President Clinton has opinions that most of the country agrees with [UPDATE: About Powerline’s outrage, Jesse’s response is a must-read]
Ariana Huffington being picked up in an SUV
The Red Menace (communists) (still)
Guns, not butter . . . or homes . . . or jobs (for New Orleanians)
Also, birds that occupy the airways.
How complaining about the shape of memorials is entirely different from complaining about the shape of Burger King dessert logos. Because the latter would be, you know, silly.
Seriously, this man is scum. From Huffington Post:
Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political advisor and deputy White House chief of staff, spoke at businessman Teddy Forstmann’s annual off the record gathering in Aspen, Colorado this weekend. Here is what Rove had to say that the press wasn’t allowed to report on.
On Katrina: The only mistake we made with Katrina was not overriding the local government…
On The Anti-War Movement: Cindy Sheehan is a clown. There is no real anti-war movement. No serious politician, with anything to do with anything, would show his face at an anti-war rally…
On Bush’s Low Poll Numbers: We have not been good at explaining the success in Iraq. Polls go up and down and don’t mean anything…
On Iraq: There has been a big difference in the region. Iraq will transform the Middle East…
On Judy Miller And Plamegate: Judy Miller is in jail for reasons I don’t really understand…
On Joe Wilson: Joe Wilson and I attend the same church but Joe goes to the wacky mass…
In attendance at the conference, among others were: Harvey Weinstein, Brad Grey, Michael Eisner, Les Moonves, Tom Freston, Tom Friedman, Bob Novak, Barry Diller, Martha Stewart, Margaret Carlson, Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell, Norman Pearlstein and Walter Isaacson.
Bush ratings before Thursday’s speech on New Orleans/Katrina: 39%
Bush ratings after Thursday’s speech on New Orleans/Katrina: 35%
Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits
On a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes
And hooptiously drangle me
with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon
See if I don’t.
Vogon poetry is of course, the third worst in the universe. The second worst is that of the Azgoths of Kria. During a recitation by their poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent of his poem "Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in my Armpit One Midsummer Morning" four of his audience died of internal haemorrhaging and the president of the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling Council survived only by gnawing one of his own legs off. Grunthos was reported to have been "disappointed" by the poem’s reception, and was about to embark on a reading of his 12-book epic entitled "My Favourite Bathtime Gurgles" when his own major intestine, in a desperate attempt to save humanity, leapt straight up through his neck and throttled his brain. The very worst poetry of all perished along with its creator, Paul Neil Milne Johnstone of Redbridge, in the destruction of the planet Earth. Vogon poetry is mild by comparison.]
From Brian Williams’ blog at MSNBC":
I am duty-bound to report the talk of the New Orleans warehouse district last night: there was rejoicing (well, there would have been without the curfew, but the few people I saw on the streets were excited) when the power came back on for blocks on end. Kevin Tibbles was positively jubilant on the live update edition of Nightly News that we fed to the West Coast. The mini-mart, long ago cleaned out by looters, was nonetheless bathed in light, including the empty, roped-off gas pumps. The motorcade route through the district was partially lit no more than 30 minutes before POTUS drove through. And yet last night, no more than an hour after the President departed, the lights went out. The entire area was plunged into total darkness again, to audible groans. It’s enough to make some of the folks here who witnessed it… jump to certain conclusions.
Hat tip: Shakespeare’s Sister
REACTIONS FROM OTHERS:
Balz/Washington Post: The main text of President Bush’s nationally televised address last night was the rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, but the clear subtext was the rebuilding of a presidency that is now at its lowest point ever, confronted by huge and simultaneous challenges at home and abroad — and facing a country divided along partisan and racial lines.
Krugman/ NY Times: But George W. Bush isn’t F.D.R. Indeed, in crucial respects he’s the anti-F.D.R. President Bush subscribes to a political philosophy that opposes government activism – that’s why he has tried to downsize and privatize programs wherever he can. (He still hopes to privatize Social Security, F.D.R.’s biggest legacy.) So even his policy failures don’t bother his strongest supporters: many conservatives view the inept response to Katrina as a vindication of their lack of faith in government, rather than as a reason to reconsider their faith in Mr. Bush.
The Moderate Voice/Michael Stickings: Personally, I didn’t think much of it. I don’t doubt his compassion, and he may have said the right things ("there is no way to imagine America without New Orleans"), but I can’t get past his obvious incompetence and the utter lack of leadership he showed after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. . . . . David Kusnet, former Clinton speechwriter, liked Bush’s speech. As a speech, not necessarily for the content (though he liked much of that, too): "Never before has a president spoken so well and acted so ineptly. Perhaps the rhetoric will win Bush a second chance." I just don’t think he spoke that well, though the rhetoric may indeed give him "a second chance".
Conservative "Christian" La Shawn Barber in "Bush the Sugar Daddy": What Bush proposes is not an improvement; it’s just a lateral, welfare-dependent move to different cities and states. It’s certainly not his job to vanquish poverty. That’s the job of individuals. But an honest speech would’ve acknowledged that government dependency does not improve lives. Part of the reason so many were stranded in the storm without food and water in the first place is because they were too dependent on the government for subsistence. Why couldn’t he say that?
The Next Hurrah/DemFromCt: This most partisan President who has poisoned the well has no reservoir of good will left. He has governed his entire Presidency by forcing his way into the WH (no, we have not gotten over 2000 – it matters). He has forced Democrats who supported his major initiatives out of office (see Max Cleland 2002) and replaced bipartisanship with crony-directed Republicans only policy (see Texas residtricting). He has played to the base so often that no one outside the base thinks it’s normal, or usual, or even expected to support him. Well, he’s got what he’s created… George W Bush is President of the United 40%, and even they aren’t so united any more. Bush’s speech was not especially well received… it reaches his low bar of beign better than anything else he’s said on the topic, but there’s a whiff of desperation to the theatrics and visualos. He came across as hermetically sealed in his beauty shop, clueless and out of touch. In other words, it was far more revealing than it was meant to be, and jarring compared to the real NOLA situation.
Military Analyst William Arkin/WaPo: Amidst all of President Bush’s proposals last night was one decree that the Commander-in-Chief can implement without Congressional or public intervention: "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces — the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment’s notice."… I for one don’t want to live in a society where "a moment’s notice" justifies military action that either preempts or usurps civil authority. … What is more, nothing about what happened in New Orleans justifies such a radical move to give the military what bureaucrats call "a lead role" in responding to emergencies. … In the wake of Katrina, the military was standing by awaiting orders, as it should be. The White House and the federal government were for their part either on vacation or out to lunch. The problem wasn’t the lack of resources available. It was leadership, decisiveness, foresight. The problem was commanding and mobilizing the resources, civil and military.
Howard Kurtz/WaPo: Well, the choreography was pretty impressive.
So I was listening to Bush’s speech about Katrina.
It started off boring — a laundry list of things that happened as a result of Katrina (we know what happened, George; we were paying attention), and a laundry list of things that are happening now in terms of recovery.
Yawn.
Then he started going into rebuilding efforts. I thought parts of it were nice, and a few of the ideas were good. Of course, it sounds like much of the federal help is going to go to "entrepreneurs", rather than actual people. I can understand helping out businesses through tough times, but construction businesses in New Orleans are NOT going to be hurting in the next several months and years. Why do they need federal aid?
And where is all this money going to come from? How are fiscal conservatives going to respond to Bush’s spending?
The most awkward moment was when Bush openly admitted that there are a lot of poor black people in this country. If he had an ounce of shame, he would be embarassed that it took a hurricane for him to sit up and actually DO something about it.
And for all his talk about revitilizing the area, let’s remember that Bush’s first directive for the post-Katrina rebuilding was to enact deep wage cuts for the people who will do the actual reconstruction.
As for taking blame, and figuring out what went wrong — well, I’m glad he’s interested in learning from his mistakes, but if he’s TRULY interested in that, he’ll allow for an independent commission.
He outright lied when he said that one of the lessons of Katrina was that the federal government should have more authority. The federal government always had that authority. They just bungled it.
Anyway . . .
Bush then said something that made me shoot up in my seat:
For example, the private fundraising effort led by former Presidents Bush and Clinton has already received pledges of more than 100 million dollars. Some of that money is going to governors, to be used for immediate needs within their states. A portion will also be sent to local houses of worship, to help reimburse them for the expense of helping others.
What the fuck?!?
You mean money from private fundraising is going to help reimburse churches for their charitable efforts? Is that how charity works these days? It’s not charity if you get reminbursed by others. It’s called robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I hope people follow up on this. I want to know which churches are insisting that they get reimbursed for helping people.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don’t do it."
"Why shouldn’t I?" he asked.
"Well, there’s so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Are you religious?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."
I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.
Shamelessly ripped off from The Liberal Avenger.
What do movies "Big", "Singing In The Rain", and "Carrie" have in common?
Need a hint?
Add to that list: "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", "Hairspray", "The Producers", and "The Lion King".
Yup. They are all movies that have become Broadway musicals. The stage versions of "Big", "Singing In The Rain", and "Carrie" bombed. But, quite obviously, others like "The Producers" didn’t. (Neither is "Spamalot", the Broadway musical version of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail").
It’s not a trend that I hate. Broadway shows are often adapted from other media (books, usually). And movies, too — "Sweet Charity", few people know, was based on Federico Fellini’s "Nights of Cabiria." Broadway even whores itself — many straight plays have found great success as reincarnated musicals.
But it does seem to be overdone lately. The New York Times recently ran an article about this trend upsurge:
Broadway has been stealing ideas from Hollywood for as long as anyone can remember. But business changes on Broadway and in Hollywood, combined with an increasingly risk-averse theater industry, have pushed this longtime trend to a new level, as producers now try to turn dozens of films into musicals. From "Blade Runner" (itself based on a novel) to "Batman" (based on a comic book series), no movie seems too bizarre to adapt.
Aside from "Blade Runner" and "Batman", here are some other Broadway-musicals-based-on-movies which are in the works (or, are being seriously considered):
Looking at some of these, I can understand why some people really really don’t like Broadway musicals.
Hey. You remember this story from a few years back?
Two Florida Jewish cemeteries owned by the world’s largest funeral company allegedly dug up bodies, crushed burial vaults and dumped human remains in wooded areas to make room for additional graves.
Lawyers said that as many as 1,000 bodies could have been displaced at Menorah Gardens cemeteries in Palm Beach and Broward counties. The cemeteries are owned by Service Corp. International, a Houston-based giant.
***
One of the plaintiffs, Carol Prisco of Long Island, said her father, Meyer Goldstein, was buried atop the grave of another woman instead of next to an empty plot he had bought for his wife. His body was allegedly among hundreds jammed into spaces that were too close to other bodies.
Lawyers for the families displayed photos of a leg bone lying on the ground beside chunks of a concrete vault. Finger bones, Jewish burial shrouds and a Star of David were found nearby.
Well, guess who got the no-bid contract to handle the bodies of the Katrina victims?
Boy, Josh Marshall really hits it on the head with this one:
This worries me. Note the added emphasis. The clip comes from a piece in tomorrow’s Post about yet another huge funding bill the president will roll out tomorrow for Katrina aid, which the Post says will cost more next year than the entire cost of the Iraq war thus far …
Bush and Republican congressional leaders, by contrast, are calculating that the U.S. economy can safely absorb a sharp spike in spending and budget deficits, and that the only way to regain public confidence after the stumbling early response to the disaster is to spend whatever it takes to rebuild the region and help Katrina’s victims get back on their feet.
Regain public confidence in who? Is the nation undergoing a crisis of confidence in itself?
Put that passage together with this one in Mike Allen’s piece in the Time and I think you see where we’re going …
By late last week, Administration aides were describing a three-part comeback plan. The first: Spend freely, and worry about the tab and the consequences later. "Nothing can salve the wounds like money," said an official who helped develop the strategy.
What’s driving this budgetary push is not a natural disaster but a political crisis, the president’s political crisis. The White House is trying to undo self-inflicted political damage on the national dime.
I wasn’t going to touch it, but now I must.
By now, I’m sure many of you have heard about the Reuters photo, which shows Bush writing an important message to Condi Rice as the two of them are sitting in conference at the U.N. Just in case you haven’t, I will (against my better judgment) post it here.
This is the "zoomed" version of the photo.
I don’t find it all that hysterical, except maybe for the fact that Bush’s first sentence ("I think I may need a bathroom break") is in the form of a question. What’s Condi going to say? "Yes, George, you are in need of a bathroom break"?
But the reason I’ve decided to post about it, and the thing I find truly hysterical, is how the posters at The Free Republic (the "Freepers") are deadly serious in their belief that the photo is fake. Here’s one typical comment:
Saved the file to disk and opened with Phtotshop Elements.
The first thing that appears odd is a "shadow" next to the ear. It is visible at 100% zomm – but – if you can, zoom in!! You will notice that it is only the ear – the cheek doe not cast a similar "shadow" – furthermore at 1600% zoom – the "shadow" has white space between the ear and the shadow . . .
The next things that bothers me is the size of the hand. It seems to be out of proportion.
AND – the ONLY two things that are "in focus" is the "note" and the hand with a pencil – however – the papers leading away from the the bottom are uniformly blurred (should get more blurry the farther away from the lens (IIRC has something to do with focal length and appature settings)
just noticed one more point – there is white space between the finger and the letters printed behind it – the should just "run into" the finger, instead there is a gap.
One more point reagrding the "shadow" – look at the shadow cast by the pencil – and the papers – all of them appear to indicate that the light source is directly above – the "shadow" from the "president’s" ear however would have been caused by a sorce from behind – however, notice that the back of the "president" is dark – not brightly lit!
Now that’s comedy…
Freepers, get a life.
I have little to say about this, other than to point out that it happened.
Recall, if you will, that social conservatives were upset because the Massachusetts judicary ruled that it is discriminatory and unconstitutional not to recognize same-sex marraige.
Recall, if you will, that social conservatives thought that the judicary was legislating from the bench, usurping the will and authority of the Massachusetts legislature.
Well, the Massachsetts citzens, through their duly elected representatives, have now spoken:
In a sign that the legalization of same-sex marriage has changed the political landscape in Massachusetts, the legislature soundly defeated a proposed constitutional amendment on Wednesday to ban gay marriage and create civil unions, an amendment that lawmakers gave preliminary approval to in a raucous constitutional convention last year.
Wednesday’s 157-to-39 vote by a joint session of the House and Senate partly reflected the fact that some legislators now consider same-sex marriage more politically acceptable, after a largely conflict-free year in which some 6,600 same-sex couples got married and lawmakers who supported it got re-elected.
So there you have it. Massachusetts believes in equal treatment for gays.
For the love of God,