The world could be run by decent people of conscience. It could, right?
He's got my vote (until such time as the Dem nominee--obviously not this man--is chosen when I, again seized w/ disgust and dismay, will vote for said namby-pamby nominee in hopes that RoveCo has not already stolen the "election").
Sob.
Dear God, it hurts.
Gore and Bush Chat About Global Warming.
This article is rife w/ astonishing (and not terribly well-written) observations--beyond sobworthy--and I wish I had it in me to dissect it line-by-line, but after 8 years of mind-boggling vacuousness, treachery, and treason, I'm an inch from jumping off a cliff every day, and I can't do it.
The look on dumbyass's face ... God. He might just realize how inadequate and illegitimate he is.
This article refuses to plainly state two very obvious things that would put its provocative headline in context: 1) the Bush administration has been a miserable failure on a scale such that the scope of our national disaster is almost too frightening to contemplate and 2) professors engage critical thinking, analysis, research, contemplation, rigorous debate, peer review, and the scientific method to separate the facts from the Faux Nooze hyena pack echo chamber swiftboating.
Faced with a party of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Alito, Gonzalez, Rice, Bremmer, Feith, and the grandmaster buffoon of all time, not to mention "go f*ck yourself" and "known unknowns" and "Stuff happens" and "mission accomplished" and "quaint" Geneva Conventions and rescinded habeas corpus and moral relativism on torture, among many other tragic and infuriating injustices, is it any wonder the learned among us vote Democratic? Just venturing a guess here.
Also, who OK'd the punctuation in that headline?
Ivy League Faculty Giving Democratic, More Heavily Than Ever.
Professors and administrators at the nation's top colleges are supporting Democratic candidates for president at a rate higher than the historic averages.
More than 86 percent of those who teach or work directly for an Ivy League university have donated to a Democrat so far during the 2008 campaign, according to an analysis of campaign finance reports. That percentage -- which does not include those who work in affiliated hospitals -- is more than 10 points higher than the education industry as a whole.
Of the roughly $470,000 donated by these Ivy League higher ups, approximately $205,000 has been given to Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, and $147,000 to Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. The top Republican recipient was former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, who received approximately $33,000 in Ivy League largesse.
"I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that professors are more liberal than most," Massie Ristch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, told the Huffington Post. "This industry is as Democratic as the oil industry is Republican and I don't think the split in either end would surprise anyone. With professors, however, we assume that these are more ideologically driven than economic."
No, Massie Ristch, it's not a surprise to anyone because it is one of the oldest class-baiting tropes in the Repugnican bag of smelly tricks. Thanks for playing along.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the education industry has become increasingly Democratic over the past twenty years. Whereas in 1990, 57 percent of the industry's donations - including Political Action Committee dollars - went to Democratic candidates, by 2006 that number had increased to 71 percent. The amount of money in play is also on the rise. In 1996 the total amount of contributions from academia was more than $8.8 million. By 2000, that had doubled and in 2004 it doubled again to more than $36 million.
Gosh, I wonder what's happened in the last twenty years to spur those in the education industry to "become increasingly Democratic." Who can tell in this reportage vacuum? Could it be that for 12 of those 20 years we've suffered through disastrous Repugnican/Bush family policy? Hmm. Feh.
I'm sure people have been sexually active in the 80s, 90s, and Oughts, too. What does this headline mean?
Many Found Sexually Active Into the 70s.
Into their 70s, maybe?
Continuously mistaken millionaire war profiteer Thomas L. Friedman wants to strangle his critics. (Or maybe he's imitating a pompom motion as he cheerleads The Endless War.)
ThinkProgress has a nicely done graphic of the never-ending "next few months" in Iraq, of which Friedman is BushCo's most faithful pollyanna. These "next few months" started in 2003 w/ arch fiend Donald Rumsfeld lying, "It could last...six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," and have continued to present day.
Iraq Timeline: The Broken Record on "the Next Few Months".
"The Next F.U."? Yup, one big long F.U.
I know! We could do an entire article in the paper of record about how no one can hear your message if everyone's talking about your clothes/hair/cleavage, which just aren't important but they really, really are, because secretly they tell us if you're gay or you're butch, because that is apparently the most important indicator of leadership potential, so we revel in these ever-changing codes and distractions and play at pooh-poohing these LCD "concerns" while perpetuating high drama at the expense of our ever-floundering democracy.Yeah!
Yes, we really need to jawbone this to death, because it is so relevant and meaningful, and adds so much to the discourse. Thank God it takes up valuable column inches in the New.York.Times.
Campaign Chic: Not Too Cool, Never Ever Hot.
“You neither want to be seen as somebody who cares too much about appearance or too little,” said Jay Fielden, the editor of Men’s Vogue. His magazine’s July-August cover shows John Edwards looking model-handsome and yet sufficiently populist. He wears, as Mr. Fielden pointed out, a Carhartt field coat from his own closet, presumably in an attempt to deflect scrutiny away from his wealth, his North Carolina McMansion and his costly grooming habits and toward the antipoverty agenda he pursued last week on a sweep through the South.
Please, baby Jeebus, please. I can't take any more! What, pray tell, is "looking sufficiently populist"? And how, pray tell, does one ensure that a Carhartt coat deflects from one's wealth, and why, pray tell, does that have anything to do w/ anything??
“There’s a strict code that’s kind of understood, but that you know these guys can’t talk about,” said Mr. Fielden, referring to sartorial guidelines whose very existence is subject to Beltway omerta. “If you get into a situation like McCain did, it ends up seeming like you’re being dressed by your mother. It’s not very macho.”
What "situation" did McCain get in? The completely manufactured one about "gay sweaters"?
Please, baby Jeebus, please, the Repugnicans have ruined our country. They've lied us into wars, looted the treasury, rendered entire words meaningless, lied, cheated, and stealed in every possible aspect of governing, engaged in an unprecedented and anti-Constitutional powergrab, and created a foreign policy based on torturing anyone who gets in our way. Why in heaven's name would "macho" be a positive consideration?
So, when a candidate appears to be dressed by others, immediately that candidate is interpreted “as gay or effeminate or not butch enough to be president,” Professor Miller said.
::ae falls in a heap weeping::
There's more (and worse), but I just don't have it in me to go on.
::sputtering::
Judy Miller Defends Leaker -- Of Harry Potter Ending!
Judith Miller, the former New York Times reporter who is something of an expert on leaks, was asked today on the Fox News show "Fox and Friends" about the burning issue of the day: Who leaked the pages from the new Harry Potter book and does she defend the leaker?
Miller said she didn't think the leaker giving away the ending of the book was the right thing to do but added, chuckling, "I would defend to the death his right to do it."
Oh, do f*ck off, Judy.
"So what does happen in this Harry Potter book?" she was asked. "I don't know," Miller said, laughing, fairly certain she would avoid jail in this case.
"I know you can keep a secret," one host noted.
Switching to the slightly more serious subject of the new National Intelligence Estimate finding al-Qaeda resurgent, a host told her, "You are an expert on terrorism."
Judy Miller is an expert on terrorism??
"Everyone is an expert on terrorism today," Miller replied.
Well, sure if by "expert" we mean the standards we ascribe to Judy Miller. Hell, in that case, the Dingo is an expert on terrorism.
She said she was "not surprised" by the new al-Qaeda assessment, adding: "Obviously what concerns everyone is the prospective use of a weapon of mass destruction. We know that al-Qada has continued its quest for chemical and biological agents and radioactive material, but we don't know if they have gotten any of it."
Oh, really? Cos I thought that was reason #65b for why we invaded Iraq.
She said dangers abound but "we are safer today given the spending of billions of dollars. It's just harder to walk onto an airliner and blow it up."
Why does this officious war shill have a platform on which to spew forth on any topic? Oh, haha. What hilarity lying us into a war. What giggles to "defend" the honor of the dishonorable. My sides are aching. What mirth.
Anyhoo, Harry Potter. I've not read any of the books (not a fantasy fan in general) and instead I've seen all of the movies w/ pals, and I've really enjoyed them. db's reading the last book now, and I am trying not to guess what might happen from the grimaces and raised eyebrows and clenched jaws that I can sense from across the room.
I really hope some jerk doesn't ruin it for everyone by blurting out the ending. Is this too much to hope for? I've studiously avoided all reviews, articles, headlines, mentions, and allusions, and it'll be a miracle if I'm still happily in the dark about Potter goings on in about 3 years when the final film comes out.
Honestly, when will "women" stop bringing our political discourse down? There they are brazenly making up the majority of Congress and corporate boards, the lot of them captains of industry and academia, essentially dominating all spheres of influence in the country; poor men can't get a word in edgewise. And it is abundantly clear that strident women run roughshod over the political system, hogging all the rights for themselves -- I mean, all that free child-, health- and eldercare for everyone, all that improved education and emphasis on social equity programs and financial independence, all that consumer advocacy and clean food, all that care for the environment, but most especially all that time spent relaxing and sitting on their asses because they are finally in control of their own goddamn bodies. Will their reign of terror never end? Beyond the shadow of a doubt these witch women have let the power go to their heads (all in a day's work of sucking men's life essence) and are controlling the discourse w/ an iron fist.
The bitches!
::reality dawns::
Oh, right. Bob Nofacts is an idiot.
Novak: Women's 'venom' toward Bush is 'so vicious.'
Novak: I hate to say it, but I think the hatred toward George W. Bush is just mad. I listen to, sometimes in the car radio, on talk shows, and the venom that comes out of the mouths of some of these women, particularly, I’m not trying to be sexist, but they’re so vicious toward him. And I don’t think that really contributes. And also, the bloggers, I don’t read the bloggers very much, but it is really, it’s really vicious.
Oh, he's not trying to be sexist. He comes to it naturally.
And what the hell are these impudent women thinking participating as informed citizens in their democracy being so vicious (meeeow!) to poor, poor Dear Leader, the most powerful person dangerous moron in the world? Nofacts wonders why we're not happy that OB-GYNs can't practice their love w/ us and that our children have no health insurance and are given medically inaccurate information or that our educational system is failing (on purpose) and he's attacking Title IX, not to mention OUR VERY BODIES, or that hundreds of thousands of people are murdered in our name to further a craven agenda built on lies and propagated by fear and malice.
I mean, really, girls. Why so hysterical? Maybe it's PMS. Take some Pamprin and shut it. He's the Deciderer, and it's hard work. And he shall not be questioned, at least not in your shrill and grating tones.
[Pictured: A harpy, no doubt bitching in an unladylike manner about dumbyass, as the shameless ingrates are wont to do.]
Does the NYT need some help coming up w/ a hook this presidential race season? I know some 5th graders who could help out w/ questions about lazy-ass "outsider" Fred Thompson cozying up to lobbyists and being in cahoots with the Nixon WH during Watergate.
Will Her Face Determine His Fortune?
Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?
Aaaaaaiiiiiiyyy!!
The title, the content, the pejorative, the underlying truth, the ick factor, the conservatives's studied tut-tutting about women's inherent worth as they oh-so-piously adjust their halos and decry all the bimbo talk. Give me an ever-lovin' break.
Feh.
Dear Jeebus.
A President Besieged and Isolated, Yet at Ease.
At the nadir of his presidency, George W. Bush is looking for answers. One at a time or in small groups, he summons leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians to the White House to join him in the search.
Over sodas and sparkling water, he asks his questions: What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I'm facing? How will history judge what we've done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?
::cough:: Bullshit! ::cough::
Please, he's never had such 1) coherent, 2) self-examining thoughts. The He's in Charge!™ propaganda continues apace.
And yet Bush does not come across like a man lamenting his plight. In public and in private, according to intimates, he exhibits an inexorable upbeat energy that defies the political storms. Even when he convenes philosophical discussions with scholars, he avoids second-guessing his actions. He still acts as if he were master of the universe, even if the rest of Washington no longer sees him that way.
"You don't get any feeling of somebody crouching down in the bunker," said Irwin M. Stelzer, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who was part of one group of scholars who met with Bush. "This is either extraordinary self-confidence or out of touch with reality. I can't tell you which."
Oh, I can tell you which. He's an idiot and a zealot; neither of these require much in the way of intellect, introspection, or regard for reality.
And still the WaPo insists on writing articles about the Moron Boy-King AS IF he were in charge, AS IF he were perturbed by the reality (sic) that he finds himself in, AS IF the personal difficult moment (sic) that he finds himself in is worth a hill of beans in relation to the lies, corruption, and venality that brought us and the rest of the world to this moment.
What matters his concern for history (bwaahahahaha! good one, WH Press Office) when these jackals have given us not one but two electoral coups, preemptive war, manipulated intelligence, a discarded Constitution, Abu Ghraib, corporate crapitalism run amok, war profiteering for which there needs to be a new word for 'shameful,' an ascendant theocratic minority, political discourse that amounts to gay- and womanbashing, hundreds of thousands dead, and other indignities and injustices too numerous to mention?
But no, it's poor, poor Gump. How will he possibly survive the assault of reality on his warm cocoon of cognitive dissonance? What if life really isn't like a box of choklits?
My god. My queendom for an ounce of seriousness in our country's political reportage.
