Even more absurd, she was replaced by an empty chair at her own request.
Category / Politics
Ugly Kid Joe, “Everything About Ned”
Are you the guys on the Hill who mock everything? Ewww.
Is this some sort of hip voting that I don’t understand?
I, hate the man’s sunny demeanor,
And I, I hate those kissing photos too, boo-hoo
And I don’t like a thing about the ballot, no, no
And I, I, I hate the Democrats too!
And I, hate everything about Ned!
Everything about Ned!
And I, don’t like a thing about his platform
And I, I hate Ned’s daddy’s guts too, boo-hoo
And I don’t like a thing about Ned’s pollsters, no, no
Cause I, I, I think this is overrated too
And I, I’ll be around in November
I, can’t stand to be around,
I, hate everything about Ned!
Everything about Ned, everything about Ned, everything about Ned
Some say I’m just a sore loser
But that don’t change the way I feel about Ned
And if you think this might be bringing me down,
Look again I’ll be an Indie with a frown!
Get down!
RIP Sue Bierman
Former San Francisco Sue Bierman died today. She apparently crashed her car into a dumpster in Cole Valley. Bierman was always one of my favorite supervisors and I certainly missed her when term limitations forced her out of office. Now I’ll miss her even more.
While she got a late start in politics (she was 68 when she first became Supervisor), Bierman brought a compassionate touch and a wise, no-bullshit voice of skepticism to almost every issue she took on. It was Bierman who stopped the freeway from expanding into the Panhandle.
Bierman offered a progressive voice that was distinctly San Franciscan: tolerant, quirky, and independent. She frequently adopted interesting and controversial positions, such as voting against an alcohol ban in the Panhandle, arguing that the homeless should have a place to drink alcohol as the homeowners did. (The only other supe to vote against the ban was Ammiano.) She even passionately defended the rights of the petitioners to reinstate the former Doggie Diner restaurant as a landmark.
I’ll miss Bierman, one of the few local politicians I never got a chance to meet. But her run as Supervisor through the 90s is a clear reminder that it’s never too late to get involved in politics.
(via SFist)
Current Political Mudslinging Now Reduced to “You Hacked My Website!”
Stanford Advocate: “Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, locked in a battle with an anti-war challenger in the nation’s most closely watched primary race Tuesday, accused his opponent’s supporters of hacking his campaign Web site and e-mail system.”
The MeFites have plenty of evidence suggesting that this wasn’t a DoS attack. It may be possible that Joe didn’t pay his bills.
Meanwhle, the Lamont campaign has offered to send in their tech guy to fix the Leiberman website problem and offers a cached link to Leiberman at the top of the page. On a microcosmic level, I ask the Connecticut voters to consider this: would you prefer a man who freaks out, makes accusations and calls the DA when he can’t figure out his website problems or a man who offers to fix his competitor’s website as your Senator?
[RELATED: These signs are hilarious.]
Self-Delusion: Couldn’t Have Happened to a Sleazier Guy
New York Observer: “The question is less how Mr. Lieberman lost The Times than whether he ever had the paper at all. Throughout Mr. Lieberman’s Senate career, the establishment-minded Senator and the establishment newspaper have been in sync only intermittently, at best.”
The Guardian: “Lamont, a political novice, has support from 54 percent of likely Democratic voters in the Quinnipiac University poll, while Lieberman has support from 41 percent of voters.”
An Open Letter to the ACLU
Look, I know you need money and I know you’re busy fighting the good fight. This has been very evident from the ten phone calls I’ve received from your organization this past week. You have asked for an “Edward” or a “Mr. Champion” and the hell of it is that I don’t even recall giving you my phone number during those years when I filled out the form and did, in fact, send you some money. In fact, I left the Home Phone # field deliberately blank. My phone number is listed in the Do Not Call registry. Do these not so subtle clues not indicate to you that I consider talking with hucksters on the telephone about as much fun as being electrocuted by a particularly aggressive CIA torturer?
But being a fairly polite gentleman, I have told you that Edward Champion is not here or that he is in volunteering his services to a leper colony or that it is “currently a sensitive time for us in the Champion household because our pet rabbit just died.” I have tried to intimate with these creative prevarications that I am currently not interested in giving your organization money — in large part because your organization appears to have violated the very civil liberties it purports to uphold (i.e., ferreting out and calling a telephone number that I did not, in fact, give you sanction to call). Bad enough that you folks can’t seem to take the hint and that you can’t seem to scratch my name off your list, but I am also troubled by the belligerent tone that your many representatives voice when they slowly figure out that the man they are talking to may, in fact, be Mr. Champion. They are angry when I refer to their pleas for membership renewal as a “sales call.” Which it quite rightly is, given that you are asking me for money. I am certainly not asking you for money. Perhaps I should start doing this to level the playing field.
Furthermore, why does your organization presume that it’s entitled to money from me? Why are there hostile suggestions that I should be a good liberal and pony up the dough? Do you honestly believe that I am not doing my part? There are, in fact, gestures I commit on a perennial basis that don’t involve a monetary transaction: things that I try to do when I have the time that I feel rather embarassed revealing because I try to keep such acts as egoless as possible. As ACLU founder Roger Nash Baldwin once said, “The smallest deed is better than the grandest intention.” Do you not know your own history?
Because of this, I don’t think I will be giving you money in some time until you can straighten up your act and treat your past donors with something a little closer to courtesy. I will not be giving you money unless you stop this aggressive fundraising approach. I will not be giving you money until you get away from this “you are either with us or against us” mentality common to both left and right these days. In short, I will not be giving you money until you can put the civil back into the ACLU.
Ignore the Blonde Woman
To riff off of Ron’s points, there is a certain blonde woman prone to making outrageous and spiteful statements. (I will confess that, this weekend, while encountering a prodigious display of the blonde woman’s books in a bookstore, I did turn each and every book around, so that the back cover faced out instead of the front. This was, of course, one of those small civic duties to ensure that innocent customers weren’t unsettled by that hatemonger’s face while sauntering through the bookstore, but instead bore witness to the ass end of the book, which I thought quite appropriate.)
But I will no longer mention her name here. I will no longer pay her any credence whatsoever. Let her howl like Cerberus to the winds of Hades. Let her publishers dump all manner of money into her books. But her spiteful brand of demagogery means nothing to me. Nor should it mean anything to you. Nor should you heed the easy impulses burgeoning within your solar plexus to remark, posthaste, at her latest enmity.
Because, to employ the dog metaphor further, I know the bitch’s days are numbered. I don’t know when. And I don’t know how. But I know that it will happen.
There comes a time in any hatemonger’s career when the lack of substance embedded within his vitriol eventually comes to bite him in the ass. We saw this most recently with Ralph Reed. We saw this a few years ago with Trent Lott. And we shall see this again with the blonde woman. There will come a time in which the sum total of her abuses will be tallied up so that no rational human being, not even the most reactionary, will give her credence.
And on that day, I will stop ignoring her and cite her by name to remind the world exactly how her hateful and nonconstructive thinking was her downfall.
Truer Words Were Never Spoken: Wait Until Midterms, Pal
ABC News: “‘We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn’t happen today,’ said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment’s supporters. ‘Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better.'”
6.6.6
Here in California, we get to vote on the Devil’s Day, which is only fitting given the number of Democratic dunderheads running for various offices. For example, for the Attorney General’s race, do you want Jerry Brown, the Democratic answer to Alberto Gonzales, or the inexperienced Rocky Delgadillo, who tells us on his website, “My parents named me Rocky for a reason” and doesn’t even offer us a platform, much less a concrete plan of action? Can you really stomach voting for Dianne Feinstein again, the Waffling Queen, as the incumbent Democratic senatorial candidate? Well, there’s always New Age nutcase Colleen Fernald, who lists “organic victory gardens as one of her key U.S. “governmental issue.” (I don’t know what’s more frightening. The batty notion of an “organic victory garden” or the amalgam of the name Orwell gave to Oceania’s cigarettes with “organic.”)
In the end, I’ve decided to vote half-freaks and half-hopelessly corrupt incumbents. It’s the only way I can corral pragmatism with quirkiness. I don’t feel good about it either way. And I’m going to need a cold shower when this is all over. Really, Democrats, is this the best that you can do?
Oh well, at least I can get behind Phil Angelides.
Berlusconi Defeated?
Well Look At It This Way. The Demos Could Use Less Hot Air in the Senate.
Senator Joe Lieberman just committed political suicide. Not only did he deny that he made a quote in which he suggested that all good citizens should trust President Bush without question, but he even denied the credibility of bloggers and The New York Times.
From a partial transcript:
Lieberman: This quote is totally out of context. You might have gotten it from the bloggers, who love to do this.
McEnroe: No actually I got it…
Lieberman: Read the whole speech, it’s below your standards.
McEnroe: Senator actually I got it from the New York Times.
Lieberman: Well that’s just as bad! Go back and read the speech, be more responsible.
Oh Shut the Hell Up, Sandra
You know, Sandra, if you really gave a damn about justice, you could have waited a few years before leaving the Supreme Court. (via Maud)
You Can Write These Political Diatribes, George, But You Can’t Say Them
The Democrats unveil their secret weapon and it’s…George Lucas? Huh? Is there a lightsaber-swinging voting bloc which might counter the Christian right? I thought that only mattered in Australia. (via Ghost in the Machine)
To Buy a Vowell
Keelin McDonnell’s New Republic essay, “The Case Against Sarah Vowell”, would be completely worthless, had he not raised the perfectly valid point that Vowell is unable to convey political events with any sophistication.
Vowell’s recent New York Times columns represent yet another move in the ongoing political commentary shift from serious thinkers to humorists like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and, of course, Vowell. Taken as humor pieces, this trio’s collective contributions certainly represent entertaining diversions. There would be nothing wrong with this, provided that those who watch The Daily Show or who listen to This American Life actually understood that what they were watching was entertainment, rather than deep political thought. But it seems clear to me that more people are willing to take The Daily Show‘s “news” as gospel because it entertains them or perhaps because the current television news outlets simply cannot offer a perspective outside of the martial, tickertape headine and multiple windows model.
As intellectual material, however, the collective oeuvre of Stewart, Colbert and Vowell can be categorized somewhere between some high schooler gushing over a dogeared copy of Atlas Shrugged and a starry-eyed undergraduate who believes that Chomsky is God.
Take, for example, Vowell’s February 5 column, “Gimme Torture,” in which the subject of torture is conveyed through the prism of Kiefer Sutherland’s Jack Bauer on 24. Rather than examining how the troubling notion of Bauer, a Dirty Harry-like character who throws the Constitution and due process out the window on a weekly (i.e., hourly) basis, might just be a tad pernicious in getting 24‘s many viewers to remember basic civics (without even mentioning a pro-Patriot Act commercial which aired during the episode Vowell describes), Vowell offers the banal conclusion that she’s “a little less gulty” ordering a DVD set of 24. The essay is certainly amusing, but Vowell eschews using her comic gifts to point out how the show’s tone, much less the commercial, might influence some viewers to feel a little less bad about sacrificing civil liberties.
Perhaps the problem here is that political essays in America are, for the most part, fairly predictable affairs, whether they come from left or right. We all get on the same soapboxes. And inevitably, we all pluck the same unsubtle chords.
To address Bernard Henri-Levy’s recent concerns, I really don’t think that the Left is asleep, nor do I believe that the political essay is necessarily dead. But I do think that the shift to humorists or novelists offering “political writing” for their newspapers — even the half-baked “political fiction” to be found in Stephen Elliott’s Politically Inspired, which is more of an exercise in deferring serious thinking by exploring such predictable associations as a story of Bush in the guise of a Minnesota schoolboy — is counterproductive, if not destructive, to real discourse.
The problem is that when one writes a political essay these days, one is expected to adhere to a predisposed thinking pattern. The American Left, in particular, being so fragile and regularly maimed by its lack of mobilization, risks offending its peers, much less specific groups. One is expected these days to assume that a reading audience will agree with everything you state, rather than questioning another person’s points, much less one’s own, in a civil manner. And for all the tyrannies of the Bush administration, how tyrannical is this kind of groupthink?
I had hoped to talk to Vowell about these issues when she rolled through town, but her very friendly publicist explained to me that these Times pieces were keeping her quite busy. Perhaps the explanation here is that Vowell is working with harder deadlines than she was accustomed to. But I don’t think so. I think the New York Times has set the bar considerably lower than the Baltimore Herald Tribune or the Baltimore Sun ever did for H.L. Mencken. Because today’s m.o. is to entertain. And coming to grips with the sober realities of torture, political corruption and the venal actions of politicians, left or right, seems incompatible with this apparent necessity.
(via Chekhov’s Mistress)
The Internet Works?
Here’s the deal: Over the weekend, bloggers have been organizing a plea to the Democrats to get a filibuster started in the Senate. The hope: to prevent Alito from becoming the next Supreme Court Justice. Amazingly, the filibuster has gone from just two supporters (Kerry and Kennedy) to being a mere two votes shy from forcing continued debate. So if this is successful, bloggers may have demonstrated that not only are they capable of getting their asses in gear, but they might be effective political force.
To show your support for a filibuster, here’s a handy link to get started. You have until 4:30 PM EST, 1;30 PM PST. Will this happen? We shall see.
Bah. 75-25. Cloture reached. Never mind. Meanwhile, how’s this for balls?
Meanwhile, meet me in the bar. This says it all.
Neocon Starbloggers
Damn you, James Wolcott. I’m crying with laughter, particularly this unintentionally hilarious exit strategy. For the record, you’ll never ever see me giving a thumbs up sign to a random camera at a Vollmann signing.
Uzbekistan: The United States’ Dirty Little Secret
In an effort to protest the United States government’s recognition of Uzbekistan, a nation that specializes in torturing prisoners to death with boiling water (their names were Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna) as well as torturing children in front of their parents, I mirror the following documents, as per the viral stratagems of Blairwatch, in an effort to draw attention to Craig Murray‘s memos, information that the UK government is currently trying to oppress:
Series of telegrams sent by Craig Murray to UK Foreign Office
Copy of legal advice the UK Foreign Office sought
Despite all this, the United States has remained one of Uzbekistan’s largest trade partners. We’re talking half a billion dollars (largely weapons) in 2003 and 2004, and some $2.383 billion in investment projects involving American companies and financial institutions.
Thank You, U.S. Senate!
It’s always a pleasure to see the President get his ass knocked to the ground. Here’s a list of the Patriot Act provisions set to expire in a few weeks.
They Abolished Slavery Thirty Years Before Us. So It’s Not Much of a Surprise.
BBC: “Under the law, couples who want to form a partnership must register their intentions with local councils. Unlike marriages, the signing of the legal partnership papers does not need to happen in public.”
In 1833, Parliament banned slavery across the British Empire.
The United States abolished slavery with the 13th Amendment in 1865.
So if we do the math, then we’ll see same-sex marriages legalized here in 2037.
Stop the Illegal Marriages in Texas!
The people of Texas have spoken. They have passed Proposition 2, which states:
This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
The time has come for Texas to form the Marriage Police to enforce this law. We need to see special forces units bursting into homes and tearing husbands and wives apart. All marriages must be annulled! No more marriages can happen! This is the will of the Texas people and the letter of the law.
Since sodomy was legislated as a misdemeanor (until State v. Morales, 869 S.W. 2d 941 overturned it), and there is a spirit among Texas voters to legislate against any unsual sort of sex outside of marriage, and since, after passing Proposition 2, there is likely a considerable sum of illegal marriages now being practiced among some 20 million Texans, we must therefore conclude that sex within marriage is the only acceptable form that Texas supports. Of course, since Texas can no longer “create or recognize any legal status identical to marriage,” the time has come to arrest any Texan copulating with someone they may identify as “spouse.” There shall no longer be any marriages in Texas and there shall no longer be any fornication outside of marriage. Which means, in short, that there can no longer be any fornication at all!
I trust the majority of the Texas people, who have always been a pigheaded and law-abiding sort, to enforce this law fully, starting of course with George and Laura Bush, who were married on November 5, 1977 at the Glass Chapel of First United Methodist Church in Midland, Texas. Give this “First Lady” her marching orders right now, George. Your Texas marriage is no longer recognized and you are, as a result, living in sin. In the White House no less! Or marry her in another state, if you truly want to preserve the legal status of your marriage.
Election Night
At this point, Props 73 and 75 are leading by 50.2% (both of them at that figure strangely enough). These are the propositions I’m truly against and I’m really concerned. Here’s what I know about California: We’re a funny place when it comes to propositions and, hell, politics in general. The state that prides itself on sunshine and good health and New Age philosophy is also the world’s fifth largest economy. Because of this strange confluence (or perhaps just to prove ourselves distinct), the state has a sizable red-blooded American streak. We proved this with Props 187 and 209 a few years ago. And I suspect that, as close as the race is, we’ll prove it again and pass these two wretched propostions by a hairline margin. Then again, maybe not. Maybe Arnold’s low approval rating will somehow have an impact. I certainly hope to hell that the state population doesn’t buy Arnold’s argument that taking away what precious rights a young woman has to get an abortion or stripping a health care professional of her rights somehow “empowers” the California population.
But then I could be wrong. In the time I wrote the above passage, Prop 73 has just slipped into the no margin. Whoopee! Prop. 75, on the other hand..
[MORNING UPDATE: All of Arnold’s props lost. Very proud to be a Californian.]
Voting Problems in San Francisco?
At the Page Street Library, there’s something crooked going on.
I voted this morning. Not only was the Eagle machine which recorded my vote malfunctioning (it took about eight tries before the Eagle machine took the ballot, but the lady (whose name, I have discerned, is Irena) actually looked at my ballot and said to me, “Are you sure you want to vote that way?” Further, I did not receive a voting stub back from my ballot. Just the offer of an orange sticker that said “I voted today.” Did my vote even count this morning? Was the machine even recording my results right? Further, are Irena’s remarks swaying other voters from making an informed decision?
I wasn’t the only person subject to Irena’s catty questions. My neighbor also experienced this.
I am greatly shocked by all this. I have voted in every election since I was 18 and have never once seen such political influence, in clear violation of election laws, maintained within the inner sanctum like this.
I’ve tracked down the appropriate person (a very nice lady named Hortensia) at the San Francisco Department of Elections and got them to pledge to replace the Eagle machine and look into Irena’s corrupt behavior today.
Needless to say, if anyone else in San Francisco is experiencing anything fishy, please let the Department of Elections know about this. The phone number is 415-554-4375.
Return of the Reluctant Endorsements
PROP 73: A resounding fucking no. And fuck you, Arnold.
PROP 74: No. And fuck you, Arnold.
PROP 75: A resounding fucking no. And fuck you, Arnold.
PROP 76: No. And fuck you, Arnold.
PROP 77: A resounding fucking no. And fuck you, Arnold.
PROP 78: No.
PROP 79: Sure, why not?
PROP 80: Hell yeah.
Demos Got Backbone?
Well, this is entirely unexpected. Perhaps there’s more to Fitzmas than meets the eye.
[UPDATE: I didn’t realize this, but Harry Reid (who invoked Rule 21) also has a blog — appropriately named “Give ‘Em Hell Harry.”]
[UPDATE 2: Well, looks like the show’s over. A bipartisan committee has been appointed to put the Senate Intelligence Committee to task reviewing prewar intelligence. It remains dubious whether this “phase two” inquiry will have any effect on business as usual. But at least the Democrats have demonstrated that they are capable of coordinating action when they want to. Let us hope that this is just the beginning.]
Scariest. Halloween. Ever.
Trailer for Halloween: Washington — (MP3) (57 seconds)
Target: Refusal Clause Happy
It looks like Target policy involves refusing to fill emergency contraception prescriptions. In a Missouri Target store, a 26 year old woman was refused an emergency contraception prescription. When she asked why, she was told by the pharmacist, “I won’t fill it and I don’t have to fill it and that’s my right!”
Why should something as ridiculous sounding as “Target Greatland” have control over a woman’s body?
I’m not really surprised, given that when you walk into a Target store, you are a “guest” not a “customer.” This is fantastic linguistic chicanery, because while one can legitimately claim “the customer is always right,” anyone who has unknowingly served Drink Number 7 to a party guest would be hard-pressed to suggest that “the guest is always right.”
Planned Parenthood has sent three letters to Target. There have been an additional 4,600 letters from people around the country. Target refused to respond to them.
Target has however answered the City Pages. And Target claims, without producing their findings, that the “alleged incident” was a he-said, she-said thing and, through perhaps unintentional subtext, they have essentially endorsed the refusal clause.
There are two solutions here: (1) boycott Target or pressure them to adopt a wholesale ban on refusal clauses and (2) engage in a national campaign to get state legislation (in as many states as possible) passed that prohibits any pharmacy from employing the refusal clause (specifically in relation to a woman’s right to buy an emergency prescription).
DeLay to Mug Shot Camera: “No Nick Nolte Here!”
He seems quite happy, doesn’t he?
[TMFTML takes the Nolte/DeLay thing one step further.]
I Do Believe We Have Us Another Potential Watergate
First, DeLay gets indicted. And now Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, has been outed by Judith Miller. Corruption leading all the way up to Bush and Cheney? Why, say, it ain’t so! Not in America!
(And I should point out that given the dollops that anyone with progressive stripes has had to digest in the past four years, the lives lost, displaced and otherwise disrupted under the hands of the GOP goons, you are hereby granted permission by me to engage in as much schadenfreude as you need without guilt. Why, if this pace keeps up, I might very well renounce my atheism and believe in a higher deity after all!)
Slaughterhouse ’05
Kurt Vonnegut on the Daily Show (video).