusted, with the fact that Dubya chose, for whatever reason, to indulge the cynical, selfrighteous and maddeningly intolerant religious right with his support of a stupid, stupid proposal to amend the constitution to specifically exclude gay people from enjoying the same right as we heteros have when it comes to marriage. Fine, many have been turned off by Sullivan's active and incessant interest in the issue; but, i'm willing to venture a guess: most, if not all, who are tired of this issue are probably not gay and are somewhat removed and indifferent to a group of people who have been unfairly marginalized. Besides, c'mon, Sullivan still fights the good fight with regard to the WoT, drug legalization, Michael Moore's utter degeneracy, the hypocrisy and bias of the media, etc...

don't turn on him. his assertion that Kerry may be the more "conservative" choice is, of course, ridiculous. (Vodka Pundit has a good post on this here). But it's not a deal-breaker. Andrew Sullivan has done so much within the blogosphere to advance the ideals of commonsense and decency that i'm willing to forgive his momentary lapses of judgment. Myself, the WoT is still the overriding issue that towers above all others right now. But if i were gay, i'm not so sure that would be the case. A little sympathy and solidarity for those whose experiences and day-to-day realities and concerns are different than the norm is not a bad thing. Especially when most of the time they're right about so much.

 
anti-drug vaccines?

commonsense & wonder points us to this eyebrow-raiser, another example of "heart in the right place but, seemingly, head is up the ass". and it kinda creeps me out...

7.24.2004

 
ahhhhh, Mr. Peebles! Look at him!

h/t jay reding

 
Because they know Nazi-esque propaganda filth when they see it. Much more than the screechy, fawning and historically pampered and tunnel-visioned pseudointellects of this country...

via sully

7.21.2004

 
Old man take a look at my life I'm a lot like you
I need someone to love me the whole day through
Ah, one look in my eyes and you can tell that's true.

 
wow, no shit?

right now, on cnn's homepage, right under "more news", we get this headline- Experts: Beheadings pervert laws. When one opens that link the headline in the new page is altered a bit to "...pervert legitimate law".

Goddamn, thank the lord we have experts to clear up the muddy waters when it comes to the legality of kidnapping innocent people and sawing their heads off on videotape for the entire world to see. I know most of us would be in the dark because of the exceedingly complex nature of this vexing issue.

Then we have the subheadline (or whatever you call it, i ain't no journalist as sure as i ain't an expert): Muslim captors who behead their hostages call it execution, but many more call it murder.

Yeah. I think I would call it that too, especially since the majority seem to believe it. I mean, go with the flow, right? But...do you think, perchance, i might even go so far as calling it...evil? Oh my god, no way, i'm just taking it too far, i'm betraying a lack of intellectual sophistication, a jaundiced subjective view, now people are going to snicker at me. They are going to snicker and roll their eyes. "He said the 'E' word. Fucking hillbilly."

Although I have to get up early for work tomorrow, i kinda feel like drinking myself silly right now. Salud.

7.20.2004

 
Hot Pockets

Some rather incriminating apparel of Sandy Berger's on display over at Who Knew?...

 
so next week i take a much deserved, and highly anticipated, vacation. a little two week Eurobreak. i'll be hangin out in Brussels mostly, with possible excursions into northern germany, amsterdam, london, and prague, among other places. but i ain't going to no France! why would i want to cavort with a buncha pretentious, smelly greenslipperyskinned antiamerican jew-haters?!

just kidding. kind of. i mean, perhaps that's too harsh. yeah, it probably is. i usually effuse a bit more sophistication and nuance: i shan't paint the french and their beloved country with such a broad and coarse brush. but it seems like if i did visit France it would somehow cheapen the trip. wouldn't it?

now is not the time. maybe, one day, when those bastards come to their senses...

btw, i'm sure Sharon is absolutely heartbroken that he's been disinvited by that hypocritical crooked phony Chirac to visit La Pays Premier de le Chic Anti-Sémitisme (my french sux, this i understand...). It reminds me of the time my sister, oh-so-long ago, disinvited me to her 4 hour dance recital because i said something negative about her costume; something to the effect of "you're gonna look like a total fucking dork in that thing!"

i mean, he's gotta be so torn up right now.

7.19.2004

 
people who use the phrase "me thinks" tend to annoy the bejesus out of me. not nearly as bad as those who use the adjective "delicious" for anything other than describing food or beverages. but it does make me wince. then why in the hell do i use it?!

that's easy. it's cuz i gots The Velveteen Touch of a Dandy Fop. i really, really do...

 
she never rocked. ok, maybe at one time she did, back when i was playing with Tonka Trucks and peelin' out in my Big Wheel, but i don't quite remember. and i kinda doubt it.

Desperado for attention, me thinks...

 
uh oh.

i'm gonna relish seeing how this one is explained away...

 
"dropping mad scientifics"

seems like most people are aware that Dick "PottyMouth" Cheney told Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to "go fuck yourself", but, kids, do you know what came after? well...it sounds like they both "brung" it! Paul Simms of The New Yorker has the goods.

 
there's absolutely no doubt she rocks...

 
there's a damn good chance that this will rock.

h/t neoliberal

7.15.2004

 
Secretary of Education Rod Paige to the NAACP: "You do not own, and you are not the arbiters of, African-American authenticity," said Paige, who rose from segregated Mississippi to become President Bush's education chief."
 
via Ramblings' Journal.
 
sadly, an organization that has proved pivotal in bettering the civil rights situation for black people in this country continues down the road of stifling narrowmindedness and a cynically naked, and in the long run, crippling, political bias.  Future strong black leaders will not come from this group, but will be independent-minded, progressive (enlightened and forward looking!) thinkers who refuse to wrap themselves up in resentment and perpetual victimhood ideology.





 
it's gotta be mine too...
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "No one lied. No one made up the intelligence. No one inserted things into the dossier against the advice of the intelligence services. Everyone genuinely tried to do their best in good faith for the country in circumstances of acute difficulty. That issue of good faith should now be at an end ... But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy ... I have searched my conscience, not in the spirit of obstinacy, but in genuine reconsideration in the light of what we now know, in answer to that question. And my answer would be that the evidence of Saddam's WMD was indeed less certain, less well-founded than was stated at the time. But I cannot go from there to the opposite extreme. On any basis he retained complete strategic intent on WMD and significant capability. The only reason he ever let the inspectors back into Iraq was that he had 180,000 US and British troops on his doorstep ... Had we backed down in respect of Saddam, we would never have taken the stand we needed to take on WMD, never have got progress on Libya ... and we would have left Saddam in charge of Iraq, with every malign intent and capability still in place and every dictator with the same intent everywhere immeasurably emboldened. For any mistakes made, as the report finds, in good faith, I of course take full responsibility. But I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all." - Tony Blair, yesterday. It's a classy, honest, intelligent and sincere rebuke to the anti-war arguments. If only the president had the character and strength to say something as candid.
andrew sullivan


7.14.2004

 
"so i'm blazing with my friends..."




"Seriously, everybody. Don't go getting soft on me this summer. You're sitting around the pool all day, chasing the muff around. Break down!"




"there's a fiesta in the making, as we speak."




"Let me tell ya what MelbaToast is packin here..."




"that song is about aliens?"

7.13.2004

 
Amici Forever. "the world's first opera band!"

Jo, Tsakane, Geoff, Nick and David.

sweet.

 
Al Franken, comic genius.

thusly: Greg Evigan, comic genius. Liberace, comic genius. Linda Tripp, comic genius. Jim Jones, comic genius. David Berkowitz, comic genius...

ok i'll stop now.

 
"Cool Whip in my hair..."

cuz you've always wanted to know the straight dope on this classic, am i right or am i right?

 
When you boil down the posturing of the Moore—boosting genre, you find at last a very strange and hypocritical exercise in special pleading and excuse-making. What Moore's quasi-defenders are telling us is that an illogical, dishonest and tendentious film offers an inarticulate indictment of an evil Administration. The trouble is, if we take this morally confused verdict at face value, we reach not an indictment but an equivalence—not the intended conclusion that Moore's film is "worth seeing and debating" but the rather different conclusion that Michael Moore is morally on par with George Bush, and that his film has all of the moral credibility of an ad for the Bush campaign. Is that really where these people want to go?

I guess it is. In his review of The Clinton Wars—Sidney Blumenthal's memoir of the Clinton years—Christopher Hitchens offers the following glimpse into the mentality of the liberal "apparatchik":

I'll never forget a Georgetown dinner, at which [Blumenthal] was probably the most conservative person in attendance, where various liberals wondered aloud what the limits of 'lesser evil' politics might be. One misgiving after another was mentioned, until Blumenthal impatiently quelled the bleats. 'You don't understand,' he said. 'It's our turn.'

"Our turn." Such is the standard to which the wise now repair, and which they describe in all candor as calling for "our propaganda" (Todd Gitlin's phrase). The strategy here is to mimic from the Left what the Left professes to hate about the Right. You could call it Machiavellian ("it is necessary to learn how not to be good…") or even Miltonian ("To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell…")—so long as you forgot the stature of its practitioners. But I don't want to insult them. One eventually learns that there's no feasible way to insult a crew like this one: there's no insult you can hurl at them that they aren't content to hurl at themselves. There's no contempt like self-contempt.

Irfan Khawaja of ISIS. Read the whole thing here

 
Let the preeminent essayist of our time know that his service to the cause is extremely valuable and much appreciated: buy Hitch a drink! damn it, this is a great idea- i kinda wish i would have thought of it first.

7.12.2004

 
via killpoets, here's an interesting essay on Richard Rorty and the founding of a "new public religious faith".

 
quite a lucid and gratifying interview with the great milton friedman, via chicago boyz...

7.11.2004

 
mark steyn's take on the Iraqi-Nigerian uranium SOTUA "scandal", redemption, and a river in Egypt.

 
Who We're Dealing With:
Today I heard a caller describe how "Fahrenheit 9/11" affected him; now he believed that the Bush administration attacked the Taliban and Iraq because the Saudis wanted it. The host pointed out that the Saudis didn't want it. The caller said "well, that's your opinion." Movies are facts, you see. Facts are just opinions.

and,

Again, the high-school-level thinking: "the rest of the world." It's simplistic to identify Iran, Iraq and North Korea as evil. It's simplistic to state in the immediate wake of 9/11 that nations are either with the terrorists, or the United States. But it's a sign of complex nuanced thinking to say that "the rest of the world . . . looks at us with disdain and disgust." Yes, the world poured out its heart; it cost them nothing. Hearts are easily tipped and just as easily refilled. When the French newspaper said "We are all Americans now" it sounded nice, and I suppose it was, but in retrospect it looks as if there was an undercurrent of appeasement and surrender: we are all Americans because we are all victims in a sense, non? We ceased to earn the precious coin of French approval when we fired the chief procurer for their favorite customer, Iraq. C'est dommage. We can live with it.

Wait until France gets a hard shot in the nose. Wait until France reacts with some nasty work. They'll get a golf-clap from the chattering class over here and a you-go-girl from Red America. France could nuke an Algerian terrorist camp and the rest of the world would tut-tut for a day, then ask if the missiles France used were for sale. And of course the answer would be oui.

from the everbrilliant James Lileks in a superb piece he wrote last week, clobbering Michael Moore and all of his frenzied dupes that shout out "amen!" everytime the big guy takes a crap.

Brothers and sisters, please remember: I understand that Bush is not an ideal president. The paleoconservatism that defines his domestic politics is clearly wrong, outdated and will lead to a dead-end. But only a masturbating monkey would call his administration a "regime" and promote michael moore's pathetically delusional vision as some kind of remotely valid, let alone admirable, alternative. Moore's world truly is a horrific place- it has to be. All the sensory input he receives, and whatever else that is swept up into his dark vortex, has to be filtered through that febrile, neurosis-wracked brain of his- one filled with self-aggrandizing visions of onanistic supremacy and an undifferentiating hatred towards anyone not on his trip. In a decade or two his entire ouevre as a whole will be regarded by anyone with a shred of intellectual and moral dignity as this century's Mein Kampf. And the rueful multitude who swallowed this bitter sludge will be left with nothing but a despairing culpability and disgrace. I don't think they'll be getting too much sympathy.

 
Van Hammersly's american history lesson of the day: "and that's when Lincoln said...'don't dis my homies!'"

7.10.2004

 
kids, it's time for a little saturday afternoon fun: rock, paper, saddam!

7.08.2004

 
yes

7.05.2004

 
the onion interviews The Kids in the Hall. damn it! why couldn't they all just get along?! the world would be a much cooler place if they had...

 
Hitchens on Trotsky. just cuz.

 
this weekend i drove up to the top of Pike's Peak. standing on the summit, at 14,100 feet, we actually saw lightning form below us and strike the city of colorado springs. and on the way back down i saw me a yellow-bellied marmot! two of 'em, actually, 3 minuntes apart. when i stopped to take a gander at the first one it "chucked" (chirped) at me and quickly scampered into its hole. the second one pretty much did the same thing. and that was my yellow-bellied marmot experience of the summer.

yellow-bellied marmots! ya gotta love 'em. later that day i got a giant grape slurpee with a blue straw.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Listed on Blogwise Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com