« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »
Back in the day, my parents had a little act they would perform, usually at church socials, farmers' markets, highway fires, and cable access shows. My dad would sing, and Mom would accompany him with an interpretive dance. Kind of highbrow for my tastes, but still fun too watch. Now, thanks to YouTube, I can relive those happy times all over again. Please enjoy my folks, and their celebrated single, Candy Pants.
Was it a nerve-wracking first half? Sure. But, once again, the Bears remind everyone that a football game is four quarters long. What a great game. Grossman regained his poise, Muhammed made some key plays, Jones was fantastic, more than a hundred yards, and Hester...
Not trying to be Kreskin here, but as soon as caught that ball I knew what he was going to do. He gave a little fake step, waited about two seconds and took off. That was cool.
And kudos to the announcers for getting it right (eventually). They correctly said that his 108 yd return was an NFL record, and in time they got around to saying that he actually tied the NFL record, and that the man who set that record was, of course, Nathan Vasher, almost a year ago to the day. More on that here. (first link too myself. NICE!)
Anyway, I've got tix to next week's Bears/Jets game here in sweet Jersey. I can't wait. In the meantime, we officially control the NFC. Deal with that shit.
For now anyway...
This Rumsfeld business reminded me of the thing that struck me the most in Woodward's book. NOBODY liked Rumsfeld, except maybe Cheney. Lots of people wanted to get rid of him. Andy Card certainly did. He called for Rumsfeld's resignation almost as much as he called for his own. Powell certainly didn't like that he was let go while Rumsfeld was kept on.
The reason they didn't let him go is because they didn't want to go through the new nominee's confirmation process. They were scared shitless that they were going to have to explain how they were conducting this war.
That's why the timing of this is so crazy to me. If he had let him go before the elections it might have done the Repubs some good in the elections, and he would have had a Repub-controlled confirmation hearing for his new guy. Now he's got to run this Gates character through a Dem gauntlet. It just seems nuts to me. Did they really believe they could keep Rummy on for two more years? They must have known they were going to have to let him go. Why wouldn't they try and have some control of the situation?
The timing of this decision has all the earmarks of a hissy fit, thrown in anger and panic, on an election night gone terribly, terribly wrong.
This is a cool site that tells you what's playing right now on radio stations all over the country (simultaneously!). It does more stuff too, I think. You can click on cities and some of them you can stream. But it's hard for me to get past the mesmerizing first page. Enjoy.
In my last post I glossed over Bush's crazy Rumsfeld rhetoric because I was mad about something else. It took me a little while to realize what Glenn Greenwald makes obvious. (Thanks, C&L!)
At his Press Conference today, President Bush expressly admitted that he lied last week when he said that Donald Rumsfeld would remain Defense Secretary for the next two years (only to announce today that Rumsfeld is being replaced). When the President was asked about this discrepency, he simply admitted that "the reason why is I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer."
That the President would so brazenly lie is not, of course, surprising (although the lie was so glaring that even conservatives James Joyner and Byron York objected to it). But what is surprising, and encouraging (although it should be commonplace), is that the Washington Post is more or less calling this what it is:
Asked about that comment, Bush said he made it because "I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign," Bush said. He appeared to acknowledge having misled reporters, saying, "And so the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer."
He added later, "Win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee."
The phrase "misled reporters" in this passage should have been replaced with "misled the nation," since that is what the President actually did. What possible justification is there for the President to definitively assure the country that Rumsfeld is staying when he was actively in the process of replacing him? That a major election is about to be held is a reason which compels disclosure of such an important matter, not which justifies its dishonest concealment.
We've become so accustomed to being lied to in this manner by our political leaders that the President can just casually admit to this (just like he can casually admit to breaking the law), and it causes only the most minor of controversies, if that.
I've got nothing really to add to that, except maybe, "Ugh."
It's the day after the elections, and it certainly looks like the Dems took both the House and the Senate. Lieberman won, but what the hell. Way more ups than downs here. Looks like Burns is done. And Allen is down by 7,000 by last count, so things don't look so good for him.
So, good times.
I just watched the Pres give his press conference. I agree with Josh Marshall (links here and here) in that I think he did pretty well, despite the crazy contradictions, like when he decided to fire Rumsfeld.
But it was hard for me to get past the first couple paragraphs. He was talking all about a new era of bi-partisonship (sound familiar?) now that that the Dems have some actual power, and it all rang hollow. Not just based on his track record, either. The thing that got me is that he kept using the new Republican insider insult, which is to refer to the Democratic party as the "Democrat party." Or, like, "now that we're going to have a Democrat house, and a Democrat Senate I'm going to have to be on speaking terms with the Democrat party."
Is it small? Is it trivial? Sure. In fact, the only thing insulting about it is that you know it's intended to be a dig. It's such an alpha-dog, I'm gonna mangle your name on purpose kind of thing. It's the closest he can come (politically) to giving us a deragatory nick-name (like, say Turd Blossom). It's childish, and it's mean, and it's not the way someone who respects you and wants to work with you talks.
That said, fuck him. I could give a rat's ass what he thinks of me or my party. He is an unremarkable, transparently shallow and petulant man. Oh, and he's also a big doody-head.
Cormac McCarthy is my favorite living author. I just finished his new book, The Road. Unfortunately, I have to say that (despite the glowing reviews on Amazon) it is sub-par. Of course, that's a little like saying Tiger Woods had a so-so round. It's pretty incredible by ordinary human standards.
No one can render desolation and evil as beautifully as McCarthy, and make no mistake, this book has some incredible moments. I just wanted desperately to know more about the characters. It's a post-apocolyptic story with a man and his son (no names) struggling to get across country to the coast, where they hope there'll be warmth, food, and good guys. As opposed to the bad guys, wandering raping hordes who will rape you, kill you, and then eat you. Plus they'll take your stuff. The bad guys are pretty scary, we just don't see that much of them, which is unusual in a McCarthy book, and disappointing.
I don't want to knock it too much, cuz it's still a really good book, and especially poignant today. But as soon as I was done, I reread No Country for Old Men, which was much more satisfying, even the third time around.
Random thoughts on this, perhaps the most important Midterm Election Eve in our generation...
1) Race-baiting ads suck. Mostly, they suck because they're effective. Harold Ford, a Democrat that a lot of Republicans actually approve of, was definitely hurt by Corker's slimeball tactics. We can cry foul til we're blue in the face when someone pulls the race card, but the saddest thing is that this card gets played because it's a winner. I don't even think that people who use this tactic are neccessarily racist. They just know that lots of people are.
2) Voter ID cards are racist. And they work pretty good too.
3) Official looking letters mailed out to immigrants telling them they'll be arrested if they try and vote are pretty racist as well.
4)You know what else is racist? Those felon lists liked they use in Florida. Gosh, LOTS of election thingies are racist!
5) Our voter turnout is a worldwide disgrace. I get it. We're asked to vote way more often then most other societies. Yeah, yeah... It's a huge hassle... Whatever... That's why I think election days should be national holidays. It should be REALLY EASY to vote. Elections should be holidays. This to me is really a no brainer.
6) Our media is useless. (Yeah, I know... NEWFLASH!) It's just so pathetic that it's all about the horserace to these people. Zero talk of the important issues, other than the obligatory rehashing of bumper sticker talking points. Jimmy Carter has some good ideas on how to keep people informed about candidates. Unfortunately, none of them are implemented here.
7) The Simpsons are really hit or miss when it comes to musical numbers. (Best? See My Vest? The Monorail Song? Skorpio? Worst? The Jazzman.)
8) This whole robocall hubbub is silly. Lots of blogs are in an uproar about it. My thing is this: Is anyone REALLY going to change their vote because of an annoying calling machine? REALLY?? Are poeple that shallow???
9) Politicians are generally pretty creepy. Unfortunately, they're the only ones running for office.
What an ugly game. Thought the debacle in Arizona would have given the team a little lesson in showing up to what are supposed to be easy games. I was wrong. That was pathetic. And it came at the hands of the worst team possible. I would have much preferred they lost to Green Bay. Just horrible on so many counts, it's tough to know where to start. All I can say is I hope this puts a fire in their collective belly.
This pass is not headed toward victory.
My friend Dino used to hate the 4th of July. He couldn't stand all the explosions. Our dog, Marja, hates it for the same reason. (Bitsy doesn't care.) I, on the other hand, love it for just that reason. I love my country, don'r get me wrong. I'm just not Jingo-istic enough to really get into that aspect of the holiday. The explosions I enjoy, however.
It was a little different after 9/11, watching the towers burst into flames. Took a while to get over that. But I still enjoy a nice bottle rocket. When I lived on the shore in Chicago I used to walk up and down the beach on the night of the 4th, and you couldn't see 10 feet in front of your face for all the smoke, and the firecrackers and bottle rockets and roman candles were just flying everywhere. It was pretty awesome. (Those were also my dope-smokin' days.)
I can imagine it would be different if I lived in, say, a war zone, although Iraqis and Afghans seem to enjoy firing off guns when they're celebrating something. So maybe I'm wrong. I think most people enjoy a good explosion, as long as they're relatively sure they're not going to be blown up themselves. Maybe it's something we can all have a bond about. Maybe we should all get together and, at a safe distance, blow something up. Blow it up good! Blow it up real good! Woo!
(I looked for a picture of Billy Sol Hurok and Big Jim McBob to put here, but I couldn't find one. Sorry.)
Anyway, the reason I bring all this up is because I found a link to a really cool explosion video. (Thanks Fark!)
