I'm posting this for my brother's sake. It may make absolutely no sense to you. Sorry.

On the Dashboard vs. Konfabulator controversy, Daring Fireball weighs in to tell Mac zealots to stop whining:

Do you see how it’s entirely plausible that Apple’s decision to base Dashboard on Web Kit and Cocoa was based on purely technical reasons? Konfabulator isn’t a product — it’s a platform. Konfabulator itself does nothing other than provide an environment and API for widgets.

Adding a new platform layer to the system is a serious decision and commitment. If you’re still willing to argue that Apple should have bought Konfabulator as the basis for Dashboard, you’re implicitly arguing that Apple should be more concerned about being nice to third-party developers than they are about the quality of the engineering undergirding their platform.

UPDATE: My brother responds:

That's somewhat reasonable, but Apple needs to both be nice to 3rd parties and be concerned with engineering quality. Apple had to make changes to webkit for dashboard, as is proven by the performance improvements and overall increase in quality of their javascript implementation. They also hand to support all sorts of graphical bells and whistles. Essentially, they had to write a platform for it, but they leveraged their own existing code base to do it. Konfabulator could not have done that because the javascript engine needed updates and they don't have access to update the OS. So all that means is that Apple totally pulled a microsoft by updating OS level code to make their version of a product unfairly competitive with a third party app. They COULD have bought konfabulator and ported it their update web kit. They also should have made or at least should make their Dashboard able to run konfabulator widgets, but then that would remove any deniability that they carte blanc stole the idea. In any case, they still have treated a third party developer contemptuously, which is one stroke against making developers want to support the platform in the long run.

I know that none of you care about this, so I'd like to point out the name of this blog. Thank you for playing.

Anyone bothering to read this is unlikely to learn anything new in Fahrenheit 9/11. The suspicious connections that link the Bush administration to Saudi oil interests, the Carlyle Group, and Enron (among others) are all well documented and hardly revelatory. Still, it's a good flick. Moore isn't a fanatic or a fringe voice – he's just a guy with huge balls. When you see footage of effete and squirrelly congressmen scampering away from him in fear, it becomes clear that what really ticks people off about Moore is that he's fuckin' relentless. Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Reader mail:

There's nothing funnier than crybaby liberals crying about how scairt they are of fighting. It should be called Fahrenheit Boo Hoo Hoo: The Temperature at Which Pussies Cry.

UPDATE: Hi, this is Arlo. Normally I wouldn't edit one of Kelly's posts. After all, they're usually better than mine. I only wanted to point out that this post marks the 666th post on ...like you really care.... Hail Satan.

Here's your country. Now let our military run amok:

President Bush said today that coalition forces in Iraq would support a possible decision by the new Iraqi leadership to declare martial law to deal with escalating violence and terror attacks.

Via Atrios.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Iraq was ceremonially received control of their country, which, as we all know, basically means shit. This is far more important:

Apple has come up with an ingenious way to sell their new (and pretty awesome looking) monitors: LCDs are better for the environment. What's interesting is that they really know their audience -- people like me:

But even more than saving you money, when you choose items that consume less electricity, it means that power plants don’t need to consume as much fossil fuels and thus emit fewer greenhouse gases. What’s more, building an LCD display uses less materials than building a CRT, which leaves more raw materials for your grandchild’s computer. And since they don’t need huge boxes, flat panels also reduce the cost of packaging and shipping. All of this helps to reduce dependence on oil.

Hey everybody…Britney Spears emptied an ashtray loaded with cigarette butts off her hotel balcony. That cinches it. Screw her.

If you have not seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet, you may want to skip this blog entry if you don't want any spoilers.

I had four problems with the movie:

1. When Michael Moore gets in to the ice cream truck to read the Patriot Act, you never here him read any of the juicy bits. He gets in the ice cream truck, he introduces himself and announces what he's going to do, then you get two snippets of "Section such and such," but nothing else. He missed a golden opportunity to ingrain the nastier parts of the Patriot Act into the minds of the audience by juxtaposing it with the ice cream truck. We got the setup, but no punchline.

2. Michael Moore solicits congressmen to enlist their children. After one conversation and some rapid-fire edits of other congressmen running to avoid him, he says that none of them offered up to enlist their children. It's moments like this where my assertion that Michael Moore can be the left-wing's Ann Coulter is confirmed. Of course they didn't enlist -- you're on the street, you're accosting them, and, oh yeah, you're Michael Fucking Moore. Duh. In a situation like this, send someone else, get more honest responses, get those congressmen to actually stop, if only for a second.

3. When listing members of the Coalition of the Willing, he oddly enough skips England, and it seems that he only does because it would have ruined his joke.

4. That much video footage is hard to watch for two hours on a large movie screen.

Other than that, Fahrenheit 9/11 is by far the most brilliant piece of filmmaking Michael Moore has done yet. He mostly makes his assertions without cramming them down your throat. Instead of preaching, he just shows you a Christian woman reading the last letter she got from her son who was killed in Iraq. Instead of promulgating the evils of Halliburton, he simply shows a U.S. soldier saying that a Halliburton bus driver in Iraq makes ten times more than he does. On the most part, Michael Moore lets the evidence do the talking.

To a certain extent, Moore's cult of personality does make questioning his objectivity an easy feat. However, Moore stays out of this one as much as possible, only popping in to make a point here and there. The two I mentioned above, while funny, fail when thought about. One that works well, and always works for him, is returning to Flint, Michigan. His uncanny ability to cast his hometown as a microcosm for the world is laudable, and it's also the sign of a good documentarian.

As I walked home from the cinema, I kept asking myself if the movie could sway my father and my stepfather, assuming that they could actually sit through the damn thing. Fahrenheit 9/11 has a far better chance of swaying conservatives than Bowling for Columbine would for all of the reasons I've stated. Even my father, who argued that the way to keep American afloat is to afford help to the corporations, could perhaps find truth in the efforts to cut benefits and salaries for soldiers. My stepfather, on the other hand, may never believe that it is possible to be a patriotic Christian and think George Bush is wrong for this country, but if he were to watch this movie, he could see one.

I actually do have one more fault with the movie. Instead of spending all of that money to promote and distribute the film, instead, buy two hours of airtime on every major television station and show it. Sure, it might violate election laws, but at least it would get it into my father's and my stepfather's respective houses.

Jack Ryan on the magnanimity of being a quitter:

I am today withdrawing from the race…It's clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race…What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign -- the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play.

Bullshit. The wide and durable appeal of Barack Obama (at least insofar as his character is concerned) lies in his unwavering commitment to civil and germane discourse. A "brutal, scorched-earth campaign" is anathema to Obama. Obviously, Ryan caved to the frustrated machinations of his GOP overlords. Still, the whole thing stinks. The fact remains that Jack Ryan did nothing wrong. He did nothing wrong. Our political system is merely reflecting the warped prejudices of our larger culture, which is permanently mired in sexual guilt. Just another typical day in the American Heartland: scold a politician for getting a lap-dance, then jerk off in your basement to Donkey Bukkake. And by the way, anyone who thinks that Jack Ryan is a scumbag because he took Jeri Ryan to clubs "against her objections" needs to shut the fuck up. I tell my girlfriend to do things "against her objections" all the time – like do the laundry, pay the phone bill, and shut the bathroom door while I'm taking a goddamn shower.

Like you really care, indeed.

I offer you a Gmail account, and no one -- NO ONE -- asks for it except for Kelly. I'm afraid he doesn't count.

I offer you a chance to join me to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and no one -- NO ONE -- e-mails me.

Are you all that busy? Do you all use proper POP3 or IMAP email accounts now? I super-seriously doubt that.

ANYONE who wants the Gmail account can have it, not just Hotmail users. I would prefer to give it to someone who currently uses Hotmail or Yahoo! mail, just so you can get away from those spam-ridden skidmarks on the Internet's underwear, but it's first come first serve. Just email me.

And I'm seeing the movie Sunday afternoon if anyone wants to join me. If you email me, we can figure out a time. Otherwise, I'm on my own.

Look, I still love you, but when I come bearing gifts, don't shun me. I take it personally.

Dick Cheney is a fucker. A fucking fuckwit fucker. And he can fuck off and go fuck himself and fuck a duck, that fuck.

Oh, no, I'm not being crass. According to Dick Cheney's spokesman, I'm merely engaging in a "frank exchange of views" with the VP. And that exchange of views was fucking frank.

I hope someone videotaped it and can broadcast it so Cheney is fined by the FCC. You know, the Fucking Communications Commission.

By the way... fuck.

Moment of silence for Bob Bemer. Every time I cancel a dialog box or type an emdash on Windows by holding down ALT and entering 0-1-5-1 on the numeric keypad, I'll think of you.

Bush mispronounced "Abu Ghraib" during his welcoming of Prime Minister Medgyessy of Hungary to the White House. He's done it before and he'll do it again. Why does this happen? Here's an enlightening letter I received today:

What's really funny about that recording is that it is from Tuesday! The day before yesterday! I so hate to be a single-issue commentator but I swear with my hand to God that Bush's mispronunciation of Abu Ghraib is fully intentional. It reminds me of my old boss who would continuously mangle or forget the names of interns and underlings as a device to remind them of their unimportance. That he keeps doing this betrays the trick as being scripted and deliberate. No question Bush is a feeble-minded twit, but this device in particular is evidence more of his mendaciousness than his stupidity. In fact, I'm so convinced of this that I would like to augment the theory with the prediction that not only will Bush continue to mangle this name, but he will do so unchallanged. He's aware of his reputation as a simpleton and he is, under the guise of making a simple mistake that anybody could make, advancing the position that Abu Ghraib is no big deal. That pause [following the mispronunciation] is a bully's challange to the people in the room to contradict him. The subsequent silence is really compliance and a gaurantee that Bush will do it again. He can say Abu Giraffe if he wants. Nobody will call him on it. All evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

UPDATE: The incident occurs approximately 8 minutes into the above-linked audio clip.

From the Stig: W Ketchup™.

The leading competitor not only has 57 varieties, but has 57 foreign factories as well. W Ketchup comes in one flavor: American.

Um, well, that seems sort of, oh, I don't know, hypocritical?

Though I can't completely hate on W Ketchup:

A portion of every sale will be donated to to the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund, which provides scholarships for the children of active duty service members killed in the line of duty.

I'm glad they have the decency to say, "Hey, son, I sold ketchup bearing the nickname of the man who needlessly put your daddy in harm's way and got him killed. Here's some scholarship money." Hopefully they'll learn in university why their mommies and daddies died in vain.

I think it's important that we do our part to get Fahrenheit 9/11 in the top grossing box office lists this week. So I'm suggesting a ...like you really care... outing.

I'm willing to see it either Friday night at the Esquire in downtown Chicago so I can go there straight after work (there's a 6:45 that isn't sold out yet) or Saturday afternoon just about anywhere in Chicago. But I want to make the decision today so I can buy tickets tomorrow. Everyone is responsible for their own tickets -- I'm not buying a block for everyone, so if we can agree on a time, I'll post it here and everyone can jump onto Fandango or Moviefone or whatever and purchase tickets.

If we do a Saturday afternoon, we can have a ...like you really care... brunch beforehand. If we see it Friday night, we can have a ...like you really care... drink afterwards.

E-mail me and let me know when you would prefer to go. (Wow -- two e-mail links in one day. I must really trust my spam filter.)

One of the hottest web commodities right now is a Gmail account. Gmail is Google's free e-mail system, providing 1GB of storage. Hell, the e-mail account I get with my arlodesign.com domain is only 5MB, or half of one percent of what Google provides. I only get 25MB at work, even, which is only 2.5% of what Google's providing. Crazy, eh?

Right now, Gmail is in beta, so accounts are invitation only. As a user of Blogger, owned by Google, I have an invitation. So if you're sick of your spam-ridden free e-mail account, I'm willing to pass the benefits of my invitation to you.

The only catch -- as a diehard Microsoft opponent, I'm only willing to give my Gmail account to someone whose primary e-mail address is a Hotmail account. Sorry.

Here's how it'll work -- the first person to e-mail me from your Hotmail account gets it. Tell me what you want your e-mail address to be (something@gmail.com). I'll set up the account and send you the password. Then you log in, change your password, and voila.

So are you ready to break your Hotmail shackles? E-mail me.

So if Republicans are assholes for chasing Clinton with pitchforks and torches because he let an intern blow him, are we assholes for enjoying Jack Ryan's alleged attraction to sex clubs?

I'm here to say yes. Yes we are. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Jack Ryan, presumed GOP Illinois senate candidate, allegedly wanted his ex-wife, according to the divorce papers, to "perform a sexual activity" in front of strangers at a sex club. Like Clinton before, Ryan's opponents will say this alleged deviant activity reflects poorly on his character and his presumed ability to lead. And like Clinton before, I'm here to say that it's not true.

First of all, he allegedly tried to get his wife to engage in "sexual activity" three times. Now don't we want a leader who is persistant, who has a clear goal and never wavers from it?

Plus, unlike Clinton, Jack Ryan repects the sancity of marriage, and wanted to demonstrate his love and admiration for his wife. All Ryan allegedly wanted to do was say, "My wife is the hottest trekker since Nichelle Nichols! And look how well she is performing this sexual activity that I requested! Yeah! I came in her hair!" Really, is that wrong? It's not like he asked an intern to do it; he asked his wife. Three times. To be on the receiving end of so much respect, Jeri Ryan was stupid to let him go.

No, we shouldn't revel in Jack Ryan's allegedly exhibitionist desires. And what do I know? Let's hear it from Ryan's own mouth:

"Well, we were married for almost eight years," he said. "The worst of that was over ... eight years that we went to places that she felt uncomfortable. That's the worst of it.

"If that's the worst, then I think people will say, gosh, that guy's lived a pretty clean life."

Yes, you have, Jack Ryan. We have no business faulting you for allegedly taking your wife to a place that you knew full-well would make her uncomfortable. We should not laugh with victorious glee that you allegedly tried to coerce her into "performing a sexual activity" that you knew she doesn't want to do. And that you allegedly did it three times -- what could that possibly mean to a voter?

How can we let such alleged behavior cloud our judgement of what kind of a leader Jack Ryan would be? After all, our current president alleged killed small animals in his youth, skipped out on his military duties, and drove every business he ever ran into the ground yet still profitted from them -- how could anything he did in his past reflect on what kind of a president he would become?

Therefore, I'm glad Barack Obama is sticking to the issues and ignoring what Ryan allegedly did to his wife three times despite her pleas to the contrary. According to a recent poll, Obama is leading Ryan by 11 points, a poll that came out before we learned that Ryan is an alleged sex-club addict. Obama is going to win in November because he's sticking to the issues, not because he's throwing mud in Ryan's face like so many sex-club facials.

Both of these men want to be senators because they only want what is best for others, as you can plainly see. And we should respect their privacy.

Yesterday was my last class of the spring quarter, and now I'm relatively obligation-free for the next 13 weeks. That means more reading, more seeing movies, more blogging.

I've also started my summer project to put all of my schoolwork from the past two years online. So far I only have one class posted, but it contains a favorite project, Arlo's Terrible Tuesday.

I'll admit that this project has a bad side to it. When I had my big hard drive crash a few weeks ago, I lost a great deal of work from the past two years. Not only am I putting this stuff up for everyone to see, I'm also recreating a lot of old artwork, and perhaps revising it for the better.

I'll let you know when I have more posted.

UPDATE:

Dear Mr. Arlo Olra, Palindromized Quaker:

Your "Terrible Tuesday" piece is truly magnificent.  The capstone photo of you crouched by the table, huffing madly on a cigarette and orchestrating Precious Moments figures is priceless.  Now, stop wasting your fucking time on retarded little design projects and start employing your talents towards a more noble goal: changing the world.  You fucking pecker.

Yours truly,
Ms. Vulva Latifa Spank
2001 Bukkake Queen (Runner-up)
Van Nuys, CA

Okay, Ms. Spank, I'll start changing world by starting with you. Bukkake is only erotic to men who wish to see women demeaned and brutalized. It gratifies an unsatisfied gang rape mentality that lays dormant in emotionally destitute men. Therefore, the trick to becoming bukkake queen is only to smile at the beginning. Then, gradually put on airs of coy confusion, culminating into breast-heaving fear, and finally defeated exhaustion, collapsing with a resounding splat. Follow these steps, and you'll get the jism-dripping tiara that's coming on you. Sorry, at you. No, wait, to you. Yes, coming to you.

I’ve been watching (repeatedly) the emotional conclusion to Chris Matthews’ interview with Ron Reagan, Jr. - like Nancy’s final moments with the casket, this interview pierces all partisanship and gives us (undeservedly) a glimpse of real human pain. Regardless of what you think about Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the pain of those who loved him is all-consuming and all too real. Just something to consider as we level our guns at those goddamned falafel gobbling camel jockeys.

For those of y’all who don’t (but should) read Kos, Steve Gilliard wrote the following:

What you have to understand is this: Paul Johnson was a dead man when they took him. The Saudi version of Al Qaeda is especially hard core and vicious. They are not into concessions and general humanity. They are the outgrowth of a fundamentalist society riven with hypocrisy. Think about this, in a country where the religious police forced girls to burn alive rather than escape a fire in their school, these guys think that they have to make the country more fundamentalist.

But religion is only the mask for a change from the Saud family to the Bin Laden family. Al Qaeda may talk about some kind of Islamic revivalism, but their real goal is forced political change. Whereever democracy or even civility fails, AQ sprouts up as an answer.

And this is where the Bush Administration has failed. Instead of undermining AQ by forcing political change, they bolster these corrupt oligarchies and foster the growth of AQ as the solution to their political problems. Setting bombs is a lot more glamorous than canvassing for votes. And since the elections are rigged anyway it doesn't matter much. AQ is only an answer because the question is if you can accept more of the same.

It's horrible that people think they can solve their problems by murdering the innocent. Paul Johnson wasn't the problem. He wasn't going to make Saudi life better or worse. But his murder sends two messages, one, the Saudi version of AQ is a bunch of ruthless fucks who kill the innocent, and two, no one is safe in Saudi. As oil historian Daniel Yergin said "imagine if America was called Rockefeller America". Well, that's our ally of 70 years.

I was sweltering on my futon, sweating profusely in nothing but my underpants and a pair of slippers, when a little 40-watt bulb appeared above my head: we have globalized our problems. Consider America’s blights of the 80’s and 90’s [culminating in the publication of The Bell Curve (’96)] – gang warfare, ghetto crime, institutionalized racism, increasing income disparity, and endemic demonization of the poor. A pitched battle was waged between social scientists, progressives, and meat & potatoes “lock-‘em-up-&-throw-away-the-key” types. Now this same dynamic is apparent on a global scale. This time, the stakes are higher. Bridging the gap is John Walsh, the most vindictive man in America. Virtually unchallenged (indeed praised) in his one-man crusade to purge the world of “scumbags”, Walsh is the living embodiment of America’s appetite for revenge. Does forgiveness have any role in the affairs of state? Does charity have any role in the affairs of state? Does love have any role in the affairs of state? I hope so. Were individuals the only intended audience of prophets? I hope not.

There has long been a penchant among pundits and culture hounds to opine on the root causes of Hollywood Liberalism. There's a myriad of self-serving explanations for why entertainers are usually liberal (they're pandering to the worst impulses in society to make a quick buck; they're stupid; they're "limousine liberals" with unresolved, success-induced guilt; etc.). Now, I’m not a politician or a statistician or a scientific personality – I am not, therefore, subject to the same professional constraints that prohibit them (and others) from lacquering bold and entirely unsubstantiated claims with the kind of sophistry that makes theory look like fact. In addition, I'm a crackpot liberal blogger who works in the entertainment industry. Why all the liberal celebrities? I'll tell you: Natural Selection. Recall the early years of Rush Limbaugh and the famous rhetorical red herring, "Political Correctness". Limbaugh confidently (and incessantly) declared that "liberals have no sense of humor". He joked, he guffawed, he swallowed whole chickens in a single gulp: America was entertained. For awhile, it became the accepted wisdom that liberals (i.e. Mac users) were not fit to entertain – only to whine and quaff wheat grass. But, as it happens, this was only a statistical anomaly in the evolution of entertainment. Hollywood is growing ever more liberal because show business is a hostile environment for Republicans. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the incessant demand for fresh content (for television, film, visual art, literature, etc.) has created an environment where the following are rewarded: dynamism, extremism, curiosity, flexibility, confrontation, and adaptability. Do conservatives posses these qualities? Sure. But not nearly to the degree that liberals do - at least insofar as art is concerned. Liberals, Independents, and even Libertarians are better suited to artistic endeavors than rock-ribbed, Bible thumping, moralizing conservatives. So while there are some excellent examples of right-leaning content in entertainment (i.e. South Park, The Simpsons), conservative entertainers can only respond to their liberal colleagues as the ocean responds to the moon.

David Hendrickson's latest article in World Policy Journal is a fantastic run-down of six prominent critiques of the Bush Doctrine (America Unbound, Rogue Nation, Fear's Empire, The Bubble of American Supremacy, America the Virtuous, and Blowback). Like most people, I haven't the time, patience, or desire to slog through even a fraction of the anti-Bush material being printed. Fortunately, there are those who do. Some rather succinct bits from Hendrickson's journey into this vast universe of words:

"[Bush] relied on the unilateral exercise of American power rather than on international law and institutions to get his way. He championed a proactive doctrine of preemption and de-emphasized the reactive strategies of deterrence and containment. He promoted forceful interdiction, preemptive strikes, and missile defenses as means to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and he downplayed America’s traditional support for treaty-based non-proliferation regimes. He preferred regime change to direct negotiations with countries and leaders that he loathed. He depended on ad hoc coalitions of the willing to gain support abroad and ignored permanent alliances. He retreated from America’s decades-long policy of backing European integration and instead exploited Europe’s internal divisions"

"The imperial project of the so-called neoconservatives…is not conservatism at all but radicalism, egotism, and adventurism articulated in the stirring rhetoric of traditional patriotism."

Writing in 1797, Alexander Hamilton charged that France under the influence of the Jacobins had “betrayed a spirit of universal domination; an opinion that she had a right to be the legislatrix of nations; that they are all bound to submit to her mandates, to take from her their moral, political, and religious creeds; that her plastic and regenerating hand is to mould them into whatever shape she thinks fit; and that her interest is to be the sole measure of the rights of the rest of the world.” Sound familiar? It is a delicious historical irony that neoconservatives who vituperate all things French have contracted the same disease that brought France to delirium some 200 years ago, or it would be if it weren’t so depressing. The elements of concordance are quite striking.

…and finally:

[Chalmers Johnson] shows that the expansion of bases in the Balkans, Central Asia, and the Persian Gulf is closely tied to oil interests (the war on terrorism providing a handy basis on which to dominate the entire area); that the face America presents to the world is increasingly military, the Pentagon having usurped many functions previously belonging to diplomats and spies; that the United States blatantly exploits its hegemonic position to aggrandize the world’s arms trade to itself, an objective it pursues with much greater avidity than economic development; that the “special forces” have become a private army of the president; and that America’s militarized institutions are so secretive that it is virtually impossible to subject them to democratic accountability. Despairingly, Johnson recalls all the old prophecies from America’s founders that the republic would be destroyed by unchecked executive power and an overgrown military establishment, and finds the fit between their prophecy and our condition uncanny.

Curiously, neo and traditional conservatives alike have taken to calling their political opponents the "blame-America-first" crowd. Or accuse them of "hating America". Are they right? When I read stuff like the above, I sometimes wonder. However, there can be little doubt that if we keep moving in the direction that Bush and the neoconservative extremists are taking us, there's not going to be much about America worth liking. While we bicker within our own boarders about whether Kerry or Bush will prevail in November, the collective worldwide distrust (and distain) for our trade policies, militarism, arrogance, and fiscal strong-arm tactics is only growing more acute. If Bush is elected in November, the "blame-America" crowd may very well join the "attack-America" crowd.

Courtesy of The Stig, Roger Ebert on Michael Moore:

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

This is exactly what I've tried to argue in this here blog. My politics are progressive not because I believe aliens are being held at Area 51 or that G8 summits are constantly punctuated with mustache twisting and bellowed "Mu-ha-ha-ha" evil laughs like Enron employees. I don't believe the Nick Berg beheading was faked -- oh my GOD, it's the same chair! Christ. I'm a progressive because of honest to God truths. Job growth is way down from four years ago, off-shore corporate tax shelters are raping the country, the middle-east is even further from stablizing because of our stunts, the oil-based economy is bad for the environment and for social justice, we're one of the only industrial nations without guaranteed health care only because health care is big business -- do you want me to continue? Those are TRUTHS.

The point is, nothing is more irrefutable than the truth, and if the only defense to a truth is a lie, then we've won. The corollary is that we can't lie. Then we end up on the ropes. And I chafe easily.

Another point: There's one other thing that Ebert says that I enjoy, quoting Jean-Luc Godard: "'The way to criticize a film is to make another film.'" The other night, Kelly was telling me that Republicans only know how to react, that Liberals are putting out moves like Fahrenheit 9/11, The Hunting of the President, and The Corporation, and Republicans can only go on the defensive, copying liberal tactics. (I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, Kelly, but that's what it sounded like.) I think that only means one thing, and it's good--conservatives are on the ropes. And isn't life nothing but reactions to stimuli? Aren't the rise of blogs a reaction to mainstream news coverage? If the Republicans want to make a movie, they can go right ahead, but at this point, it would be too little, too late.

Matt Yglesias is partially correct about deadbeat Republicans. However, it is also likely that the Democrats have already won the November election. How? Well, the last few months of any President's term are the lame duck months. In addition, as the likelihood of a Kerry victory increases it will become concomitantly more difficult for Bush to actually get anything done. For all intents and purposes, we may already have seen the last horrible hurrahs of Bush's terrible tenure. Wishful thinking? Maybe. But it's not going to be easy for any big Republican measures (as if there actually are any) to pass through Congress until (and if) Bush gets legitimately elected.

UPDATE: I was wrong. Holy Jesus God. How wrong I was.

The House voted 251 to 178 yesterday to replace an export subsidy with a major tax cut for domestic manufacturers and multinational corporations, setting up difficult negotiations with the Senate on one of the most significant corporate tax bills in 20 years.

[…] The centerpiece of both the House bill and the Senate's version would cut the top tax rate for domestic manufacturers from 35 percent to 32 percent, but other provisions have pushed the final House bill to 496 pages and the Senate-passed bill to 930.

[…] If all…temporary provisions were implemented immediately and extended over 10 years, the bipartisan Joint Tax Committee estimated, the cost of the House bill would reach $260 billion. […] The House bill includes measures tailored to help restaurant owners, makers of private jets, bank directors, timberland owners, liquor distillers, Native American whalers, commodity traders and shipping conglomerates, to name a few. One last-minute provision, pushed in part by Home Depot, temporarily lifts customs duties on Chinese-made ceiling fans.

"Christmas has come on the 17th of June," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).

House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) declared it the worst tax bill he has seen in his 24 years in the House and "an orgy of self-indulgence."

[…] Much of the criticism focused on the tobacco provision, which has raised the ire of anti-smoking groups, fiscal conservatives and economists inside the White House. They say much of the $9.6 billion will go not to beleaguered farmers but to owners of tobacco-growing allotments who may be generations removed from family tobacco fields. […] "There are a lot of things that are ugly in this bill, but the tobacco thing is what clearly broke Joe Camel's back," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). "This is now larded up beyond recognition."

This is funny. Really. Boing Boing has, in addition to redesigning their site, invited Christopher Coppola to be a "guest blogger". Mr. Coppola has an audio blog. Today is Bloomsday (which Boing Boing respectfully notes). What makes this so ironic is that Mr. Coppola's meandering audio blog is nothing more than stream-of-consciousness blather peppered with a tedious array of uh's and um's and ah's. What a fitting tribute to Joyce, eh? What better way to commemorate a literary pseudo-holiday than by celebrating the undiapered mind. Bravo. Here's my contribution: "Bite me, Fuckwit".

Too busy to pontificate -- lots of work, last week of the quarter, etc. You don't want to see me pout. (Nudge to Kelly.)

I do want to say that I've been listening to the new Beastie Boys album all day today, and it's not their best album (they still haven't topped "Paul's Boutique" for me), but it is their best hip-hop album. You may think that sounds strange, but "To the 5 Boroughs" fits in the genre better than anything else they've done, and it kicks ass. "Paul's Boutique" is a completely different animal, as it's the most, well, Beastie.

It's not even close, though, to my new favorite hip-hop album of all time. Stigmutha just doesn't understand.

BuzzMachine, in a Drudgelinked entry, provides a textbook example of an often misdiagnosed medical affliction: Retardocephalic Bloggopia:

On a clip from a Dateline interview just shown on Today, Matt Lauer confronted Michael Moore about why he did not release images of abuse of prisoners that he had long before the photos from Abu Ghraib came out. […] [Moore] said he would have been accused of pulling a publicity stunt for his movie. […] It's crap. If he really cared about the Iraqi people, Moore would have done something. But he didn't. He cares about his box office.

First, you can't blame Matt Lauer on this one. He relinquished his right to ask pertinent questions when he sold his Heineken-soaked yuppie soul to Satan. But Jeff Jarvis? Is there such a thing as a teething pacifier – but for fingers? Whenever anyone comes forward with nasty bits of damning data (pubic hairs on Coke cans, Presidential sexual liaisons, accusations of rape, stories of genocide), there's always some dickhead in the cheap seats who narrows their beady little eyes and hisses, "Why didn't you come forward sooner!?" But let's be charitable. Maybe ol' Jeff Jarvis has a point here. Maybe there are times when it is appropriate to "shoot the messenger", as it were. Like when the messenger is suffering from a debilitating case of Retardocephalic Bloggopia.

From today's New York Times:

Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.

[…]

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator ``had long established ties with al-Qaida.''

Spicy stuff? Not really. Warblogger had some good commentary on this issue the other day. No, the big news here is that the prevalence of deceit in political battles indicates that, in a sense, the body politic has been successfully inoculated. There was a time when a pedantic lie of omission could get a President impeached. No longer. It's not so much that we expect our government to lie (which we indubitably do), but rather that we no longer pay any attention when they lie (which they indubitably do). Recall Bill O'Reilly's oft-quoted harangue against Al Franken and Michael Moore:

O'REILLY: Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi regime and whose very famous quote was, "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth." All right? "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth."

Sounds like a liberal pouring the foundation of an anti-Bush argument. We've been accusing the President and his ilk of employing specious logic to hoodwink the world for years – to little effect. Will O'Reilly do any better using such tactics against Fahrenheit 9/11? Not likely. There's a phrase for this: ironic comeuppance.

The countdown has run down. Gentlemen, the Olsen Twins have turned 18. And considering their current success as actors, we can expect a Playboy spread soon. Hot damn!

Well, perverts, don't let your boners get too hard. Considering the girls are filthy rich, it may be a few years before they've blown all of their money on cocaine and have to pose like this naked to pay their bills.

The Olsen Twins have made a hugely successful career out of boring children and cockteasing grown men for years. Now that they're 18, will anyone care? They can't act, it's no longer wrong to lust after them, and unless they're incestuous lesbians, at some point they'll have to stop touching each other so much. Look at Britney Spears. The only thing that's popular anymore about her is the ideaof Britney Spears, the 16-year-old who danced down the school hallway and sang straight to your pedophile heart. No matter how wholesome the Olsen Twins may be, their handlers knew exactly what they were doing every time they told Mary-Kate and Ashley to hug as if they were in carnal embrace. Now that they're legal, where's the forbidden thrill?

So to all you perverts out there who have been waiting for the Olsen Twins to turn 18 and now that they have you're depressed -- there's still Hillary Duff.

I wanted to throw a few things out there about this here blogging bit. Seeing as how after next week I'm off from school for three months and may actually be able to read a book that lacks the "text-" prefix, I'm hoping I can exercise my brain more and catch up with Kelly's entertaining, prolix masturbation. But before I do that, I want to address some of the features that this site is lacking that will really make it a blog that fits well within the blogosphere.

As Chris Penn says in Reservoir Dogs, "Okay, first thing's fuckin' last": COMMENTS. This site really needs to allow you to leave comments and discuss this crap. I'm a little apprehensive about doing it, though. The comments feature built into Blogger is completely unmoderated, meaning any ol' schmuck can post any ol' incendiary bullshit they want. I can't ban someone who posts a ton of hate speech. It's a no-man's-land of discussion. However, to bring in mediated discussion -- I'm especially fond of the Slashdot model -- would require a lot of work to establish, not to mention a dedicated webhost instead of piggybacking Defiant like I am now. Time and money are two things I always lack. I'm feeling that I should instantiate comments and see what happens. If all of the comments are "You pinko faggots," then I should -- actually, that sounds entertaining.

The BORED? section is lackluster. It's not really a blogroll as much as it is sites I frequent. I frequent plenty more than that, and I have not created a way for Kelly to add his own. That's a high priority for me.

One thing that our posts lack are TITLES. I was never a big fan of titles on blog entries until I started using a news reader. (I'm an early adopter of Pulp Fiction.) News readers have changed the way I web browse. I can be more selective and get through more sites quicker. And that posts are titled make it much easier to navigate. It'll require a redesign of this template (more on that in a bit), but soon our posts will be titled. We'll also have an Atom feed and I can hopefully work out a way to e-mail new posts automatically to those who want to receive them.

I'm also going to start doing little things to PROMOTE this here blog. So expect some link exchanges, some downloadable stickers you can put up on places, maybe a Cafepress t-shirt or two. Hey, Kelly and I write it, why shouldn't someone read it? I took five minutes today to add my profile to Technorati (see link in left-hand column) and discovered two blogs that are linking to here -- Practical Sarcasm, operated by a classmate I met two years ago who I haven't seen since; and Israfel ? Scorched Angel Films, who I don't know but, by the looks of his/her most recent post on June 7, deserves our thoughts and prayers. And Practical Sarcasm supplied this entertaining Flash movie.

I'm also going to REDESIGN the site again. Including the aforementioned titles, we really need a third column on the right for ancillary information (and maybe a future location for blogads), and a style sheet that doesn't misbehave if I try to upload an image or incorporate a table. It's very limiting. And I have a huge stack of early 60s electronics repair magazines from which I'm sure I can find something cool.

I've got plans, and by the end of this summer, this will be a better blog. Do you have suggestions for what we can do here, besides become Republican pole smokers? If so, drop me a line.

Thank you for reading. It always warms the cockles of my heart when I run into someone who comments on something they read here. This blog is, like, totally for real now, and it's time to take the next step.

Prior to September 11 I had read several articles about the emerging freedoms in the Middle East; a burgeoning underground youth scene in Iran, the gradual (and generational) rejection of the abaya, the opening of Saudi Arabia to small contingents of closely-watched tourists. I had even purchased an Iraqi Techno/Dance CD. While perceived by some to be an encroachment of "Western values", there was a palpable sense that large yet subtle cultural shifts were taking place Â? shifts that could lead to major geopolitical adjustments. In an ostensible attempt to speed the ripening of these fruits of freedom, Dubya launched his war. As terrorist attacks multiplied, American civilians became increasingly valued as targets. Now, there is an impending Western family exodus from places like Saudi Arabia. It's obvious what one of the results of such an exodus would mean: a rollback of what few liberties have established purchase thus far. That's not good. As imperfect as Western democracies sometimes appear, the norms that govern daily life in the West have proven more successful in inspiring intergenerational cultural growth in the Middle East than any amount of Marines (or well-intentioned assistance programs) could accomplish. Contrary to the optimism so cavalierly displayed by world leaders, the regressive erosion of civil rights and individual freedom is now worldwide, immeasurable, and trending downward. But don't take my word for it, we Democrats are notoriously pessimistic. To us, the world is always a benighted, desiccative place. Have a problem? Here's the Democratic answer:

Turn off the lights and the problem disappears.

In the case of bird migration, this is especially true. However, the phrase is regrettably apropos as a description of my own problem-solving tactics. Low Culture has also weighed-in on darkness as a political solution (of sorts). Even Dubya has occasionally found solace in the warm blackness of unknowing (i.e. Operation Ignore). So before we go ass-over-teakettle in our rush to flood the world with the blinding light of truth, it'd be wise to consider all our options to the contrary. If you feel that you're called by God to spread truth and freedom, please shoehorn your head up your dark and manky butt. Thank you. Good night.

Kelly was on a roll yesterday. He said that we may actually never know if Reagan is actually dead, imagining a Democrat asserting the "right to see the corpse."

Well, it looks like the casket is empty. That's right, because it seems the rumors were true that Bush is dumping Cheney for another running mate. I still won't vote for them, but it should make for an interesting campaign.

In fact, check out this recent transcript:

Larry King Live

[Transcript courtesy CNN.]

KING: BRAAAAINS! BRAAAAINS!

ZOMBIE REAGAN: BRAAAINS! BRAAAAINS!

KING: BRAAAAINS! BRAAAAAINS!

ZOMBIE REAGAN: BRAAAINS!

[Transcript ends.]

In the proud tradition of commenting on the ceaseless march of celebrities into the great beyond, I think we should all take a moment to remember the contributions of Ray Charles. Yep. He's dead. Why? Well, he died because he sold his genius to commercial hacks. Let that be a lesson to us all.

Sometimes the passing of the years can cause a person to regret missed opportunities and to heedlessly rush into previously avoided entanglements. When I look at friends and relatives who have taken vows of matrimony, produced the fruits of mammalian sexuality, and assumed the burdensome obligations of mortgages, doubts about my own trajectory in life are sprinkled over my conscience like ragweed spores over fresh manure. Thankfully, there are people out there who have provided an excellent pesticide to keep these doubts from taking root.

Democrats have not been invited to speak at services for the late President Reagan. Why? Is the Reagan family being petty? Are they just trying to protect the legacy and memory of Ronnie against passive-aggressive political snipes? No. That's not it. Imagine the speech a prominent Democrat might give.

We are here to say goodbye to President Ronald Wilson Reagan, a man who... (pause) Uh... (pause) Excuse me a moment, I just need a little water. Does anyone have some water? […] Thank you. (gulp) Ahh! Now, where was I? Oh yes. We are here to say goodbye to... (pause) I'm sorry. This just isn't going to work. [leaving the podium and approaching the casket] Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a state funeral right? I don't know about you, but a flag-draped coffin is respectful and all – but it misses the point. [yanking the flag off the casket] I mean, this could be filled with Jelly Bellies for all we know. [attempting to unhinge the top of the casket] I think we all want the same thing, but nobody wants to say it: let's get a look at the body. [armed guards intervene] Hey! I'm not trying to defile anything here... (struggle) Goddamnit...that hurts! (pant, pant) Leggo you meathead, I have a... (wheeze, cough) I have a right to see the corpse... [guards use painful techniques to administer restraint] Remember Uday? Qusay? (hack, wheeze) I just won't... (wheeze) I just won't believe he's dead until I see it with my own... (wheeze) my own... (wheeze) my own eyes... [collapses in unconscious heap].

No. That would never do. More likely than merely being restrained by guards, such a transgressor would be in serious peril of being swallowed whole by Nancy's gaping, unhinged, reptilian maw. And so we'll probably never know if Ronnie is really dead. I suppose this is appropriate. We never really knew if he had Alzheimer's disease either.

I wonder if the funeral for George H.W. Bush will be an affair for only supporters and family as well. Possibly. But get ready, because some Bush relations may provide some unexpected fireworks.

ADDENDUM: A highway toll is a tax – right?

I've posted a lot of Reagan stuff this week, mostly to help disseminate memes that Reagan's legacy shouldn't be distorted into messianic accomplishment. But I think this eulogy is rather heartfelt and an important read, written by one of Reagan's most famous co-stars.

I gave my lip service, so my karma is clear. Or, clear-ish. Now I'm happy to deliver more kicks to Reagan's rotting corpse. Here's more educated Reagan bashing, containing this paragraph emphasizing the importance of bashing Reagan—so his face doesn't replace the American flag:

If Blanche Noonan ever worries about the posthumous rep of the man who mistook his country for a hat, though, she needn't. Overseen by Grover Norquist, the Reagan Legacy Project has had all this well in hand for years. Besides working to stick Reagan's name on as many buildings, streets, ships, and mountains as possible, the organization's goals include carving his face on Mount Rushmore and putting his face on the dime. Even George Will huffed at 'trying to plaster Reagan's name all over the country the way Lenin was plastered over Eastern Europe, Mao over China and Saddam Hussein all over Iraq.' Norquist's basically Stalinist propaganda technique—enough memorials, and it could take a century to unconvince future generations that this was a great man—is sure some way to honor the most famous anti-Communist of all time. But to be fair, Reagan only objected to the 'Workers of the world, unite' part, not the cult of personality.

Found at my new favorite blog, Boing Boing. Boing Boing's been around since before blogs were cool, but somehow I've only discovered it recently. It's essentially four liberal nerds. We're two liberal nerds here, right? Boing Boing: where have you been all my life? I really need to update that list on the left.

Congratulations to Avenue Q for winning a handful of Tony Awards, including Best Musical. But before everyone jumps to the conclusion that it deserved to win, let's check to see if there wasn't some political motivation behind the accolades. In a song ("For Now") tucked neatly into the final moments of the show, there is a seemingly benign lyric with sinister overtones:

Only for now! (Sex!)
Is only for now! (Your hair!)
Is only for now! (George Bush!)
Is only for now!

Don't stress,
Relax,
Let life roll off your backs
Except for death and paying taxes,
Everything in life is only for now!

Now, when I saw the show back in February, that brief mention of George Bush being only "for now" elicited an eruption of cheering - almost hysterical - applause from the packed house. More importantly, our seats (second row, center) provided a clear, unobstructed view of the cast: it was clear from their reaction that this enthusiastic response was all too familiar to them. Yes folks [bangs on table], Avenue Q is clearly anti-Bush propaganda and the Tony Awards have been co-opted by Francophiles.

Hmm…Where have we seen this before?

I pulled my punches when I posted about Reagan the other day. Thankfully, Christopher Hitchens did not:

The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump.

An Apple advocacy post, and probably the first of two this month. (The second.)

Today, Apple released AirPort Express. Yeah, it's another wireless router, but it's tiny and it allows you to hook up speakers and stream iTunes to them.

It's a great idea, but falls a little short. What if I want to control the music? Do I have to keep heading back to where my computer is? It seems a little shortsighted to release a device to play your computer's music library in your living room without providing a way to control it in your living room. And I have an iPod, so it's just as easy for me to hook that up to my stereo anyway.

The only really perfect application for this neat device would be a party. Put together the playlist in another room, away from drunk beer-spillers. Perhaps soon other applications will be able to access that speaker output, most noteably pro-audio. If Traktor DJ could use it, you could put your laptop on stage, plug in the AirPort Express in the audio booth, and start mixing. $129 is certainly cheaper than other wireless audio options.

For everyday living room use, what is really needed now is an iPod with Wi-Fi. The iPod could stream music to the AirPort Express, also serving as a remote control, of sorts. Or, even better, a free-standing iTunes box that serves as an iPod dock, a stereo component, and music streamer, not to mention a wireless router.

What's important to note is that AirPort Express is the first step. It's not something I can use right now, but this will evolve. In two years, I doubt I'll be able to live without one. Or two. Like any Apple product, it's so full of potential, users will develop more ideas, and the product will grow. (Example: contacts and calendar support in the iPod was developed by iPod users originally.)

Oh, by the way, for those of you who think Apple's products are overpriced, I challenge you to put together a solution that wirelessly routes a broadband connection, provides a print server, plays audio, and can bridge an existing wireless network for less than $129.

Go fire an RPG in the culture war by taking this American Family Association survey. Take that survey and stick it in their butt. Get it? "In their butt?"

I could say a whole lot about the Reagan administration -- and I have -- but honestly, I was in elementary and middle school duuring the Reagan administration. During those years, my father was very successful, and he has reminded me several times that Reaganomics sent me to college. Everything I feel about Reagan is in retrospect and with hindsight; at the time, I didn't know any better.

Here was a guy that wanted the damn Cold War over and trusted Gorbechev. The people who worked for him did some evil things, but when it came to the Cold War, he didn't listen to those evil people. In fact, without Reagan, we may have never had Tetris. Compared to what we have now, I'd take Reagan any day.

So because I no longer have to worry about dying in an ICBM explosion (just a dirty bomb explosion), because there's only one Germany, because of Tetris, a moment of silence for Ronald Reagan.

My new favorite song (6.5MB MP3). Background info.

A few weeks ago, I was on the phone getting an installation code from Quark for their Draconian copy protection mechanism on QuarkXPress. I was certainly connected to a call center in India. He tried so hard to sound American. At the end of the conversation, when I confirmed that I needed no other assistance, he said, "Thank you, sir. Have a good time."

"Have a good time." Not "day." Not "afternoon." "Time."

Maybe you had to be there. You know, in India.

So, the Pope has opened is sanctimonious pie-hole to lambaste the United States – again.

John Paul warned [a] group of U.S. prelates that American society is in danger of surrendering to a "soulless vision of life." […]

"Ambiguous moral positions, the distortion of reason by particular interest groups…are just some examples of a perspective of life which fails to seek truth itself and then abandons the search for the ultimate goal and meaning of human existence."

We are not sheep. We are not shallow. Our morality is not ambiguous. We are not swayed by "particular interest groups". This is our search for the ultimate goal and meaning of human existence. John Paul fought in opposition to those with a "soulless vision of life" when he confronted the horrors of Nazi Germany; he ought to know better than to compare the "soul" of American society to such a standard. While not without our faults, and certainly more than a little vain, America possesses a relentless passion for truth, compassion, and the betterment of mankind. On November 2, 2004, we'll prove it.

UPDATE: "What is the purpose of life? [...] To be the eyes and ears and conscience of the Creator of the Universe, you fool." - Kilgore Trout.

I just finished reading and am forced to highly recommend The Outlaw Sea by William Langewiesche. It's a quick, lucid, and deeply considered piece of journalism detailing the hazards and challenges of the international shipping industry. So go to the library and check it out (I had to dip into my drinkin' money to purchase the costly hardback version – big mistake).

Tenet's resignation is just the beginning. This administration is beginning to look more and more doomed with every passing day.

Time Magazine took few minutes to ask Rush Limbaugh a few questions:

Q: What Kind of Season is Donovan McNabb Gonna Have?

Let me just share with you what I read in a newspaper when the Eagles signed [receiver] Terrell Owens. They said now McNabb has no excuse. What happened after [my comments], I inoculated McNabb from any criticism the rest of the year because nobody, of course, could dare run the risk of agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. So whenever McNabb threw an interception, it was a receiver's fault or an offensive lineman's fault. He was incapable of making a mistake. He owes me a lot.

Yes folks [bangs on table], Rush has done it again! In one fell swoop he has encapsulated the racist logic of modern conservatism. McNabb, apparently, is immune from criticism as a result of the racists smears of Limbaugh. So, whatever inferiorities McNabb may possess may be unspeakable – but they're still there. McNabb, meanwhile, owes Limbaugh a hug for launching a racist attack against him; what that black man can now accomplish he owes to a fat, sweaty, red-faced white man's racism…thank you very much.

Q: When Bill Clinton's Book Comes Out, What Page Are You Going To Turn To First?

I'm not going to open it. I'm not going to believe anything in it, so why would I read it? I'll just listen to what you guys in the mainstream press tell me is great about it, and I'll know everything I need to know.

There it is again folks [bang on table], that jocular contempt for reading! Now, where have we seen that before? But seriously, I guess Limbaugh's got a point here. Why should any of us read (or listen to) anything we're predisposed to disbelieve? I can't think of any reason. In fact, instead of wasting my time with the navel-gazing practice of questioning my beliefs, I think I'm going plug up my ears with chucky Jiff peanut butter, chew off my own arms, and write hourly blogs detailing the construction in my bathtub of an enormous fecal-matter monument to myself by slamming my face into the keyboard.

While Josh Marshall is right about Bush's tax cuts being motivated by ideology rather than economics, the big surprise here is that he presents this fact as if it were somehow revelatory. Of course the Bush tax cuts are unrelated to the functional health of the overall economy. As we have seen, even as the nation is spending a whopping $119.4 billion on our adventure in Iraq, the Bushies aren't budging one iota on their tax policy. As Nancy Pelosi said over the weekend, "They keep saying we need to 'stay the course', but that's not a plan – that's a slogan." Most Americans aren't economists, so most of us are fairly susceptible to sloganeering when it comes to political discourse on the economy. Raise taxes. Lower taxes. Good vs Evil. Bush has always been for lowering taxes; especially capital gains taxes, property taxes, federal estate taxes, etc. He doesn't really give a shit about sales taxes or income taxes. A real novelty would be a candidate who said, "We have the largest and most complicated economy the world has ever known. You can't make decisions of economic policy based on incredibly simplistic notions like this one: 'lower taxes is goodest for economy…now I'm gonna go fuck dat oinky pig in the puddle over yonder'. I'll lower taxes when I can and I'll raise 'em when I must. So back off. That's my tax policy."

What happens when progressive nerds with excellent knowledge of Flash and ActionScript and an unhealthy obsession with their childhood heroes do tons of drugs while having unfettered access to their Powerbooks?

BUSHGAME.COM - THE ANTI-BUSH ONLINE ADVENTURE

Only you can help a pixelated, isometrically-illustrated Hulk Hogan, Mr. T, and overweight He-Man defeat the evil GOP and their secret weapon -- noted compassionate conservative Voltron. And with such ingenious, thought-provoking images as Voltron obscenely buggering the Statue of Liberty twice in the introduction, I can only imagine how the rest of the game plays out.

I'm not dissing it -- I downloaded it.

UPDATE: A reader's reaction to the game:

Freaking hilarious.  And for the record, Voltron buggers Lady Liberty three times in the intro.  Not two.

I played up to the first Boss fight with Tom Ridge.  His special weapon involves launching pieces of duct ta