Friday Quote & Lizard Blogging

Today's quote is from A Clockwork Orange, a dystopia set in the fairly near future:

"When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man."


And, of course, there'll be other people's lizards...


Spike looking sultry.

Asshole Projection

I'm seconding Atrios seconding Yglesias.

The problem with the ports deal is not the "A" in "UAE", it's the "OBL BFF" in "UAE".

For those of you who don't speak Abbrevish, this is not about "you can't trust the Arabs," at least not from our side of the spectrum. It's about "you can't trust a country whose royal family diplomatically recognized the Taliban, and hung out with Osama bin Laden, and generally seems to be a pretty cozy staging ground for terrorists." Any attempts to paint our objections as xenophobic are disingenuous and dishonest.


But this sort of thing is one of the Republicans' favorite tricks. Democrats are "racist" for opposing the judicial nominations of Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown, or for pointing out that Condi is an incompetent liar, or for "dishonoring" Coretta Scott King's memorial service by being mean to our poor resolute president.

Or "sexist" for opposing Harriet Miers (who was sunk by Republicans, by the way).

Or "homophobic" for saying that a male prostitute with a fake name and no journalistic credentials has no place in the White House press corps.


For the Republicans, "projection" isn't a psychological condition; it's a deliberate strategy.

ALBATROSS!!!

Media Matters (by way of Atrios) calls out Russert for flogging the Republican spin that the Democrats are soft on national security, and are just trying to score cheap political points by objecting to the sellout of America's ports to UAOBLBFFE:

During the interview, Russert asserted that Democrats are acting on what "they have learned from the Bush administration" about the need for a "post-September 11th mentality," and by objecting to the DPW deal, they are "playing it." He said further, "Democrats believe they can look tough on national security" by opposing the current port deal.

(snip)

However, in suggesting that Democrats have now found a national security issue they can use for political gain, Russert ignored the fact that, for the past several years, Democrats have stressed the need for greater port security and have urged Congress and the administration to act....

Furthermore, most Republicans in Congress have resisted Democrats' efforts to secure U.S. ports. As the Senate Democratic Policy Committee has documented, since 9-11, Senate Republicans have voted to defeat Democratic measures to increase funding for port security. For example, Schumer's amendment to the 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill to provide $70 million for research and development to stop nuclear materials from entering U.S. ports was defeated by a 51-45 near-party-line vote. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) introduced an amendment to the same bill that would have provided $100 million in port and maritime security grants. The Republican Senate rejected Byrd's measure by a near party-line vote of 51-45. Republicans also defeated former Sen. Ernest Hollings's (D-SC) amendment to the 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which would have provided $300 million in maritime security grants, by a 50-48 largely party-line vote. In addition, for the 2003 War Supplemental Appropriations bill, Hollings's amendment to increase port security funding by $1 billion was defeated by a 52-47 vote largely along party lines.

And as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has noted, many of the Senate Republicans now calling for the Bush administration to revoke the DPW port deal have continually voted against Democratic attempts to strengthen port security in the United States.

I know it's probably too much to hope for, but this is the kind of thing the Democrats need to make hay on come November and 2008. Yes, the Republicans have a prohibitive majority and can push through (or block) almost anything they want, but the Democrats have to hold them electorally accountable for those votes. And since they were all basically party-line votes against port security, that means a whole lot of incumbent Republicans are vulnerable on this.

I want to see Democratic candidates taking on Republican incumbents with ad campaigns highlighting all the Republican's votes against national security and questioning whether the Republicans are really keeping the country safe. And if the Republican has accused Democrats of posturing, that's even better: bracket the vote information with "Joe Republican says Democrats are using the ports controversy to pretend they're tough on national security. [insert voting history here] Now who's pretending?"

Of course, calling Republicans weak on security would be mean and impolite, so it'll probably never happen. But I thought I'd throw some free advice out there anyway, just in case someone wants to display some ballitude.

Look, if the Republicans want to fuck up the country and leave us exposed to terrorists, fine, there's not much Democrats can do. But make them own it.

Political Spamphiteatre

I have been lax in my spam-mining efforts of late, so I have a bit of a backlog. I'm going to ease back into it in installments, so as not to strain anything.

Installment The First Of Humorous Spammer Fake Names is dedicated to our fearless and heroic war preznit:

Vacua B. Noise
Accountability M. Torses
Distiller T. Lots
Insistent O. Balmiest
Crunch G. Misrule
Totalities U. Illiberal
Snuffbox V. Chimp
Turmoiling U. Trevor (not to be confused with Magical Trevor, whom everyone loves)
Marrying H. Deviate
Slaver U. Heisted
Abolition A. Damaged
Mewl S. Disgrace

Who says spam has no redeeming social or political value?

You've Got It All Backwards!

No, no, no! You're supposed to give the country away to rich old white guys, and shoot Arabs in the face!

Jesus, how many times do I have to explain this to you people???

NYC Buildingblogging

New York City has lots of buildings. I like to take pictures of buildings. So it all kinda works out.


Buildings! Did I mention I like buildings?


The New York Stock Exchange is MOONING me! Jeez, what is it with these financial types?


I suspect that the distressedness may be fake, but it still looks pretty cool...

Journalists Need Not Apply.

Editor & Publisher (by way of Howie Kurtz) blows the whistle on some choice NYT sleaziness:

Kejal Vyas, one of my best journalism students at Rutgers-Newark, in Newark, N.J., was in Delhi completing some academic work when he received this Feb. 1 e-mail from Nancy Sharkey, senior editor/recruiting for The New York Times, responding to his inquiry about an internship:

“"Hi Kejal, Based on what Allan Wolper has written about us, I cannot imagine that he would want one of his students to intern here. I guess if we need students from New Jersey, we will go elsewhere. Best, Nancy."

Well, maybe the offending professor is some kind of right-wing propagandist? I could understand if NYT wouldn't want an aspiring Rush Limbaugh interning with them. What kind of uncouth criticisms did Wolper unleash upon that eminent publication?

If the Times had [complained to E&P], I might know which of the columns or articles I had written about them in past years had caused them to “look elsewhere” for interns. Here is a summary of some of them:

-- A column detailing how the Times published a huge ad in the sports section promoting Crestor, a cholesterol drug, on the same day they ran a much smaller front page story on its serious side effects.

-- A column that questioned whether the Times Co.'s $100 million stake in the Boston Red Sox had anything to do with its weak coverage of the steroid issue in baseball.

-- An article in Columbia Journalism Review followed by a column in E&P disclosing that the Times gave a reporter covering the CIA permission to write a book that was edited, in part, by the secret agency.

-- A column last week pointing out that for 14 months the Times had obscured the fact that one of its sports writers was a central figure in a messy sexual harassment suit against Madison Square Garden.

None of that sounds particularly ideological to me, except maybe the CIA story. The common thread (ironically, or perhaps prophetically) is Editorial Integrity, Lack Of.

Which makes it all the sadder that they rejected Wolper's intern. They might have learned something from him.

(And why does the New York Times have a $100 million investment in the Red Sox? Does the Washington Post own a piece of the Cowboys?)

IOKIYUAE

So, not long after reading about President Bush's staunch defense of the corporations of the United Arab Emirates as plucky entrepreneurs who deserve the same opportunities as Great Britain, and strongly implies that it's the forces of racism and intolerance holding them back, I see this little gem in today's White House Briefing OPINION column, in reference to Al Gore's denunciation of post-9/11 American abuses against the Arab world in (gasp!)... Saudi Arabia:

The comments stirred an angry reaction on the right and in the blogosphere, and also drew a rebuke from Peter Wehner, director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, which was e-mailed to reporters and others Tuesday. "It is noteworthy that Mr. Gore would travel to Saudi Arabia -- a repressive society which is the home of Osama bin Laden and most of the terrorists who executed the worst attack on the American homeland in our history -- to criticize (inaccurately) our government's response to that attack."

Umm... so which is it? Are Arab nations the underdog standardbearers of free enterprise, swimming against the tide of racism and paranoia, or are they hateful enemies of democracy who want to destroy us for our freedoms?

For me personally, there's not a whole lot of difference between Saudi Arabia and UAE. I think they're both unreliable and faithless "allies," but in terms of where they stand with BushCo, I'm pretty sure the country that got slammed is far more favored and influential. As Froomkin helpfully reminds us:

But doesn't the White House's new get-tough rhetoric on Saudia Arabia clash somewhat with this memorable photo of Bush holding Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's hand as the two men walked through a field of bluebonnets at Bush's Crawford ranch last spring?

Mwahahahaha... You just can't make this shit up.

Bush Takes A Principled Stand In Favor Of Terrorism

So much for the ignorance defense...

President Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly.' "

*steps up*

Because Great Britain is not a terrorist breeding ground, and ports and military shipments are the kind of things you don't want to let terrorists anywhere near, ever.

("Great British"??? Jesus wept.)

But hey, George, if that's where you want to draw your line in the sand, if you want to use your first-ever veto to facilitate terrorist access to our major ports and shipments of military supplies, please, you just go right ahead. If we're really lucky, your veto gets overruled, and you get a double whammy: You reveal the insincerity of your war on terror for all to see, and you get publicly emasculated by your own tame Republican Congress (and maybe one less American city gets slagged by a container nuke, which, contrary to popular belief, we liberals are not in favor of).

You're Doin' A Heckuva Job, Snowy!

Oops:

The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

(snip)

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

No, fast-tracking the turning over of port control to a terrorist country isn't fishy at all; no reason this should impact Bush's anti-terror bona fides at all, right? This new whiff of complicity and favoritism makes it even more, well, true to form.

But why am I reading about this in the NY Daily News and not the NY Times?

Monday Not-Quite-NYC Photoblogging

Well, before the trip into NYC, there was dinner at a sushi restaurant in NJ with my dad and all three of my sisters. Of course, I meticulously documented everything except for the actual dinner and family...


Christmas lights outside the sushi restaurant.


Sorta-chandelier thingy inside the sushi restaurant.


Waiting for the ATM; might as well take some pitchers...

Good To Know.

My blog is the #1 AltaVista search result for Electrovaginogram.

That's almost as good as being the #1 hit for sexy photoblogging!



Multi Medium, for all your sexy electrovaginogram photoblogging needs.

Encounters In Pittsblogging

Just wanted to make a quick mention of Saturday's dinner with spork_incident and visiting blogger Blue Gal. We went to Pittsburgh Drinking Liberally hangout Finnigan's Wake, and generally had a lovely time. Huzzah!

Sunday Alien Invasion Blogging

I think I may have forgotten to mention, that while I was last visiting NYC, there was a shocking and horrific Alien Attack. Fortunately, I had my camera handy, and was able to document the apalling carnage and somehow escape with my life.


First photograph of the Alien Creature as it lands in front of Trinity Church and begins menacing the saints with its Evil Tentacles... OF DOOM!


The Alien lashes out with its Nefarious Grasping Claws!


The Alien's true purpose becomes apparent, as it begins to suck nourishment from the very pavement itself, rendering it pale and brittle.

I Blame Gay Marriage.

From The Smoking Gun, by way of NTodd and watertiger, a completely and utterly insane "Contract of Wifely Expectations," which is alarmingly specific about how and when pubic hair is to be shaved, timing of nakedness (within 20 minutes after the kids are in bed), expected sexual practices, periods of utter subservience called "Me-Time," and what actions can be used to earn "Good Behavior Days," or "GBDs," that would allow the wife to get out of some of her obligations for a day. Be sure to note the font used in the section headings, and the fact that the wife is required to be in her "sleepwear" (generally either skimpy lingerie or nothing at all) before she can attempt to renegotiate any terms of the "contract."

The whole thing reads like some kind of twisted adolescent sexual fantasy of what the ideal marriage would be like, which is how I think it started out. It's so elaborate and well-thought-out (in a psychotic, detached-from-reality kind of way) that I think he just kept refining it and embellishing it over the years, and never took a step back far enough to realize that it was pathological, and not what normal adults expect from their wives. On the other hand, he is clearly one of those guys who loves sex but hates women, so maybe he just didn't care, and figured hey, it's worth a shot.

I suppose the wife deserves some credit for not signing the thing, but why on Earth would she not head for the hills the second her husband put this mad document in front of her? Isn't there some minimum level of self-esteem required to keep the heart pumping and the lungs breathing?

NYCircular Photoblogging II

Blogginess runs in a circular motion, blogs are like a little boat upon the sea...


Some sort of rock sculpture in the general Wall Street/JP Morgan Chase area.


Pretty sure this was near the George Washington statue, still in the Wall Street vicinity.


Manhole. What can ya do.


Mmm... ducts...

So If Today's Your Blogiversary... Happy Blogiversary!

Multi Medium appears to be one year old today.

Woo. Hoo.

Friday Quote & Puppy Blogging

Today's quote is actually from a review of the Nikon D200 digital SLR, which should be showing up on my doorstep any month now. Ken Rockwell, who is a huge Nikon fan (and possible shill, if you read some of the digital photography forums) and a little... odd, had a whole section of his review titled "Fudge Packing (Filling memory cards to 100%)", with numerous references to fudge packing and fudge packers, finally concluding with this explanation:

The specific reference to packing fudge, as opposed to pencils, oranges or cameras, comes from the confectionary industry. Fudge needs to be packed completely into containers without airspaces. Airspaces might create dry segments in the otherwise delicious fudge.

The things you learn on the internets.


And, of course, there'll be other people's puppies...


The shadowy and mysterious Codename L. scratches an unfathomable itch.

Executive Pepperage

Am I the only one wondering if The Beerhunter spent a good chunk of that missing 18-20 hours frantically calling up Republican lawyers, trying to find one willing to argue that executive privilege secrecy extends to shooting people in the face?

"If the president and vice-president are forced to disclose to the public every time they shoot someone in the face, it will have a chilling effect on their future ability to shoot people in the face. Such unvarnished face-shooting is essential to a robust executive decision-making process."

Nah, on second thought, it's a crazy theory. John Yoo can't be that hard to reach.

Ratings Advisory Of The Week

From NYT's review of (bleagh) Eight Below, about ultra-cute sled dogs triumphing over adversity and making their war home after being stranded:

"...even grown-ups will be startled by the attack of the computer-generated leopard seal."

NYCircular Photoblogging I

Still more photos from NYC, with a circular theme. These are just the color ones - I'll have a post or two of B&W ones as well.


I like circles.


Reflections and circular lights in the general Wall St. area.


Possibly the same building, as viewed through a hole in a large red cube.


Circles almost sorta within circles...

Oh Well.

I suppose it's only fitting that the worst president of all time should
have the worst vice president of all time...

Zing You I Can, Yes...

From the Rush & Molloy gossip column in today's NY Daily News:

"The emperor works behind Darth Vader, he doesn't actually stand in front," [George] Lucas said. "I say that in fear of getting hit with a lot of buckshot."

Apparently he wasn't too thrilled about the "spoof video portraying House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as the evil 'Darth Nancy,' pursued by virtuous GOP rebels" shown at a House retreat the week before Bush presented him with the National Medal of Technology (we have that?).

But wait, it gets better:

Republican staffers, dressed in "Star Wars" costumes, showed up outside [Lucas's] press conference to inveigh against the Democratic evil empire trying to take control of Congress.

Um, guys? You really don't want to pursue this angle, mmmkay?

What Republicans Understand That Democrats Don't

This is a point I've danced around on occasion, that finally crystallized at Drinking Liberally tonight:

Republicans understand that voters in "the base" turn out if motivated, and the undecideds in the middle do not. Consequently, they tailor their electoral strategy to pumping up their base to maximize that turnout, and they don't worry about the middle all that much because they're proportionally less of a factor. The Democrats, on the other hand, repeatedly throw their base under the bus in pursuit of those fickle undecideds who probably aren't voting anyway.

In other words, Republicans understand that turnout is a force multiplier. Democrats are satisfied with just being ahead in opinion polls, implicitly assuming that voter turnout is homogeneous.

And this is why the ballot results never quite live up to the poll results for the Democrats. The Democrats are alienating voters by chasing after non-voters.

"I Said It. I Meant It. I Stand Behind It."

I forgot to include this in my previous post about the Democratic party establishment screwing over Paul Hackett, but I think it deserves its own post anyway:

Various bloggers (I could have sworn Digby was one of them, but I can't find the post I was thinking of) have lamented the Democrats' unfortunate and self-destructive practice of sabotaging their best and most forceful messengers, but that doesn't go quite far enough. The core problem with the Democrats, individually and collectively, is their reluctance to say, "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it." By apologizing, "clarifying," or backpedaling away from their statements every time the Republicans and their creatures raise a fake uproar, the Democrats marginalize themselves and their message.

By apologizing, they are saying, "Yes, you're right, that was not a valid point I was making." By backpedaling, they are saying, "I routinely say things that I don't really mean, and I just hope that no-one calls me on it."

On the other hand, standing firm and repeating "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it," or better yet, "We said it. We meant it. We stand behind it," every time they are challenged, the Democrats would send the message that their positions are valid and deserving of respect, that they never say anything they don't mean, and that they will not back down in the face of intimidation.

Of course, the Republican noise machine would howl about how angry and unreasonable the Democrats are. Let them. I believe the Democrats would regain the respect of their base, and the admiration of those undecideds who are disgusted with the Republicans but don't see a viable alternative.

If Hackett is through with seeking public office, maybe the Democrats could hire him as a speech coach.

Your Stupid Minds! Stupid, Stupid!

I sure hope the Democrats know what they're doing...

Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and popular Democratic candidate in Ohio's closely watched Senate contest, said yesterday that he was dropping out of the race and leaving politics altogether as a result of pressure from party leaders.

Mr. Hackett said Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada, the same party leaders who he said persuaded him last August to enter the Senate race, had pushed him to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent.

(snip)

"For me, this is a second betrayal," Mr. Hackett said. "First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me."

Mr. Hackett was the first Iraq war veteran to seek national office, and the decision to steer him away from the Senate race has surprised those who see him as a symbol for Democrats who oppose the war but want to appear strong on national security.

"Alienating Hackett is not just a bad idea for the party, but it also sends a chill through the rest of the 56 or so veterans that we've worked to run for Congress," said Mike Lyon, executive director for the Band of Brothers, a group dedicated to electing Democratic veterans to national office. "Now is a time for Democrats to be courting, not blocking, veterans who want to run."

(snip)

Mr. Hackett was widely criticized last year for using indecent language to describe President Bush. Last month, state Republicans attacked Mr. Hackett for saying their party had been hijacked by religious extremists who he said "aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden."

Though Republicans called for an apology, Mr. Hackett repeated the mantra of his early campaign: "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it."

"I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it." Are you listening, Democrats? That should be your response every single time the Republicans and all their media zombies whine and rage and demand an apology from you for not rolling over and playing dead. And this is the guy you push out of the Senate race? The guy who is exactly the kind of breath-of-fresh-air candidate your spineless party needs? What the hell are you THINKING???

I'd say that this has made me lose all faith in the Democratic party's leadership, except their fold-job on Alito already took care of that. What they don't appear to understand is that, in addition to the obvious, immediate tactical disadvantages of opposing Hackett and not Alito, there is also a less obvious, but even more significant negative impact on the party's grass roots and base, who become increasingly disgusted and disillusioned with the Democrats, and consequently less willing to donate time or money, or to turn out in droves on Election Day.

And just who is the brilliant political mastermind behind this daring new Democratic strategy? It wasn't easy, but I pulled some strings, and was able to get this exclusive picture of the Democrats' new chief political advisor, Robert Karl:



You're doin' a heckuva job, uh, Karlie.

Reflective NYC Photoblogging

Well, I haven't completely forgotten about my latest batch of New York City photos. I don't think they're as good as the first batch, but there's still some halfway decent stuff in there.


Shard of something reflective (might have been marble or something marble-ish?) next to a sidewalk grate.


JP Morgan Chase: We bring good things to light. No, wait, I think that's Pepsi.


ATM! ATM! There's no place like home! There's no place like home!


Buildings! Reflected in, um... another building!


I got nothin'.

This Is Well Worth Watching.

Today's WaPo Online features a chat with Martin Nicholas about his Nature program, "True Adventures of a Spider Hunter," which debuted last night (nice promotion work, guys). The chat certainly piqued my interest, if for no other reason than to see this guy holding a 12-inch Goliath spider... and talking to Stan Lee (but not, alas, at the same time).

I strongly recommend checking your listings for the next rebroadcast on your local PBS affiliate (1AM tonight for me! Woohoo!), especially if you have any kind of fascination with creepy crawlies, or just want to gross out that special someone.

Many thanks to the shadowy and mysterious Codename V. for the graphic, scanned from some bizarre spider-hunting book many years ago.

Shotgunfreude.

Holy shit!!!

Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday.

Harry Whittington, 78, was ''alert and doing fine'' after Cheney sprayed Whittington with shotgun pellets on Saturday at the Armstrong Ranch in south Texas, said property owner Katharine Armstrong.

Armstrong said Cheney turned to shoot a bird and accidentally hit Whittington. She said Whittington was taken to Corpus Christi Memorial Hospital by ambulance.

Cheney's spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, said the vice president was with Whittington, a lawyer from Austin, Texas, and his wife at the hospital on Sunday afternoon.

Kinda sounds like it was one of his hunting buddies, so I don't think much will come of it.

FroomCred

God bless Froomkin and all his little Froomkinites. Last week he asked his readers to send him questions for the White House press corps and any interviewers to ask the preznit, specifically addressing the issue of his credibility (or lack thereof). Yesterday he published the highlights in his White House Briefing column, and it's really excellent stuff. Check it out if you haven't already.

I'm wondering, would it be worthwhile to start a mass e-mail campaign to send these questions to every single member of the press corps, and anyone who is about to interview the preznit, or would it just lead to a lifetime of wiretapping and audits for everyone whose question got published?

Friday Quote & Cat Blogging

This week's quote:

"My body is a roadmap of pain... but pain has its rewards."

From Peter Jackon's The Frighteners, starring Trini Alvarado (one of the most genuinely sweet people ever to go to Professional Children's School), Michael J. Fox, Jake Busey, and the immortal Jeffrey Combs (speaking).


And, of course, there'll be other people's cats...


Christmas Kitty with Number Two Sister. Again: Friendly? Or just itchy? Um, Christmas Kitty, that is.

Save Our Santorums

It's a sad commentary on my connectedness to PA politics that I learned about this through an NYT editorial:

Under current Pennsylvania law, people can vote once they leave prison. But a bill pending in the Legislature would disenfranchise those on parole or probation. The bill would go further and bar convicts from voting until the dates when their maximum sentences would expire — even if they had been fully released from the system much earlier.

Pennsylvania, a swing state that will hold some critical elections this fall, is being barraged by legislation, championed by Republican lawmakers, that would raise voting barriers, especially for groups that tend to be Democratic. One measure would institute one of the most restrictive voter-identification laws in the nation, in a state that currently requires only first-time voters to prove their identities. Pennsylvanians — who have been at the forefront of fairness in voting rights issues — should not allow partisanship to erase that legacy.

Wow, they're pulling out all the stops - they must be really worried for Santorum, eh?

(Do governors have veto power? You know, like little mini-preznits?)

Good Evening, Moon

Well, the moon is full enough and early enough to offer some intriguing possibilities, so I did a little moonstalking on my way home this evening.


Remember this picture from a few months ago? Where are they now, I'm sure you're all wondering.


Here's what they look in the (more or less) daylight! Either the moon's gotten a lot smaller, or the saint's gotten a lot bigger.


Some more fun with Mr. Moon...


The moon again, viewed through some kind of railing thingie. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a little shaky when it comes to color...

Headline Of The Day

Restaurant attorney says flying shrimp not to blame for death

Complex, Nuanced Bioethics Question

What about human-Garanimal hybrids, or "Garanimanimals"? Are those okay, or would they be banned as well?

Obligatory Steelers Photoblogging

Okay, so, my coworkers kinda prodded me into taking pictures of the Steelers victory parade yesterday. That's really not my thing, and left to my own devices I would have ignored it completely, even if it had been, say, the Giants or the Yankees. I made a go of it, and decided to stay inside and rely on my powers of telephoto zoominess, calculating that even long shots would still be better than shots of the backs of people's heads.

Unfortunately, that decision didn't work out so well. For one thing, I was looking down on the proceedings, and most of the players were wearing baseball caps. Worse yet, the windows are tinted, which throws off the color balance (I suck at color, so I have a hard time correcting it), kills the contrast, and chokes off the light, which means slow shutter speeds and high ISOs, which means grainy and blurry, which is not a great combination. Still, I got a few entertaining shots (mostly of non-Steeler-related subjects), even if there was only one that I would consider "good" by any stretch of the imagination.


And, of course, there'll be other people's Superbowl champions...


A pair of determined blonde businesswomen stride purposefully toward their rendezvous with Gamera on Moon Station Zero.


Troy Polamalu signing autographs after the parade. Great player, seems like a nice enough guy - it's not his fault his name is the basis for The Worst Thing Ever.

(This is probably the only picture of the bunch that I'm completely satisfied with, because it was free of all that window-related overhead)


Hey, look! Bananaman is a Steelers fan! Who knew?


My relentless search for "the decisive moment" finally bears sweet, sweet fruit... HEY!

Mixed Feelings

On the one hand, I'm glad that the President Of The United States personally honored Coretta Scott King at her memorial service today. I think that's as it should be.

On the other, I'm disgusted that it's a President who has done so little to advance Reverend and Mrs. King's crusade.

Of course, there's a very simple solution to prevent such awkwardness in the future...

Oathiness

This sounds kinda familiar...

Monday's hearing into the NSA program got off to a rocky start when Democrats protested that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be given a sworn oath before testifying.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's senior Democrat, argued that Gonzales should be sworn in like any other witness. At the very least, Gonzales should be asked if he would volunteer to being sworn in, Leahy said.

"It's not up to him," said Specter, who was upheld by a quick party-line vote by the GOP-led committee.

Is there an innocent explanation for this? The last time I remember Republicans opposing an oath was just before the oil executives lied their asses off about participating in Cheney's super-duper secret energy task force (and before that, of course, there was our brave preznit's 9/11 testimony with Cheney holding his widdle hand). I know the Republicans are anti-truth, but do they have to be so obvious about it?

Gonzales, who was not sworn in, told the committee he would voluntarily take the oath if the committee so desired. Either way, "my answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not," he said.

Wow, he admits that he would lie under oath? Pretty ballsy.

Call His Bluff

Today's NYT lead editorial is about the gaping disconnect between President Bush's stated goals on energy efficiency and his actual policies and budget allocations. This is, of course, typical - Bush's idea of leadership is to state bold and sometimes even admirable goals and then hope for the best instead of actually following through.

However, I think Bush has left an intriguing opening here, if the Democrats have the guts to take it. Very simply, all they have to do is take Bush at his conservationist word and propose a bill that would make all of Bush's stated goals an attainable reality, and be prepared to loudly and aggressively debunk whatever fake energy-conservation bill the Republicans come up with.

If they can pull that off, they put Bush in the awkward position of having to either admit his SOTU address was utter bullswitchgrass, or else force a big grin onto his face and pretend that stabbing Big Oil and Saudi Arabia in the back was his tiny heart's fondest desire. Sure, he'd take credit for it if it passed, but he's not running for re-election, and the world would be better for it, ecologically, economically, and politically.

They could always throw in some anti-manimal language to sweeten the deal...

Hooray!!!

Superbowl, Schmuperbowl. Harry Carson's finally going to the Hall Of Fame!!!

Son Of The Return Of NYCreepy Photoblogging

Not as much creepiness this time around, but what there is, is cherce.


Um... Whatever happened to fuzzy dice and hula girls?


I believe this is supposed to be Our Lady Of Victory, but I'm not really sure why.


I... uh...

Please. Kill. Me. Now.

While admittedly rather clever linguistically, this is quite possibly The Worst Thing Ever.

I am now officially rooting for the Seahawks.

Friday Quote & Dog Blogging

This week's quote:

"Perhaps we would do well to emulate the garfish more in our day-to-day life."

From Love Serenade, an Australian movie about two smalltown sisters in love with the local DJ.


And, of course, there'll be other people's dogs...


Giant liondog seen while roaming the fair streets of NYC with res ipsa loquitur and The Kenosha Kid. I'm wondering if it might be part St. Bernard...

How Conveeeeeenient.

This doesn't sound fishy at all...

A federal judge on Friday set former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's trial date in the CIA leak case for January 2007, two months after the midterm congressional elections.

The trial for Libby, who faces perjury and obstruction of justice charges, will begin with jury selection Jan. 8, said U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton. Walton said he had hoped to start the trial in September but one of Libby's lawyers had a scheduling conflict that made an earlier date impractical.

Walton said he does not like "to have a case linger" but had no choice because Libby attorney Ted Wells will be tied up for 10 weeks in another case.

Granted, I am not a professional law-talking guy, but 14-15 months seems like an awfully long time between indictment and trial...

Worth Noting

An NYT letterwriter makes an excellent and IMO much-overlooked point:

Surveillance with a broader focus than individuals misses an important problem: translation. Everyone acknowledges the vast number of messages each and every day.

If 1 percent of just one billion messages are in another language, that is still 10 million messages. Even 1 percent of 1 percent presents a formidable, perhaps insurmountable, translation task. And the shortage of government translators, particularly for Arabic, has been widely reported.

The only conclusion one can draw is that the National Security Agency surveillance program is designed to spy primarily on English speakers.

Or do the Republicans believe that Arab terrorists would be so considerate as to carry out all their plotting in English?

Froomkidelic!

The All-Seeing Eye Of Froomkin has gazed benevolently upon me once again, despite my digression from his usual beat.

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Hi, Dan! Great to have you back!

Do you have any sense of why the Democrats would make such a lackluster effort at opposing an alarmingly right-wing judge nominated by an unpopular president? If the Roberts/Alito court proves disastrous, how will they burden the Republicans with it in 2006 and 2008 when they themselves went along with it (remember how no-one could run against the war in 2004)?

More broadly, why are the Democrats still trying to be good little centrists when polls consistently show that independents don't like Bush much more than Democrats do? What popularity he has derives almost entirely from his base, and the Democrats will never be far-right enough to capture them. So why not take a stand and fight to energize their base the way the Republicans do (which in turn drives their invaluable success at getting out the vote)? Is there a complicated and pragmatic political calculation that I'm missing here?

Dan Froomkin: Thanks. Good to be back.

But I don't do Democrats. It's not my job, and they're hard to fathom. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because their elected officials, particularly senators, are too scared to think straight. I suspect that before they say "boo" they ask themselves, "would this make a devastating Republican attack ad?"

Your initial point about the independents is very perceptive and vastly underreported. You are right that over the last year or so, independents have grown to dislike Bush almost as much as the Democrats. Which is amazing.

But what sort of strategy does that suggest for the Democrats? I couldn't say.

I'm two-for-two!


*bask bask bask*

Shadowy NYC Photoblogging

Some silhouettey shots from my latest trip to NYC...


HEY!!!

See, I told you it worked...


Streetlight Hydra!


Some kind of walkway between buildings. I didn't even notice the cool shadows of the side filigree thingies until much later.