More Fascinating Insights from the Minds of Not-at-all-Credulous Co-Workers

This needs no explanation. Here is a transcript of the conversation a few of my coworkers just had--

M (reading something online): Oh, this makes me so mad! "They" are saying that Jesus didn't really walk on water because there might have been patches of ice in the sea! Those scientists are sooooooo stupid!!

J: They're just trying to make people doubt the word of God, that's all that is! It's the same thing with that DaVinci Code! Do you know Tom Hanks is starring in that movie? What a disgrace.

L: Well, I heard "they" are trying to say that Christ didn't really die, and that it's all a conspiracy. It's so stupid.

J: I heard that! You know, Satan is coming up with all of these things because the Passion of the Christ was so powerful. It's hard for Satan to compete with that. I guess he doesn't have enough sinners burning in Hell already!

M: It just makes me so mad!

S: Yeah, you know what the crap that "they" come up with!

____________________________________________________________

Yes, that's right--There is a conspiracy by mad scientists to refute the absolute truth that Jesus was the Son of God, totally awesome, and able to walk over liquid. The scientists, apparently, are being aided by Satan himself, because Satan is jealous of Mel Gibson.

Without a doubt, my office mates are an intellectual bunch, and I hope they never let anyone tell them any different! If someone disagrees with them, it's just the work of Satan, anyway. And they definitely shouldn't let anyone tell them that this "Heathen Scientists say Jesus Walked on Ice" thing was a complete fabrication dreamed up by people who love to pray on the extreme gullibility and ignorance of Bible-Belt Christians.

Bless their little hearts!

Take That, Asshole!

The student newspaper at my former university/current workplace is notoriously misguided, especially in regards to the columnists it selects. It seems as if the only qualification for a conservative columnist is to be completeley obnoxious. You also, apparently, have to creepily smile for your headshot. I only wish I could include the picture that accompanies the print version of today's column. Let's just say, this dude's face has "conservative blowhard-in-training" written all over it. Behold (I will bold the parts that give Mr. Hedgepath away as a first-class douchebag):

Democrats must revamp party
Chris Hedgepeth
Columnist
Liberals have been so upset about their situation in America lately, they’re now taking anti-depressants in addition to their Ritalin.
While screaming about Tom Delay’s alleged corruption has allowed the left to imagine they’re avenging Bill Clinton, the joy derived from this exercise has not come close to revitalizing the left’s extremely low spirits. (To get an idea of just how “low” we’re talking, think of Barbra Streisand’s IQ.)
For once, I am almost tempted to sympathize with liberals; just consider all the recent bad news they’ve been faced with:
1. The death toll from Hurricane Katrina was not as catastrophic as liberals were hoping.
2. America still hasn’t surrendered in the War on Terror.
3. President Bush is nominating a conservative (!) to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy.
4. After the 789th recount, Bush still wins Florida.
5. It is now official that the much decried “tax cuts for the rich” have produced $12.2 trillion in tax revenue per year, up from the $10.9 trillion per year before the 2003 tax cuts. Translation: Tax cuts are good.
6. And finally, Dick Cheney just had to recover from his aneurysm.
Most devastating to liberals is their realization that the Democratic Party might be an ineffective vehicle for translating their demands into political results, as if the left was somehow unaware of the fact that “winning” is not exactly the Democrats’ forte.
Indeed, the problem here can be explained quite simply: Liberals want blood, but the Democratic Party is a bunch of losers.
In a speech to the Black Caucus, Harry Belafonte effectively captured the left’s discontent when he remarked that the wreckage in the Gulf region is insignificant and unimportant compared to the wreckage of the Democratic Party.
Belafonte continued, “I guess part of the reason I’m here is to really look through the ravages of the Democratic Party and see if anything is really worth salvaging.”
This, of course, is not a new sentiment. Unimpressed with the 2004 election results, MoveOn.org last December proclaimed to the Democratic leadership, “Now it’s our Party: We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”
The Democrats, however, aren’t so sure about allowing crazy liberals to subjugate their party.
Much to the left’s dismay, the Democratic Party has refused to fully devote itself to the anti-war causes and the “Bush is Hitler” vitriol characteristic of the radical left. From the party’s point of view, such a move is feared to alienate normal Democrats who simply hate rich people.
Consequently, Democrats shouldn’t feel safe when Cindy Sheehan and other crazies storm Washington, chant inanities like “Give Peace a Chance,” and demand that America lose the war; liberals still haven’t forgotten that Hillary Clinton and other Democratic leaders voted for the war in the first place. Even John Kerry voted to fund the war — before, of course, he “voted against it.”
Democrats are now faced with the arduous challenge of dealing with the left’s rage in a way that doesn’t end up destroying their own party.
Immediately springing to action, Bill Clinton began catering to the left’s instinctive hatred by criticizing President Bush and his decision to invade Iraq. Inasmuch as Clinton himself in 1998 called Saddam Hussein a “threat” to the “safety of his [own] people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us,” it is hilarious that the former president would object to President Bush actually removing this “threat.”
Then again, protecting America was never something Clinton was on top of. When it came to Bill Clinton, America’s safety and security was a minor concern. On second thought, perhaps that’s why liberals liked him so much.
I say all this about the former president to give Democrats a bit of advice: If you want power, get rid of Bill Clinton. He’s so good at winning elections for Republicans, even conservatives want him on TV more often.
And here’s some more advice: Stay away from celebrities like Bette Midler. They make you look even more insane than you already are.
While starring in a fundraising concert for hurricane relief, Midler made headlines when she began shouting, “We’re surrounded by disasters! The war, the hurricane, Fox News. (Loud cheering) It just goes on and on. I get so depressed!”
Midler’s emotional health could perhaps benefit from getting her facts straight. The “disastrous” Fox News continues to lead cable news ratings, the war is going marvelously well — okay, we’ll just say America is winning, so it’s not going well for liberals — and Bush is rebuilding the Gulf. So why the dismay?
This frustration would be more understandable if liberals actually identified some real disasters for once. They could pick any of the following: Air America, MSNBC, the U.N., the War on Poverty, etc. The point is: Finding real disasters in America is really not that difficult. It’s certainly not as difficult as “Thinking” is for Barbra Streisand.
I’m just glad I don’t have to deal with this anger and depression — I get to laugh at it.
On the other hand, if Democrats want to keep their power, they had better do something fast about the left’s anger or the whole Democratic Party will collapse.
Not that I would lose any sleep over that.
— Chris Hedgepeth is a freshman in political science. He can be reached at chedgepe@utk.edu.

Here is my inevitable response. I've yet to find out if it will be printed:

Dear Editor,

Reading Chris Hedgepeth's column in today's Beacon, I was reminded of a universal truth--there is virtually nothing more pathetic than an arrogant, pompous bore who regards himself as clever. How very suitable that Hedgepeth chooses to write a column on the sad state of the Democratic Party at precisely the time his own beloved party is reeling from a series of egregious missteps and ethical failures. To quote Glen Quagmire from Family Guy, how...expected. Speaking of vitriol, what else does a Bush apologist have to hang onto at this point? In the face of Valerie Plame, the utter failure of Social Security "reform," the criminal ineptness of the federal hurricane response, rampant cronyism, government-financed propaganda, a ballooning federal deficit, Bill Frist's active management of his "blind stock trust" and Tom DeLay's little problem with the entire concept of ethics, not much. And what about Iraq? Despite Mr. Hedgepeth's shameless assertion that the war is going "marvelously," I believe there are quite a few American soldiers and Iraqi civilians who would disagree wholeheartedly. Just a guess. I suppose the insurgency is still in its "last throes" as well. I might actually pity Mr. Hedgepeth for his desperate grasping, if it weren't for his trivializing of mental illness, cheap pot-shots at the intellect of Barbra Streisand (don't conservatives know any other easy targets?) and grieving mother Cindy Sheehan, logic-defying assertions and overall tendency for nasty and unnecessarily personal attacks.
If the Democratic Party is floundering, as I believe it is, it is not because its members are angry losers, to paraphrase Mr. Hedgepeth. It is because it can't compete with the ruthless tactics of a certain party that long ago declared moral bankruptcy. You know, bleeding hearts and all.

Veronica Randolph
Graduation Specialist
2003 UT graduate in Journalism

Kiss my ass, freshman punk.

Despicability on the March

Wow. The conservative oligarchy has been really busy lately, huh? Busy little bees they are, only these bees are busy making shit, not honey. What with the clear mandate afforded to the Bush administration by that enormous 51 percent majority in the election, the ruling party's elite are like kids, or "deranged sociopaths," if you will, in a candy store. A really dark, scary, ignorance-exploiting kind of candy store.

Let's recap some of their recent hijinks, shall we?

Bush continues to paint the Democrats' uncharacteristic reluctance to take it up the ass while he and his cronies dismantle Social Security through the back door as laziness. He invited the crown prince of one of the world's biggest abusers of human rights, Saudi Arabia, to Crawford for a romantic, hand-in-hand stroll down soul-selling lane. His administration haughtlily, and laughably, demands in the name of the American people an immediate vote on his inspired choice for U.N. amabssador, John "There is no U.N." Bolton. Because everyone knows that what the average American really wants is not an economically secure country safe from terrorists, but rather to see nasty, back-stabbing neoconservative blowhards installed as ambassadors. And what of those documents pertaining to Bolton's many possible ethical violations the Dems are demanding before they'll allow a vote? Nothing but a stalling tactic designed to thwart the will of the American people.

Hmmm. speaking of the American people, Dick Cheney announced to pathetically credulous CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer this week that no one in the administration "pays a lot of attention" to the latest polls suggesting that Americans are losing their patience with the war in Iraq. You can't go around developing policy based the concerns of the very people you are supposed to be serving, after all! All those people who say that perhaps Iraq isn't a utopia on par with Heaven itself "don't know what they're talking about." Too bad we can't ask the more than 20 people killed by the four car bombs that exploded within 15 minutes in Baghdad yesterday what they think about it. Oh, and what about all that liberal yapping about so-called "human rights" abuses at Guantanamo? California GOP congressman Duncan Hunter has sucessfully refuted this obviously baseless accusation by...calling a press conference to showcase the delicious chicken dinners served to ungrateful prisoners, even three times a week! And he even brought visual aids (Exhibit A: Lemon-Baked Chiken!! Yummy!!). Well, since you put it that way...

Rumsfeld again weighed in on this issue this week, reminding us dumb liberals that those prisoners are living better than they ever have, "in the tropics." Let's put aside the fact that Rumsfeld inadvertantly suggested that--gasp!--dastardly communist hellhole CUBA is a paradise. Nothing better than being tortured under the glorious shade of a palm tree.

And it wouldn't be fair to ignore little Jeb Bush's strong moral compass.

You see, the only thing ol' Jebber loves to exploit more than a "living" vegetable is a dead one. Now that Terri Schiavo is in the ground, and apparently not having learned his lesson, Jeb is suddenly taken with some "new" evidence that suggests Michael Schiavo might have waited too long after his wife's collapse before calling 911! This is based on the fact that, over the years and in various court appearances, Michael Sciavo has given slightly different times for when he found his wife on the floor: 4:30 am, 5, 5:30, maybe 4:45...and so on. The 911 call was placed at 5:40 am. Not exactly "new and startling evidence," Jeb, but Mike is OBVIOUSLY lying, right? I mean, everybody would remember the EXACT time when they awoke from deep slumber to discover their wife unconsious on the floor, duh! Especially when 3, 8, 10, 15 years have passed. So, anyway, this most disturbing "new development" caused Jeb Bush to appoint a state's attorney to investigate. This attorney finds this to be the most important case of his career, a real slam dunk, too. Well, maybe not...In NYT columnist Bob Herbert's June 23 column, he included this snippet of a conversation he recently had with Bernie McCabe, the appointed attorney:

Mr. McCabe did not seem particularly enthusiastic about his mission. "I wouldn't call it an investigation," he told me in a telephone conversation. The word "investigation," he said, "is a term of art in my business."

He then explained: "When I conduct an investigation, it would mean that I have a criminal predicate. In other words, that I have some indication that a crime has occurred. That's my job.

"In this circumstance, that does not exist at this time. So what I'm attempting to do is respond to the governor's request by conducting what I'm calling an 'inquiry' to see if I can resolve the issues he raised."

Jeb Bush--you are an inspiration to us all. Just because you've been proven categorically wrong via the recent autopsy results showing that Ms. Schiavo was definitely BLIND and without consiousness, and just because the people of both your state and the country strongly dissaprove of your shameless handling of this matter, doesn't mean you should give up! Hell no, that would make you a quitter. Another fine example of the Bush family motto--why bother with being "right" when you can stuff a sock in your pants and "stay the course?"

Actually, that is just one of many Bush family mottos. There are others, such as these classics:

The Only Good Retard is an Executed Retard
Fetuses and Microscopic Cells are Precious, but Actual People Need to Get a Fucking Job!
Shut the Fuck Up, Bitch
Hell was Created Especially for Fags
Church-Goers are the Most Gullible of All the Peasants
No, I Said Three Korean Hookers, Dumbass!

And many, many more!!

The Superior Icon is on the Bottom

Ian Curtis: Way cooler than that dead pope guy.

Ian Curtis, Genius: 15 July 1956 - 18 May 1980

As you can probably tell from the title of this blog, I am a huge Joy Division fan. Which is actually an understatement. The reasons for which someone should listen to Joy Division are many. Peter Hook's groundbreaking use of the bass as lead guitar. Stephen Morris's unstoppable drumming with its perfect rhythm. Even Bernard Sumner, who gave us what was probably the world's first listenable feedback-based guitar playing.

But these are really reasons to love New Order, which I do. Joy Division was and still is Ian Curtis. The wealth of iconic photographs of Ian certainly add to the mystique. Anton Corbijn, one of the biggest names in rock photography and music video directing, moved to Manchester from the Netherlands in 1979 precisely to photograph the band, especially Ian. Even before his death, Ian Curtis managed to be a mythic figure.

Now the reason for today's embarrassingly earnest post. Ian Curtis hanged himself at the house he shared with his wife and daughter exactly 25 years ago today, only one day before he was due to leave for Joy Division's first American tour. Humbling is the fact that he was only 23, the same age I am now. A lot of famous people have committed suicide, but none have spawned the cult of tragedy that Ian Curtis's death did. There is not another music legend like him.

He was not a drug addict, or even a heavy drinker. He didn't trash hotel rooms. He was exceedingly polite most of the time, and very respectful of women. He wasn't at all flashy; the clothes he wore on stage were the same clothes he wore to work, having outgrown green hair and leather jackets in his teens. He came from what was then a pretty bleak and economically depressed area, and he was actually quite old-fashioned. He got married a month after his 19th birthday. He wasn't perfect. He especially wasn't an ideal husband. He was moody and would display brief flashes of self-destructive and aggressive behavior. In general, though, he was shy and well-liked. Music journalist Mick Middles has said that in interviewing hundreds of people about Ian for his book, nobody had one bad word to say about him. Those closest to him were very protective, especially manager Rob Gretton and Peter Hook, who once went into a rioting crowd with a broken liquor bottle because someone had thrown a glass at Ian as he was leaving the stage, basically, to go have an epileptic seizure. And the band got along exceptionally well. Even with all of their early successes, there were not the usual ego-centered conflicts. They truly were happy just to be playing in a band together and receiving mutual recognition. The members agreed that all song writing would be credited to Joy Division, not any individual member. The only sign of "lead singer syndrome" Ian ever really exhibited, according to Peter Hook, was his penchant to disappear with Bernard Sumner when it was time to unload the equipment from the van, as Peter Hook affectionately put it, "skipping off like two fucking fairies."

Ian was not a likely poster child for the post-punk movement, but he now personifies it. He owns it.

A journalist recently asked Peter Hook what he thought about the common notion that Ian Curtis wasn't as "rock and roll" or bohemian as members of other bands of the time, like the Sex Pistols or the Clash. He made some interesting points in response: Those bands were middle-class. We weren't. It was totally derelict in Manchester at the time. Ian had a real job. He had to feed his family. He challenged, "I think that makes him more rock and roll, don't you?"

I couldn't agree more.

But Ian was extremely charismatic and seems to have made an enormous impression on nearly everyone he had ever met. People were often disconcerted, because he could give what is now known by the band as "the stare," with his unnaturally light blue eyes, that would stop you in your tracks. His intensity on stage is legendary. The head of his record label, Factory legend Tony Wilson, said that Ian was the only singer or musician he ever saw who had to be on stage. His onstage "persona" was not a persona at all. Off stage, he was just one of the guys, working-class and unpretentious. But on stage...well, you really have to witness it yourself. If a grainy DVD transfer can leave such an impression, I can't imagine what seeing it in person was like.

And that voice. There have been a lot of baritone singers, but I can't think of another whose voice gets under your skin like Ian's. He was a triple threat--his singing, his lyrics and his charisma as a performer were all extraordinary.

Although he could play the guitar, playing one live was out of the question for most songs. He w as in another world up there, oblivious to everything and everyone around him, a jerky, possessed ball of energy. Band members have noted that he would get himself especially worked up singing the frantic single Transmission, the song most likely to trigger a fit. It wasn't something the band ever talked about. They knew it was more personal than he was willing to share with anyone, even his best friends. Despite this, his bandmates have revealed that he "found" many of their classic songs while they were fucking around in practice--"Hooky, shut the fuck up. That's it." And so was born the famous opening bassline of Isolation.

Jesus, I am starting to sound like Tony Wilson, i.e., pretentious. Sorry, but restraint is not in order for this particular topic.

Which brings us to the lyrics. The lyrics are just un-fucking-believable. They hold up just as well on paper as they do in the songs. They're sophisticated, emotional, evocative and everything you could ever want from a rock song, or poetry, or any kind of artistic expression. Every song, too. He never wrote a stupid, or even average, lyric. It is painful to think of what he would have done had he lived: there were suitcases full of his writing. The lyrics to New Dawn Fades are some of my favorite. They clue you in a bit to what it must have been like inside Ian's head:

A change of speed, a change of style.
A change of scene, with no regrets,
A chance to watch, admire the distance,
Still occupied, though you forget.
Different colours, different shades,
Over each mistakes were made.
I took the blame.
Directionless so plain to see,
A loaded gun won't set you free.

So you say.

We'll share a drink and step outside,
An angry voice and one who cried,
we'll give you everything and more,
The strain's too much, can't take much more.
Oh, I've walked on water, run through fire,
Can't seem to feel it anymore.
It was me, waiting for me,
Hoping for something more,
Me, seeing me this time,
hoping for something else.

Hmmm, so a loaded gun won't set you free. So you say. Tricky bastard. And this is from his early period. Here are the lyrics to my favorite JD song, Twenty Four Hours, which was written later and adds a sense of finality to the desperation that clearly inspired NDF:

So this is permanence, love's shattered pride.
What once was innocence, turned on it's side.
A cloud hangs over me, marks every move,
Deep in the memory, of what once was love.
Oh how I realised how I wanted time,
Put into perspective, tried so hard to find,
Just for one moment, thought I'd found my way.
Destiny unfolded, I watched it slip away.
Excessive flashpoints, beyond all reach,
Solitary demands for all I'd like to keep.
Let's take a ride out, see what we can find,
A valueless collection of hopes and past desires.
I never realised the lengths I'd have to go,
All the darkest corners of a sense I didn't know.
Just for one moment, I heard somebody call,
Looked beyond the day in hand, there's nothing there at all.

Wow. These songs, with their themes of surrender and indifference to living, were written before the age of 23. So young and already spent. Sometimes I feel guilty for extracting pleasure from Ian's pain. But it's a curious kind of pleasure. At times it will overwhelm you, but you keep coming back for more. I don't think there are many casual Joy Division fans. It sucks you in completely.

The substance behind Ian's lyrics was completely off-limits; he refused to discuss their meaning, especially with regards to how they reflected his own life, with anyone. Not his bandmates, not his manager, not his wife. In hindsight, it's more clear where he was coming from. But he hid his feelings very well. He suffered alone, and the fact that this was self-imposed makes it that much more sad.

So, we come back to the reason this date is relevant. His wife Deborah found him. She describes this in her biography of Ian, Touching from a Distance, and the chilling details of the discovery are not something you soon forget. No one really knows why he did it. He left a long letter for Debbie, in which he wrote that he wished he were dead, but didn't say he would actually do it. He was having an affair with an increasingly clingy woman he met on tour in Europe, for which he had been busted by his wife a couple of months before his death. He had been obsessed with death, and the romantic notion of the artist who dies young, from an early age. And then there was the much-publicized epilepsy. He was afraid to hold his daughter because he worried that he might have a seizure and drop her. In fact he was having seizures on stage at nearly every gig in the last 6 months of his life. His life as the lead singer in the most emotionally intense band of all time (I stand by this) was the polar opposite of the quiet life he should have been living in order to control the disease. But he couldn't give it up. The life he had longed for as a kid was slowly killing him. And it didn't help that treatment for epilepsy at that time was primitive at best, just different combinations of depression-augmenting barbituates and hope for the best.

It is difficult to articulate the appeal of Ian Curtis and Joy Division. You just have to listen to their music, look at the photographs (some of the most beautiful and unsettling you'll ever see) and get your hands on the rare video footage. Ian Curtis was the center of that band.

There is no way to overstate the enormous impact Joy Division had on popular music. Several music writers have argued that JD is the most important band of all time, because they hijacked punk, a huge turning point in its own right, and steered it in a direction that is voraciously imitated but never duplicated--all the energy of punk, but with actual substance and actual ability to play musical instruments, and especially the addition of mood and atmosphere as key elements of rock music. Every hip new band is derivative of Joy Division or New Order. Listen to Interpol, Bloc Party, or Franz Ferdinand. The list of famous musicians who revere Ian Curtis and Joy Division is crazy long. There is a Curtis biopic in the works, and apparently every big-name actor is salivating over the part. Amusingly, the producers have turned down actor after actor for various reasons: Too short, too lightweight, too American. Deborah Curtis and Tony Wilson have full veto power. It should be quality.

And don't forget the contributions of his bandmates, who provided the soundtrack for one of the greatest performers of all time. Give credit where credit is due--these four lower-class lads from Manchester single-handedly invented post-punk and changed music forever. But they couldn't have done it without Ian Curtis.

RIP, Ian. You are not forgotten. Here it is, 25 years later, and cynical bitches like me are transformed into fawning fan girls by your music. You were on the cover of Mojo last month. Every lead singer wants to be Ian Curtis. If any artist ever deserved this normally ill-advised kind of reverence, it's you.

Something to consider: Don't think I revere Ian Curtis because he died young and pretty. It's not romantic, it's tragic. Depression sucks, epilepsy sucks. I revere him because he was insanely, hypnotically talented and set the bar impossibly high for everyone else (except Morrissey, of course--what is it about Manchester that spawns so much good shit? But, that's a topic for another time). Like I said, total genius. I don't say this about too many people, because let's face it, I'm a big snob.

A link to a good BBC story marking the anniversary of his death:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4545719.stm

**Note: How do I know all of this stuff? Am I full of shit? I've read just about everything there is to read about Ian Curtis and Joy Division, including his wife's painfully honest biography. The truth is mind-boggling enough.

John Tierney: Dumbass

I will try to keep this relatively short, and I hope this will be my last post concerning the rash of particularly ridiculous conservative viewpoints in the New York Times lately. Of course, I think all conservative viewpoints are ridiculous, so I guess I should refer to these as laughable. My disdain for David Brooks is well-documented. He seems like a nice guy, but his reasoning is crap. But the newest conservative columnist at the Times, John Tierney, puts David Brooks to shame. I've read three of his columns so far, and his track record isn't good. The first column is a dialogue (yes, you read that right!) between Tierney and his good Peruvian friend "Pablo." Pablo is proud of the enormous pension that he will receive as a result of Peru's wonderful private pension plan! Tierney is sad, because his measly Social Security checks won't help him maintain the lifestyle to which he is accustomed. Putting aside the fact that Tierney surely won't be reliant on Social Security for his retirement, there is also the fact that SOCIAL SECURITY WASN'T DESIGNED TO KEEP OLD PEOPLE IN VELVET SMOKING JACKETS AND CUBAN CIGARS! The reason some of us are opposed to privatization is that radical conservatives/libertarians want to ELIMINATE the New Deal and the legacy of FDR. The libertarian Cato Institute, who advocates the exact plan that Bush is pushing down our throats, has not been shy about this, either. And what about dear Pablo? Are we supposed to believe that Peru's system is a shining example for the rest of the world? Funny, I've heard nothing about Peru's system except how corrupt and inefficient it is. But I guess that's the liberal media talking. Oh, and Tierney, the dialogue thing isn't clever, it's embarrassing. Leave the alternative column thing to hipster music critics half your age.

The next column was published the day after Bush's recent press conference on Social Security "reform." He takes everything that comes out of Bush's mouth via Karl Rove at face value and then proceeds to mock Democrats based on this assumption that everything Bush says is completely true. I'll pause here to let you snort with contempt. Behold:

"Democrats have good reason to be aghast at President Bush's new proposal for Social Security. Someone has finally called their bluff.
They tried yesterday to portray him as just another cruel, rich Republican for suggesting any cuts in future benefits, but that's not what the prime-time audience saw on Thursday night. By proposing to shore up the system while protecting low-income workers, Mr. Bush raised a supremely awkward question for Democrats: which party really cares about the poor?"

Let's review. Bush and the Republicans care more about the poor because he says so on prime-time television. Wow. OK!

Let's not even get into the various hidden and obvious reasons why Bush is full of shit on this. There are too many to count. Tierney's colleague at the Times, Paul Krugman, came out with a scathing attack on this humorous assertion within a few days. Maybe Tierney could take a few lessons from Krugman, who isn't even a journalist, for Christ's sake! He's an economist. At Princeton. Not only is he much, much, MUCH more informed than Tierney, a career reporter, he can also write a column that could get past my college editing professor. I actually felt embarrassed for Tierney, what with his extreme gullibility, the likes of which I haven't come across this side of NewsMax.com. The earnest title of this column? Bush as Robin Hood.

His latest column is titled Laura Bush Talks Naughty. This title is also without a shred of irony. He goes on to assert that Laura Bush really proved all those liberals wrong with her completely off-the-cuff (see, Tierney, irony isn't that difficult!) jokes at the White House press club dinner the other night. Why, it looks like she's not the prim librarian after all! She called herself a desperate housewife (god, how I love topical humor)! So many racy jokes! I can practically see Tierney fanning himself at this dinner. He goes on to use this performance as a metaphor for why the Republicans keep winning elections and why they hate Democrats for their "smugness." That smugness angle is so new, so fresh, John. The liberals at this dinner were experiencing what Tierney refers to as "cognitive dissonance" at such an unfamiliar sight. There is only one problem.

Laura Bush's totally hilarious jokes were written by presidential joke writer Landon Parvin. The same guy who wrote that charming routine for last year's dinner about Bush looking everywhere for those dang WMDs. Wow, you must be really embarrassed now, John!

Bored? How about some racist humor!

My coworker S is a gift. A gift that keeps on giving. In addition to her frequent "Pollock" jokes, today she forwarded this little e-mail ditty to the whole office! Behold:


Subject: Chinese Sick Leave
Hung Chow calls into work and says, "Hey, boss, I no come work
today,
I really sick. I got headache, stomach-ache and my legs hurt, I no
come work."
> >>> >
The boss says, "You know Hung Chow, I really need you today. When I
feel
like this I go to my wife and tell her give me sex. That makes
everything better and I go work. You try that."
> >>> >
Two hours later Hung Chow calls again. "Boss, I do what you say and I
feel
great. I be at work soon...You got nice house...

I'm wondering what the hell this joke has to do with Chinese people. I've heard this same unspeakably lame joke countless times, without the fun addition of racism. Why a version specifically about Chinese people? It's not even clever racism, it's just a generic joke reimagined--with Chinese people. I love the name, "Hung Chow!" Is that supposed to refer to this Chinese gentleman's penis? Ha! How delightful.

By the way, there is a very nice Chinese girl who works part-time in our office. She has a name. S, of course, refers to her as "what's-her-face." I'd hate to see what she'd have to say about a half-Polish, half-Chinese person.

Utterly charming.

Cultural Sophisticates at Work

I simply must provide a transcript of the conversation I just overheard two of my coworkers having. This is an excellent example of what I hear around here on a daily basis:

P: Let's go to get tacos at lunch tomorrow!
S: Where?
P: Tor-till-i-a Mac.
S: Is that place good?
P: Yeah, it's good.
S: Well, what can you get there?
P: Uh, tacos.
S: What kind of tacos?
P: Any kind. Last time I got fish tacos! They were really good.

(Long Pause)

S: Fish tacos?
P: Yeah.
S: Well, what's in 'em?
P: Well, it's a flour tor-till-i-a with "a white fish" and cole slaw. It's really good.
S: So, it's some kind of wrap or something?
P: Well, it's a taco. With fish.
S: Is it good though?
P: Yeah, it's good.
S: Sounds kind of foreign or something.
P: Well, I think it comes from the islands or something.
S: Really? The islands?! Whoa, I don't really know about this! Well, is it good, at least?


It went exactly like this. I think today's Darwin Award goes to S. But P really gave her a run for her money.

P.S. Let me apologize in advance for being "elitist!" Yet, if not being elitist means being like S and P, I'll continue to favor elitism.

David Brooks Embarrases Himself Again

Lately I have noticed that New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks' columns are becoming more and more, I don't know, what is the word I'm looking for? Oh, that's right--RETARDED. You expect a columnist, even one as mousy and catchphrase-obsessed as David Brooks to take a position and go with it, even if the position is really, really weak, as dear David's frequently are. He is responsible for coining the term "bobo" to refer to middle and upper-middle class suburban pseudo-hippies. It is something that could stand to be defined, for sure, but "bobo?" I cringe every time I hear that word and can't really bring myself to say it, because it was invented by David Brooks to describe not-very-interesting voting tendencies and lifestyles. After the election last fall he really got into using the term "exurb" to describe those lovely communities that are a great way for contractors to line their pockets by gratuitiously extending urban sprawl beyond all imagination. Stealing farmland, bird habitats and whatever else gets in their way in the process. Was Brooks describing the terrible environmental and social consequences of such unchecked development? Well, of course not! He wanted all us liberals out there to know that the good people populating these Wal-Mart sponsored monstrosities hate us, because we are all elitists who don't care enough about their tiresome and extremely conservative values! God, can everyone please shut up about anyone to the left of Hitler being "elitist?" It's kind of hard for the Democrats to appeal to these people--because they are conservative! We are not, and we're not getting many exurban votes. Not because we are elitist, but because their "values (Jesus, I've come to despise that word)" are in conflict with ours, you smug little prick!

All right, now that I have that out of my system I'll get to the topic at hand. David has really outdone himself with today's column. Remember what I said about having a firm position? Conservatives love firm positions, right? Today's column is titled "Roe's Birth, and Death." So what's he getting at?

"Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it."

Does he dislike Roe v. Wade, or the "viciousness" it set off in America? He goes on to bemoan the fact that the abortion issue was taken out of the state legislatures:

"Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation."

Okay, so they invented it. As a constitutional scholar and expert on the 14th amendment, Brooks makes a compelling point here. Oh, wait...maybe not.

"Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists."

Oh, those poor fundamentalists! OF COURSE they felt their rights had been usurped by elitists, that is their signature complaint. A lot of the same people felt the same way when civil rights was the issue, and no one will ever rationalize that fact away. Uppity negroes and elitist judges are out to ruin the country, right? Here is another astute observation:

"Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views."

Oh shit, the judges appointed Democrats to Congress? What an outrage! What's that? Oh, this just in--those liberals were elected, you fucking moron! Do you even read what you write? But what to make of this next bit?

"Dozens of groups on the right and left have been created to destroy nominees who might oppose their side of the fight. But abortion is never the explicit subject of these confirmation battles. Instead, the groups try to find some other pretext to destroy their foes."

Okay, so now we are back to bitching about the "poisonous atmosphere" of politics today. Shame on you, Congress!

"Every few years another civilizing custom is breached. Over the past four years Democrats have resorted to the filibuster again and again to prevent votes on judicial nominees they oppose. Up until now, minorities have generally not used the filibuster to defeat nominees that have majority support. They have allowed nominees to have an up or down vote. But this tradition has been washed away."

Man, it's too bad the civilizing custom of taking it up the ass from the majority may be washed away, like so much shit in the toilet of life. If David says the filibuster is bad, then it should be done away with immediately. It is the only way. But oh, what is this?

"In response, Republicans now threaten to change the Senate rules and end the filibuster on judicial nominees. That they have a right to do this is certain. That doing this would destroy the culture of the Senate and damage the cause of limited government is also certain."

But, damn, the filibuster is a paragon of limited government, and it would be a shame to lose that. Maybe we'll just have to accept that some of Bush's nominees are too radical and he'll just have to make do with the other, measly 95 percent he had confirmed last year. David feels so strongly about necessity of the filibuster, he really gets on a roll! Shit, this getts better and better!

"The Senate operates by precedent, trust and unanimous consent. Changing the rules by raw majority power would rip the fabric of Senate life. Once the filibuster was barred from judicial nomination fights, it would be barred entirely. Every time the majority felt passionately about an issue, it would rewrite the rules to make its legislation easier to pass. Before long, the Senate would be just like the House. The culture of deliberation would be voided. Minority rights would be unprotected.
Those who believe in smaller government would suffer most. Minority rights have been used frequently to stop expansions of federal power, but if those minority rights were weakened, the federal role would grow and grow - especially when Democrats regained the majority."

We must keep the filibuster, then. Especially because those filibustering Democrats might regain power one day and go on rampage, in which laws will be ameded to allow the rape and molestation of all exurban tykes and teenagers! The end of the column is approaching, so David is about to expand on this point and sum up his thoughts on the unfortunate poisonous atmosphere of government and the unfortunate necessity of the filibuster, even though those robed elitists invented the right to an abortion:

"The fact is, the entire country is trapped. Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better."

No one better to kill the foot fungus that is the universal right to abortion at the root than your beloved Republicans, who will make sure those sanity-challenged judges can begin their self-stated march toward ending abortion! These brave Republicans will do this by...KILLING THE FILIBUSTER you love so much!

I have to lay down now, David, you are giving me a headache. Or is it the chimp you trained to write your columns who is responsible for my pounding head? It's a fucking mystery.

PS: This morning my lovely coworker S went around and told everyone in the office that she read in the paper that two of her female students (clients, basically) had a commitment ceremony this past weekend: "There was a picture in the paper of them kissing! Ewwww! Oh my god! Oh, here comes the janitor, let me go tell him!" She then told us proudly that her mother had received such a nice card from President Bush, thanking the nice, generic, boring, predictably Christian and conservative old hag for being such a financially helpful supporter! Ooooh, and it was actually signed by W--THE PRESIDENT himself! Not a copy!!!!

Gag me, dumbass. Oh, she also tells Pollock jokes. Great gal.

Sedaris Too Much for Morally Superior Knoxvillians

Author David Sedaris was in town Tuesday night for a reading at the newly spiffy Tennessee Theatre. I am a big fan, but I usually try to keep my expectations low so that when something is really good it's a pleasant shock in a world of shit (OK, my expectations were extremely high for the Slint reunion show in Louisville in February, but they delivered perfection. Duh!). Any doubts I had about David quickly evaporated. He was utterly hilarious and his stories are even funnier when he reads them aloud. His timing and connection with the audience is impeccable. So what's not to like, right? Well, nothing in my case, but it seems some misguided, uptight yuppies/Christians/old people had wandered into the gig, either by mistake or because they were expecting Chicken Soup for the Soul as read by John Grisham or some shit like that. When did the problem arise? Well, Sedaris told a new story that involved his sister Amy, of Strangers with Candy fame. Amy is not a normal person by any stretch of the imagination and takes great delight in fucking with everyone, but especially their father. She loves to buy disturbing things to leave around her apartment when Dad comes to visit. The latest acquisition was, well, it was a woman-on-horse mag. I think David's graphic depiction of the particulars involved in bestiality was simply too much for the delicate ears of Survivor and CSI-loving suburbanites, and about 10 or 12 people began to get up and stomp out. As they made their exits, making sure their haughty expressions would be noticed, I was initially pissed because it was a little distracting. But then I realized how sad these people were and I forgot about them until later. Sedaris spoke about this magazine with complete disinterest and a clinical detachment, and it was used to make a larger point about HIS many personal inhibitions. But I suppose that is a few too many layers deep for some people. They probably went home and immediately banned their teenagers from reading any of that filthy David Sedaris, especially after looking him up on the internet and learning that the "Hugh" of his stories is in fact his boyfriend and he is, OMG, a homosexual!!! This prohibition will of course cause their kids to immediately get their hands on his books and begin devouring them, so in that way their ignorance is greatly satisfying. So, David, I have this to say to you: Right on! I know your eccentric sister will continue to provide you with wonderful offensive material for a good long time, so keep it coming, man. Every pissed-off Bush voter, Christian and soccer mom is a notch on your bedpost. I hope to one day get my booked signed, when not with a hubby with an aversion to standing in line, so that you can ask my opinion on monkeys and cigarette preferences. Oh yeah, he offered a pack of Kool cigarettes to whoever might want them, because he is actually a Kool Milds smoker. Cool guy.

Total Hysteria

I think the time has come for all of us with half a brain to admit that the political climate in this country has reached the level of hysteria one associates with McCarthy. Not hyperbole, this is truly the case. No shit. There is very telling article in the New York Times today (I do like my NYT)--"Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue." Our Senate majority leader, always the stickler for ethics, has decided to participate, in a very public fashion, in a right-wing smear campaign against Democrats and the "liberal judges" they love. It is all a conspiracy, you see, against Christ himself. His minions on Earth, especially a select group that includes James Dobson and Chuck Colson, a born-again Watergate criminal (ever notice that Watergate criminals enjoy a lot of favor with conservatives? Chuck Colson and assassin G. Gordon Liddy are both esteemed members of the crazed right) are convinced that judges are out to destroy civilization itself. The hilarious flier for the planned television mind-fuck features a confused-looking teenager looking sadly upon the bible in one hand and the gavel in another. "He shouldn't have to choose," it proclaims. This, of course, clearly insinuates that any judge who would strike down prayer in schools, interpret in the Constitution inherent protections for gays or follow the law in regards to Terri Schiavo is not a person of faith herself. The typically simplistic "logic" follows that judges who would so rule are all liberal, and liberals can't be people of faith. Why, that is so obvious, why back that assertion up with facts or even compelling examples? All liberals hate Jesus, and if Jesus had a dog and a liberal invented a time machine (those scientists are all commies!), he would go back in time just to kill Jesus's dog. I personally would kill the puppy of any Christian toddler and tear into pieces his starter bible. Using the reasoning of today's right, could these conclusions be far off? But the absolute best part of this flier is the statement,

"The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

That's right, they are directly comparing the filibuster of reactionary (this word is important here) judges to the filibuster of civil rights legislation by...reactionaries. Many of the judges nominated by president monkey have been rejected as too radical primarily because they have a spotty record on or downright oppose the very idea of civil rights! Around 6 seconds of critical thinking would produce this understanding, but critical thinking is just a liberal pinko scam designed to thwart the holy agenda of Tom DeLay, Frist, and their legions of fawning cronies. Another pearl of wisdom:

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and organizer of the telecast, wrote in a message on the group's Web site. "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

Ooh, the "veil of the judiciary!" That is some good imagery, Tony. Did you take any English classes taught by liberal scum in college? Of course, any organization that has "civil rights" in its name is a liberal interest group. And this:

"The issue of the judiciary is really something that has been veiled by this 'judicial mystique' so our folks don't really understand it, but they are beginning to connect the dots," Mr. Perkins said in an interview, reciting a string of court decisions about prayer or displays of religion."

I'm glad your folks are beginning to get it, Tony. It takes a lot of effort to connect those dots. Dang, gives you a headache! Well, at least you know your followers are ignorant. Realization is the first step to acceptance.

Fucking morons.