[2006.08.31 - 07:45 A.M.]

Wow. If it wasn't for Salkowitz's bloggiversary being so close to mine, I'd have forgotten the date this year. And then would I ever have been in trouble with myself. Anyhow, here we are: On August 29th, 2003 -- three years, two days, and about 35,682 uses of the word "fuck" ago -- TwoGlasses was born. Thanks much to everyone who keeps coming by and reading my semi-coherent ramblings. You're the reason I keep doing this. Well, you and my HUGE ego...

     Tags:

[2006.08.30 - 07:45 A.M.]

Here's a way for Democrats to put their own stamp on the national security debate going into the November elections, separating themselves from the GOP on the issue while also demonstrating maturity and "seriousness": Stop using the phrase "War on Terror".

Reading Harry Reid's otherwise excellent response to Rumsfeld's latest spittle-flecked ramblings yesterday, I was momentarily brought up short by his predictable use of this idiotic rhetorical construct. I couldn't help but think that he would have strengthened his position considerably by eschewing it.

There are three problems with the phrase "War on Terror":

First -- and this has been widely noted on the left over the years -- the notion of declaring war against a tactic is the sort of semantic gibberish that is the hallmark of intellectually lazy PR spinners, not serious foreign policy thinkers.

Second, the phrase suggests that the United States is actually engaged in some sort of coordinated effort against terrorist activities. We are not. The administration's anti-terror policy is a muddled, contradictory, and utterly uncoordinated mess. Why use language that gives the fools running the show more credit than they deserve?

Third, the two key words in "War on Terror" have been used by the administration and the mainstream media for going on five years to maintain a constant state of fear in the American people. "War" and "Terror" are the two buttons they push over and over again to alarm and distract us. Democrats ought not to help this process by lending a hand with the button-pushing.

It's easy to see why Dems talk about the "War on Terror". It's shorthand. Everyone knows -- or thinks they know -- what you mean when you say it. But the easy, lazy familiarity of the phrase does nothing but aid the GOP in corrupting our discourse and obscuring the real issues in our national security debate. Democrats would do themselves a big favor if they dropped it from their vocabulary.

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.27 - 11:00 A.M.]

I realize this is almost week-old news but I was out of the country so indulge me:

BWAAAAAAHHHHHHH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!

(snicker)

There. That felt good. Thanks.

     Tags: , ,

[2006.08.27 - 10:30 A.M.]

We are home. Ensconced in warm bathrobes, enjoying some good coffee with actual half-n-half (as opposed to milk), refreshed from a night of sleep on our luxurious memory-foam mattress, and looking forward to a full day of loafing, ignoring the phone, and generally spooling down. Oh, and baseball. Haven't seen a baseball game in two weeks.

Ireland was outstanding. Beautiful country, wonderful people, more to see and do than we could possibly fit into ten days (although we certainly did try our best). The trip was not without a few stressful and negative moments, but those weren't Ireland's fault. It was the sort of vacation that is only going to get better with time, as we unfold, at a more leisurely pace, all the memories that were so quickly packed into our brains.

I'm planning an exhaustive photo-journal -- with my usual witty commentary, of course -- but it could take the better part of a week to put together as I've got about 130 pictures to download, clean up and put in order. For now, a few quick observations:

That's it for now. Much, much more to come when the pics are ready.

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.14 - 01:00 P.M.]

The O'Toast Clan is outta here.

See you in a couple of weeks.

Note: That's an Airbus A330, the type of plane we're supposed to be flying on. I'm starting to think I'm never going to get to fly on a 747.

     Tags:

[2006.08.14 - 10:00 A.M.]

Somebody stole our Lamont lawn sign. I just went out to mow the front lawn and it's gone. The guy two doors down across the street had one too, and his is gone as well.

Fucking Lieberscum. Fucking dirty, rotten Lieberscum.

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.13 - 10:50 A.M.]

the smell of bacon
the smell of bacon
the smell of bacon
the smell of bacon
oh, the smell of bacon
the smell of bacon
is really fucking good

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.13 - 10:00 A.M.]

The Aviator: Shockingly good. Like, literally, I kept pausing it and turning to Tracy to say "This movie is fucking awesome." First off, here's a newsflash: Leonardo DiCaprio can act. I mean, who knew, right? Second, I hadn't the vaguest shred of a clue that Howard Hughes was that much of a character. I knew the dude was a rich, nutty guy, but that was it. This was an eye-opener. And finding out that he was such a towering figure in the world of aviation -- a life-long fixation of mine -- well, that just did me in. I was spellbound. Absolutely outstanding movie.

Expected Rating: 5.0 -- Actual Rating: 9.0

In Good Company: Meh. The Moral of the Story is so trite as to induce unconscious eye-rolls. OK, so -- (yawn) -- there are more important things in life than financial success. No shit, really? Well, then, I'll just wait for the love story to develop. Waiting... waiting... still waiting... Hey, the credits are rolling?! What the fuck?! Topher and Scarlett are supposed to get married! That's the deal! This movie is supposed to end with their wedding! Oh, oh, oh, what? This makes it deep 'cause the boy doesn't get the girl? Fuck that noise. Stupid movie.

Expected Rating: 5.5 -- Actual Rating: 4.0

     Tags:

[2006.08.12 - 08:25 P.M.]

You know what's great about being a liberal blogger while George Bush is in power? You can pretty much indulge yourself. You can let loose. You can paint the most vile picture of the administration that you can imagine, secure in the knowledge that you can never truly go too far.

When I wrote this post the other day, for example, I thought to myself "Dude, maybe you're stretching things a bit here. I mean, what, do you think Bush said to Rove "Look, this anteh-war bidness is gettin' a little skeery. Better call Tony and have him russle up some terr'ists." Come on, right?

Breaking news, from TPM Muckraker:

NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

See? These people are the vilest scum ever to rule this country. Go ahead and think the worst of 'em. You can't go wrong.

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.12 - 12:30 P.M.]

Happy Saturday, readers! It's time for Slices of Toast: Weekend Before Epic Vacation Edition!

I just finished emptying the dishwasher. The last thing I put away was the travel mugs. And as I placed them on their shelf in the pantry/closet I thought to myself "Well, I'm not going to need to use these for a while." You know why I thought that? Because I'm not going to work for TWO FUCKING WEEKS, bitches! Woo HOOOOO!!! Two weeks. Count 'em. Not one. TWO. Weeks. Two weeks of not being confined in my fabric-walled cell. Two weeks of not thinking about how to assemble insurance benefits. Two weeks of travel and partying and excitement and, oh, by the way, leisure. Gobs and gobs of leisure, the greatest gift any member of humankind can hope for.

Two motherfuckin' weeks.

slices

I don't watch NFL preseason games. They're meaningless. More meaningless, in fact, than pretty much any other sport's preseason activities. That said, I'm a tiny bit disturbed that the Jets lost their first preseason game to the Tampa Bay Succaneers by a score of 16 to 3. I mean, the very fact that preseason games are so meaningless pretty much dictates that you should be able to put a 7 on the board. In garbage time, at least. Against the other team's fourth-string defense? Yeah. One would think.

Oh well. At least Chad's fucking arm didn't come flying off of his body when he got banged around for the first time since last year. So we've got that going for us.

slices

Hey, so about that dastardly terrorist plot that the British thwarted this week? You'll never guess how they did it: Police work.

They didn't torture anyone. They didn't issue any warrantless wiretaps. They didn't give Tony Blair dictatorial powers. They didn't indiscriminately invade some middle-eastern country that had no hand in the plot. Oh, and there were no calls to hang any British journalists for treason.

The cops got 'em. Scotland Fuckin' Yard.

That's how you deal with terrorism.

slices

My quads are freakin' killing me today. I jogged yesterday, see. Why? Oh, I don't know, maybe 'cause I'm turning into a fat fucking pig and Karate two nights a week is not sufficient to keep the pounds from slowly accumulating. So yeah, I jogged. One mile. Nine minutes, seven seconds. Alright maybe it wasn't "jogging" as much as "shuffling and lurching forward while breathing laboriously". Thirty-seven years old and I still run, as my grade-school soccer coach put it, "like a pregnant duck".

slices

Tracy's "On Notice" board:

Questionable Stop Signs? You're on notice.

I love my wife.

slices

Yesterday, CNN anchor Chuck Roberts, speaking about the foiled (and dastardly) terror plot, asked an interviewee:

"How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?"

I'll answer that question with a question: How much longer before someone gets punched in the face over this kind of shit?

Seriously, aren't there any liberal camera operators or sound people or associate producers working in the newsrooms of America's cable channels? Because I have to tell you, if I were on that sound stage and an anchorman referred to a fairly mainstream American politician as "al Qaeda's candidate", I'd walk out there and punch him right in his fucking face. Wouldn't care if I lost my job over it either. Wouldn't care if the fuckhead pressed charges against me.

Before anyone screams "YOU'RE BEING JUST LIKE THEM!", let me clarify: I don't want to kill anyone or hang 'em for treason. I'm not talking about doing any kind of serious harm. I just think enough is enough. These fucking pricks think it's OK to continuously paint Democrats and liberals as pro-terrorist. They're wrong. It's not. Maybe a black eye or a bloody lip is what it's going to take to get that point across.

slices

Yankees win! Thuuuuuuuuuuuuuh Yankees win!

Hey kids! Here's a fun Yankee Fact: Robinson Cano is 9 for 18 since returning from the DL on Tuesday! Cano, like uber-fielder Melky Cabrera and lights-out pitcher Chien-Ming Wang, is a product of the Barren Yankees Farm System™. I love the Barren Yankees Farm System™. I mean, if it were any more barren, we'd have the best baseball franchise in the world.

Oh, wait. We do.

slices

Check it out, Peeps. The Monopoly Money is in the hizzouse:

What is it about foreign currency that makes it look so weird? Come on, no matter how cosmopolitan you think you are, you know it's true. You look at other countries' money and you think "Awww, that's cute. But seriously, what's your real money look like?"

Oh well. As long as I can trade these things in for pints of Guinness, I'm good.

     Tags: , , , , ,

[2006.08.12 - 11:00 A.M.]

In three days -- Three. Days. -- Tracy and I leave for Ireland.

Oh my.

Neither of us has ever been overseas before. The only "foreign" countries I've ever travelled to are Canada (doesn't count), Jamaica (sorta counts) and the Bahamas (doesn't really count). This is our first time off this particular continental plate.

I can't wait.

I can't wait to see the rolling green hills and the narrow roads and the crazy fuckin' old lady drivers. I can't wait to see the quaint old buildings and the cozy little towns. And I can't wait to see the pubs. Oh, the pubs. People, when I get back, I'm expecting to write a love poem about those Irish pubs. Bank on it.

More than anything, I can't wait to be someplace totally new. I love the United States. Great country, and I've seen just about all of it. But I can't wait to see someplace new. To walk across a completely different piece of the Earth. To immerse myself in another culture. It's going to be something else.

I don't know if this will be our "best" vacation ever. It's awfully hard to beat Sandals in Negril, Jamaica with it's beautiful beach and swim-up bars. But this is certainly the biggest adventure we've been on yet.

So I give to you the Question of the Week Rest Of The Month: What's the most exciting and/or interesting travel destination you've been to?

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.11 - 07:30 A.M.]

Memo to Jacob Weisberg and all the other hippie-phobes pimping the facile "Vietnam Redux" storyline in the wake of Ned Lamont's victory: When a mendacious, addled old fool like Charles Krauthammer is making the exact same argument as you are, it might be a good time to reconsider your position.

     Tags: , , ,

[2006.08.10 - 09:00 P.M.]

A website that lets you make your own Colbert Report "On Notice" boards.

Cool site? Or the coolest site?

(Via Shakes.)

     Tags:

[2006.08.10 - 05:10 P.M.]

Two days ago, Ned Lamont, a vocal and unequivocal opponent of the Iraq war, beat Joe Lieberman, one of that war's most pig-headedly stubborn supporters, in the Connecticut Democratic primary. Turnout for said primary was large and enthusiastic.

Yesterday, much of the press (if not the punditocracy) began wondering aloud if this might signal a coming wave of anti-Iraq-war/throw-the-bums-out sentiment at the polls in November.

This morning, British authorities announced that they had broken up a scary and evil terrorist plot.

This afternoon, I pull up the New York Times and see the following three headlines:

Plot Echoes One Planned by 9/11 Mastermind in '94

Bush Focuses on ‘Islamic Fascists’

Lieberman Seizes on Terror Arrests to Attack Rival

Yeah... (nodding slowly)... Uh huh.

I'm only going to say this once, America, so listen really fucking closely:

Do not. Get played. Again.

     Tags: ,,

[2006.08.09 - 06:30 P.M.]

A couple of weeks ago, Digby wrote a great post titled Pathological Fear of Hippies. His basic thesis was that the brain-dead, knee-jerk aversion that ostensibly "liberal" pundits and writers (e.g. everyone at Slate and The New Republic) have to any Democrat who dares to voice full-throated opposition to the Iraq War is based on a lasting institutional traumatic memory of the Vietnam era:

This is a deep and festering illness within political circles for which the only cure is to plug your ears and stop listening to the geezers. As far as David Broder and his ilk are concerned, nothing consequential has happened in the Democratic party in 38 years. That's the whole ball of wax --- "liberal insurgents," "silent majority" "Anti-Vietnam activist" all of it. Their irrational fear of hippies has rendered them incompetent to understand current politics for what they really are. And it has handed the Republicans the most powerful weapon in their arsenal.

The post is a very worthwhile read, and it went a long way (for me) towards finally explaining the borderline psychotic behavior of so many establishment left-wing journalists these past few years.

Today, as if to offer himself up as categorical proof of Digby's theory, we have Slate's Jacob Weisberg freaking out about how Lamont's victory spells disaster for the Democratic Party:

This is a signal event that will have a huge and lasting negative impact on the Democratic Party. The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War.

Wow. It seems like I heard that exact view mocked and dismantled just a few paragraphs ago. (Oh, and check out the graphic at the top of the article. That's the cariacature of us that these jokers see in their heads, folks.) Weisberg goes on:

The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism. Politically, it points the way to perpetual Democratic defeat.

Here, Weisberg misreads the situation completely. In point of fact, the Iraq invasion was "purely a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11". The pundits who purport to be on our side but who still haven't figured that out are the ones who are continuing to play into Karl Rove's hands and deliver elections to the GOP. In any case, the mere fact that one takes such a view on Iraq does not logically lead to the conclusion that one doesn't "take the global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously".

Most everyone on the left who is against the Iraq war is quite cognizant of the threat of Islamic terrorism. Where we differ with folks like Weisberg is that we don't believe that the sole way to prove that seriousness is to out-hawk the hawks and sign onto every foreign adventure the neocons throw at the wall to see if it will stick. Rather, we'd prefer to:

That doesn't sound so crazy, does it? You don't need to have flowers in your hair and be smoking a joint for that to sound reasonable.

Ned Lamont is no hippie, and those of us who backed him against Joe Lieberman for -- among MANY other reasons -- Lieberman's continued blind support for Bush's Iraq war aren't either. It's way past time for the liberal media intelligentsia to shake the cobwebs out of their heads and start getting familiar with the political landscape of 2006. Right now, they're the ones re-making the mistakes of the past.

     Tags: , , ,

[2006.08.09 - 04:25 P.M.]

David Brooks, moments ago on NPR:

"I think there are really three parties out there in America: The Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the Joe Lieberman/John McCain Party."

Funny, I can't really see there being a huge constituency out there for an entire party of disingenuous, narcissistic, smarmy assholes who try to market themselves as paragons of honesty and virtue and moderation. And yet, somehow, it doesn't surprise me that David Brooks thinks there is.

     Tags: , ,

[2006.08.09 - 07:35 A.M.]

I could use a little sugar in my coffee this morning because, man, am I feeling bitter. The plan was to get up, grab the Hartford Courant and take a picture of me and Tracy standing and holding up the "LAMONT WINS!" headline. But, in a move that perfectly captures the dynamics of what went down last night, they couldn't even give Ned his own headline. Couldn't give him one damned day in the sun. Instead, side by side in banner type, we get "LAMONT WINS; JOE'S IN".

Having wiped away the spittle and foam that formed last night, I can offer a more sober assessment of what was so awful about Lieberman's speech: It was a concession speech that conceded nothing. Six months into this, having just suffered a primary loss despite the enormous advantages of his incumbency, Lieberman stood there for a full ten minutes just oozing contempt for the Democratic process. He did not utter a single respectful word. Not for his more-than-worthy opponent, not for the record number of primary voters who showed up to support that opponent. No, it was all about Joe on that stage. All about his hurt feelings, his resolve to go on, and his warped sense of entitlement masquerading as bravery. Lieberman showed himself to be a truly classless act.

And so, even in victory, there's a bit of dread hanging over things right now. David Sirota captures the mood perfectly with this analogy:

At the end of every gut-wrenching horror movie, when the hero seems finally to have vanquished the enemy, there is always that last moment where the enemy, lying lifeless on the floor, finds a last gasp to fire off one final round, usually dealing a fatal blow to one of the good guys.

In the incredible story that concluded tonight in Connecticut, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Ned Lamont was the successful hero, representing the hopes and dreams of ordinary citizens by mounting a truly grassroots campaign against Joe Lieberman's massive warchest of corporate cash and universal support from Washington, D.C.’s cabal of lobbyists, pundits and insiders. Yet, in his last coughing gasps, Lieberman is now saying he will, in fact, fire off that last spiteful round - right into the gut of the Democratic Party.

Yep, that's our Joe. Perhaps he should run his independent bid under the banner of the Undead Party. Fucker.

Anyhow, this sour taste will pass soon enough. There's a lot to cheer about in last night's result. The good guy did win after all, and he got an unprecedented level of support from all walks of life around the state to help him seal that victory. Looking at how far Ned's come in such a short time, there's no reason to believe he can't expand his appeal, taking in those Lieberman supporters who aren't willing to desert their party and, hopefully, attracting a large chunk of Connecticut's independent voters. Like I said last night, it'll be another long, uphill battle, but it is definitely a fight we can win.

     Tags: , ,

[2006.08.08 - 08:40 P.M.]

8:45 PM: With 7% of the vote in, it's Lamont 56% - Lieberman 44%. Nice early lead. Fingers crossed...

9:05 PM: 17% of the vote in, holding steady at 56% - Lieberman 44%.

9:25 PM: 38% of the vote in, starting to tighten up, Lamont 54% - Lieberman 46%. Don't like that at all.

9:35 PM: Getting way too close now. 50% of the vote in, and Lamont's margin is down to 52%-48%. That's closer than the last poll, and that is officially cause for alarm. I'm curious what it is about the mechanics about this -- the order in which precincts report or whatnot -- that has things trending steadily towards Lieberman.

9:55 PM: 69% of the vote in, holding more-or-less steady at 52%-48%. Still too close for comfort.

10:15 PM: Still holding steady at 52%-48% with 82% of the vote in. CT-N is doing an extensive interview with former Clinton flack Lanny Davis, and I have to say, this guy is an impressive scumbag. Usually if someone's this big of a piece of shit, I've heard of them before, but Davis slipped in under my radar. Figures he's backing the Chinless One.

OK, why are the results down to a trickle? The stats are updating at about 1% every five minutes now. Let's go. There's no reason it should take this long to count the final 18%.

10:35 PM: This is incredible. Twenty minutes later and we've barely got an additional 3% of the vote reported. Same margin. We're a tiny state. Get it done, people.

11:05: Lieberman just took the stage, still down 4% with 95% of the vote in. Lieberman just "conceded" the primary to Lamont. He is using his concession speech as a launching pad to announce his independent run. Now going on with a schpiel about partisan politics and letting the "people of Connecticut" decide in November. And now he's attacking Lamont's campaign. Nice concession speech.

Gotta say, Lieberman is proving himself to be a bigger piece of stinking filth than I ever imagined he was. Believe me, my opinion of him was not high to begin with, but this is astounding. He's scum. He's not out-of-touch, he's out of his mind. What a hateful creature.

Oh, and he's still using his favorite new oxymoron: "independent democrat".

11:15 PM: Ned's acceptance speech. (Shot of Laphroaig) (Christ, do Sharpton and Jackson have to be right there behind him?)

Best Moment of the Night: The crowd at Ned's speech just started chanting "BRING JOE HOME! BRING JOE HOME!"

This is the best political moment I've experienced... well, possibly ever. Because Ned's a better progressive, I believe, than Clinton was. I'm not going to let that vile fuckhead Lieberman ruin it for me. I know we've got a long, uphill battle ahead of us (again) now. But for this night, I'm going to raise my glass to the man I met at Bertucci's in West Hartford back in February. Who fuckin' knew? You did it, Ned. In some sense, we all did it. Congratulations!

Not to end on a sour note, but I want to say this: If the Democratic Party does not throw their full and unqualified endorsement and support behind the man who won their party's primary, I will no longer be a Democrat after this year's elections.

     Tags: , ,

[2006.08.08 - 04:30 P.M.]

What We Know: At some point last night, Joe Lieberman's campaign website became unavailable. The Lieberman campaign claims they also can't access their email.

What We Don't Know: Why this happened; Whether it was a "Denial Of Service" attack or merely the result of heavier-than-usual traffic on Lieberman's host's server. If this was an attack, nobody knows who was responsible for it.

The Lamont campaign has denied any knowledge of or responsibility for Lieberman's website problems. They further urged "whoever is responsible" -- assuming anyone besides Lieberman's incompetent technical staff is "responsible" -- to cease and desist. In addition, they have offered technical assistance to the Lieberman campaign and have even gone so far as to post a link to a cached version of Lieberman's campaign site on their own site.

None of this has shut up Lieberman or his minions, who are aggressively trying to fan the flames of this minor development into a wildfire, immediately accusing Lamont supporters and evil bloggers of being behind these events, filing complaints and asking for criminal investigations. On the radio, just now, I heard a Lieberman representative claim that this was an attempt at "vote suppression".

Oh, please. Lack of access to the Lieberman campaign's website should not have prevented one person -- not one -- from voting today. And if it prevented someone from making up their mind whether to support Joe, well boo-fuckin'-hoo. Get your head out of your ass and do your homework earlier next time.

If this really was a deliberate attack on Lieberman's site, then the responsible parties should be determined and held accountable under the law. A D-O-S attack would be a childish and idiotic thing to pull. But it's not the big goddamned deal the Liebertwits are making it out to be. It's not the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal, it's not Ohio 2004, and it's not Florida 2000, so give it a rest.

My take? The Lieberman campaign is going to latch onto this as a fall-back plan. If Lieberman loses tonight, this will be their excuse -- "Oh, but our voters were suppressed!" -- to run as an independent in November. It's what they want to do anyhow, and this will give them just the fig-leaf they've needed.

Update: Kos puts the lie to the D-O-S story:

I have the definitive answer as to why Lieberman's site went down.

They are paying $15/month for hosting at a place called MyHostCamp, with a bandwidth limit of 10GB. MyHostCamp is currently down, along with all their clients.

Here's the deal -- you get what you pay for. My hosting bill is now over $7K per month. A smaller site doesn't need that much bandwidth, but if you're paying $15 because your $12 million campaign is too freakin' cheap to pay for quality hosting, then don't go blaming your opponent when your shitty service goes out.

An immediate apology from the Lieberman campaign will be forthcoming, no doubt. (cough)

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.08 - 12:00 P.M.]

Scene: The conclusion of a high-stakes midnight street race through downtown Los Angeles.

Brian O'Conner: "Dude, I almost had you!"

Dominic Toretto: "You almost had me? You never had me! .. Ask any racer, any real racer: It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning's winning."

--The Fast and the Furious

It is highly unlikely that, when the movie of Joe Lieberman's life is made, he will be played by Vin Diesel. Nevertheless, if Lieberman emerges victorious today, he could rightfully deliver the above sentiment to Ned Lamont and his supporters in the same devastatingly dramatic fashion that Diesel did when he put Paul Walker's character in his place.

Winning is winning.

Some people would have you believe otherwise. Ezra Klein, for example, makes the opposite claim in this analysis of today's Democratic primary between Lamont and Lieberman:

The phase of this race bearing significant implications for the Democratic Party already happened, and whether Lamont wins or loses tomorrow is almost entirely immaterial to the political triumph of the netroots. Their scalp was claimed, mounted, and hung on July 7th, the day Joe Lieberman, an affable, popular incumbent who’d been his party’s celebrated vice-presidential candidate only six years earlier, was forced to mount a stage against some nobody named Ned Lamont and defensively debate his right to call himself a Democrat. Or maybe the seminal instant occurred four days earlier, on July 3rd, when Lieberman admitted that he would gather signatures to enable an independent run, a sign he feared defeat in the primary. Either way, the point is the same: The netroots won the moment Joe Lieberman felt fear.

With the netroots having proved they can generate an existential challenge to a safe-seeming incumbent, actually defeating Lieberman would be little beyond icing on the cake. Moving forward, a Lieberman victory would do nothing to blur the traumatic memory of his near-loss. And that gives the netroots an extraordinary amount of power, vaulting them into a rarified realm occupied by only the strongest interest groups.

With all due respect to Ezra, who is usually a reliable font of spot-on insights, I can scarcely imagine a more wrong-headed, full-of-shit bit of spin on this final day of the race than to suggest that "actually defeating Lieberman would be little beyond icing on the cake".

Actually defeating Joe Lieberman is the entire fucking point of this exercise.

Lieberman certainly isn't going to change his stance towards the party's activist base because of a "close call". The Democratic Party could very well look upon a Lamont loss and conclude that, as with Howard Dean before him, the "Netroots" can help push a candidate to the fore, but they can't push them over the top.

No: We don't need any more "symbolic" victories. Mounting an "existential challenge" isn't enough. Putting a momentary scare into the establishment will not be an agreeable outcome. Getting that wanna-be Republican hack Lieberman out of the Senate, that is what matters.

Winning is winning.

     Tags: , , ,

[2006.08.08 - 07:35 A.M.]

For me, at least, the last time I participated in a significant, closely-contested election where the Good Guys won was 1992, when Bill Clinton and Al Gore ended the 12-year Reagan-Bush hold on the White House. I didn't know it at the time, but it was to be a brief respite, and in many respects a false one. Since then it's been one long, slow slide into the seemingly bottomless pit of right-wing muck, as the GOP has won (and stolen) victory after victory in their quest for one-party rule.

Through it all -- through impeachment, through the coup d'etat in 2000, through 9-11, and most notably through the disgusting and dishonest campaign that led up to the Iraq invasion -- their most dependable alibi has been Senator Joe Lieberman. He has been there for them every step of the way, giving them cover at all the right times and disrupting any attempt by the Democrats to rally a cohesive opposition.

It's time for him to go.

I've met Ned Lamont, I've listened to Ned Lamont, and I like Ned Lamont. I can't guarantee you that he'll be the greatest Senator the world has ever seen, but I can pretty much guarantee you this: He won't be an ally of George Bush, the GOP, and the extremist, authoritarian American right wing. Right now, that's the only thing that matters.

If you live in Connecticut and you're a registered Democrat, get your ass out there today and vote for Ned Lamont.

     Tags:

[2006.08.07 - 08:00 P.M.]

Slate's John Dickerson, writing about Lamont Supporters' creative use of web campaign videos, wraps up his column with this whopper (emphasis mine):

Lamont supporters were a little obsessive about the kiss George Bush planted on Joe Lieberman's cheek, but they were so creative that their videos about it kept the image alive in entertaining ways each week. The mainstream media could only obsess over an iconic moment like Howard Dean's scream for a day or so, but Lamont supporters could take an iconic moment and recycle it again and again and again.

Excuse me? The media only obsessed about the "Dean Scream" for a day or so? Are you shitting me?

The beltway press, cable news networks, and virtually every op-ed page in the country shoved the "Dean Scream" down our throats for months after it happened. First they edited it and decontextualized it to make it seem unhinged and insane, and then, long after the demise of Dean's campaign, they kept dragging it back into the public consciousness as Exhibit A of the populist candidate's "implosion".

"A day or so."

What world was John Dickerson living on?

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.07 - 06:00 A.M.]

Format change on the movie reviews. I'll be adding two numbers to each review now, both on a 1-10 scale. The first will be the "Expected" rating -- what I'm thinking the movie will rate based on buzz, advertising, back-of-the box blurbs, and my feelings about the genre -- and the second the "Actual" rating. I like this system because I've come to discover that it's this Expected/Actual Differential that, almost as much as the overall quality of the movie itself, most accurately predicts my enjoyment level. A note on the scale: A 10 is a perfect movie such as Wrath of Khan or The Matrix. (One hallmark of a 10, for me, is infinite rewatchability.) A 1 is some god-awful piece of shit like Blue Velvet, where you finish the movie furious that you just wasted two hours. Something in the 5-6 range would be a decent action movie or reasonably funny comedy. Without further ado, then, let's demonstrate the power of the Expected/Actual Differential.

Election: Imagine if someone re-wrote American Beauty as a comedy, and you'll be in the neighborhood of Election. Matthew Broderick plays a petty jerk teacher who's obsessed with thwarting a hyper-ambitious over-achiever played by Reese Witherspoon. You've got infidelity, inappropriate teacher-student relations, various malcontents, lots of back-stabbing. There's only one truly likeable character in the whole thing, and he's a Ted-Theodore-Logan-esque half-wit. Fun stuff. This movie came out in 1999. I must have walked past it in the video store a hundred times, and at least a quarter of those times I'd pick it up, read the synopsis on the back of the case, go "Eh" and put it back. So I was quite mystified to log into NetFlix a while back and see it in our queue. In the interest of maintaining Marital Movie Harmony, I put aside my misgivings and tried to keep an open mind. Well, surprise! It's actually pretty damned funny. Not an A-list comedy by any stretch, but if you stumble across it, it's worth watching.

Expected Rating: 3.5 -- Actual Rating: 5.5

Elektra: Saw this on the Comcast guide as I was flipping through the HBO listings, and my weakness for superhero films dictated that I simply had to record it, despite the fact that critics universally killed it. Well you know what? Fuck the critics. There are worse ways to spend 105 minutes than watching a smoking-hot Jennifer Garner whup up on a bunch of supernatural ninja-like bad guys. And what was with all the nonsense about how confusing and hard-to-follow the plot was? Elektra is trying to protect a young girl who the universal mystical powers have designated as the next great warrior princess destined to tip the balance between Good and Evil. I mean, Duh. It's like Buffy For Dummies. Film-making genius? No. A horrid suck-fest? Absolutely not. If you can see it for free like we did, do so.

Expected Rating: 2.0 -- Actual Rating: 5.0

     Tags:

[2006.08.05 - 05:30 P.M.]

Jason VaritekEarlier today, kate was waxing rhapsodic about the Red Sox' acquisition of former Orioles catcher (and super hottie!) Javy Lopez, and in the course of things she wrote "no offense to my lovely boys tek and mirabelli". Well, that stopped me in my tracks. Jason Varitek? "Lovely"? Was that my breakfast I felt coming up? In a futile attempt to set kate straight, I commented "Come on, if a person could literally have an anus for a face, the result would look like Jason Varitek." Sure, it was harsh, but that's an ugly mug, people. Mouse over for a close-up if you don't believe me.

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.05 - 04:00 P.M.]

I have to assume that this, from Atrios, is a bit of reverse-reverse psychology, aimed at countering the Lieberman camp's recent rope-a-dope "Throwing in the Towel" strategery:

Well, it'll be a miracle if Lamont pulls it off on Tuesday. Yes, 3 polls in a row have him up substantially, but no one really knows who the hell is going to go to the polls on Tuesday.

I'd like to think that if Lamont loses something will still have been gained, though I'm not sure I can actually make that case. I do think this campaign has helped to shift CW somewhat on certain issues, but a Lamont loss will probably snap it right back to where it was.

Personally, I've been trying like hell to tamp down my expectations. Do I think Lamont can win? Absolutely. Am I getting my hopes up? Absolutely not. It's wait and see for me right now. After six years of watching the Bad Guys win time after time after time, I can't allow myself the luxury of being too optimistic.

Ah, the plight of the American liberal these days. In many ways, it's just like being a Jets fan.

     Tags: , ,

[2006.08.05 - 02:00 P.M.]

The scene is the same in both cases: A modern night club -- all cool blue lighting, hard metal and glass, straight lines glinting -- a seductive setting, carefully designed to stir passion and playfulness and pique one's propensity for partying. Your eyes are drawn to the ads. What do you see? What do you hear?

In the first ad, you see a bartender mashing mint and lime to the beat of a funky dance tune. The place is jammin'. Hips shake in time with the twist of the masher, and then on every eighth beat, the umph! A slide, a shake, everyone's got their eighth-beat move, yes, even Tracy and I, sitting on the couch, for we are there, in that club, doing the Mojito Dance right along with those people. This is a good ad. While it has not had the effect of making me go out and buy a bottle of Bacardi™ (we're an Appleton's™ household, mon), it certainly has made me want to make a batch of Mojitos. So, mission partially accomplished.

In the second ad, we hear soft jazz in the background as the camera slowly zooms in on an attractive brunette behind the bar. She stares haughtily into the camera and asks:

"How do you make a Grey Goose™ on the rocks taste better? Improve the ice."

Oh, really? Is that the case? I don't think so. Let me give you a tip, honey: If you're going to try to sell me thirty-dollar-a-bottle vodka, you might want to leave the cooler-than-thou attitude at home and try sweet-talking me instead. That's not a fine malt whisky you've got in that bottle. It's not even a decent sipping tequila. It's fucking vodka. You can price it at $100 a bottle and it won't change the fact that you're dealing with an alcohol that is best hidden deep in the bottom of a glass filled with other, less noisome components. So, really, distract me. Put something good on the jukebox. Show me happy people. Do something. But don't stand there looking down your nose at me -- at me, a guy who has a doctorate in booze -- acting like that overpriced rubbing alcohol you're slinging might just be too good for me to drink. That goose isn't flying anywhere.

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.05 - 10:35 A.M.]

Wow, this is fun: My brain is absolutely convinced that today is Sunday. I had yesterday off, so I slid easily into my normal Saturday mode of puttering about, doing chores, surfing the web, and of course drinking beer. So now I wake up and, easily five times already, I've caught myself believing it's Sunday. And every time I do so, I get a giddy little jolt of euphoria when I realize it's not, and that all of today and tomorrow lay before me still, a glistening, undulating expanse of leisure time beckoning me to drop my worries and run frolicking through it as if I had nary a care in the world.

Sometimes my love of leisure so overtakes me that I want to cry tears of joy.

Update: What can you say about a day when it's ten minutes before one o'clock, you're walking around the house in nothing but your boxers, beer in one hand, copy of Fantasy Football Index in the other? Well, for starters, you can say "My life rules."

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.04 - 11:50 P.M.]

This has to be one of the most unintentionally humorous things I've read in a while. From Doug Soderstrom, writing for Thomas Paine's Corner:

Having spent the past forty years of my life studying the philosophical infrastructure of the Christian faith, I have come to the conclusion that Christianity (as understood by Christian fundamentalists) is not a rational system of thought, that the primary axioms upon which the faith is based are inherently flawed, internally inconsistent, to the point that such can no longer be considered to be an ontologically valid theory of life.

Ummmm... Really? Ya think?

And I love this conclusion, in which he laments the imperviousness of fundies to logical examination of their beliefs:

It should now be rather easy to understand why those of the fundamentalist community become so terribly upset when “unbelievers” challenge their beliefs. To give in, to admit that another's logic just might possibly make a bit of sense, would mean that they may well have entered the realm of the unbeliever, the realm of the damned, and, of course, that is something no God-fearing fundamentalist Christian would dare to do! Indeed it would be rather admirable if such folks were willing to explore such issues with a degree of openness and objectivity. However, after having spent forty years discussing such matters with literally hundreds of fundamentalist believers, such an outcome is essentially out of the question, since, at least based upon my own experience, I have yet to find one fundamentalist willing to engage in an honest examination of his/her own religious beliefs.

I believe that's why they call them "fundamentalists".

Forty fuckin' years, dude? I haven't even been alive that long and your conclusions aren't news to me.

*Shamelessly stolen from The Disgruntled Chemist.

     Tags:

[2006.08.04 - 07:00 P.M.]

As promised, here are our NYC pics. Enjoy.

     Tags: ,

[2006.08.04 - 04:40 P.M.]

Reading all the stories today about this Richard Goodstein character, a DC lobbyist who took part in an orchestrated ambush of Ned Lamont by "grassroots" Lieberman supporters, I was reminded, more than anything, of the fake "protesters" the GOP flew in to stage that riot at the Miami courthouse. Seriously, are there any dirty tricks left in the GOP playbook for Lieberman to rip off? He could try to actually steal the election, I guess, but I don't think that's within his powers. I sure hope it's not, because Lieberman's basically proven he'll stoop to any low.

     Tags:

[2006.08.04 - 12:00 A.M.]

Tracy and I went down to New York City yesterday to see the Colbert Report. Let me tell you, much as I love NYC, it's not the most fun place to be during a record-breaking heat wave. After enjoying a two-hour Circle Line sightseeing cruise around the business end of Manhattan, we returned to a landscape that was not unlike the prison planet of Crematoria from The Chronicles of Riddick. Absolutely brutal. The cement gripped our shoes, fighting our steps. The air stuck to our skin, greedily sapping our strength and resolve. The cries of the damned assaulted us from every corner while the reek of cooking flesh...

OK, it wasn't quite that bad. But still.

Ducked into a bar for a couple of drinks and a look at the Yankees game, an enjoyable respite. But then we made the critical mistake of going back out and searching for someplace to eat. This led to a bout of Acute Crankiness. Ended up settling on this blah restaurant called "Renaissance" where, we quickly realized, we had eaten a few months back when we had gone to a Daily Show taping. The food was average and overpriced then and remains so, but the air conditioner worked, so we just said fuck it.

Later, having eaten way more than was advisable in that kind of weather, we exited and trudged two long blocks to the cattle pen outside the Colbert Report studio. This is a covered section of an alley about 100 feet long. The wall of the studio is on one side and a tarp hangs down from the outside edge of the canopy to protect the nearby apartment dwellers from the noise of the rabble. The line, which starts forming as much as two hours before the doors open (tickets don't guarantee you a seat, so you want to make sure you're there early), quickly filled up the cramped confines of the pen, wrapping around at the back door of the studio. The air was like sweat pudding. Oxygen molecules were few and far between. Combined with the pressing and bumping of strangers' bodies and the fucking noise of a hundred loud conversations... it was unpleasant.

Luckily the staff got us inside, debriefed us, and planted our asses in the seats on schedule, because if things had been running late I think we might have actually bailed. It was that bad.

Tracy and I had been to two Daily Show tapings prior to attending yesterday's Report. The drill is always the same. The staff tries to whip you up into a frenzied applause machine. They send out an amateur stand-up guy who does warm-up patter. That's all fine, as it goes. To me, though, what's more fun is just sitting and watching what happens on a studio set. I love observing the camera guys and technical staff doing their prep work. I like watching what they do with the lighting. And it's cool because you sit there checking out all the props and set details thinking "This is what I've been seeing on my TV every night. It's right there." Just neat stuff.

The shows, however... Well, it's weird. Tracy and I just have shit-awful luck with these guys. Our first Daily Show was a truncated affair with no guest appearance. For our second Daily Show Jon was supposed to have the Mustache of Understanding on, but the schedule somehow got screwed up and we got this boring economist we'd never heard of from the Wall Street Journal instead. Not awful experiences, but not first-rate shows by any stretch.

Last night's Report was more of the same. Although the guest, Paul Hackett, was pretty good, the first two segments of the show were exceedingly lame. In place of the always-outstanding segment "The Word", we got the one recurring CR gag that is totally and completely devoid of funny: A guest spot by fake liberal radio host Russ Lieber. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a comic of Colbert's obvious skill cannot see that this dude is a humor Black Hole. His character is awful, his delivery is awful, and his physical presence is just creepy, more child molester than campus liberal. Seriously, when I looked out and saw that he'd joined Colbert on stage, my heart sank.

Being a Thursday, the second segment should have been my hands-down favorite of Colbert's weekly features, "Better Know A District". No luck. Instead, it was the first (and hopefully last) of a lame tangential series on the Coalition of the Willing called "Meet An Ally". This one featured Palau, and the segment was an interview with Palau's U.N. delegate. The gag was that the guy's just this average looking white dude who grew up in New York. That was funny for about five seconds before it got grating. Terrible segment.

The interview with Hackett was OK, but nothing special. He wouldn't rise to the bait Stephen threw out there about the Dem establishment undercutting him. Did have a few good anti-Bush applause lines though.

The funniest part of the show was the closing segment with the "Colbert Report Eternal Flame of WWIII". The bit itself was pretty humorous -- I don't know why, but whenever he fools around with the fake fireplace it cracks me up -- but what really had us roaring in the studio were the two takes you at home didn't see. First time out, he gets almost all the way through the whole schpiel, then winds up saying "The Colbert Report Eternal Frame". He actually tried to recover, and we thought he might keep it. He was pissed, though -- "Eternal frame?! All the way through and I said fucking frame?" -- and insisted they re-shoot it. Second time he got ten seconds in, couldn't get the bellows to stop falling down next to his chair, and just lost it laughing. Wasn't until the third try that he nailed it.

I want to close by making an observation about Colbert, something that I don't think is necessarily apparent from watching his show on TV: He is tightly wound. Comparing his studio presence to that of Jon Stewart's is a study in night-and-day contrast. Stewart in the studio is like Stewart on air: Casual, a little self-effacing, world-weary but somehow still optimistic and a little naive. Not so with Stephen. Watching his reactions and expressions between segments or when he was off camera during a taped segment, there was an intensity there. I got a sense that there's a well of genuine anger he draws on to fuel his character. There's a set to his features, a tense precision in the way he goes about his job, that to me revealed a fire that I've always found lacking in his former boss.

At least that's how it seemed to me. I'm no psychologist. He could have just been having a bad day too, I suppose.

So that's our story. I'll have pics up from our boat ride a little later to share with you. The heat wave's broken here in CT, and I've got to head out and get some chores done.

     Tags:

[2006.08.02 - 05:00 P.M.]

Spin the dial to dark and press down the lever, it's time for Slices of Toast! Let's kick things off with-

"Whoa, whoa, wait a second dude. Slices of Toast? Isn't that a Friday feature? It's the middle of the damned week."

Oh yeah well it's Friday for me, Bitchez! Four day weekend! Wooo HOOOOO!!! Tracy and I have tickets to the Colbert Report in NYC tomorrow and I figured, what, I'm going to take Thursday off and then go into work on Friday and ruin a perfectly good mini-vacation? Of course I'm not. So here I am, and it is time to get this party started right. Now where was I...

Oh yeah. Let's kick things off with this item that's been banging around the Stupid Shit That Annoys Me™ filing cabinet for a while now. It's phenomenon I'm going to call Stupid Booing. You know how, in baseball, the home crowd always boos when the opposing team intentionally walks a guy? Or when the opposing team's catcher goes out to the mound for a conference? Or when the opposing team's pitcher goes for the pickoff attempt at first in lieu of throwing a pitch? That's Stupid Booing. All of these events are things that teams do in the normal course of playing a game. If the home team was doing it, you wouldn't boo 'em, so what the fuck is the point of booing when the opposing team does it? It seems to me this is nothing but a thoughtless, herd-like response, and it's annoying as all hell.

Does Stupid Booing occur in other sports? Do football fans, for example, boo when the opposing team's coach calls for a measurement? Booing a bad call doesn't count, obviously. I'm looking for more examples of where fans boo routine events in a game for no reason besides the fact that it's the other team doing them.

slices

I would like to take a moment to point out a blogging milestone. This post that you're reading right this very moment -- your eyeballs gliding silently from left to right, then down just a bit and quickly back to the left, then right, right -- yeah, this post? Number 1000, baby. Post 1K. Quadruple digits. Ahhhhh, it feels good. Only took me two years, eleven months, and a couple of days too.

slices

Speaking of the Colbert Report -- which Tracy and I are, you know, going to see tomorrow -- we caught Stephen's interview with the Nedster on DVR last night. I thought he did great. He seemed relaxed* and on-message. Put himself out there strong. Didn't fuck up or have any awkward moments. Got a shitload of applause from the audience. All in all, a positive moment for the man and his campaign. Tip of the Hat to Stephen for rearranging his guest lineup to get Ned on prior to the primary and giving him what seemed like an extra-long appearance to make his case. (Wag of the Finger for not waiting until Thursday so Tracy and I could have been there.)

*"Relaxed" for Ned is a relative thing, of course. His energy level seems to run between "hyper" on the low end and "ferret on meth" on the high side.

slices

Here's a fun item:

BOSTON -- A bill on Gov. Mitt Romney's desk would make basketball the official state sport, despite strong opposition by Boston Red Sox fans.

Hmmmm. On the one hand, basketball was invented in beautiful Springfield, Massachussetts (Crown Jewel of the Pioneer Valley and birthplace of Mrs. Toast). On the other hand, I generally look askance at this "Official State X" crap. But on the third hand, it pisses off Red Sox fans...

Sign that bitch, Mitt!

slices

Hey, did you hear the X-Games start tomorrow?! Yeah? Well they're still really fucking stupid.

(I touched the underside of my office chair and did a 540 while typing that. Do I get extra style points?)

     Tags: , , , ,

[2006.08.01 - 10:00 P.M.]

"Disease is disease. Addiction is addiction. Nobody ever tried to sell me a bag of tuberculosis." --Ty Barnett, from Last Comic Standing

     Tags:

[2006.08.01 - 06:00 P.M.]

In a funny bit of juxtaposition, the day after Jeb Bush signs a law saying historical facts are absolute, Glenn Greenwald informs us of a bit of historically (albeit recent history) counter-factual (read: fucking insane) theorizing that's oozing through the Wrongosphere:

Ever since 60 Lebanese civilians were killed by an Israeli bomb at Qana -- an act for which the Israeli government has apologized -- the right-wing blogosphere has been abuzz with claims that the "official media version" of what happened is actually a massive cover-up, and that it was really Hezbollah -- not the Israeli airstrike -- which brought down that building.

Now put yourself in this situation: You're walking down the street and you run into Assrocket, and you say, "Dude, what is this crazy shit about Hezbollah having blown up that building in Qana? We have video of the event. The Israeli government has accepted blame for it. Israeli forces blew that building up!" And he spits out "No! It was Hezbollah!"

What do you do? How do you proceed?

It's a question that's been plaguing me for over a decade now, and which I've complained about in these pages ad nauseam: How do you reason with people who refuse to acknowledge basic facts? How do you have a productive discussion or debate with people who just make shit up?

I confronted such a situation this past weekend, actually. While at a family party, I walked outside just in time to hear Tracy's aunt talking shit about Al Gore. The particular assertion she made about Gore -- that he "didn't know what the hell he was talking about with Global Warming" -- just blew me away. Feeling my jaw clench, I responded "Well, that's funny that you say that, seeing as the vast majority of scientists agree with him." "No they don't!" She responded. "Yes. They. Do." I replied. She then quite hypocritically pulled the "I don't want to argue about politics" card out -- Really? Then why'd you start running your mouth? -- and, realizing I wasn't going to get anywhere anyhow, I let it go.

Tracy asked me on the ride home why I couldn't just argue the issue and show her aunt where she was wrong instead of getting so upset. Because you can't argue with people who won't acknowledge even a single, simple, objective fact.

Greenwald's summary paragraphs capture the dilemma beautifully:

This reality-denying syndrome essentially prevents meaningful debate of issues among a substantial portion of our population. How do you have a meaningful debate over what the U.S. ought to do in Iraq with people who believe that things are going really well over there and who insist that Saddam really did have WMDs? How do you have a meaningful debate with people over the Israel-Lebanon war who insist that reports of civilian deaths in Lebanon are the by-product of a massive conspiracy/cover-up between the international media and Hezbollah rather than Israeli air attacks? And how do you have a meaningful debate with people who continue to insinuate that Saddam helped plan the 9/11 attacks?

Meaningful political debates require agreement at least as to the basic facts comprising reality. For a substantial portion of the American population, that agreement is lacking, due to a desire to believe only those facts which comport with one's beliefs and the powerful, self-contained ideology-based media bubble which enables that desire. Those who live in the world where Iraq helped Al Qaeda plan terrorist attacks, Saddam had WMDs, things are going well in Iraq, and Hezbollah rather than Israel collapsed the apartment building in Qana, don't merely have different political views but really live in a different reality.

Indeed.

People who deny that the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion on climate change backs Al Gore? They live in a different reality too.

Until they rejoin those of us living in the Reality-Based Community, there's just not much to say.

     Tags:

[2006.08.01 - 07:45 A.M.]

Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature have passed a law declaring that American history be taught as a strictly factual matter, and not presented as a "construct" or "narrative" (via Shakes). So for those of you keeping score at home, Global Warming is a hoax, Evolution is "just a theory", but history is a matter of simple, objective fact. Right-wing epistemology. Gotta love it.

Anyone else think it's weird that a quasi-military rebel group would call themselves the "Tamil Tigers"? I mean, if I were in the Sri Lankan military, I'd have to chuckle a little bit that my adversaries had a name that sounded like a high school football team. (Note: I know nothing about this conflict whatsoever. I just keep seeing and hearing "Tamil Tigers" in the news and it cracks my shit up.)

Axl Rose unable to perform. Show goes awry. The more things change...

If you read just one thing today then, my friend, you're being way too productive at work.

No, seriously, if you read just one thing today, make it Colin McEnroe's piece on Connecticut's long-festering disenchantment with Joe Lieberman. It's been truly amazing to me watching the national (and in some cases the local) media make a deliberate hash of this story, sticking to tired, false storylines about this being a single-issue, anti-war, left-wing extremist, angry-blogger-powered movement when it is so much more than any of that. McEnroe destroys this nonsense in a way that only a long-time local Connecticut political junkie-slash-journalist could. His piece should be required reading for the Jon Chaits and David Broders of the world.

     Tags: , , ,