Diversion Tactics and Fallacies of Logic

The moron in chief wants a distraction from the Rove events of the day.

WASHINGTON - After three years of steadily climbing budget shortfalls,
President Bush finally had some good fiscal news Wednesday: Surging revenues and a steady economy have led to a steep drop in the expected deficit for this year.

The annual White House midyear budget report projects that this year's deficit will drop to $333 billion, $79 billion below last year's record red ink and almost $100 billion less than earlier estimates.

Bush said the improving deficit picture vindicated his stewardship of the economy and budget.

"It's a sign that our tax relief plan, our pro-growth policies, are working," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. "These numbers indicate that we're going to cut the deficit in half faster than the year 2009 — so long as Congress holds the line on spending."

Uh-huh. Riiiight. By that creative logic wouldn't it also hold that because terrorist attacks have actually increased worldwide since the Iraq war that his policies in that arena are failing miserably?

So much for the "Bump" of fear

After all the past events of the past two weeks, especially the bombing that punditry like Cokie Roberts said would boost his ratings, the opposite has happened:

The last two weeks certainly have been eventful ones in America and across the globe: President Bush gave a prime-time speech on Iraq and attended a G-8 summit in Scotland; Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court (with perhaps another retirement on the way); and suicide bombers killed approximately 50 people in London. After these events, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that Bush’s overall job rating has slipped and that his rating for being “honest and straightforward” has dropped to its lowest point.

The survey, which was conducted from July 8-11 among 1,009 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, finds that respondents, by a 49 percent-to-46 percent margin, disapprove of Bush’s job performance. That’s a drop from the last NBC/Journal poll in May, when 47 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved.

At the link you can also see that not all that many people feel the "Steeleyed Rocket Man" is honest.

By the way, the timing of the poll reveals it is going to get even worse:

(The survey, however, was taken just before these allegations about Rove exploded into the current controversy.)

I now demand that Cokie Roberts retire from the punditry corps!

That's some "Strategery"

The New York Times today has a perfect example of King Clusterfuck and his minions.

No one has been closer to the president longer, or bailed him out of more tight spots, than Karl Rove, his chief political adviser. Now the question is whether President Bush can protect Mr. Rove from a gathering political storm, no matter how furious it becomes.

Oh, this loyalty to friends shit is going to become their last desperate hope; "Oh, look at the Preznit defend his friend, how we Fox-bots love him." I'm sure that Peggy Noonan will get at least 3 columns and 35 direct current induced orgasms out of his standing by his little chubby rottweiler.

But loyalty can only go so far, when you are defending a first-class douchebag.

Not that Bush won't try:

But those who know Mr. Bush say that sticking with his old friend would be completely consistent with his personality.

"He is as set in his way about people as he is to his principles," David Gergen, an adviser to many presidents and now a lecturer at Harvard, said in Washington on Tuesday. "Karl is his right arm."

A former official who has worked for Mr. Bush said: "This president is Mr. Alamo. He sees the hordes coming over the hill and he heads for the barricades. And not to raise a white flag."

Oh, yes, "the Alamo defense", good idea!

Considering the impressive number of surviors of the Alamo, I'd suggest the White House spinners find a different analogy.

Spin, Spin, Spin

"Spin for Your Lives!"


"Spin like you've never spun before!"


"Spin like a record baby!"

Oh, fuck, it isn't spinning!

Q All right, you say you won't discuss it, but the Republican National Committee and others working, obviously, on behalf of the White House, they put out this Wilson-Rove research and talking points, distributed to Republican surrogates, which include things like, Karl Rove discouraged a reporter from writing a false story. And then other Republican surrogates are getting information such as, Cooper -- the Time reporter -- called Rove on the pretense of discussing welfare reform. Bill Kristol on Fox News, a friendly news channel to you, said that the conversation lasted for two minutes and it was just at the end that Rove discussed this. So someone is providing this information. Are you, behind the scenes, directing a response to this story?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can talk to the RNC about what they put out. I'll let them speak to that. What I know is that the President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with that investigation, that means supporting the efforts by the investigators to come to a successful conclusion, and that means not commenting on it from this podium.

Q Well, if --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I understand your question.

Q Well, Fox News and other Republican surrogates are essentially saying that the conversation lasted for two minutes and that the subject was ostensibly welfare reform. They're getting that information from here, from Karl Rove.

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, you're asking questions that are related to news reports about an ongoing, continuing investigation. And you've had my response on that.


I THINK that was Terry Moran, good for him if so.

Holden, of course, is the master of the gaggle and would probably know.

Just off the Crashcart

Jeebus, somebody get some adreneline for Cheney...STAT!

Konstantin Chernenko looked more lively!

Perhaps that Chernenko reference was too obscure for some of our younger snarkerers, so let me say, Cheney looks less lively than Rehnquist:


Remember when Reagan made jokes about how old the 1980s Soviet Politburo was?

Of course, the Soviets never had a Mehlman or a Scottie -- if they did, they never would have made it past 1917!

Okay, back to the captions:


Although Dick did bring Algernon some flowers.


Dick brings more flowers! Suddenly he's Louis the Lilac. Oh, maybe, they are propping Cheney up and bringing with him, the funerial bouquets?


"Hmmm, if I sneak off to the left, I could piss on the bushes like Karl. Ha ha ha, piss on the Bushes. Oh, Oh, Dick made poopie."

Meanwhile in Kul-ee-forn-ya


"Und zen, I held her firm ass in mah hands und it was lov-a-ly, like a long toke on an Austrian Alp."

And finally, the GOP resynchronizes:

For the GOP Simpletons,

Well I don't know if they are simpletons (though the evidence is strong) but they absolutely believe that their readers are simpletons, or in the case of FoxNews' Jon Gibson, A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S.

They have gone on and on with all sorts of spin jobs, but the most laughable one is that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson were out and about in public and showing the world they were married. Much as El Chimpresidente & Crazy Pinky do. I know for many of them the notion of even being close to a lady is bizarre enough, unless they're beards (am I looking at you Podhoretz?, am I?), but married people have a tendency to say they are married, and do stuff together. Occasionally, they even lie down together in bed (and other places), naked and rub against each other and make grunts*. It's kind of cool, you should ask your parents about such things.

Undercover agents, don't live their lives looking like undercover agents, they spend them looking like they are NOT undercover agents. Jiminy Jeebus, do you think your readers are sooooooo stupid that they don't know that? Apparently you do.

Here is someone who actually knows what Valerie Plame did:

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.

The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.

They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.

But don't take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.

The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.

At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That's the true outrage.

I believe that rarely has the notion of "my team" so trumped the notion of what is good for the nation. I don't want the democratic version of Karl Rove to be able to out some undercover operative married to a Republican and say, "we'll they did it to us, so we can do it to them." The people insisting that this is NOTHING are in actuality the most "insidious of traitors".

Rove's conduct was reprehensible, I don't want anybody doing it to anyone ever, he should be on his ass now, and Republicans should be leading the call. Christ on a cracker, don't you know the price you are paying for defending this a-hole's conduct?

Do you care?

Apparently not. After all, you already got your little perpetual war on.


*Yes, the most magical description of sex ever, I know. Did I make you horny with my romantic prose?

Light at the end of the tunnel, this is a tunnel right?

Rummy extends to Congress the gift of "the finger", and for the most part I'm guessing Congressional Republicans like it.

The Bush administration yesterday came under more pressure to outline the number of American forces that may need to stay in Iraq over the next two years after the Pentagon failed to meet a 60-day deadline set by Congress to provide a detailed plan for training Iraqis and for likely US troop levels.

The report to Congress, due yesterday, was required under the $80 billion war spending legislation approved in May. It is intended to help answer one of the most pressing questions hanging over the American-led occupation: when the United States might be able to begin drawing down the estimated 140,000 forces in Iraq.

The White House and Pentagon are facing rising calls from Democrats and Republicans for a more detailed strategy in Iraq -- calls that grew louder yesterday.

''I am deeply disappointed that the administration failed to comply with this initial . . . deadline," Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat and senior member of the Armed Services Committee, told Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld in a letter. ''It is long past due for the administration to provide Congress with meaningful information to evaluate our progress in Iraq."

The Pentagon yesterday maintained that it is still compiling the report, but did not say when it would be complete.

The translation is, I believe, "you'll have the report the day after hell freezes over, or Karl Rove is fired, whichever comes first."

Latest short summary of the Rove case

Typical Bushtopian Spin: Undercover spies don't have pretend jobs and act like actual people, they never go out of the house, in fact they don't marry and live a celebate lives of quiet and pathetic desperation.

...oh, my god, spies are supposed to be like Kathryn Lopez!

And sadly, one continues to wonder if Joe Wilson was an unduly cruel heckler once to Bob Somerby at the local chuckle hut.

Such profound a logician

How this is an actual defense escapes me, but any port in a storm I guess...

Byron York has a vital detail in his must-read piece right now on the main part of the NRO website. Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, tells Byron that Time's Matt Cooper called Rove to talk about something else and that only secondarily did the subject of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame come up.

This is important, because it suggests Rove wasn't "retailing" the information about Wilson and Plame -- wasn't reporter-shopping to drop a dirty dime on those involved -- but was rather a passive source, answering a phone call at the reporter's behest and presumably changing topics to the sexier one at issue at the reporter's behest as well.

How in fuck's sake do you pull that one out of your ample buttocks there Pod?

If Matt Cooper called about something else, and then Karl Rove sticks in a "oh by the way Joe Wilson's wife sent him to Niger and she works for the CIA on WMD, but don't tell anybody I told you this" how on earth is that NOT more evidence of Rove's wrongdoing.

Jiminy Jeebus, even the Kool-Aid drinkers are not that moronic.

I ask you...

It's been another busy day, sorry for the paucity of posts from Attaturk.

I've been away from the news since 8 this morning.

I'm guessing Karl Rove is still employed?

Fellow Captioner

The comely Watertiger has been on a bit of a roll to say the least.

Bushworld Follies:

Dear Leader Yesterday:

President Bush expressed solidarity with Britain on Monday over the deadly bombings in London and said terrorists are trying to break the will of the world’s democracies by killing innocent people.

“They are mistaken,” Bush said of the terrorists. “America will not retreat in the face of terrorists and murderers.”

MEANWHILE,

Air Force personnel at two major U.S. bases in eastern England have been ordered to stay out of London because of safety fears, but Britain's defense chief said Tuesday that those orders are under review.

Today, more like Yesterday, especially Tomorrow

1973:

As the investigation into Watergate unraveled, Mr. Ziegler admitted that his previous statements had become "inoperative."

2005:

Q Scott, at this point, are we to consider what you've said previously, when you were talking about this, that you're still standing by that, or are those all inoperative at this point?



Speaking of Scotty, from the archives.

I'd like everyone to remember

I don't have photoshop, and I suck at art. And I like it that way!

Um, I think You Guys would be well advised not to delve into this topic...

From the intersection of John Podhoretz Street & Rich Lowry Avenue comes this bit of hubris:

WHO IS THE WORST COLUMNIST IN AMERICA? [K. J. Lopez]
Stephen Spruiell names Frank Rich, who is, of course, pretty bad, but man, if there isn't some serious competition out there. Any faves? (MoDo may just break the charts, thereby disqualifying herself.)
Posted at 11:01 PM

K-Lo your participles are dangling.

This time, you'll CHEER at the ending!

Fubar has his own ideas.

Gee, I sure hate to see headlines like this...

On Rove's Behalf, the White House Issued Denials, Which Have Now Fallen Apart

By Pete Yost
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer.
Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that the woman "apparently works" for the CIA and that she had authorized her husband's trip to Africa to assess allegations that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium for nuclear weapons, according to a July 11, 2003, e-mail by Cooper obtained by Newsweek magazine.

The e-mail is now in the hands of federal prosecutors who are hunting down the leakers inside the Bush administration who revealed the name of Valerie Plame to the news media.

The revelation about Rove prompted Democratic calls for President Bush to follow through on his promise to fire leakers of Plame's identity, and triggered 61 questions during two press briefings for White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

It was McClellan who provided the previous assurances about no role for Rove, but he refused to repeat those assurances Monday.

"Did Karl Rove commit a crime?" a reporter asked McClellan.

"This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation," McClellan replied.

McClellan gave the same answer when asked whether President Bush has confidence in Rove, the architect of the president's successful political campaigns.

The investigation was ongoing in 2003 when McClellan assured the public Rove wasn't involved, a reporter pointed out, but the spokesman refused to elaborate.

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media. McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion" and "It's not true."

Rove's own public denials at the time and since have been more narrowly worded: "I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name," Rove said last year.

I guess they better wheel out the C-level hacks to try some spin with the lamest arguments possible;

Mission accomplished.

Truer Emails never sent...

Attaturk apologizes for the light posting today, I've got a lot of work to do, sorry for stepping away from entertaing America. It will be a busy, busy, week, but I'll endeavor to do what I can. Maybe the other blogboys can help me out.

Anyhoo...

This was sent into the intersection of Ostrich Street & Podhoretz Nuclear Wedgie Avenue, and I like the way this emailer thinks,

THANKS FOR THE ADVICE! [K. J. Lopez]
An e-mail:
Did you hear about Rove maybe being the Plame leaker? I assume you and the other Cornerites haven't because there's no mention of it on the Corner. You all should contact the WH and ask them what NRO's opinion is so you have it ready if someone were to bring it up.
White House readers just thought "if only" they were on our page all the time!
Posted at 04:21 PM

By the way, Podhoretz thinks he's broken this whole Plame thing wide open and hints that he will be writing about it in tomorrow's NY Post. Something about how Joe Wilson acknowledged that he was married to Valerie Plame prior to the Summer of 2003-- Oh, My, God, what a fucking non-scoop there Walter Winchell!

I'm sure you'll all rush out and not buy it, as usual, and as recommended by 5 out of 5 sane individuals.

We Will Win and They Will Lose, Right?

The most recent terrorist attacks have prompted a new round of patriotic blather and righteousness about being on the side of good. Today listeners to NPR's Morning Edition got to hear news analyst Cokie Roberts predict that Bush's approval ratings will go up because of the attacks in London. Is it too much to ask for a meaningful debate on the question of whether we are safer because of our boondoggle in Iraq? Over at Kos, Plutonium Page raised the question yesterday whether we can ever win.

36 Hours and Counting...

Since it was admitted by his lawyer, "I'm NOT Donald" Luskin, that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source and that he said "Joe Wilson's Wife" worked for the CIA on WMD. And the only thing from the intersection of Don't Let Tinkerbell Die Street & Look over there, A Hurricane Avenue is how the NY Times call for a special prosecutor boomeranged on Jailhouse Judy.

Apparently, the White House spin machine is suffering from Karlstipation at the moment.

The SCAIFE Science Institute is Proud to Unveal

In conjunction with Apple Computer, the mini-Norman Podhoretz:

The "Norm Pod, Pod"

Rove "Need to Spend Time with Family" Watch

Isn't it plain for all but the most ardent Bush kool-aid affectionado or ball-scratcher that it is time for Karl Rove to resign in disgrace?

As pretty much stated on this blog, and as definitely stated by uber Josh:

So we've got Karl Rove's latest story, as recounted by his lawyer, Robert Luskin.

Rove did spill the beans about Plame in an effort to discredit Joe Wilson. Only he didn't mention the name 'Valerie Plame'. He only spilled the beans about 'Joe Wilson's wife'.

I'm no lawyer. But I'd hate to go into court with my case resting on that distinction.

And remember, the president has certainly known all of this from the beginning.

Cue Howard Baker:

"When did the President Know and when did he know it?"

Where all identifying "the woman in the blue dress" now.

Jon Aravosis and Digby also have made the call, should not we all?

But they're swarthy and stuff

But for a hurricane the major story on the Sunday morning bukkakke was the London explosions and the canard of "will London pull a Madrid"?, apparently, like so many right-wing scream jobs that lie has become imbedded no matter its lack of truth.

The fatality count on the London Bombing at the moment is 49* and it has received coverage hours innumerable in the 96 hours or so since it occurred -- usually with the U.S. media telling the people of London to stop being stoic and realize they are supposed to be terrified out of their minds.

However, in Iraq yesterday at least 48 people were killed in bombings. Yet, I heard nothing from big Russ about "Whether Baghdad will pull a Madrid?"

Your Latest Bush ADministration Talking Point

Apparently, under the Bush Regime, insurgents blowing people up is a sign of their weakness; but saying "Joe Wilson's Wife" is not identifying someone.

"A timetable would only give aid to the Terrorists"

Unless, of course, it is "our" secret timetable.

The latest in douchebaggery, and just in time for the November 2006 elections:

The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

The paper, which is marked "Secret -- UK Eyes Only," said "emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The troop level is now at about 160,000, including 138,000 American troops, according to a military spokesman in Baghdad.

And in a time-tested pattern for the Bush Administration, the "Tinkerbell Imparative" is in full force:

The memo, posted on the newspaper's Web site, notes a debate between U.S. officials at the Pentagon and military leaders in Iraq, saying that officials in Washington favor "a relatively bold reduction in force numbers," differing with battlefield commanders, "whose approach is more cautious."

Another fucking lie, and another probable disaster.

It's Your "Duty" to Be Fodder

A National Guard soldier in Iraq, who regularly patrols with his platoon, but who also complained of Bush Administration policies and the Chimp-in-Chief has now been arrested.

"Freedom" apparently no longer marching.

Here is his blog.

This might be a good thing to write to the press about, your local television stations, or your congressperson.

News Porn

While watching Anderson Cooper try to win himself a DARWIN AWARD I have to say that Hurricanes are really the broadcast news version of porn.

In both there is certainly an ample amount of blowing.

I do wish the best to the people in Florida, Alabama and Mississippi, but jeebus, we go through 4 to 6 of these things every year and each time their is competition to see which reporter can be the biggest moron.

Oh Boy

Take us back to the dark ages and forget the lessons of Isaac Newton and other heretics becasue we live in the world of George Fucking Bush, Dick Sphincter-boy Cheney, Hot Karl Rove, Donald Rimjob Rumsfeld, James Asswipe Dobson, and a heavenly host of others who seek to prepare us all for the inevitable kool-aid slurp that is coming down the pike.

This is thoroughly too much fucking perspective. Disclaimer: put on barf bag.

In yesterday's NYT:

An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.

The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI's election in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about the church's position on evolution. "I said I would like to have a more explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on," said Cardinal Schönborn.

To make your illness more complete, here it is in all its original glory.

Vienna

EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."

He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."

Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."

Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

As the only Catholic in residence at this url let me say on behalf of my heathen brothers: we are horrified. Now we know what the reign of Benedict will really look like.

Help Skippy Be Jiffy

I know it's not particularly witty. But someday next year Attaturk will probably be close to 1 Million hits himself and SKIPPY is more than just a quality blog, I mean, on-line journal of opinion and nekked marsupials.

Go help them out.

The Black & White World of the Bush Apologist

Engage:

Okay, yes, if Karl Rove INTENTIONALLY outed Valerie Plame as a CIA Operative then he's a scumbag traitor.

BUT

Since we say he did NOT know and did not say specifically "Valerie Plame", but "Joe Wilson's Wife", then he's a great guy, who is simply helping Dear Leader fight the liberal evildoers.


Now, how much Fitzgerald has, I don't know, but he at least has evidence that Rove used Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame (using the words "Joe Wilson's Wife" -- c'mon how hard is that to fucking figure out? Might as well have just given the name) and the basic outlines of what she did for the CIA.

Who possibly can justify this as not being a scumbag?

If an American soldier intentionally gives out a battle plan to the enemy, he's a traitor; but if he throws it on the ground and runs away after making sure they notice he tossed something on the ground -- knowing the enemy will probably pick it up (but they also might just not) suddenly he is a "great guy"?

At a MINIMUM the latter is what Karl Rove is.

C'mon!

I've stated once or twice on this blog, that I think many conservatives would choose perpetual rule by Republicans rather than continue to have a democracy where the other side might win on occasion. I think the evidence of that is becoming stronger all the time.

In any "moderately" sane Republic

Karl Rove would be toast.

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify...

...In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger... "

It is not clear whether the technical aspects of the law were broken, which requires a knowing exposure of a covert agent, but it is damn close, particularly if another item or two is out there. Rove may still be in major legal trouble.

BUT, in legal trouble or not, the picture is clear that the discussion about Wilson to Cooper used the position of his wife as a pawn to try to attack Joe Wilson.

On any moral ground identifiable to most non-moral cretins, its scummy to attack somebody based on what their spouse does. I may make some fun of Laura Bush and call her "Pickles", but when was the last time anybody attacked Bush because of his wife? Been a while, if ever.

But I guess years of going after Hillary Clinton sharpened the knives and now any working person of a Republican political opponent is fair game -- Rove himself said as much about "Joe Wilson's wife" to Chris Matthews.

That, in and of itself, is too creepy for words. From the innocent time in which Jon Sununu was driven out of the Bush I administration for flying off to get a haircut, this would have been enough for "Turd Blossom" to bake in exile.

But 9/11 changed everything I guess, and being an incredible fucking asshole is just an aspect of that "freedom" that "they" hate.

What Rove should be run out on a rail for is that even if the exposure wasn't illegal on its face, it was still "RECKLESS" and malicious. It ended up exposing and neutralizing an individual working as an operative in the very field upon which so much depends in the War on Terrorism, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Intentional (which it clearly was to me) or not, it undoubtedly harmed the nation national security. It is something that cannot be tolerated from anyone Republican or Democrat or otherwise, if it is not treason, it is the functional equivalent. A common standard in most context for blatent, way over-the-line wrongdoing.

The "spin" that came in from the Bush Administration, and which was repeated by every goddamn one of their minions from Rush to Bobo was that Wilson's trip was some sort of wifely gift. I mean who on earth doesn't want a free trip to that "paradise on Earth" NIGER? It was ridiculous then, it is ridiculous now, but they still have trotted it out, from columns to partisan minority Senate reports.

What is more significant though, is that the email establishes, what we suspected then, learned to trust, and have now proven. It is what is also shown in the Downing Street Memos and every subsequent arguent about justifying the Iraq Invasion from Bush and his minions, that they were lies, and the desire to have themselves a war, trumped all other considerations, they lied and people have died.

Even the Newsweek article at the end mentions this in passing without comment, White House insiders are still blatently lying:

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

This is known as bullshit with a purpose. The actual purpose was to try to prevent Joe Wilson's charge about the falsity of the yellow cake claim from gaining enough traction to embarass the Bush Administration on a lie.

It should be remembered that at the time the White House was forced to admit that Wilson was absolutely right on the Yellow Cake claim the spin against Wilson and his wife began. As the White House was forced to admit shortly before Novak article appeared on July 8, 2003:

The White House acknowledged for the first time today that President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies when he declared, in his State of the Union speech, that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa.

The White House statement appeared to undercut one of the key pieces of evidence that President Bush and his aides had cited to back their claims made prior to launching an attack against Iraq in March that Mr. Hussein was "reconstituting" his nuclear weapons program. Those claims added urgency to the White House case that military action to depose Mr. Hussein needed to be taken quickly, and could not await further inspections of the country or additional resolutions at the United Nations.

The acknowledgment came after a day of questions — and sometimes contradictory answers from White House officials — about an article published on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times on Sunday by Joseph C. Wilson 4th, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger, in West Africa, last year to investigate reports of the attempted purchase. He reported back that the intelligence was likely fraudulent, a warning that White House officials say never reached them.

"There is other reporting to suggest that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Africa," the statement said. "However, the information is not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that attempts were in fact made."

In other words, said one senior official, "we couldn't prove it, and it might in fact be wrong."

Separately tonight, The Washington Post quoted an unidentifed senior administration official as declaring that "knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." Some administration officials have expressed similar sentiments in interviews in the past two weeks.

Bush stated at the time the investigation was in its early stages:

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

"I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job.

"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

If you look carefully enough at this, it is clear that Bush was parsing the information as to give him an out if Rove came through on a technicality. When this finally, officially blows up, I sure hope somebody asks Bush why he kept Karl Rove around for so long and talked in such technicalities. Maybe that would be one of those "mistakes" he could not come up with before?

But even with the "technical standard" somebody's lying about something, something big. And thanks to Holden we don't have to scrounge through the archives of Scotty McSpokesman, who on a few occasions was unbelievably concise:

October 7, 2003:

Q Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this, there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

Q So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct. I've spoken with them.

October 10, 2003:


Q Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

Q So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

MR. McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Gee, if this were the Clenis, we'd be seeing one of these from Drudge by now...




But they were not counting, as they should have been, but still were not, that Iraq was a complete and utter disaster in the making. A disaster it is getting harder and hardter to hide.

All I can say about this at this time is compare what we know about Rove now, to what the Downing Street Memos were stating about what the White House was doing in 2002 and put two and two together.

Rumors, Signs, and Portents

Frodo Failed - Bush Has the Ring and he will use it to remake society via the supreme court in his religious right neocon image.

As the media buzz reaches a crescendo over the appointment of a successor for Sandra Day O'Connor, we have growing speculation about the impending retirement of William Rehnquist.

...

The Supreme Court pulsed with retirement speculation Friday, with rumors focusing first on the ailing chief justice, then the oldest member, and even the tiniest justice.

The buzz came one week after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's decision to step down, giving the court its first vacancy in more than a decade.

The 80-year-old chief, William H. Rehnquist, has thyroid cancer. And though he's been working full-time at the court, he's noticeably frailer and it's widely thought he will step down.

Many court observers believed that because of O'Connor's announcement he would wait until this week to make the announcement. Speculation intensified as the week wore on.

TV news crews and an Associated Press photographer waited in pelting rain for three hours Friday morning for Rehnquist to emerge from his suburban Virginia town house. He eventually did, wishing reporters a good morning. When asked about retirement rumors, he answered: "That's for me to know and you to find out," before getting into a waiting car.

Even our own, Attaturk has speculated on this and related matters albeit with a family penchant for funky guesses. Although, hey what do I know? My grandparents went against Truman. Personally, I do not expect Rehnny to announce his retirement until after the violent storm surrounding the O'Connor replacement.

That will allow Bush to appoint a conservative or neoconservative to replace O'Connor and then the Bush regime will move for an arch conservative or neocon operative to replace Rehnquist. They will do this under the auspices of that is a fair exchange of a conservative for another conservative. Dems who will more than likely be sore over losing the fight over O'Connor's replacement will do what they do most times -- cave in.

And that is why we must apply pressure to the democrats, people of good conscience, and policy makers. We must not allow the dems to give in when the stakes are so damn high.

Let's think about the short and long term consequences of such a situation for a moment. That hard of a move to the conservative side of the justices would so strengthen the right wing bloc on the supreme court that many of the most cherished right wing issues on their agenda can be furthered without restraint.

A court with a strong far right consensus can begin dismantling what few abortion rights are left, give the ability to control medical rights to HMOs under the auspices of state's rights, decrease the right to privacy, deconstruct due process, take away what's left of affirmative action, create increases in the Patrot Act, further broaden police powers, lower the standards for clean air and water with such nonesense as restraint of trade concerns, increase the power of corporate oligarchies by expanding the citizen rights of corporations, create expanded right-to-work laws again under a state's rights mantra, and establish a more powerful religious right through the judicial protection of from our highest court because of two more justices in the Scalia-Thomas mold... Do I really need to keep going?

Why aren't we speculating on these possibilities? Or is it that our politics have become so corrupted we are like deer caught in the headlights trying to handicap the next big political race? Without fully considering the consequences for us and our children who will truly have to live in Bush Country.

What little protection and coverage the supreme court affords the liberal (heaven forbid we think of the progressive) elements in our culture would vanish like heat from a wet roadway.

And that, my friends, keeps me up at night.

Why is Everything the Fault of Someone Else?

Progressive investigative reporter Robert Parry was on his way to the London subway system on the morning of July 7, heading to Heathrow Airport for a flight back to Washington, D.C. In his first-hand account of the confusion that followed the terrorist attacks in London, Parry draws several lessons that can be learned from the London bus and subway bombings and what the events could mean for George W. Bush's perpetual war on terror, U.S. foreign policy, and the last consequences of warfare culture.

For the full non-ideological story of how the British approached the crisis with determination and how the American far right talk radio creeps used this tragedy to... do what they alwasy do: attack those who disagree with them (like liberals) check out Consortiumnews coverage of the London bombings.

Personally, I remain confused how everything can be the fault of the non-conservative or the non-neoconserative. How can it be that every single misstep in domestic and foreign policy is the fault of someone else? Will these neanderthals ever take responsibility for their failed policies and rich kid spoiled dispositions?

Probably not. But that just means, like Perry, we have to point out every mistake they make and hold them accountable with the hope that the American public will one day realize that they were (and are) constantly lied to.

Pink Floyd and MTV's Senior Moments

"Out of Touch!" This one sentence alone sums up how disconnected from music, music fans, and more MTV's increasingly top-heavy bureaucracy has become (especially, Van Toffler MTV's president). Perhaps MTV never truly cared about the music but in the past they at least showed some videos. MTV, Vh1, and the other mainstream music channels have become alienated with viewers and increasingly the public at large.

There are bright spots such as occasional programming on CMT and Fuse. You're about to tell me that CMT has nothing to offer. But you would be wrong: Interesting intersections of different music styles like the recent Los Loney Boys and Ronnie Milsap collaborations, Crossroads, and programming more Americana and Alt-Country open up potential more fans to an interesting form of music that combines elements of rock, country, rockabilly, and folk in a form that some have described as "Twangcore."

And then there was a much beloved band like for all of its prog rock excess still have people buying their music, Pink Floyd, playing at the Live8 concert. And vacuous MTV VJs are talking all over once in a life time performances. And they remain surprised:

"Many of MTV's viewers weren't even alive when Pink Floyd broke up, so Toffler said he was surprised at how many wanted to see the band's reunion performance in full."



Yeah, right...young boys/girls and men/women do not still buy Pink Floyd records, or wear T-shirts, or download their songs! I am stunned and nearly speechless... Alright, not literally speechless but you know what I mean. Pink Floyd in either the Waters or Waterless configurations always made money on tours years after they stopped making vital records.

In my work and at my daughter's school, I have noticed that very bright high school juniors and seniors, as well as hip college students, live and breathe music. Several different kinds of music, at that. If I hear one more Pink Floyd song pumping from their cars or these days laptop computers I think I'm going to get comfortably numb myself, and I LOVE Pink Floyd.

How can MTV and its president be this out of touch? It's mind boggling until you remember that it is not about the music for them, its about business.

John Tierney SHOCKINGLY Half Right

Unctuous Junior states:

[I]t's clear that no one can stop terrorists from killing. Spending billions on airport security has simply diverted them to transit systems, and spending billions on transit systems could at best divert them somewhere else: stores, restaurants, sidewalks. Terrorists don't even need bombs. They could simply adopt the snipers' technique for spreading fear.

President Bush briefly admitted last summer to Matt Lauer that the war on terror couldn't ever be won, but he got so much criticism that he promptly backtracked. It was a textbook Washington gaffe: perfectly true but terribly inconvenient.

It was inconvenient because politicians like to promise a cure for any problem in the news, especially if the cure means dispensing money to constituents and campaign contributors.

Promises to halt terror have turned homeland security spending into the biggest porkfest in Washington, and the London attacks have inspired calls for still more spending.

Tierney's focus though is as hackneyed as ever.

The fact is that money we have spent on domestic security is a pittance compared to the blood and treasure of what we have wasted in Iraq.

And HOW is the Iraq Sales Pitch 9.0 being sold now?

Why that attacking them over there makes us safter over here.

Again the key point is that terrorism costs relatively nothing, the terrorists hit of the London Underground didn't even used particular powerful, but incredibly cheap, explosives. The act required few individuals.

There is simply no rationality in this pitch whatsoever, so par for the course I guess.

But god forbid Tierney make his argument without pointing out the gigantic, and gassy, elephant in the room.

Yip, Yip, Yip, barked the small dog

From the intersection of Vanity Street & Funhouse Mirror Avenue:

SHEESH [K. J. Lopez]
Not only was Rich great on Hannity and Colmes, but Colmes plugged both NRODT and NRO. Thanks, Alan.
Posted at 10:02 PM

As I was saying...

About my predictive powers:

No one in my family has been right on a prediction since in the old country (Germany) in the late 19th Century my great great great grandfather Atta von Turkeldorf said, "Hey, we've won a couple wars in a row, let's get out of here before the streak is over."

Color me Impressed

Much to my amazement, Cybercast News Service did a reasonably fair job of recapitulating the recent Intelligence Report from the Southern Poverty Law Center cover story on the Christian Far Right's "Holy War" on homosexuality. The writer of course emphasizes these Religious Righties groups' reaction to the SPLC report, but also represents the conclusions of the SPLC fairly well. Take a look

A civil rights organization that has spent the last 25 years monitoring "hate groups" and "extremists" such as the Ku Klux Klan now has a new target -- the religious right -- which the group claims is conducting a "holy war" against homosexuals.

In the current issue of its quarterly magazine "Intelligence Report," the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) contends that "religious leaders have engaged in 30 years of name-calling and bogus 'science' in their attack on gays. But only now is their crusade reaching biblical proportions."

In response, the spokesman for one pro-family group said it's the SPLC that is guilty of "engaging in hate speech." Another conservative said his group wears the criticism from the SPLC as a "badge of honor." Along with an article on "Curious Cures" for homosexuality and a feature on the myth that homosexuals helped mastermind the Holocaust, the SPLC's latest Intelligence Report contains a timeline of the "anti-gay movement" from Anita Bryant's efforts to repeal a "gay rights" ordinance in Florida in 1977 to the present.

In an editorial, SPLC spokesman Mark Potok asserted that "the religiously based crusade against homosexuals in America" reached a turning point in 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision struck down state anti-sodomy laws.

M is for Moronic

Max Blumenthal on Right Wing attack on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Read it here.

"I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance," Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said in May. Since he was appointed to his position by President Bush, he has set about to change the "tone" and rectify the "balance." For example, he helped secure $4 million to fund Wall Street Journal Report, a round-table discussion featuring the newspaper's right-wing editorial board; no liberals or Democrats need apply. Next he collaborated with Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, to kill a legislative proposal that would have required appointments with local broadcasting experience to the CPB board. Last year, to justify his campaign for balance, Tomlinson commissioned a secret study to prove that certain programs aired on PBS radio and television are contaminated with liberal bias.

To carry out this delicate task, Tomlinson selected Fred Mann, a conservative activist with no credentials as an expert on journalism, broadcasting or media issues, who was obscure even within right-wing circles. Mann was paid $14,700 in taxpayer money to monitor a sampling of PBS shows and file a report to Tomlinson on the political partisanship of their content. Tomlinson seems to have planned for Mann's report to become a seminal conservative document.

Republicans would wave it during House appropriations committee hearings as they argued for defunding PBS and realigning its programming. Right-wing talk jocks would blare talking points based on Mann's disturbing findings, which would at last provide definitive proof of a liberal media tilt. Meanwhile, insidious liberal activists boring from within public broadcasting studios would cower in humiliation from the exposure.

While Mann diligently went about his work listening to the radio and watching TV, monitoring episodes of PBS's NOW With Bill Moyers, The Diane Rehm Show and The Tavis Smiley Show--Tomlinson concealed his activities from CPB's board. When Mann filed his detailed report, Tomlinson hid it from the CPB board. Only an internal investigation by CPB's inspector general in mid May revealed the existence of the Mann report. And only when journalists at NPR managed to secure a copy were its contents reported. Reading the study, it is clear why Tomlinson tried to keep it a state secret.

The Mann report reads as if dictated by Cookie Monster while chewing on a mouthful of lead paint chips. Names of famous political figures and celebrities are chronically misspelled. PBS guests are categorized by labels--"anti-DeLay," "neutral," "x"--for often bewildering reasons. Mann appears to have spent endless hours monitoring programs with no political content, gathering such insights as that Ray Charles was blind.

Bush Base is going overseas and destroying itself

From the AP:

450 Sheep Jump to Their Deaths

The Critic Strikes Back

Hey folks, I gotta say that rarely do I get as much email as when I write about music, television, and movies here on the Rising Hegemon. So, since some of you wanted a response to a few questions:

Q: Do you Dirk D. DeDurkheim believe that the movie industry is dead?

A: Nope. Or at least, not yet. The final sign that we are dead as a society is when we see on our theatre marquees "The Facts of Life-The Movie". You KNOW it's only a
matter of time... I know, I know I shudder to think about it too. But when it happens then, we may as well turn the lights out, it's over.

Q: DeDurkheim what is with your dislike of Russell Crowe?

A: Not fair, I actually have liked a few of his movies such as A Brilliant Mind. Even though they overly romanticized it but what do you expect from Opie Cunningham? The larger issue is: can we have films made that do not treat the audience as though we were all 15 year old boys??? Heck, make that 15 year old crushing on our best friend's mom middle class white boys. How else can you explain some of the weirdness in the Star Wars films?

Another problem is that right now some interesting dare I say good "Hollywood type" movies are out (such as our crusin' for brusin' aussie Crowe's Cinderella Man) but it's getting killed at the box office by the usual summer mindless retread eye candy junk. To reiterate one major theatre chain is offering to give people their money back if they go to "Cinderella Man" and don't like it. No such offer with that travesty to the memory of Elizabeth Montgomery film trash out now called Bewitched.

Good gravy people, how long are we going to keep giving that female redheaded aussie film breaks. Sheesh. She hasn't done anything good since she worked with Gus Van Sant and even that played to the 15 year old middle class white boy. And yes, I saw Dogville, she still doesn't get a pass.

Q: D.D.D. what have you got against commedies?

A: Nothing if they are done well. For what it's worth, a few of my favorite comedies: 1. Monty Python and the Holy Grail; 2. Duck Soup; 3. Young Frankenstein; 4. Help!; 5. This is Spinal Tap; 6. Animal House; 7. Rock and Roll High School; 8. Airplane; 9. Animal Crackers; 10. Meatballs and Caddy Shack (a tie in my mind); 11. A Thousand Clowns (although as serious as it is funny).

Q: Couldn't you apply this kind of a list to the music industry?

A: Yes you could. And should. So...

MY TOP TEN REASONS WHY THE MUSIC BIZ IS IN A SLUMP
(with much regards to Me for the previous template!)

1) Too many remakes

2) Too many sequels

3) Too many ensemble productions without any real disc time for the participants to make a difference to the song (stunt casting?)

4) Too much style and not enough melody

5) Too much hard drive and not enough two-inch tape

6) Too much irony and not enough naivete

7) John Lennon, Joey Ramone and Frank Zappa are dead

8) Paul McCartney, REM and Sting are still making records

9) NotLame and Jam are making BETTER records

10) The Rolling Stones are still going out on tour

As a great person once said, "Surreal when you say that."

Movie Critic Time

There seems to be a lot of discussion about how bad a slump this big super dee-duper summer movie season is in for summer 2005. But before I make the arguments that independent film is stronger and more interesting than ever, we are talking about the ever increasing bizarre celebrity machine known as Hollywood.

Basically Hollywood movies are at a 20 year low for the past 6 months, despite Star Wars, Batman, War of the Worlds, and more. There have been several surveys that mention that more people polled prefer to watch movies in there home rather then a theater.

MY TOP TEN REASONS WHY HOLLYWOOD IS IN A SLUMP

1) Too many remakes or pseudo-remakes. Everyone I know who has seen Bewitched wants their money back! Of course, they are only giving money back for Cindrella Man right now but maybe there is a trend coming our way.

2) Too many sequels. Where are the original ideas? Hell Atta J. Turk and I have many good movie ideas that are not based on a past movie, so pay us.

3) Too many ensemble cast movies without any real screen time for the participants to make a difference to the plot (stunt casting?). Can we also add in here the casting of someone who "looks" good (whatever that means) rather than an actor capable of good or interesting acting.

4) Too much style and not enough plot. I am tired of watching films and thinking "Oh, here is where the director and editor want me to go... oh and ah." Can we get away from the style manipulation?

5) Too much CGI and not enough organic celluloid. Am I alone in not liking War of the Worlds based on this simple idea?

6) The loss of irony and naivete. As well as the failure to be careful in the use of them. You can also go too far with either one.

7) Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, Stanley Kubrick, and Robert Wise are dead and not making films anymore.

8) Steven Speilberg, George Lucas and Woody Allen are still making movies. Hey, whatever happened to "less is more." And man, Woody... just stop. Please. I am begging you here. You are crushing what once was an amazing career. Go play some jazz.

9) Japan and Bollywood are making better films. Come on, if you saw Bride and Prejudice, you know what I am talking about. Not to mention the horror films coming out of Japan for the last several years are scary as hell.

10) Arnold is still the Governor of California. Love the guy, hate the guy, people line up in droves to see him. Of course, I would rather have him making movies as opposed to being the Guv of Cali.

Something is incredibly wrong when the best movie I have seen recently was "Herbie: Fully Loaded" with my kids. Yeah, yeah... I know but it was fun. Remember when movies were fun? Maybe Hollywood and its celebrity "look at me, look at me" culture could finally be put to bed and moviemakers could give us something new and original to watch. Maybe then we would go to the theatres.

How You Gonna Die?

Announcer: From Burbank, California, it's America's fastest growing feeling or sensation, "How You Gonna Die?" and here's the host of our program Wink Ewbanks.

W.E.: Hello everybody, and welcome to "How You Gonna Die?" where two moderately attractive white women in their 20s and 30s strive to choose their likely future demises as reported by the Broadcast and/or Cable Media. Let's meet our contestants.

[Innoucuous digital muzak plays and a spinning platform reveals two dishwater blonde women, about 30 with large eyes seated behind a jazzed up desk]

W.E.: First, she's a baptist youth minister from Hominy, Georgia; engaged to a born-again former alcholic. She proclaims she's still a virgin, Connie Jones! [applause]. Connie, I have to tell you, you sure are white.

Connie: Thanks Wink. You have a nice tan.

W.E.: Why thank you. Tell me Connie, how long have you been a virgin?

Connie: Oh, about seven or eight years now. Ever since I began dating my fiance Ted.

W.E.: That's great. Are you excited to be able to choose the method of your demise at some unknowable point in the future?

Connie: I sure am, it gives me a feeling of control over my relative helplessness.

W.E.: That's terrific Connie. Johnny Olson, Junior, tell us who our next contestant is please.

Announcer: Wink, she's a Homemaker from EmployedatWill, Kansas; a mother of 13; and a regular attendee at the Evangelical Church of the Determined Sperm, Phyllis Smith. [Applause]

W.E.: Welcome Phyllis, nice to meet you. You are a mother of 13?

Phyllis: Yes, Wink, nine of them by invitro-fertilization and four by the miracle of being a port of entry for the love of my husband Mike [crowd oohs and ahs, Phyllis looks discombobulated], but I didn't like it. [Crowd applauds]

W.E.: Phyllis are you ready to play, "How You Gonna Die?"

Phyllis: Why yes, Wink. I feel that being able to be afraid of only one specific event will enable me to concentrate my fear all on that particular item everyday of my life, instead of having my fear be generalized. I'd rather be constantly afraid of one thing in particular, than everything.

W.E.: That's smart thinking Phyllis.

Phyllis: One question though Wink?

W.E.: Yes?

Phyllis: No matter what, I can still be afraid of electing a Democrat right?

W.E.: Of course Phyllis, maintaining a suitable level of irrationality is as important for you as it is for the importance of our ratings.

[Applause]

W.E.: Well, if you ladies are ready to begin, let's look at what today's winner has to choose from, Johnny?

Announcer: Wink today's contestants can choose from: Death by Kidnapping by a swarthy stranger of general physical description; the random bombing of a mass transit vehicle; or by having their taxes raised by a Democrat [crowd groans].

W.E.: Wow, some tough choices there. But first we have to play our game. Ladies, hands on your bible-buzzers. Let's Begin. "The Man responsible for the rise of international terrorism is?"

["HALLALUJAH!"]

W.E.: Phyllis?

Phyllis: Bill Clinton?

["DAMNATION!"][Crowd groans]

W.E.: Oh, I'm sorry, that answer no longer is applicable.

["PRAISE THE LORD"]

Connie: Hillary Clinton?

W.E.: Correct! And Connie, you win!

Connie: Wow, that's the shortest game show ever.

W.E.: Yes, we've structured our game to the average American attention span.
Connie, Which method of death do you prefer?

Connie: Well, I cannot imagine anything worse than a Democratic President, and I simply cannot abide riding in a bus or train with strangers, especially a whole bunch of heathens and dark types, so I guess I'll take the Kidnapping, for the newscoverage will give me a legacy worthy of a white christian martyr, and virgin.

[Rapturous Applause]

W.E.: Congratulations Connie, sometime in the next 10 years, before the flower of youth disappears, you will be said to have been kidnapped and murdered by a person who could be 90% of the black or hispanic men on the planet.

Connie: They'll be no prolonged contact with them right?

W.E.: Oh, Connie, it probably will not even be them.

Connie: Whew, that's a relief, I'd much rather be violently killed by someone like me.

W.E.: That's great and good night everybody, we'll see you next time on "How You Gonna Die?" [Applause and bouncy end music]

Eat Your Heart out Nostradamus

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

$300 Billion...

More than 1750 dead American soldiers, as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians, so that we alleged can fight them there so we don't have to fight them in New York OR London and what happens:

Police raised the death toll from the four rush-hour bombings in London to more than 50 people on Friday, and said each of the bombs contained less than 10 pounds of high explosives.

The whole Iraqi misadventure morphing into the fight for prevention is, if possible, the biggest lie of all.

It ignores history. Today's Al Qaeda was yesterdays Afghan Mujehedin fighting the Soviets, tomorrows will be those being trained by fighting us. And here's no secret, we are a hell of a lot better than the Soviets technologically and training-wise, so those surviving this experience will be a hell of a lot better than today's Al Qaeda.

And 4 bombs with less than 10 pounds of material is disturbingly low tech. Remember 9/11 was based on fucking boxcutters. No matter how many hundreds of billions we dump into Iraq, the so-called "war on terror" will be no better, in fact it will likely be worse. Today, tomorrow and forever, a few people, with little money can reap incredible chaos and harm. You are not going to prevent such actions by building up grievances and grudges -- which is exactly what we are doing now.

All it means is perpetual war, perpetual defense contract money, perpetual suffering, perpetual death, and perpetual lies.

Good job Chimp.

Other People Dying ---- "It's AWESOME"

From the ether filled head of Fox und Freunde's lummox in residence:

And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

Yes, the "Blitz"; decades of the IRA; and the nail bombs of the late 90s, those Brits never experienced the terror of bombing -- except those times.

Friday Miscellaneous Lifeform Blogging

Scientists this week identified a new dolphin species. The Snubfin Dolphin lives off the coast of Australia. Though no one is saying it, it is thought to be amongst the most naive, unintelligent, and yet loquacious of dolphins. When told of it, Peggy Noonan immediately turned on her vibrator and demanded it be renamed the "Ronald Reagan Blessed Dolphin of my Pants".

"Intelligent" Design?

The greatest argument against survival of the fittest exists in these answers the New Republic got from "prominent" conservatives on evolutionary theory. What a hodgepodge of baboons:

William Kristol, The Weekly Standard

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I don't discuss personal opinions. ..

You don't discuss personal opinions? You are a fucking pundit you douche!

Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I've never understood how an eye evolves."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "Put me down for the intelligent design people."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "The real problem here is that you shouldn't have government-run schools. ... Given that we have to spend all our time crushing the capital gains tax I don't have much time for this issue."

John Dewey lies a spinnin' in his grave. Reality is fucking parody. How the hell did Grover evolve, let alone an eye. Oh, here is how an "eye" evolved dopey, it was partially government funded so perhaps you just won't read it out of principal -- though you undoubtedly won't understand it.

David Frum, American Enterprise Institute and National Review
Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I do believe in evolution."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "If intelligent design means that evolution occurs under some divine guidance, I believe that."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "I don't believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools. ... Christianity is the faith of nine-tenths of the American public. ... I don't believe that public schools should embark on teaching anything that offends Christian principle."

Ugh, nice baseline.

Norman Podhoretz, Commentary (via email)

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "It's impossible to answer that question with a simple yes or no."

Just like answering whether he is John's father I imagine.

Tucker Carlson:

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "I don't have a problem with public schools or any schools teaching evolution. I guess I would have a problem if a school or a science teacher asserted that we know how life began, because we don't so far as I know, do we?

Somebody at the Heritage Foundation hasn't sent Tucker the memo.

David Brooks, The New York Times (via email)

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I believe in the theory of evolution."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "I've never really studied the issue or learned much about ID, so I'm afraid I couldn't add anything intelligent to the discussion."

Bobo, who is very tiny apparently (he does have a Hobbity name after all) also is not getting the memo.

To be fair there are a couple of decent responses. Richard Brookheiser for example. And now your yearly allotment of Krauthammer being correct (he is also, I think, notably the only one of these people to have substantial biological instruction):

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Of course."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "At most, interesting."

Whether intelligent design should be taught in public schools: "The idea that [intelligent design] should be taught as a competing theory to evolution is ridiculous. ... The entire structure of modern biology, and every branch of it [is] built around evolution and to teach anything but evolution would be a tremendous disservice to scientific education. If you wanna have one lecture at the end of your year on evolutionary biology, on intelligent design as a way to understand evolution, that's fine. But the idea that there are these two competing scientific schools is ridiculous."

But Krauthammer, as far as I know, never writes columns stating these things, he wouldn't want to offend his audience with rationality.

Comeuppance Fatigue

I know that the excitement over a potential Rove indictment is getting palpable (or feared depending on your viewpoint). MyDD has some more tea-leave reading.

Other than a joke here and there, I'm not holding my breath. I don't know how many times I've thought the damn would finally break, and yet it holds. I think it will finally burst, but who knows?

Sully's Magic Line between Tragedy and Farce

The latter supplied by the supreme imbecility of this rationalization which he wholeheartedly approved:

As The Economist went to press, the toll in the four London bombs was not clear, but the estimate of at least 33 deaths was thankfully far smaller than in Madrid. By the terrible calculus of terrorism, the attacks should thus be counted as a failure - sign of weakness, not strength.

Where is the "magic" line between failure and success, is it 100? Do you have to have 100 dead to be a tragic terrorist strike, as opposed to the jolly victory of only 33 corpses? The death toll is up to 53 now and will undoubtedly climb. Are we supposed to cheer or clap louder or something as long as the toll ends at 99?

What a putz.

The Influences of George "Dubya" Bush

Howard Fineman in a typically fatuous column looks at the various political influences upon Dear Leader when it comes to the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice:

...there is a tug-of-war going on – and it’s not the one you’re already seeing on TV between the lobbying groups and senators maneuvering for position in front of the cameras. It’s among the various influences that have shaped Bush, in his personal life and in his political career.

Hmmm, who has influenced George W. Bush in his personal life and political career?

Up-to-Date Information on the London Bombings

Info here and here.

I have to share Attaturk's perspective on the weak and cynical leadership that is being demonstrated by world leaders.

And more I have to wonder if the so-called Homeland Security head Chertoff's call for Americans to be "vigilant and increased awareness of their surroundings" around transportation and mass transit systems is going to lead to Americans spying upon one another, especially if that person getting on the bus, plane, boat, etc... is someone who does not look like you.

Is this really the country we want to live in? Welcome to Bush's 'Merica where you distrust everyone around you.

Times Like These...

Are not ideal for exercising one's cynical side but I can't help it. I'll run the risk of having us labelled unpatriotic and state for the record the usual blah blah blah we shall prevail, they shall lose has lost its charm.

Blair, flanked by fellow G-8 leaders, including President Bush, said: "We shall prevail and they shall not."

Earlier, a shaken Blair said, "Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilized nations throughout the world."

Really, can't Blair do better than that?


Update:

File under this puts it in perspective...I guess he did better than the usually colloquial Bush.

"I instructed them to be in touch with local and state officials about the facts of what took place here in London," Bush told reporters from a summit of world leaders here. Bush said he urged caution "as our folks start heading to work."

He really does work hard at being only half a moron.

Update #2:

He really doesn't work much speak in terms that are, well, sublime.

"We will not yield to these people," Bush said. "We will not yield to terrorists. We will them find them. We will bring them to justice. At the same time, we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate."

Shall we call it the "Extraordinary Rendition Ideology of Hope" or the "Abu Ghraib Ideology of Hope"?

Good to know

Fellow guest-Eschatonarian Avedon Carol is alright and blogging from London now.

That did not take long

From the Corner (too foolish to deserve a play on words):

WOULD MICHAEL MORE CARE TO REPEAT HIS ASSESSMENT [Michael Graham]
“There is no terrorist threat.”
Posted at 07:23 AM

If you are going to make an ad hominem slander, and a pointless and misdirected one at that, could you at least spell his name right?

But this is the FIRST of what will become a deluge of attacks on those of us who have been critical of BushCo. It is all the "lefts" fault for these attacks; if we could only be harsh at GITMO et al this could have been stopped; if we could just mow down Iraq and Afghanistan our lebensraum will be safe; if it wasn't for all of us criticizing Dear Leader no more terrorist acts would ever occur.

Yes, those of us who do not control the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial Branches; those of us who do not receive the pay of corporate media, those of us with all the power a series of miniscule blogs can drive are to blame for the growth of Al Qaeda.

It's coming, the big lie. I wonder sometimes if they are determined not to let Al Qaeda out-douchebag them? A nearly impossible task, but yet they try anyway.

Well, surprise!

From the Guardian (who is blogging live the aftermath):

BBC Monitoring says it has found a website with a brief statement, in which an al-Quaida-related organisation has claimed responsibility for today's blasts.

I'll just say it early and get it out of the way.

Iraq is making these folks more sophisticated and stronger; meanwhile Afghanistan is not exactly going splendedly and the figurehead of Al Qaeda continues to avoid capture and just punishment.

We are fighting them over there; but we are simply making MORE of them. If cynics wanted to they could say Bush is making for perpetual war, whether intentional or not he is doing so.

It is time to fight them SMARTLY, it is not something this Administration has shown itself capable of doing for nearly four years. It is up to us to make them do so.

They will try to make this incident such that people don't remember their statements about fighting them there so we don't have to fight them there, but that is not the effect of their policy, the effect is that we will have to fight them here, there, and everywhere for fucking ever.

Don't let them spout there way into supporting their woebegotten and ineffective policies.

So...

Has Tony Blair ever used the foolish Bushtopian line, "we are fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here?" Because I think its fairly logical to suspect who is behind the incidents (I may be wrong, but I thought the same thing right away on 9/11 -- and I'm hardly the only one).

Meanwhile, let's hope for the best for the people of London.