If you could make a movie about anything, what would it be about?
I would have said THIS, but George Clooney's already on it.
If you could make a movie about anything, what would it be about?
I would have said THIS, but George Clooney's already on it.
Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.
Sounds all high minded and groovy, right? Guess again: Keith's replacement is former Noo Yawk Governor and well-known john, Eliot Spitzer. So much for the "values" of openness and loyalty...
The election board has determined that enough signatures exist to start the official recall of Gov. Scott Walker and Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch. Despite the claims that had it not been for Adolf Hitler and Mickey Mouse, only about 10 people would have signed these things, more than 900,000 signatures were verified against Walker and about 800,000 against Kleefisch.
With that “breaking news” hitting the airwaves last night, both sides took their turns to react to the recall. Both Kathleen Falk and Kathleen Vinehout noted they’ve been looking forward to this, which comes as no surprise to anyone. However, here’s the thing that really bugged me.
Republican spokesturd Ben Sparks called in and noted that it was the “liberal unions” who foisted this recall upon the “families of Wisconsin.”
The divide in this state is already big enough, thank you. Being more divisive isn’t really what most of us are shooting for here. Falk’s ads are trying to tap into this, by noting that she’ll work across the aisle to get people to work together etc. etc. If the previous 12 years are any indication, that’s unlikely to happen at any political level short of the Mayville Queen of Corn Sponsorship Committee. However, even if we’re all just paying lip service to the idea of “Knock it the fuck off,” it would be nice to see the governor’s party try to embrace that.
The bigger problem is that the divide is being drawn in a way that none of us should tolerate. “Liberals vs. Families” might be the next great iPhone app, but it sure as hell shouldn’t be the way we view our state.
Where do the majority of us sit? Probably in neither area. Watch the “Scott Walker fucked my state” commercials the local and national PACs are running and you can see tons of families. They showcase people concerned about their schools, their towns, their lack of 250,000 new jobs to choose from. All of those are concerns for families, liberals and anyone in between.
Watch the “Hi, I’m Scott Walker and I’m going to look like a normal guy” ads and you’ll see something else amazing. He talks about keeping the budget balanced, taxes under control and people chipping in to pay their share of things like health care and pensions. It sounds a lot like things most of us would approve of. No one out there is saying, “Let’s tax the fuck out of everyone and burn the money in the backyard.” If I’m in what Scott Walker views as the “liberals” camp, I’m an oddity that thinks debt and shitty financial acumen are bad ideas.
This is not a case of one group of people that wants one thing and another group that wants another, despite the best efforts of the Walker folk. Look at the damned signs and bumper stickers: “I Stand With Gov. Walker.” It’s like a giant game of red rover or the news team fight scene from “Anchorman.”
Instead, this is a case of HOW things are being accomplished. The “hack and slash” method employed by a man with no checks against him is what people really hate here if they’re trying to get him recalled. The “welcome to my reality” kick in the balls he delivered to state workers resonates with people who have less and want more. They can’t get it, so you shouldn’t have it.
Had this been a negotiation or even a fair fight, I think the backlash would have been far less severe. It has been a long time since we’ve seen someone willing and able to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war like this. That’s why it was such a stunning sucker punch. However, Walker’s approach was “build populism and then do what you want” and now people are suffering major buyer’s remorse.
The whole reason for this recall is actually based on a kid’s joke:
“Would you like to lose 10 pounds instantly?”
“Cut your head off.”
Only it’s not funny and people aren’t laughing.
Least of all this family man. Or liberal. Or both. Or neither.
Here's the other half of Citizens United coming home to roost: If money is speech, then money is protected speech on First Amendment grounds.
Raiden the former shelter ferret (who has since been adopted by a lovely family) stages a jailbreak, McQueen style, from his playpen:
You have to be KIDDING me. I know I like 'em old and scruffy, and that's not exactly the Justin Bieber set's cup of mead, but I wouldn't touch Littlefinger with the tip of my umbrella. Viserys really should be disqualified from any ranking like this based on the first damn episode, and Loras Tyrell, man, I'm not a dude so not his target demographic, but REALLY? He makes the list (along with characters who could charitably be referred to as Guy In The Back In the Crowd Scene Number Four) and the The Old Bear doesn't?
What about Ser Barristan the Bold?
At least Jory's on there. Stannis Baratheon doesn't even make the cut, and he's played by perhaps the most beautiful human being on the PLANET. I've always had a soft spot for Stannis, on the basis of he's usually right even if he can never make himself stop being an asshole about it, and when I heard they cast Stephen Dillane I knew all those chickens I sacrified to Ceiling Cat had not been in vain.
(So there's this show that's coming back on on Sunday and I'M A LITTLE BIT EXCITED.)
A student body president in Alpharetta, Ga., said he was removed from his leadership post after school administrators disagreed with an idea he proposed to make the titles of prom king and queen open to gay couples.
Reuben Lack, 18, was removed from his post on Feb. 8, 2012 for “pushing personal projects,” according a suit the teen filed in federal court.
“The student was essentially a poor leader,” Suzann Wilcox Jiles, attorney for the district said in a statement issued to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “He behaved in manner not becoming of student body president including but not limited to rescheduling meetings with little notice, directly going against the instructions of the faculty advisers.”
I am really getting back in touch with my inner 17-year-old girl because adults, seriously, are we doing anything right lately? Turn up the Beastie Boys, fuck authority, all that. Heavens. Rescheduling meetings, this kid was doing. If that got you kicked off a volunteer post for real, there'd be nobody left in America to do anything.
By the way, what the actual fucking fuck is this about:
Lack, whose Facebook says he is straight, alleged the suit that administrators at Alpharetta High School violated his first amendment rights when they shut down a student council meeting discussion on modifying the prom king and queen tradition to make it accessible to gay couples.
Whose FACEBOOK says? Couldn't you call him up and ask him, if it was essential that you know if he was behaving like a decent human being out of some Homosexual Hive Mind solidarity? Or were you afraid that his response would be appropriately something like, "What business is it of yours which BY THE WAY IS MY ENTIRE POINT?"
I know this is how things work. People push forward, people push back. I am getting impatient, though. We have a limited amount of time on this planet, guys, and we are wasting it trying to go backward and be less. We are wasting it arguing with kids who get this so much harder than we do. Being a teenager is like ... you're trying on a bunch of things, finding something that fits. Here comes this kid who says, "If being gay fits you, why the fuck shouldn't you be prom kings together?" And it's the adults who are jumping up and down to protect others from this dangerous concept, lest it implode the whole world, and the kids are in no danger from this at all.
You know what kids are in danger from, besides being shot by paranoid fuckholes who think their Skittles and hoodies are skeery? Besides hunger and poverty and the cost of college and the general fact that the air might not be breathable when they grow up? Besides urban blight and the tap water lighting on fire and drug-dealing gang members and poison in their spinach and how a car could paste them all over the freeway at any moment? You know what kids are in danger from?
They're in danger from fucking adults who are supposed to be their role models telling them that the best they can hope for in life is to avoid upsetting somebody, that the glory raging inside them should be blunted and blurred, that they should only ever ask for what they think they can get, and that they should accept that something called "the real world" is an inevitability instead of something that is the way it is because nobody's been strong enough to change it yet.
Let's reschedule the meeting about gay prom royalty to never, and get on to the real question of leadership here.
As you probably know by now the tune sung by Megan Draper on episode-1 is *really* entitled Zou Bisou Bisou. So much for 2 years of high school French. I was too busy being amused by the quirks of my French teacher whose name escapes me. Why? She called herself Napoleon. That's right, the Corsican cocksucker and conqueror and not his, uh, conquests Josephine and Desiree.
Now that I have confessed my Mad Men pundit sins, I'd like to ask if anyone agrees with Dr A and me that Megan seems like an odd name for a French Canadian chick in that era. I don't recall meeting many non-Irish Megans until the dawn of the 21st Century. I have, however, lived a rather sheltered life, he said, checking to see if anybody's buying that. Guess not.
Finally, thanks to my old blogger pal, Racymind, who knows that I love animated GIFs almost as much as I do Roger Sterling's one-liners. Here's the silver tongued devil doing his Zou Bisou Bisou dance:
Oops, you gotta click on the image iteself to see Roger strut his stuff. Sorry about that, Chief.
If Zimmerman is telling the truth — as police evidently believe and as some witnesses reportedly confirm — this isn’t even a “stand your ground” case. It’s a straight-up case of self-defense, no matter how unwise or bigoted Zimmerman may have been in reporting Martin to police and leaving his vehicle to begin pursuing him.
If Zimmerman is lying — if he ignored the 911 dispatcher, chased Martin down and shot him in cold blood, as the Al Sharpton crowd seems to believe — it’s murder one.
Hahaha, the "Al Sharpton" crowd. The level of hate among my fellow pale folks for Sharpton (and I don't mean sensible criticism of his past actions, I mean the disregard of any statement he might ever make just because of reasons) has never been clearly explained to me. He, like Jesse Jackson, just seems to get hauled out when it's time to prove that one is A Real Grown-Up, like a dog whistle to the tote-bag set.
In any case, Zorn never really cites any member of whatever "the Al Sharpton crowd" seems to be saying that is so outrageous. And after denouncing a "rush to judgement" he goes on to ask readers to offer their "best guesses" of what really happened, because that's so much more productive than the "cable TV hucksters" who have been making guesses of their own.
My track record on this guy is pretty clear — and, occasionally, the topic of some hilarity around the home office. This is what I do know about him. John Edwards was the only Democratic presidential candidate since Jesse Jackson who went out of his way to talk about poverty in America. Not in an oblique way. Not as an afterthought after blathering for hours on the pressures on The Middle Class and how he wanted to unleash Small Business, The Engine Of The Economy — both of which, in purely political terms, meant discussing the not-inconsiderable economic perils of struggling white folks. Talking about poverty, and about poor people, meant talking a lot about black people, and that's the kind of thing that Al From and the Democratic Leadership Council convinced a generation of ambitious Democratic politicians was a vote-killing extravagance that the party could no longer afford. I thought that it mattered that there was someone out there at least talking the talk on the big stage about how there are pockets of unforgivable hunger and want in this nation the existence of which should embarrass us all.
And, today, I think about the people in those places who may have heard the same thing in John Edwards that I did, who believed in him more fervently than anyone because of what he was saying about the people like them. Now, they're largely invisible in our politics again, except as people whose interests can be used as chips in our grand bargains. If you want to be pissed at John Edwards, be pissed that he let those people down. I am.
You know, I really think Pierce is placing blame on the wrong people here. John Edwards did not turn out to secretly hate poor people, or advocate for policies behind closed doors that would create more of them, or in the privacy of his own home use poor people for unpaid labor, or eat them, or something like that. John Edwards turned out to be spectacularly unwise in placement and disposition of his penis. That our political media has made it impossible to be both a stupid manwhore and fundamentally correct in matters of public policy is not John Edwards' fault. Nor is it Eliot Spitzer's fault, or Anthony Weiner's, or Bill Clinton's.
Or Newt Gingrich's, for that matter. I wouldn't care if Newt had seven wives all at once if his approach to governing didn't want to make me tear off my head and eat it. If he'd shut the fuck up about gay people's marriages I wouldn't give a shit what he did in his own.
Look, I know this is the world and how it works and all of them should have known it as well and been smarter about getting their extramarital bone on. You can make the argument that if you're that dumb about politics perhaps you should not aspire to political office, but Edwards' sex mendacity is not to blame for our political media making his sex mendacity a disqualification from being right about everything else. Our political media is to blame for that, and if we're gonna be pissed at anything let's be pissed at the political press and a certain segment of the American people's equation of "is not a philandering asshole" with "can effectively do his job."
We are not going to be able to only have candidates who aren't philandering assholes. That's just not going to happen, because some human beings who are good at their jobs are also horny, stupid idiots. But somehow it's only some of our politicians who never get listened to again after it's been revealed that they like to screw around. That's the betrayal here.
Just when he's tryin' to be a reglar fella, we learn that plans for a revamp of Romney's La Jolla digs include a car elevator. I am not making this up:
At Mitt Romney’s proposed California beach house, the cars will have their own separate elevator.
There’s also a planned outdoor shower and a 3,600-square foot basement — a room with more floor space than the existing home’s entire living quarters.
Boy, that Mitt is a regular Tom Fucking Joad. I dunno about y'all but I've never heard of a fucking elevator for fucking cars. Does the chauffeur sit in the car whilst it is elevated or, for our British readers, lifted. Fuckin' A. Guess you noticed that I'm working on meeting my fuck quota for the month...
There are two things, however, about this awesomely funny story that trouble me. First, I have to praise a story from fucking Politico when our usual policy here at First Draft is to mock and deride the fuckers. Second, thanks to Mitt Fucking Haircut I have Love In An Elevator lodged in my head and to expel it, I am about to do something that will appal the Tylerphobic Dr A and post the sucker:
It's day two of healthcare reform's trial at the Supreme Court -- I know, I know, but that's what this whole circus looks like. And honestly I'm feeling relatively Zen-like about the whole thing. I think we win either way.
I can honestly see SCOTUS ruling the individual mandate unconstitutional, which would empower a Teanut-led Congress to completely shred the law, instead of their current piecemeal approach. I can see this happening not because I understand squat about Constitutional Law but because I know the Supreme Court has a long history of making really crappy, stupid decisions. We've survived. Slavery was abolished despite Dred Scott, in fact, it probably hastened the Emancipation Proclamation.
In Buck v Bell, SCOTUS allowed the state to forcibly sterilize those it viewed as "genetically inferior." Explained the New York Times on Saturday,
In 1924 Virginia ordered Ms. Buck, 18 years old, unmarried and pregnant, to be forcibly sterilized. Her legal guardian appealed, and the case made it to the Supreme Court. The winning argument blamed her pregnancy on hereditary weaknesses — in particular, her presumed feeblemindedness. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s majority opinion entered history: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Let me just say: SCOTUS giving the government the authority to permanently sterilize people sure makes them telling us to buy health insurance look tame by comparison. But what do I know.
Anyway, here's the thing. The Affordable Care Act was a crappy law, we all knew it. I think I called it a "shit sandwich." But it was a starting place. It did a couple of good things, like end pre-existing conditions and lifetime benefit caps and yada yada. But really, it's a Band-Aid on a serious problem which has had massive repercussions across the landscape of America's economy and competitiveness. That's the thing no one is really talking about: the problem is real. No one made up the 50.7 million uninsured or the fact that the U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation yet we have less to show for it. These are very real issues and they have very real ramifications. And they won't go away by calling Obama a socialist.
Typically, Republicans are in denial. Take Mitch McConnell, for instance: all in favor of repealing "Obamacare" .. and then what?
But he doesn’t favor comprehensive legislation to replace it. “We would want to more modestly approach this with more incremental fixes,” he told me. “Not a massive Republican alternative.”
Two ideas McConnell mentions are allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines and reforming medical-malpractice laws. Neither idea would do much to increase coverage, and McConnell didn’t mention one idea -- changing the tax treatment of health insurance -- that would, perhaps because his party hasn’t reached a consensus on it.
These tweaks the Republicans continually mention are not solutions to our massive healthcare crisis. They are baubles to corporations. They are not up to the task of solving a massive problem 100 years in the making and they will solve nothing. In some cases, they will make things worse.
If healthcare reform is repealed, there is no reset. We aren't going back to the good ol' days when doctors made housecalls and people didn't have to choose between buying heart medication or paying the light bill. No, we're going back to a really sucky, unworkable, crisis situation. This is obvious to anyone doing business in this country. I see repeal making "Medicare For All" that much more inevitable, and that will be a shiv in the heart of the private, for-profit insurance industry. They will only have themselves to blame for working so hard to undercut what was really a lifeline Congress threw their dying industry.
Mind you, I'm not hoping for failure. I want a win because I think Obama and the Democrats need this win, and I also think the law does some good things that people really, desperately need. But it's just postponing the inevitable. Our healthcare system is massively fucked up and the private, for-profit insurance model is unsustainable. It's going to change because it has to. Like the Dred Scott decision, a SCOTUS ruling against the Affordable Care Act could be the impetus that drives the change we didn't get from Congress.
So, if we lose, fine. I'll be singing this song:
When we rely on “safety tips,” it is impossible to do everything right. So, my spring break safety guide consists of this: Don’t fucking rape people. If you have sex with a chick who is too drunk to say no, you are not “scoring,” you are not “getting lucky”: you are a rapist. If you use alcohol in order to get people to do things you think they might not do if they were sober, you are not cool or slick or clever: You are a rapist. If you don’t bother to get consent, but you figure this person would “totally want it anyway” because you are hot or an athlete or in law school or whatever, then you’re a rapist. And you suck.
When I got to college I got a speech about not going anywhere with anyone I didn't know, not walking alone after dark, not drinking too much, not leaving my friends alone at parties, generally not behaving in any way like a person might expect to be able to behave if she, for example, was a college fellow.
The end result of which is that I felt like I was entirely responsible for the behavior of others toward me. I'm not an idiot, okay, I live in the city and I lock my doors at night, but the responsibility for committing a crime lies with the criminal, and until we settle that the rest of this is useless.
We say around here all the time that nobody's safe until everybody is, that our fate is your fate, and this illustrates that very neatly: If the streets are not safe for me, my staying inside only protects me. If the streets are not safe for me, and I stay inside, what about you? Or you? Or you? Are we all supposed to stay inside? It gets dark at 4:30 p.m. around here six months out of the year. Should we hibernate until spring?
If the streets are not safe for me, then the streets are not safe for anyone. If a party isn't safe for me, then a party isn't safe for you. If enough drinks to make me silly aren't safe for me, then they're not safe for everyone. And so I can control my own behavior, I can wall myself up in a tower and refuse to let down my guard, but all that has changed is that I am limited in how I can live in the world. The world hasn't changed one bit.
I don't know if there was another seminar, in college, for the boys. I don't know if they got a little play-house demonstration of what enthusiastic consent looks like, of what it looks like when someone wants you versus lets you, of power versus pleasure. I don't know how many people get the lesson that it's not okay to take advantage; looking at our politics, I think very few of them do. I don't know what we're teaching young men these days, about walking home alone, about drinking too much, about watching out for their friends.
I do know I walked home from a bar one night with a man who I'd met two hours before. I know I'd had more to drink than I strictly should have, kissed him, and got a distinct feeling at that moment that this was a bad idea, so when we reached my door I thanked him for walking me home and told him this was as far as he'd get. I know he said he liked me and asked me (politely) to reconsider, but left when I told him to go.
I know that by all contemporary standards I should feel lucky he left, which is insane. I should feel lucky that he didn't force his way inside, or turn violent. I should feel lucky the worst thing he did was tell his pal the next day that I was a frigid little virgin. I should feel lucky that I wasn't assaulted, but mostly I should feel lucky because I put myself in a situation that could have been dangerous, but wasn't.
How crazy is that, that I should feel lucky I engaged in behavior that involved going out, having a few beers, meeting someone, being attracted, considering the option, declining it upon further thought, and going to bed? Where is he, in all of that considering of my own actions? What was his responsibility? He behaved at the time exactly as a person should behave: he made an overture and accepted that I did not reciprocate.
Does he deserve a cookie for not being a rapist? Do I deserve a lecture for risking my virtue or my life?
This doesn't work at all until we place responsibility for the crime upon the criminal, and have a bunch of posters that say, "if she is too drunk to be awake, she is not saying yes" or "if she is not saying yes, she is not saying yes" or "drug someone to get them to fuck you and you will go to jail, you fucking cretin" or whatever.
I don't know what kind of program you make up that teaches young men that making an offer does not convey the right to acceptance nor justify resentment at rejection, but I do know it's got to be better than putting young women in smaller and smaller boxes of risk, such that eventually they can't leave their four walls. Eventually they can't put enough locks on the doors.
OK, peeps. One newish topic and a big grab bag of moldy oldies.
First up - "It's a blech thing, baby - you wouldn't understand!"
Allen West Calls Trayvon Martin Shooting an ‘Outrage’ and Endorses Federal Investigation
The Blaze ^ | March 22, 2012 | Mytheos Holt
Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2012 11:03:25 PM by Free ThinkerNY
Ever since his CPAC Keynote Address in 2010, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) has been one of the gold standards of modern American political conservatism. He has also been widely hailed as a political model for conservative African American politicians. And now, following recent revelations surrounding the highly suspicious shooting of Trayvon Martin, Rep. West has joined a growing bipartisan consensus calling for the case to be reopened, possibly even with Federal assistance. West’s statement, put out today by Talking Points Memo, resonates with controlled fury (emphasis added):
itself in Sanford, Florida involving the shooting of 17-year-old Treyvon Martin. First of all, if all that has been reported is accurate, the Sanford Police Chief should be relieved of his duties due to what appears to be a mishandling of this shooting in its early stages. The US Navy SEALS identified Osama Bin Laden within hours, while this young man laid on a morgue slab for three days. The shooter, Mr Zimmerman, should have been held in custody and certainly should not be walking free, still having a concealed weapons carry permit. From my reading, it seems this young man was pursued and there was no probable cause to engage him, certainly not pursue and shoot him….against the direction of the 911 responder. Let’s all be appalled at this instance not because of race, but because a young American man has lost his life, seemingly, for no reason. I have signed a letter supporting a DOJ investigation. I am not heading to Sanford to shout and scream, because we need the responsible entities and agencies to handle this situation from this point without media bias or undue political influences. This is an outrage.
To: Free ThinkerNY
To: Free ThinkerNY
So is West also ignoring the eye witness report that this 6’2” “kid” was beating the cr@p out of the Hispanic man who shot him? Apparently so.
BTW, as a conservative, the media tells me I hate blacks and Hispanics, so my imputed racism makes me neutral...
To: Free ThinkerNY
"conservative African American politicians."
African American political conservatives. Priorities.6 posted on Thursday, March 22, 2012 11:11:06 PM by I see my hands (It's time to.. KICK OUT THE JAMS, MOTHER FREEPERS!)..
To: Free ThinkerNY
So this guy should be slammed in jail, in irons if necessary, w/o trial. And the Police Chief fired for refusing to jump to conclusions.
Allen West: Some conservative. We’re supposed to be the side of “Nation of Laws.” But not when the shootee is one of West’s People, I guess. Oh well, this is the year for people to wash out of the conservative movement, and today it’s West’s turn. Bye.32 posted on Thursday, March 22, 2012 11:31:29 PM by Cyber Liberty (The only flaw is that America doesn't recognize Cyber's omniscience. -- sergeantdave)..To: MissouriConservativeFrom what I’ve heard, Zimmerman was attacked as he was going back to his truck by this “kid”.
And from what I've read, the "kid" had done nothing to warrant being followed, first in an SUV and then on foot, by Zimmerman, who ignored police dispatcher instructions that he should not pursue Martin.
What would your reaction be if you were simply walking home from the store and some stranger started stalking you and then chasing you on foot?
Even a so-called black “conservative” can’t see passed the skin color.
So far, nobody has presented any evidence the kid is a criminal. Since it’s been about a week, I think it’s safe to say that he wad simply a kid who had been walking home to his father’s house after buying his goods at the local convenience store and nothing more.
It may sound shallow and perhaps even callow but I didn't realize how much I missed the characters on Mad Men until viewing the premiere. It's 1966 so the clothes are getting wilder: the jacket Pete wore to Don's surprise party nearly made my eyes bug out and get a load of my Mad Men crush Trudy's dress. What's not to love about Allison Brie? Even her name is yummy...
Anyhoo, I have a frantic week so all I got for you are a few random and discursive comments. Hmm, now that I think of it, that's all I ever got: