October 31, 2003
Vacation Over!
Happy Halloween, folks! Boy, it's nice to be back. Time to settle in and sit back with a nice Root Beer and a cigarette. No lighter, though...anyone got some fire? Oh, thanks California!
All right, that was out of line. I should delete it.
I'd like to thank Don Rumsfeld for guest blogging while I was away. And I should mention, since he didn't, that it was actually Lolly who pointed out the Wired article on Miniluv.
We might as well face it right now: this is a choppy entry. Topic...topic...topic. No segues or decent transitions. Fuck transitions hard, and steal their TV afterward.
Here is an interesting online test of political/economic views from the good folks at Political Compass. For the hell of it, I'll show you my results (yes, I make the Dalai Lama look like Hitler). Here too are the Little Lady's results...she's a more authoritarian and laissez-faire, than I am, but not as much as some current Presidents I could name. So anyway, you should all take it. Everybody's doing it!
Our final topic for the day: we ran out of Halloween candy today, which was unfortunate because it is Halloween. Panicked, I frantically searched the house for what we could give the little beggars. Stale goldfish crackers. A frozen sausage. Heroin. Dammit: nothing! And then, like a shining beacon of salvation, I saw it--right next to the sink: our grease can.
I babbled excitedly: "We can divide it up into little baggies! We should have enough for at least four kids! We'd probably make the news!" I pictured some kid dumping out his Halloween sack: Snickers, Payday, Three Musketeers...hey, what's this? It's kind of squishy. And it smells funny! Call the police!
To a certain extent, we thought this might happen, so we did something horrible. You must never, ever do this thing, because to do it is to see too much of the darkest, saddest part of humanity. No matter what the circumstance, you must NEVER repeat our sad deed. And though I'm scarred for life from the experience, if I can save even one other person from the horror, I've done something worthy of sainthood.
The thing we did, and which you must never do, is this: we stopped at a major supermarket at 4:00 PM on Halloween, and visited the remains of the candy aisle.
People of a sort I hope never to see again stared at the decimated shelves and empty boxes with the forlorn expression of pilgrims who travel many miles in search of salvation, only to find a used tampon on a pedestal. They looked like kids watching their dogs get run over. And they didn't move, or give up. They stayed there, huddled around the carcass of a candy aisle, as if it would suddenly be resurrected: surely, around some corner, Willy Wonka would soon arrive, and these giant bags of Swedish Fish and Candy Corn would be magically replaced with piles of the greatest candy the world has ever seen. It was a horrible, horrible thing, to be in that aisle. And you must never subject yourself to this experience.
Anyhow, I have a bunch more stuff to say, but I'll say it later.
October 30, 2003
Goodbye!
Hello America: I'm Don Rumsfeld.
Well, I'm sorry to say, this is my last day guest-blogging on this site. I've had fun this week, chatting about all the stuff near and dear to my cold, black heart. We laughed, we cried...well, I didn't cry. I didn't laugh either. I'm not a real "emotion" sort of guy. And that's a good thing. That's what's wrong with the world, really: too many humans, and too much humanity. All the emotion and togetherness! People helping other people! Making the world a better place for future generations! Leaving their mark on the world! Spreading joy! Wasting precious minutes gazing at the clouds! Bah humbug! I sneer as I type it!
Am I glad I had the chance to guest blog here? Sure I am! Would I do it again? Sure I would! Are you going to miss me? Sure you are! Will you subconsciously wish for my return after I'm gone? Sure you will! Will Chris invite me back? Sure he...might!
But first, I'd like to address one last question from Lolly.
Q: Wouldn't you say that American Revolutionaries, by todays standards, would be considered terrorists? Furthermore- doesn't that point illustrate fairly clearly that words like "terrorist" are sort of stupid?
Oh yeah- and isn't declaring war on a concept stupid too? If we're going to do that...why not declare war on Bad Taste- or Uncertainty?
hmmm
A: The American Revolutionaries weren't terrorists, because they were American. The French Revolutionaries, though, were real terrorists, and it's just as well they had a taste of fascism in the 40s. A lot of people tell me that's terrible to say, but hey: we bailed them out, right? Sheez! And that's why you can't declare war on bad taste: if we did, there'd be no one left but me.
-Don Rumsfeld
October 29, 2003
I'm Back!!
Hello America: I'm Don Rumsfeld. You may remember me as the Secretary of Defense who initiated Operation: Piss Off the World, or from my cameo appearances on Full House, where I played Danny Tanner's estranged brother-in-law. How bout them Olsen twins, eh? Hey, I got closer than you ever will, SUCKA!
Speaking of which, I've recently had a lot of mixed press over my leaked memo, which USA Today originally portrayed as grim and doubtful! Ha! Amazingly, the New York Times and Washington Post came to my aid, pointing out that it's nice to have a strong leader who's still willing to ask introspective, difficult questions. Instapundit, as usual, was right in my corner the whole time. And Lileks actually argues that our reactions to world events have been sluggish, and we need to pick up the pace! I mean, he actually posits that I could and should move a lot faster and more urgently on things! Can you even believe it? I can't even believe I'm writing it!
Am I troubled by McPaper's spin? Hardly, but I understand why you might think so. Quite the contrary, I highly admire McPaper's ability to place their desired spin on any subject they choose. And that, combined with the bleating of Lileks, has convinced me that it's time to reveal my greatest idea ever:
"I shall call it: MiniLove!"
Yes, that's right, you heard right: I've suggested a "'21st-century information agency in the government' to help in the international battle of ideas and to limit the teaching of terrorism and extremism!" It'll be marvelous! Marvelous!!Imagine: no more people coming up to me and saying "Hey, Rummy, where are those pesky Weapons of Mass Destruction?" They'll be too afraid to think those treasonous thoughts! And that's really beautiful. Thanks Lileks! Thanks McPaper!
The real benefit is that the thought agency, or as I prefer to think of it, "Ministry of Love," would be a subsidiary part of the DoD, so it'd be up to me--Donald Rumsfeld--to determine which thoughts are permissible and which are "extremist," without having to worry about any of that "beholden to the American people" garbage. I mean, the American people are a bunch of whiny rights-huggers, when it comes right down to it. And I'm so even-handed about acceptable thought. I'm glad I'm here, and not some other bozo. And here's a guy who's already got the ball rolling in Iraq! [r.r.] Great job, Paul. Megadittoes!
If we get re-elected, I'll get to make MiniLove AND MiniWar! George already says if we win in '04, I get to go after North Korea, Syria, Iran, and, time-permitting, three South American countries to be named later.
I probably shouldn't put all this out there, for anyone to read. I mean, McPaper might get a hold of it! But then again, that might not be such a bad thing...
October 28, 2003
Hello America
Hello America: I'm Don Rumsfeld. I agreed to guest blog on this site because I've always loved Pepsi.
I was going to write about how well the war on terror is going, but Lolly posted some questions for me, and I'll answer them instead:
---
Q: Hello Donald...
A: Hi Lolly
Q: A few questions if you have time....
A: I don't, but I'll answer them anyway.
Q: How much should people think 2 and 2 are? (in case I'm asked)
A: Well, of course, that depends: 2 and 2 of what? Obviously, 2 + 2 Islamic terrorists could total in the hundreds of thousands. 2 + 2 false rationales for waging war against soverign nations adds up to zero. The rule is this: 2 + 2 equals 5; 2 + 2 always has equaled 3; and 2 + 2 always will equal 7. The idea that I've ever said 2 + 2 equals anything other than 9 is simply ridiculous; the traitorous press has obviously taken my simple, direct statement that 2 + 2 equals 13 and twisted it until it seems that I've said 2 + 2 equals 1. They do this to undermine our anti-terrorism efforts, because they, like the terrorists, hate America and our freedoms and they hate all lands where 2 + 2 equals 11.
Q: Does the alphabet really need c,k,q,x? Couldn't we get by with just one of those?
A: Look, look. The alphabet is like a...like a chicken. You can't just go cutting parts out of it and still expect it to squawk. But you can add parts, and I'm please to announce that a coalition of the willing is donating some exciting new Cyrillic and Mandarin characters.
Q: Sure you're doing your part to solve overpopulation issues abroad- but what about our domestic overpopulation?
A: Sorry, that's Ashcroft's department.
---
Thanks for your support, Lolly.
Do we have a long way to go? Yes, we do. Am I happy about the progress we've made? Certainly! Do I have more I want to say? I'd like to talk about the spin regarding my leaked memo. Will I do that tomorrow? Probably! Did I intend to do that today? I sure did! Why didn't I? Is it because I slept late and spent the whole day on my couch watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy with my dog, Shizzle? Absolutely not! This is how rumors get started and the facts get lost! The truth is, I woke up late and sat on my couch all day watching Queer Eye with my dog, Shizzle. Was I eating Bugles? Sure I was!
Am I glad Slate discovered my poetic genius? Somewhat. Those were all off-the-cuff, by the way.
I'll be back tomorrow! Are you glad? Of course you are!
October 27, 2003
Vacation
Well, I'm taking a break from blogging for a few days. My schedule is too hectic. In my stead, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has agreed to blog here for a few days. I'm thinking til Thursday or so.
Before I go, I'd like to extend my congratulations (or whatever sentiment is appropriate in this situation) to Brother Nadreck, who has reached 100 Posts! The current entry is an interesting one on King Crimson, which should prove fun to read even if you don't like KC, and just might inspire you to check it out.
The hundred entries on that site are all well-written and enjoyable, and will provide you with hours of quality reading entertainment...each. Ha! I mean, they're long posts. Just a little good-natured ribbing, eh? But seriously folks! I just flew in from Akron and...
In other news, Adam has posted a photo that would make a fantastic background. :-)
That's it for me. Be nice to Don, and I'll talk to you later this week.
Disclaimer: Don Rumsfeld is not actually going to post on this blog. The coming entries will be a hilarious parody of the man's speaking style, and should not in any way be construed as actual posts from Mr. Rumsfeld. It sucks that I have to put this in, because I'm sure the posts, by their very nature, will be recognized as farce; but you can't take any chances these days. Hi Mom!
October 26, 2003
Meh II
Alas, yet again, I'm slacking on the posting. I apologize. Instead, here are some pictures of our Jack O'Lanterns.
My bass clef pumpkin:
And the little lady's kitty pumpkin:
That's it for now; shortly, the Democratic debacle debate will start, and I will watch it. It's on Fox News, which is claiming to be the "News Channel of Political Record." Just in time for Halloween. Spooky. And why in God's name are the Dems debating on Fox News?
October 23, 2003
Meh
I have a bunch of foamy political stuff I want to mention, but I need some downtime and tonight the Bruins continue their brutal early-season schedule. Anyhow, I thought I'd post some links to interesting stuff I found. And I'll get to some foam tomorrow. Or maybe Saturday. Or Sunday. Calm down! I'll get to it!
Here goes:
1. Sci-Fi Channel may sue NASA. Not to sound pessimistic, but this may not go well: I'll wager NASA has good lawyers. Especially when it comes to protecting classified documents. But honestly, Sci-Fi, I wish you the best!
2. Next, since we're coming up on Halloween, check out Extreme Pumpkins.com. Side note: Christmas lights should NOT GO UP BEFORE HALLOWEEN! Seriously, it's killing me.
3. Here's a game I didn't even realize I'd been desperately waiting for: Worms 3D! Sweet!
4. Engrish.com. It was said with sufficiently this topic.
96. And finally, a mayor in Ecuador has found a way to simultanouesly increase government efficiency and improve the quality of political press conference. I say we try it here, if only a the local level.
The way if be a health and a happiness.
October 22, 2003
Don't Prove Us Wrong, We Know What We're Doing!
From the Boston Globe:
"In Mid-September, Nathaniel Heatwole sent an e-mail to federal authorities in mid-September saying he had put the items [box cutters and other banned items] aboard two specific Southwest Airlines flights. But the objects were not found until last week -- five weeks later."
Deputy TSA Administrator Stephen McHale's reaction is my quote of the day:
''Amateur testing of our systems does not show us in any way our flaws,'' McHale said. ''We know where the vulnerabilities are, and we are testing them . . . This does not help.''
Oh really? So you knew about these flaws? The Transportation Security Administration is in the habit of letting banned items aboard planes? What, then, is the point of "banning" them? And why did the discovery of these items trigger "...stepped-up inspections of the entire US commercial air fleet." Why didn't they step up those inspections when they were told about those objects? Why weren't they discovered for five weeks?
The TSA seems like a pretty chill place to work, actually.
October 21, 2003
Ellipses Are...Good
Ellipses are not good.
Consider the following quote from Howard Dean in reaction to today's Senate passage of the Crush Abortion Rights Eventually (or "CARE") act:
"As a physician, I am outraged that the Senate has decided it is qualified to practice medicine." -- Howard Dean
OK? Gives you a pretty clear idea of his stance. Now try it with ellipses:
"...the Senate...is qualified to practice medicine." -- Howard Dean.
See? That gives you an idea of his stance, too. But it's the wrong one.
This is a trick pundijournalists love to play. By allowing them to change fact to fiction, it saves them a lot of time that they might otherwise have to spend searching for evidence that actually supports the message they want to communicate, or (God forbid) reformulating that message to accord with the facts at hand.
Let's try again! Here's Bush's reaction to the same Senate passage of the "CARE" act:
"This is very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America." -- W
That's the whole quote. It is therefore (unfortunately) a better indicator of his stance than:
"This is...abhorrent...." -- W
Fun huh? Play along at home! Every time you see an ellipsis in the paper, call, fax, or e-mail them and ask what exactly was taken out, and why! Typically, the response will be "to save space," which is odd given how much garbage is in the typical newspaper. And remember: the real danger is when that quote is recycled as "complete" by another newspaper, who can say "The [insert name of newspaper here] reports that [insert name of public figure here] said [insert screwed-up quote that has all the appearance of being correct and truthful here]."
Dean, like everyone covered in the media, has to deal with this problem all the time. Check out Spinsanity's Safire tries to revive Dean....
Actually, the title is "Safire tries to revive Dean media myth," but with the ellipsis, it becomes a human interest story in which Billy Safire crosses political lines to save the life of someone with whom he disagrees! Its heartwarming appeal justifies the lie. Anyhow, it's fascinating, especially the comments section, which unfortunately degenerates into a contradictory bitchfest and loses sight of the entire concept of reducing spin.
"They're...they're bastards!" -- Kyle Broflovski
Note: The above ellipsis is indicative of a vocal pause, not removed content; the same could be said of this one...
October 19, 2003
FAIR and Balanced
Last week, Bill O'Reilly criticized the LA Times for publishing an article reporting allegations of Schwarzenegger's sexual indiscretions, saying the Times was motivated by a liberal bias and never would have reported on, say, Clinton's alleged sexual indiscretions. FAIR called him on it, pointing out that the Times did in fact report (and quite early) on those allegations. The following quote comes from O'Reilly's response to having the Clinton article called to his attention. It comes from O'Reilly "Responds" to FAIR.
The story was reported giving both sides of the controversy. It was not an attempt to dig up anything and did not level accusations or exonerate Mr. Clinton. It was simply a news piece. Stay off the websites with the left-wingers, all right? You're never going to get the truth. And the right-wingers, probably the same thing.
--Bill O'Reilly
This whole situation is funny to me, on many levels. For one thing, it's another clear example of O'Reilly backpedalling after making a statement he didn't bother to research:
Hey! They're going after Arnold! Those liberal bastards! They'd never go after Clinton. Oh, they went after Clinton? Hang on...lemme think...
...and what he comes up with, essentially, is "Oh, well sure, they covered it, but this story gave both sides of the issue! What's the point of that?" This from a guy who works for Fox News and constantly complains about liberal bias in the media. So he admits to being incensed by balanced coverage, but simultaneously denounces "left-winger and right-winger coverage". That's pretty funny, you gotta admit: he's a newsman who hates all coverage! So we'll call O'Reilly's "I hate it, it's fair and balanced!" reaction funny thing number two. Surely he didn't think that one through.
But it's not for lack of time to think: he responded on October 13, 2003, three days after FAIR's report came out. And yes, a weekend split the dates...but you can still think on the weekends, can't you? Three days, and that's what he came up with. Which brings me to a third thing that amuses me about the whole episode, and it has a lot to do with timing.
For one thing, there's the accusation--and O'Reilly is not the only person to make this argument--that the LA Times held the story to maximize its impact on the California recall election:
What if they held it back? What if they held it back? This is another thing. And we believe this to be true. They held a story back until Thursday because it would do maximum amount of damage? Is that legit?
--Bill O'Reilly, again
As far as whether or not the Times held the story longer than necessary, I think that's pretty obviously not the case. Would O'Reilly's reaction have been better if it came out a week earlier but lacked sufficient evidence and support? Picture O'Reilly opening the LA Times and reading the headline: "Schwarzenegger Sexually Harrassed 16 Women: Details in Seven Days." What would he say, really? "Hey, thanks for getting this out on the table in a timely manner, guys. I'll patiently hold my judgment for a week while you build up evidence." For the other considerations on the timing issue, I'll refer you to John S. Carroll's editorial.
I can't see that O'Reilly's argument has any real basis in truth or rationality. And even if it did, O'Reilly had three days and came up with this bizarre defense: "Oh, I was wrong, they reported on it, but they reported in a balanced way, so they're still reprehensible; and the liberal-biased media pointed it that I was wrong, so don't listen to them, either!" How can you spend three days coming up with that, and still fault others for taking the time to research and investigate before they publish it?
[Bonus funny thing about all this: note O'Reilly's "And we believe this to be true." The previous "we" that O'Reilly refers to is the Fox News Channel. While he's referring to the network, he's pointing out that they've taken a lot of flack for being "an arm of the right". (Fox News? NO!) But soon after claiming the network is not biased and no one tells him what to say or who to go after, he's saying "we believe" the LA Times held this story to do maximum damage to Schwarzenegger's recall effort. Fox News is not a coherent platform for a determined ideology, and yet they all believe this far-fetched allegation of the Times' supposed flagrant disregard for journalistic integrity? That's a weird coincidence, don't you think? Maybe he didn't mean "Fox News" at all, but some other "we," which could be any number of people he didn't mention, like the President, or his family, or Ohio, or Louis Armstrong. Or maybe it was the "royal we," as though O'Reilly gets to refer to himself in the plural because his opinions count more! Or maybe, just maybe he's using a common technique for adding undeserved credence to an argument. "I believe" sounds weak; "We believe" is the stuff of oaths. Tough to say what he meant. I bet it'd be even tougher for him to explain it, if it were ever pointed out to him.]
Anyhow, I think I had more to say, but I'm tired of talking about O'Reilly's hypocritical bullshit. In other news, Tony Blair did his impression of Dick Cheney today, but no one laughed. The Bruins won in overtime. And I had a WaNu Root Beer today...damn tasty stuff.
October 17, 2003
Two Brief Horrors
An old joke:
::ring ring::
Hello?
Honey! Don't get on the Interstate! I just saw on TV--some lunatic's going the wrong way!
Hell, it's not just one...it's hundreds of 'em!
Tonight, for the second time in just over a year, I met some nutcase going the wrong way on the Interstate at night.
So that was one brief horror. The rest of the evening was actually pretty good: my girlfriend and I had an exceptional meal at Koto and a relaxed visit to Borders.
But my bookstore-induced relaxation was interrupted when I used one of the computers to look up a title I couldn't find (Al Franken's Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations). Yes, it's in stock: it's in the "humor" section, in section C; You Are Here. So I went to section C...and there was NO humor section, no matter how many times I walked back and forth willing it into existence.
I began loudly pontificating on the bad-for-business choice of placing a disinformation machine right in the middle of your bookstore with the words "Title Finder" over it. I normally don't get worked up over stuff like that (at least not in public), but the section I found myself in was full of twisted, wretched books written by twisted, wretched people: Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly...oh my! With each passing second, I could feel my capability for rational thought draining out of me, being replaced with opium dreams of how great the world would be if rich, white Texans ruled it and told everyone what to think. Would I be saved in time, or descend into an Orwellian nightmare?!
Surely this was some kind of trick, a vast, right-wing conspiracy to prevent people from buying "undesirable" books! Fortunately, the moment of horror was brief: my girlfriend found the book, way on the other side of the store. I fled the section before being tricked into buying any of the evil brainwashing books, and left the store with only good brainwashing books.
So there you have it: two brief horrors in reverse chronological order. Them enjoyed you hope I.
11-Year-Old Talks Pong Smack
What a riot!
Tim: My line is so beating the heck out of your stupid line. Fear my pink line. You have no chance. I am the undisputed lord of virtual tennis. [Misses ball] Whoops.
Nine kids are forced to sit in a room playing the classic games of yesteryear. What happens when they stop being polite (after 15 seconds) and start being real? Go read Child's Play right now. Seriously. Funny, funny stuff. I feel old :P
October 16, 2003
Cheating
Yes, it's true: I'm cheating on Root Beer. I just got home and made myself a Gin and Tonic. And I'm settling down with my nice G&T to watch the Avs beat the bejeezus out of the Wild. Ah, the pure, violent joy of hockey season! May it never end...
While I'm thinking of them, here are some links for you:
First: if you have a mind, Andrew Lipson's Lego Page will blow it. And not like you're thinking, pervert. Sheez.
Second: you know that feeling you get when you're expecting water but you drink milk? That's about the feeling I got when I visited the Society for News Design. Elaborate joke, or just ironic, terrible design? YOU make the call! Of course, I guess I'm one to talk, with my brown website...
Third: today I discovered the unwieldily-named Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. Good stuff. I've added it to the links list. Check out AlterNet as well. It's like journalism, but with investigation and reporting!
Baseball is lame.
That's all for now.
October 15, 2003
Two Thick, Frothy Heads
Quote of the day:
In fact, a lot of what Rush has said makes more sense now that we know he was stoned out of his mind for years.
--Tom Tomorrow
For some other great quotes, check out The Complete Bushisms! You'll have hours of fun, and and a little wispy nostalgia for Presidents past who could at least put a sentence together.
October 13, 2003
Welcome
Yea, the great question of life: is the mug of root beer half full, or half empty?
"Half Full? Half Empty?" What of life can be said that hasn't been better said before? Or hasn't been said better before? Or hasn't before been said better? Whatever.
Well, tough it out with me: we'll find something unique and fascinating to say, even if it takes decades!
And now I must leave you: some assholes honk their car horns outside my window, and I have to go part the blinds and stare down with an irritated scowl on my face.
I mean, honestly...where else would I have an irritated scowl?
More and better content to come.