polymania

I thought this was cute.



tags: Colbert Report, dogs

Not that this is a surprise or anything, but thanks to Huffingtonpost (and apparently a mole deep inside the FoxNews rat's nest), we get a glimpse at the "fair and balanced" thinking that goes on with their editorial:


"Be on the lookout for any statements from Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled Congress." Right-o, Foxies. A little sore about last week's election results, perhaps?

tags: Fox News, unhinged

Many other bloggers have written extensively about the peculiar habit among war supporters to constantly defer on when things might finally stabilize or improve in Iraq. In fact, since mid-2003 or so, a term has come up in the liberal blogosphere, popularized especially by Atrios, which typifies this form of punting - it is aptly called the Friedman Unit, or F.U., named after its initial and most common practitioner, columnist Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. A Friedman Unit is defined as "six months", which is usually the amount of time that the proponent says it will take before we can either 1) know how a certain strategy in Iraq is really proceeding, or 2) know if the country is really going to spiral out of control, requiring withdrawal or what-have-you. Of course, many other pro-war columnists and pundits and other ne'er-do-wells often use this same unit, in which case they advocate "staying the course" for at least another F.U.

As I mentioned, this kind of deferring has been going on ceaselessly in editorials and conservative blogs for over 3 years now, and we are constantly being told to wait "another six months" or so before making any real changes to our Iraq policy. In that time, the situation has clearly gotten worse and worse and worse, in spite of all the handwringing about "progress". Tens of thousands of civilians are dying every year now in sectarian and terrorist violence, both forms often intermixed to make them inseparable. Whatever window of opportunity there had been to make things better in Iraq with our presence has long since passed, but many in Washington (and even a few generals in Iraq) seem to think we just need to be more patient, even with the recent electoral results that strongly point to a desire to stop this insane policy.

So guess what we hear today at a Congressional hearing with Gen. John Abizaid:

"Our troop posture needs to stay where it is," for the time being, he said.

In one of the day's most contentious clashes, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., challenged Abizaid on his analysis of the situation and complained that he was advocating no major changes in U.S. policy. McCain, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, has called for adding thousands more U.S. combat troops in Iraq to help fight the insurgency and halt sectarian violence in Baghdad.

"I'm of course disappointed that basically you're advocating the status quo here today, which I think the American people in the last election said that is not an acceptable condition," McCain said.

In response, Abizaid said he was not arguing for the status quo. He said the key change that is needed now is to place more U.S. troops inside the Iraqi army and police units to train and advise these forces in planning and executing missions.

Pressed by Sen. Jack Reed (news, bio, voting record), D-R.I., on how much time the U.S. and Iraqi government have to reduce the violence in Baghdad before it spirals beyond control, Abizaid said, "Four to six months."

It just never changes, does it? "Stay the course" lives on.

tags: Iraq, quagmire

At least for a week, anyway. Yep, that's right, starting last Thursday and going 'til Wednesday, our house has become a Nielsen family. We got the call about this a few weeks ago during the time of all those aforementioned robocalls, and I'm glad I didn't reflexively hang up as I'd been tempted to do. After being asked a few questions about our household TVs, they arranged to sign us up and send us a diary to keep for this week.

So far after about 4 days, we actually don't have a lot in the diary. The simple fact is that we don't watch very much TV in this house. (But that's OK - they want to know if we're not watching as well.) We do watch a lot of Netflix, and we do record the Daily Show/Colbert Report combo Monday through Thursday. And of course we watch Lost, although last Wednesday was the last show for three months. Now, I do occasionally plop down on the couch and surf madly through channels, hoping to glom onto something interesting. But the Nielsen rules are to write down what you watch if you watch for more than 5 minutes - in my case, I rarely stay on a show for more than 10 seconds, unless it seems promising. (As you might guess, I only engage in this behavior when Cindy isn't home - she can't tolerate this kind of remote-control abuse. I suppose no one really can, unless you're the one with the remote.)

So if we don't watch a whole lot (and I certainly knew that going in), then you might wonder why I agreed to participate in this. Well, I want my opinions on things to matter. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore! I'm the kind of person who likes answering polls on the phone, even if the timing of the call isn't convenient. In fact, I wish I got polled more often, but then I suppose that's because I don't fit too neatly in demographic samples. I've always been a "strange duck" - at least that's what 56% of people who know me think.

tags: television, Nielsen family

Stilly giddy after seeing the Democrats retake control of the House *and* the Senate last week, I came across an article describing a lawsuit recently filed by two college frat boys from South Carolina who appeared in the surprisingly successful movie Borat. They contend that they appeared unwillingly, but the really amusing nugget is included below:

The scene at issue in the lawsuit depicts Borat conducting a drunken interview with three college frat boys in a motor home. As the four grow increasingly inebriated, they make racist remarks about slavery and how minorities in the United States "have all the power."

Before filming the scene, the lawsuit says, producers interviewed the college students at their frat house, then took them "to a drinking establishment to 'loosen up"' and plied them with alcohol. After a period of "heavy drinking," the students were presented with consent forms, which they signed, it said.

According to the complaint, the frat boys were then escorted to a motor home for the filming of what they were told would be a "documentary-style" movie and "were encouraged to continue drinking, which they did."

"Believing the film would not be viewed in the United States and at the encouragement of (the filmmakers), plaintiffs engaged in behavior they otherwise would not have engaged in," the suit says.

"They took advantage of those kids for their own financial gain," plaintiffs' lawyer, Olivier Tailleiu, told Reuters.

Fallout from the movie, Tailleiu said, cost one of the students a job at a major corporation and another "a very prestigious internship."

So let me get this straight - you guys exposed yourselves as being racist assholes, and now you're upset that there are consequences? You're saying that you wouldn't have said things you truly believed if you thought people you know - human resource managers and mentors - might see you? My, how honorable.

This is what is called being sorry not for doing something wrong, but being sorry that you got caught. And how Republican-like to not own up to their own bad behavior, and instead trying to blame someone else for "tempting" them into saying obnoxious things. This lawsuit of course will go nowhere, and it's no wonder that these jerks want to remain unnamed in the suit. Borat is making a good chunk of money ($60M at last count so far) at the boxoffice and garnering no small amount of critical acclaim as well. I can't wait to see it myself.

tags: Borat, movies, Republicans

I just received another pro-Marilyn robocall about 2 minutes ago.

I estimate that in the past month, I've received probably no fewer than 30 Republican robocalls, and maybe 4 Democratic robocalls. I've gotten calls from robo-Bill Owens, robo-George Bush, robo-Laura Bush, robo-Dick Cheney (which of course is redundant), robo-Marilyn Musgrave, robo-John McCain, robo-Anne Yeldell, and several other robo-Colorado Repubs. It is just a non-stop barrage of robo-blicans.

I start to wonder what they really hope to accomplish by annoying me and so many other people in the weeks and days before the election. I also find it humorously appropriate that an actual Republican human never calls me - no, instead of having a real conversation with a person, which presumably is the point of having a phone, they use it instead to send a one-way message - we talk, you listen. There's no dialogue here, just badgering propaganda, ceaselessly repeated. And I should also mention, joylessly, by the sound of it - robo-Bush sounded pretty annoyed that he even had to make such a desperate plea for my vote on behalf of one of his robo-supporters in what should have been an easy win.

So, yes, congrats to the robo-Repubs, who've figured out how to take the absolute worst of the internet and bring it to my phone. What next, are they going to tell me that I've just won the Polish lottery, or where to get Viagra or a Rolex real cheap?

tags: Republicans, robocalls

I'm looking out my office window into our cul-de-sac, and I see that our Waste Management garbage truck has stalled there. This is the second time in the past year that a garbage truck has broken down in our circle drive.

What does this mean??

tags: curses