Having been deprived of DSL for a week, I was shocked to discover that during my absence from the internets apparently 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants had snuck into the country to do the kind of work I (as an American) don’t want to do.
This is no time play the blame game; though if it were, the giant green foam hand of guilt should surely be pointed at my DSL non-provider. After all, how can I as a concerned US citizen monitor the Mexican border using Google Earth without an internet connection?! But never mind that.
I’m looking at the border right now with Google Earth and I’m not seeing any activity, but that’s probably because Mexicans prefer to travel at night (like Orcs). Besides, remotely surveilling the border is one of those jobs that I as an American just don’t want to do ( not because I'm in anyway unpatriotic, it's just that it's under funded and frankly, it's hard work!)
It just so happens that there are lots of jobs Americans don’t want to do and there are plenty of Americans who don’t want to do them; like for example Porter Goss, Michael Brown, Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff (yeah I know he hasn’t officially quit but mentally he’s golfing in the Bahamas) and George Bush (if you were him right now, wouldn’t you rather be fishing?). So I think the solution to the “Jabanero Peril” is pretty clear.
As protecting our border seems to be a job hardly any Americans want to do, and as Mexicans like doing the jobs we Americans don’t, it stands to reason that the Mexicans should protect our border! Simple!
Ah, but were we living in Plato’s Republic instead of the American Republic then I (being Plato of course) would expect one of my erudite and gluttonous guests to offer up some contrarian argument, thusly:
Skeptiades: “But my dear Plato, the excellence of these honey-dipped badger nostrils notwithstanding, surely the Mexican guards you propose would not be guards at all but doormen, actually inviting their fellow countrymen in, most likely in exchange for nothing more than a limp chimi-changa? And by the way, do you intend to eat that last bat testicle?"
Plato (being me, of course!) : “A fine point, Skeptiades, which I shall address with such superior logic as to induce flatulence in your corpulent frame. Be so good as to follow my argument carefully, though at a safe distance--and you are welcome to the bat testicle, I'm quite filled-up with them….but allow me to continue upon my discourse: After a period of time of turning away their Mexican brethren, the border guards will begin to resent their jobs.
At that point they may then be regarded as being more American than Mexican because now they will have found the job that they do not want to do and will begin to look for another job that Americans still don’t want to do--such as serving multiple back to back tours of duty in the Middle East. The formerly refused Mexicans will then take over guarding the border in a logical cycle”
Skeptiades: “But—“
Plato (me) : “Shut up! I’m not done yet! In the meantime, tax incentives will be passed to encourage American businesses to move more and more jobs to Mexico and (elsewhere) where wages are lower and health and safety are not an issue. Americans won’t want to do those jobs either, making them naturally attractive to Mexicans. Illegal immigration will then trickle to a halt as all the jobs American s don't want to do will now be in Mexico! Problem solved!
Skeptiades:“Very clever, my dear Plato, you seem to have solved the Mexican problem... but not the overall immigration problem, nor that of national border security! What of the border to the north? What of Canada?”
Plato: “Again, my dear but increasingly annoying Skeptiades, the answer is as simple as you are. With the Mexican issue solved, Americans will be free to build a giant wall on the Canadian border.”
Skeptiades:“Ah hah! I have you, Plato! By your logic the Americans would have the Canadians secure the border, and fight our wars; yet they are not Mexicans, they have no wish to do the work Americans will not do, nor even to cross the border! Thus your logic does not apply to all threatening neighbours! Whilst I wait for you to squirm your way out of my challenge, would someone pass me a buttered gerbil?
Plato: “Buttered gerbil?! Surely Skeptiades you don’t plan on putting that vermin in your mouth?”
Skeptiades:“Not my mouth, no...I have... errm....other plans for it. But I think you are avoiding my superior challenge, Plato. Complete your thesis or admit your argument leads to a dark, dead end!”
Plato: “I think it is your buttered gerbil and not my argument that will find itself in a dark dead end, my sybaritic colleague, for you fail to understand the fullness of my logic and the nature of Mexicans!
Though even the gods such as Bill O’Reilly, John Cavuto and Sean Hannity see no distinction between Mexicans, Canadians, Terrorists and Liberal Democrats (not to mention Saddamists, Hitlerites, Stalinists and Herbalists) such differences do exist and in that I believe both you and I agree…”
Skeptiades:“Finally! A point of equality between us, Plato! But differences remain that I deem you and your reason will find insurmountable...I await your sysiphean task with glee. But please, do not let the stifled squeals of a buttered gerbil distract you from your most fascinating treatise..do continue..."
Plato (don't forget, it's really me all-along, though frankly I have no idea who this asshole Skeptiades is, he sounds like a gay ACLU intern! I really ought to call security, but they’re all Mexicans and don’t speak a word of Greek, or English for that matter):
“With the Mexican border secured as I previously described those Mexicans formerly assigned to border patrol and now in the U.S. Army may then be redeployed to build a massive wall at the Canadian border which again is the type of job that Americans simply will not do, Americans preferring marketing and consulting and such.
Now, at the border one need only point out to the Mexicans which is North and which is South, and being used to traveling North in search of jobs the Mexicans will then build the wall from the North side, thus sealing themselves off from the South.
In this way the wall will be built and the Mexicans will be left in Canada. And thus with both borders secured, America will be restored to its original and more perfect population of white-skinned non-immigrant citizenry, leaving them to concentrate on protecting the West coast from Asians and the East from Europeans, until the entire country is securely contained within mighty walls of freedom! What say you now, Skeptiades?”
Skeptiades:“I confess I am discomfited and defeated, Plato. Not just by your superior arguments, but also by this seemingly insufficiently-buttered gerbil!”
Plato: “In that case Skeptiades, I suggest you seek out a Mexican to help you, for surely you are offering up a job than no American wants to do.”
And thus was yet another meal, another evening of weighty discourse and another buttered gerbil passed, to the great content of all.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Signs
Just about the last place I’d expect to see any signs of political discontent would be in a mall.
Malls are after all common symbols of materialistic America, of homogeneity masquerading as choice and future poverty posing as present wealth courtesy of a piece of plastic. And yet behind the façade of prosperity and commercial content, something stirred.
I wandered into Borden’s Books to see if anything interesting might catch my eye. A couple of months ago I had bought Cobra II and the woman in front of me was buying The Assassin’s Gate.
At the front of the store on the “bargain” shelves one book had stood out. The jacket was a large photo portrait of Bush squinting at some imagined horizon and though I forget the exact title now it was about “How President Bush Restored Faith to the White House and America”. There were about twenty pristine copies and the price was $6 (down from $14).
Now the book was no longer there. I asked the salesperson about its fate. I was told that the ones I had seen had all been returned.
Right at the entrance to the store sat the newest arrivals. Mary Cheney’s “Now It’s My Turn” was prominent. I’d seen and heard her on the Sunday show being interviewed specifically about her new book claiming that John Kerry had used her sexuality for “sleazy” political advantage during a presidential debate.
My opinion of Cheney's book’s worth was already fixed, but what value did retail giant and “free market” entity Borden’s place on her work? Still warm from the printing presses and with the allotted space still undisturbed the cover boldly displayed a 25%-off sticker.
Still browsing I wandered over to the Humor section. The most obvious books there were Al Franken’s “The Truth with Jokes” and John Stewart’s “America” both published around 7 months ago. There was clearly some room to re-stock their respective shelf spaces. Neither of the books had discount stickers.
Borden’s had just been a distraction from my real objectives, so I left empty handed but encouraged. My primary objective was a “good” birthday card for my niece—she’ll be getting a present later when I go down to Washington to see her.
This was really an impossible mission; mall card shops are usually crap. My niece still thinks I’m cool (because I’m well-versed in Star Wars lore and she can run faster than me) so whenever I shop for her it’s always with fear. One of these days I just know I’m going to blow it.
Anyway so I’m trying to find a decent card, something that’s fun.
Ah! What’s this? “My friend Tom Delay and I were going to give you some money for your birthday” (flip to inside) “but he hasn’t finished laundering it yet”.
Huh? Hmmm! Not what I expected.
Then there was another card with a picture of an adorable kitten wearing a party hat. On top of the picture and classically askew was a “rubber stamp” that read; “NOTICE: THIS MAIL HAS BEEN RANDONLY SCREENED AND APPROVED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.” On the inside, half of the typical saccharine birthday wishes were crudely redacted.
I took that one for my brother and found a non-political one for my niece—she’s already capable of discussing reasonably with adults why Bush is a tool and I just don’t feel right about politicizing an 11-year-old’s birthday.
Duty done and pondering these subtle signs of sedition I went to get my eyes examined and buy some appropriate spectacles (inappropriate specs were completely out of the question).
The young woman handed me a notice explaining concerning disclosure of medical information. “I could read it all for you, but it basically says your medical information is private. You just need to sign that you understand that will make it official”. I signed it.
And then she said “Of course if President Bush or anyone from the Government wanted to see your records I’d have to hand them over and I wouldn’t be able to tell you, so it’s quite meaningless”.
Three different forms of dissent and disapproval hiding in plain sight in a mall. Maybe it’s not much, but then again maybe it means something. I certainly hope so.
Malls are after all common symbols of materialistic America, of homogeneity masquerading as choice and future poverty posing as present wealth courtesy of a piece of plastic. And yet behind the façade of prosperity and commercial content, something stirred.
I wandered into Borden’s Books to see if anything interesting might catch my eye. A couple of months ago I had bought Cobra II and the woman in front of me was buying The Assassin’s Gate.
At the front of the store on the “bargain” shelves one book had stood out. The jacket was a large photo portrait of Bush squinting at some imagined horizon and though I forget the exact title now it was about “How President Bush Restored Faith to the White House and America”. There were about twenty pristine copies and the price was $6 (down from $14).
Now the book was no longer there. I asked the salesperson about its fate. I was told that the ones I had seen had all been returned.
Right at the entrance to the store sat the newest arrivals. Mary Cheney’s “Now It’s My Turn” was prominent. I’d seen and heard her on the Sunday show being interviewed specifically about her new book claiming that John Kerry had used her sexuality for “sleazy” political advantage during a presidential debate.
My opinion of Cheney's book’s worth was already fixed, but what value did retail giant and “free market” entity Borden’s place on her work? Still warm from the printing presses and with the allotted space still undisturbed the cover boldly displayed a 25%-off sticker.
Still browsing I wandered over to the Humor section. The most obvious books there were Al Franken’s “The Truth with Jokes” and John Stewart’s “America” both published around 7 months ago. There was clearly some room to re-stock their respective shelf spaces. Neither of the books had discount stickers.
Borden’s had just been a distraction from my real objectives, so I left empty handed but encouraged. My primary objective was a “good” birthday card for my niece—she’ll be getting a present later when I go down to Washington to see her.
This was really an impossible mission; mall card shops are usually crap. My niece still thinks I’m cool (because I’m well-versed in Star Wars lore and she can run faster than me) so whenever I shop for her it’s always with fear. One of these days I just know I’m going to blow it.
Anyway so I’m trying to find a decent card, something that’s fun.
Ah! What’s this? “My friend Tom Delay and I were going to give you some money for your birthday” (flip to inside) “but he hasn’t finished laundering it yet”.
Huh? Hmmm! Not what I expected.
Then there was another card with a picture of an adorable kitten wearing a party hat. On top of the picture and classically askew was a “rubber stamp” that read; “NOTICE: THIS MAIL HAS BEEN RANDONLY SCREENED AND APPROVED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.” On the inside, half of the typical saccharine birthday wishes were crudely redacted.
I took that one for my brother and found a non-political one for my niece—she’s already capable of discussing reasonably with adults why Bush is a tool and I just don’t feel right about politicizing an 11-year-old’s birthday.
Duty done and pondering these subtle signs of sedition I went to get my eyes examined and buy some appropriate spectacles (inappropriate specs were completely out of the question).
The young woman handed me a notice explaining concerning disclosure of medical information. “I could read it all for you, but it basically says your medical information is private. You just need to sign that you understand that will make it official”. I signed it.
And then she said “Of course if President Bush or anyone from the Government wanted to see your records I’d have to hand them over and I wouldn’t be able to tell you, so it’s quite meaningless”.
Three different forms of dissent and disapproval hiding in plain sight in a mall. Maybe it’s not much, but then again maybe it means something. I certainly hope so.
Monday, May 08, 2006
World O' Crap
It's a World O' Crap out there, and nobody suits-up to wade through the collective cloacae of the wrongest of the Right, collecting their chugnuts and dingleberries of opinion and theory and then dissecting the respective spoors to reveal and explain exactly what it is that they digest and eject and fail to clean up(despite the clearly posted signs about fouling public spaces) like WO'C!.
Just a couple of months ago I stepped into the World O' Crap courtesy of RedTory's blogroll, and since then I've stuck with it (or it stuck to me).
WO'C consistently treads where most dare not; going in feet-first and taking a hands-on approach to exploring the murky mysterious effluence that constitutes so much of the right-wing blogosphere--spelunking, if you will, in a vast but otherwise obscure guano- drenched subterranean world hidden from the main public view and lurking just below the surface.
Heedless of the inevitable mental stress and pyschological toll, WO'C delves elbow-deep and beyond ( and without elitist "opera-gloves"), constantly probing elephant-sized piles of shit for the smallest kernels of truth. Yet after exhaustive examination the kernels often prove to be only undigested corn niblets of dubious goodness and origin.
Undeterred, WO'C presses on through the murk.
Like Jacques Cousteau trying to climb Mount Everest or Neil Cavuto trying to make sense WO'C soldier's-on regardless; totally convinced that by shining a highly focused laser beam through the sphincter of right-wing righteousness and illuminating the alimentary canal of neo-conservatism beyond, we shall all see things we would never have seen before, or wish to see again and be the better for it.
The author and owner of World O'Crap is nothing less than a documentarian of shittitude, a 'Ken Burns 'of scatalogical assemblience verite' en droit * if you will--you kno wat am talkin 'bout!.
Like any Ken Burns documentary you can't help but watch and learn not for your own benefit, but just so you can talk intelligently with your elitist liberal friends until the bong-hits kick in.
So go visit World O' Crap that was once just a blog and is now an actual website and show your support and most importantly to prove to yourself that you are cool!.
And should you happen to notice that I'm a finalist in the WO'C "Write Like a Wingnut" Contest, well, just let Christ and a possible free tank of gas from a certain finalist be your voting guide.
Seriously though, WO'C gets mad so I don't have to nearly as much. It's practically a free mental health service! Oh yeah, and really snarky-funny too!. Visit for your own good!
*don't even bother--it's as French as Harry Potter's spells are Latin!
Sunday, May 07, 2006
School for Scandal
So Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) gets zonked out of his skull, drives into a concrete barrier, gets treated very nicely by the D.C. police, gets his head straight again, offers up an excuse/explanation and then immediately checks into a rehab clinic.
I imagined the battered right-wing punditry rushing to their keyboards to write STOP THE BIT PACKETS! HOLD THE FRONT WEB-PAGE! HEADLINE!!! MIDTOWN MADNESS FOR DEMOCRAT PARTY CRASHER, KENNEDY!
Goodness knows I wouldn’t blame them for wanting to pile on, what with the tanking polls, recent guilty pleas, current indictments, future indictments, resignations, unflattering reports, record spending, record deficits and growing dissension in the ranks that Republicans and their supporters have been enduring these last few months.
Of course Pat Kennedy losing an argument with a pile of concrete isn’t quite in the same league as Chappaquiddick and it’s a long way from Clinton murdering political opponents and importing cocaine whilst getting blow jobs and sweet property deals, but at least it’s something.
The first effort to make a meal out of the incident that I saw was Michelle Malkin’s who, as the story was still very fresh, simply posted what she had gleaned and was still gathering her thoughts (Brava, Ms Malkin for not going gonzo straight away!):
Rep. Kennedy says "I struggle every day with this disease...the chronic disease of addiction."
Translation: I am changing the subject.
Major Garrett calls Kennedy's statement "very artful." Garrett reports that Dems may have likely intervened in the last 24 hours to persuade Kennedy to shift the focus of the story.
FOX analysts note that Kennedy made no mention of painkillers last night. Former prosecutor Michael Farkas: "This is an obvious attempt to garner sympathy from the public." Worse than that, Farkas notes, it's inconsistent with his statement last night and probably indicates that he probably did commit a crime.
(Farkas lives up to his name: Kennedy originally said he hadn't been drinking. Then later he said his impairment was due to a mix of pills--seperate but consistent, neither statement refutes the other. What a Farkas!).
In MIchelle's next post on the subject she finds herself surprised to be able to quote a commenter on the Daily Kos who says that Kennedy should resign! OMG! Someone she would typically generically label a “moonbat” isn’t automatically defending a Democrat (and a Kennedy no less)! How very odd!
Meanwhile over at John Hinderaker’s initial post :
I'm not clever enough to add to the hilarity already surrounding Rep. Patrick Kennedy's traffic mishap last night.
OMG! I totally agree with John!
And after some other blather, he also writes:
Why on earth is a lost, pathetic nonentity like Patrick Kennedy a member of Congress? What possesses people in his Rhode Island district--does he have some connection with Rhode Island?--to vote for him? Can the people of Rhode Island possibly be proud of being represented by a slow-witted, uninformed young man with admitted psychiatric and drug problems? I assume not.
Well he does live there, John, has done since 95—he kinda has to live there, you know? It’s some kind of rule. It’s also some kind of rule that you don’t have to be born in the place you represent. But never mind all that.
The question John is trying to articulate is; does Pat Kennedy deserve to be in Congress with all the responsibilities that that entails? Hinderaker clearly thinks not.
OMG! I totally agree with John again! I really do, no sarcasm intended.
Anyone can make a mistake and when addled on drugs mistakes are easily compounded. Kennedy apparently mixed two drugs that he should have known reacted with each other. Just look at his areas of interest—mostly medical and mental health. The guy has serious problems. If he can’t make reasonable decisions for himself, how can he do so for his constituents? I think Kennedy should quit.
So where’s the big scandal that the Right so desperately wants and needs?
That Kennedy is in congress principally because of his family?
Dubya is President because of his family.
That Kennedy wasn’t given a breathalyzer test?
If a cop doesn’t smell alcohol (and in my experience and observations they are well attuned to that) observed disorientation would have to be a result of drugs for which they have no test.
That Kennedy was zonked on prescription drugs?
Stupid but not illegal per se unless operating a car--and that he did. He should be cited for his actions after taking the drugs, not for taking the drugs themselves.
And it’s not quite the same as using an employee to acquire false prescriptions as say Rush Limbaugh did (not an elected official of course, but still a drug-addicted public political figure).
Nor has Kennedy bribed anyone (as far as we know), been bribed (as far as we know), leaked secrets, illegally wiretapped anyone, lied about reasons for war, interfered with an election, personally profited from investing public money in a private coin collection or faked letters of credit to buy a floating casino etc.
I think Pat Kennedy got some preferential treatment and I find that scandalous though not in the least surprising. But no one died, billions weren’t wasted, no one was tortured or bankrupted by his actions. Suspend his license, fine him for driving violations and fire him. I say apply the law as it is applied to John Q. Public.
This story has no legs, there’s no meat on the bones, there’s no real scandal. Judging by both Hinderaker’s and Malkin’s later posts (still at the above links), the silence is deafening.
Given the old adage about absolute power it only makes sense that the lion’s share of scandal would fall to the Republicans at this time, but the number, scale and sheer mendacity of Republican schemes makes it plain that, since at least the “Contract With America” the Republicans set up a “School For Scandal” and many of its “students” are now graduating with dishonors.
The Republican cheerleaders like Malkin, Hinderaker et al seem to have yelled themselves hoarse.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Late Spring Snow
Widely touted as a breath of desperately needed fresh air in the increasingly fetid White House halls, it remains to be seen whether Tony of the Glittering Teeth (disclosure: I wish I had his teeth) will really make a difference to the President's image and by implication the image of the Republican party.
Which is what his appointment is all about anyway--Snow is supposed to provide a delightful sparkly cool frosting over the parched and arid landscape nurtured by Bush's gangrene thumb. But judging from a leaked memo even before he's officially appeared in his new capacity, this Snow's moisturizing is already evaporating before any new growth might spring up ( sorry, I think I just beat the metaphor to death, then cut out its heart and stomped on it).
Anyway here's Tony "Wintery Fresh " Snow on his own words, with comments (thanks to the leaker, ABC and The Note):
To: Josh Bolten, Dan Bartlett and Nicolle Wallace
From: Tony Snow
Re: Our message
(Ghastly preamble preceeds the following )
The number one thing we need to do is RE-HUMANIZE THE PRESIDENT. All my other suggestions are just variations on that theme. People WANT to like this President, and we need to give them more chances. They love the regular guy thing that worked so well for you in the first campaign, and we need to tap back into that on a regular basis as a fundamental part of our communications strategy, not a when-can add-on.
An actual regular guy is inherently likeable. A manufactured one is not. And as Bush himself said, “fool me twice…uh…won’t get fooled again”. It’s not Bush’s overall personality that his former supporters now object to; it’s his policies and his actions. People want the President to stop lying, stop spying and stop the dying. People don’t want a “regular guy”, they want a competent and responsible god-damn President!
There's nothing the Press shop can do about facts on the ground, but we can HELP people remember why they originally liked the President so much.
It was because back in 2000 most people didn’t know what a lousy Governor he was and no-one, not even the most rabid lefties could imagine how much he would fuck things-up.
In December and January, Dan and Nicolle did a great job of getting the President out more, talking to the pool nearly every day and answering all those questions from the good red-blooded, red-stated Americans who come to our events.
These would be the red-blooded, red stated (sic) Americans who ask such “questions” as; “We love you, President Bush” and “It’s great to have a man of faith in the White House”. Yup , Bush showed his mettle in those moments, that’s for sure.
There have been lulls in this strategy as plans got overtaken by the news and the schedule, but we need to make it a priority instead of an if-can. I know the President was reluctant to do the questions from the general public, concerned that he would say some tiny thing that the press would blow it up into some huge deal. But he has nailed nearly every one of these outings, and I know he now enjoys them and has gotten more confident.
So Tony, you’re saying that the President is great in front of a partisan crowd, but afraid of a bi-partisan crowd? He’s a ‘fraidy cat?
I know you realize the dirty little secret: Truly nasty questions, ones the President can't defuse with his quick wit, are rare. And when we DO get asked them, we get brownie points for openness. So these free-for-alls are almost can't-lose propositions.
Dirty little secret? That Bush can't answer a reasonable question and that his "quick wit" is indeed rare--bordering on non-existent?
Nasty questions like “Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No?” or truly nasty questions like “Where are the WMD? Where’s OBL? How much did you say the war would cost again? How can you say the economy is strong when the deficit is at a record high, cost of living is up, wages down, and no net new jobs have been created—what the hell standard are you applying?
Similarly, the President should take questions from the pool all the time. For him, this is just batting practice. With all due respect, all press corps are predictable.
Especially when they are padded with people like Guckert and that asshat Les
And when we give them two questions, I'll go back to my radio show if I can't usually predict what they're going to be. But it makes it harder for the press to rag on the President when they're in close touch with him, and it's an opportunity for us to remind people of our message.
So the plan is to bribe with access? How novel!
When we don't answer questions, it looks like we believe the critics. We want to be out there at every opportunity, like my uncle at Thanksgiving dinner, saying: And ANOTHER thing. . .
No, it looks like you refuse to tell the truth or have no rational argument---you are either lying or you are just crackpots who don’t give a fuck about the people you are supposed to be serving..
The President looked strong and decisive swinging a hammer down in New Orleans for a few minutes the other day. If he wants to, and I bet he'd be thrilled, let's suggest that he spend a whole day working down there, and really have something to show for it.
Better yet, let’s get him over to Iraq and have him personally restore the sewage and electrical systems there. Zowee! That would look great!
I understand we had to call an audible and make that quick stop at the BP station to make the statement about CAFE standards, but that became the news and drowned out the real empathy the President had shown for the folks on the Gulf Coast.
Like showing up 3 days late ( just like 9-11) and using much needed generators to light his photo-ops.
You know how he likes working up a sweat at the ranch. Let's remind people that he's not trapped at the desk. He got along great with the workers down there—I saw the video of the back pats and the shared jokes. That's the George W. Bush we need to showcase.
Yeah let’s have the most absent President ever spend even less time Presidentin’’. Cutting down on the already limited time he puts into his job should result in less future fuck-ups---it’s a win win!
One of the most important changes I'd like to make in the operation is to empower the other spokespeople so they can develop relationships with reporters and work with them on stories and give them guidance and tidbits we might not be able to dispense from the podium. In my canvassing of reporters, I've learned that the only spokesperson who had any real rapport with the press was Trent Duffy. That's not helpful to the President. We need our spokespeople to be proactively reaching out to A-list reporters, which gives us a ripple effect of good will as they talk to others in the press corps and reach their large audiences.
In other words, increase the anonymous sourcing and exploit further the already sympathetic channels to swamp the media with more propaganda instead of truth.
As far as the podium: Josh, that was sheer genius of you to float the idea of cutting back on on-camera briefings. Obviously, we can't do that, because it would make the White House look like it was going backwards instead of forwards, and like we had something to hide, when in fact I wish we could open all the doors and windows and have every good American just walk on through. But now when we spell out our policy on briefings, it'll look like we took the press's side.
Josh, that was a brilliant yet sucky idea. You deserve the Congressional Medal of Suck for that. Maybe we could get a couple of those made up. No, make it a dozen—two dozen, we’ll probably need them.
There are two tweaks I'd make to the briefings, though. One, we need to reengage the press by really making some news from the podium.
In other words, I Tony Snow, should get to announce the next war first. Or make some shit up. Either way.
We need to have people literally running out of the briefing room to file bulletins or do a quick hit from the lawn. Muscles atrophy if you don't use them and the podium is a powerful platform that we should be using the heck out of. I'm amazed at how empty the briefing room sometimes is when it is shown on the cut-away shots. We need to remind this press corps that with this reenergized White House, if you snooze, you lose. Second, let's take a page from the Pentagon and the mega-churches and include some electronic and graphic elements in our presentations.
We don't want to be predictable, and a clip that provides a preview of the next day's event might give us two pops where we would have gotten only one.
Yup, previews in no way contribute to predictability—as long as we follow the prior practice of hinting declaring one thing and then doing the opposite.
A quick housekeeping matter: We need to assure the young people in the Press Office right away that we need them and are going to keep them and if anything are going to expand their responsibilities. They're understandably worried about change, and they shouldn't be. I understand I'm not an expert on operations, and I value their expertise and will defer to them. The Press Office wouldn't run without your Nathan Carletons and Carlton Carrolls and John Robertses. And we can only dream of having the approval rating of Josh Deckard. Let's make sure the Press Office knows we're still a team and that I think they're all starters.
Thank you for letting me vent. I'm thrilled by this opportunity, and look forward to the day, not far down the road, when all of America sees this President as we do.
And not as he is: an ingnorant spoiled child.
And by the way: Let's have a little fun!
It's only the most economically and militarily dominant country in the world we're running here, but what the hell? Don't be so serious kids! What's the worst that can happen?
Your friend, colleague, and servant, Tony
So there you have it--Tony Snow is not just a dick because he's a Bush fan; he's a dick, period.
Which is what his appointment is all about anyway--Snow is supposed to provide a delightful sparkly cool frosting over the parched and arid landscape nurtured by Bush's gangrene thumb. But judging from a leaked memo even before he's officially appeared in his new capacity, this Snow's moisturizing is already evaporating before any new growth might spring up ( sorry, I think I just beat the metaphor to death, then cut out its heart and stomped on it).
Anyway here's Tony "Wintery Fresh " Snow on his own words, with comments (thanks to the leaker, ABC and The Note):
To: Josh Bolten, Dan Bartlett and Nicolle Wallace
From: Tony Snow
Re: Our message
(Ghastly preamble preceeds the following )
The number one thing we need to do is RE-HUMANIZE THE PRESIDENT. All my other suggestions are just variations on that theme. People WANT to like this President, and we need to give them more chances. They love the regular guy thing that worked so well for you in the first campaign, and we need to tap back into that on a regular basis as a fundamental part of our communications strategy, not a when-can add-on.
An actual regular guy is inherently likeable. A manufactured one is not. And as Bush himself said, “fool me twice…uh…won’t get fooled again”. It’s not Bush’s overall personality that his former supporters now object to; it’s his policies and his actions. People want the President to stop lying, stop spying and stop the dying. People don’t want a “regular guy”, they want a competent and responsible god-damn President!
There's nothing the Press shop can do about facts on the ground, but we can HELP people remember why they originally liked the President so much.
It was because back in 2000 most people didn’t know what a lousy Governor he was and no-one, not even the most rabid lefties could imagine how much he would fuck things-up.
In December and January, Dan and Nicolle did a great job of getting the President out more, talking to the pool nearly every day and answering all those questions from the good red-blooded, red-stated Americans who come to our events.
These would be the red-blooded, red stated (sic) Americans who ask such “questions” as; “We love you, President Bush” and “It’s great to have a man of faith in the White House”. Yup , Bush showed his mettle in those moments, that’s for sure.
There have been lulls in this strategy as plans got overtaken by the news and the schedule, but we need to make it a priority instead of an if-can. I know the President was reluctant to do the questions from the general public, concerned that he would say some tiny thing that the press would blow it up into some huge deal. But he has nailed nearly every one of these outings, and I know he now enjoys them and has gotten more confident.
So Tony, you’re saying that the President is great in front of a partisan crowd, but afraid of a bi-partisan crowd? He’s a ‘fraidy cat?
I know you realize the dirty little secret: Truly nasty questions, ones the President can't defuse with his quick wit, are rare. And when we DO get asked them, we get brownie points for openness. So these free-for-alls are almost can't-lose propositions.
Dirty little secret? That Bush can't answer a reasonable question and that his "quick wit" is indeed rare--bordering on non-existent?
Nasty questions like “Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No?” or truly nasty questions like “Where are the WMD? Where’s OBL? How much did you say the war would cost again? How can you say the economy is strong when the deficit is at a record high, cost of living is up, wages down, and no net new jobs have been created—what the hell standard are you applying?
Similarly, the President should take questions from the pool all the time. For him, this is just batting practice. With all due respect, all press corps are predictable.
Especially when they are padded with people like Guckert and that asshat Les
And when we give them two questions, I'll go back to my radio show if I can't usually predict what they're going to be. But it makes it harder for the press to rag on the President when they're in close touch with him, and it's an opportunity for us to remind people of our message.
So the plan is to bribe with access? How novel!
When we don't answer questions, it looks like we believe the critics. We want to be out there at every opportunity, like my uncle at Thanksgiving dinner, saying: And ANOTHER thing. . .
No, it looks like you refuse to tell the truth or have no rational argument---you are either lying or you are just crackpots who don’t give a fuck about the people you are supposed to be serving..
The President looked strong and decisive swinging a hammer down in New Orleans for a few minutes the other day. If he wants to, and I bet he'd be thrilled, let's suggest that he spend a whole day working down there, and really have something to show for it.
Better yet, let’s get him over to Iraq and have him personally restore the sewage and electrical systems there. Zowee! That would look great!
I understand we had to call an audible and make that quick stop at the BP station to make the statement about CAFE standards, but that became the news and drowned out the real empathy the President had shown for the folks on the Gulf Coast.
Like showing up 3 days late ( just like 9-11) and using much needed generators to light his photo-ops.
You know how he likes working up a sweat at the ranch. Let's remind people that he's not trapped at the desk. He got along great with the workers down there—I saw the video of the back pats and the shared jokes. That's the George W. Bush we need to showcase.
Yeah let’s have the most absent President ever spend even less time Presidentin’’. Cutting down on the already limited time he puts into his job should result in less future fuck-ups---it’s a win win!
One of the most important changes I'd like to make in the operation is to empower the other spokespeople so they can develop relationships with reporters and work with them on stories and give them guidance and tidbits we might not be able to dispense from the podium. In my canvassing of reporters, I've learned that the only spokesperson who had any real rapport with the press was Trent Duffy. That's not helpful to the President. We need our spokespeople to be proactively reaching out to A-list reporters, which gives us a ripple effect of good will as they talk to others in the press corps and reach their large audiences.
In other words, increase the anonymous sourcing and exploit further the already sympathetic channels to swamp the media with more propaganda instead of truth.
As far as the podium: Josh, that was sheer genius of you to float the idea of cutting back on on-camera briefings. Obviously, we can't do that, because it would make the White House look like it was going backwards instead of forwards, and like we had something to hide, when in fact I wish we could open all the doors and windows and have every good American just walk on through. But now when we spell out our policy on briefings, it'll look like we took the press's side.
Josh, that was a brilliant yet sucky idea. You deserve the Congressional Medal of Suck for that. Maybe we could get a couple of those made up. No, make it a dozen—two dozen, we’ll probably need them.
There are two tweaks I'd make to the briefings, though. One, we need to reengage the press by really making some news from the podium.
In other words, I Tony Snow, should get to announce the next war first. Or make some shit up. Either way.
We need to have people literally running out of the briefing room to file bulletins or do a quick hit from the lawn. Muscles atrophy if you don't use them and the podium is a powerful platform that we should be using the heck out of. I'm amazed at how empty the briefing room sometimes is when it is shown on the cut-away shots. We need to remind this press corps that with this reenergized White House, if you snooze, you lose. Second, let's take a page from the Pentagon and the mega-churches and include some electronic and graphic elements in our presentations.
We don't want to be predictable, and a clip that provides a preview of the next day's event might give us two pops where we would have gotten only one.
Yup, previews in no way contribute to predictability—as long as we follow the prior practice of hinting declaring one thing and then doing the opposite.
A quick housekeeping matter: We need to assure the young people in the Press Office right away that we need them and are going to keep them and if anything are going to expand their responsibilities. They're understandably worried about change, and they shouldn't be. I understand I'm not an expert on operations, and I value their expertise and will defer to them. The Press Office wouldn't run without your Nathan Carletons and Carlton Carrolls and John Robertses. And we can only dream of having the approval rating of Josh Deckard. Let's make sure the Press Office knows we're still a team and that I think they're all starters.
Thank you for letting me vent. I'm thrilled by this opportunity, and look forward to the day, not far down the road, when all of America sees this President as we do.
And not as he is: an ingnorant spoiled child.
And by the way: Let's have a little fun!
It's only the most economically and militarily dominant country in the world we're running here, but what the hell? Don't be so serious kids! What's the worst that can happen?
Your friend, colleague, and servant, Tony
So there you have it--Tony Snow is not just a dick because he's a Bush fan; he's a dick, period.
A late spring snow is usually a surprise but it only changes the appearance of the landscape for a day or two. It is only noticeable for being an irrelevant freak of circumstance. And that's Tony Snow.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Paying Attention
Screen cap from Jesus's General -totally without his permission, so an extra level of hell for me, no doubt!
That's Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) in a fuschia ensemble being arrested for complaining about the actions of a foreign country the U.S administration doesn't give a rat's ass about-Sudan.
And why should they? It doesn't have any oil, it's rapidly diminishing population can't afford American products, unless American's start demanding cheaper arid dirt and bleached bones it's not a likely spot for outsourcing.
But never mind all that. Look at how the tag fits the picture--it appears that Bush's response to calls for accountability is to arrest Democrat representatives.
Now why didn't Bush think of that before?
But far more interesting is the crawl:
"Cunningham's prostitues refused to service Sen. Roberts".
That would have to be Pat Roberts of Kansas whose turn-ons are tax cuts, big business, famers, Christ, guns, emergency medicine and anaesthetics. Turn offs include the environment, peace, women in government, contraception, most animals and civil liberties.
Who knew that there some things and some people a prostitute just will not do?
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Big Guns
According to AP’s The Hill“If retired Gen. Tommy Franks were to jump into the Florida Senate race, he would lead Rep. Katherine Harris by 4 percentage points in the Republican primary, according to a new poll of Florida voters conducted by Strategic Vision LLC, a GOP polling firm.”
So it seems General Franks’ political guns are just a bit bigger than Katherine Harris’s. Hard to believe, judging from the pix, but there you go…
But interesting though this poll is, it’s actually really boring because General Franks in reality isn’t running for office, whereas Katherine Harris isn’t running for office in reality either but at least she’s running for office in her head—and that’s what counts!
What IS interesting of course is that General Franks could, if he wanted to, beat a woman, which apparently is the whole point of this poll.
It would be even more interesting if such a match up could actually be arranged—preferably with the two of them stripped down to their skivvies, in a ring with a lot of hot oil and who wouldn’t vote for THAT?!
And then if Franks won, all he’d have to do is gain another 28 points in the polls to challenge Democrat Bill Nelson for Florida, and winner take all!
Hey, Franks won the war in Iraq didn’t he? He could win the political war in Florida too! Really!
It’s not like the Florida GOP are desperate or anything!
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Snow Job-Edited
If Tony Snow replaces Scott McLlellan as White House Press Secretary, we can all be assured of the usual snow-job, but this time it will be truly punny!
Updated(most of original post deleted--first time I've done such a thing):
Thanks to Elderta's superior research skills my claims for copyright on "Snow-Job" have hit a bit of a snag ( see the comments and dont forget to visit her blog--in my blog roll, AtThe EndOf The Boom) . Were I a common type of Republican blogger this would not be an issue. But I'm not, and it is. Hence the redaction.
I thought "Brain Damage" was my worst post, but "Snow Job" was far, far worse.
I will say this..Tony Snow is a good looking fellow. No doubt his excellent dentition will make Iraq, illegal domestic spying, the suppression of civil rights, torture, record deficit and national debt, record homelessness, record bankruptcies and so on so much more palatable.
When Snow has criticisized...
---hang on a sec--
I just BlogSpot spell-checked "criticisized" and was offered "McLellan" as the alternative--make of that what you will... anyway...
Snow actually has criticized Bush--but as a "Libertarian", not a "Liberal". He's in the Norquist camp where national government should only concern itself with law and order, defence and attack, and everything else in life is a free-for-all...in other words he sides with oligarchy or to put it another way, benign fascism.
So what's going on here? Is the choice of Snow really a shake-up? Would the choice of sometimes acerbically critical Snow indicate a gradual return to the center and at least a partial reduction to partisan politics?
I don't think so.
Bush himself is now politically crippled.
But this is not about Bush any more--he's played his part. What matters now is the future of the Republican party. The appointment of Snow looks like a feint. The GOP needs to recapture the public and Snow as Press Secretary can serve as the president's substitute, he can appear as dynamic as Bush was in his early days.
Having seized control of all branches of government and the military, having a firmer grip of the juidiciary and with a significant hold on the Fourth Estate GOP radicals aren't about to let go of the near complete level of power they have worked so hard to grasp. With less than three years left thay have no intention of losing their grip--indeed now is the time for them to strengthen it.
But for all that they hold and control, they must still consider the electorate. The Republican base is turning away from the GOP, not because the Democrat's are doing a better job--they have been reduced to the level of interns--but becuase the GOP has done such a poor job of governance.
Choosing Snow to replace McLellan is a calculated move (duh!). McLellan was the loyal trooper slogging through the mud. Snow appears dynamic and even independent. But could he actually function as something like an ombudsman, rather than a shill? Could he actually present a more trustworthy visage and more compelling arguments than Mclellan?
David Corn at http://www.bushlies.com/ actually knows Snow and has worked with him. Read his informed take. Snow might actually be sort of okay, he thinks. Maybe.
Trouble is, the job raises Snow's profile big time. Instead of talking about politics he's now IN politics (again) and this time front and center. This is a big step for him. Will he have the balls to actually modify the administration's message? He might argue for a change behind closed doors, but when he stands at that podium, will there be anything other than a stylistic change? Fat chance. His new job is to represent the President and the White-House's policies, not himself.
He can't bite the hand that will be feeding him. Sure he may be more adept and personable than Scott, but just like Scott he will still have to shill and evade and obfuscate and lie. Nothing will change--it can't change, because change isn't what conservatism is about.
Snow's new job is simply a snow job.
Pick up those shovels, people, and when you're done with the pretty white covering, there's the same old pile of shit underneath to deal with.
Cobra II
If you give damn about what most Americans care about these days above all else--the Iraq War--then get a hold of Cobra II: The Inside Story of The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.
I wouldn't normally provide free advertising but I found this an exceptional and well researched book. Not only is it intellectually stimulating (and often depressing) it is also viscerally exciting.
The first third of the book substantially corrobarates Woodward's "Plan Of Attack" regarding Rumsfeld's influence and relationship with General Tommy Franks and how the invasion was concieved and prosecuted. Personally I learned little more than I already knew about the reasons and planning of the Iraq invasion which is covered in the first third of the book so that aspectof it can be read as a prologue for those of us who have been paying attention.
What particulary struck me about the book was its representation of the experiences of the Army 3rd Infantry Division. the Marines and the Special Forces as depicted by personal testimony and official record woven into a narrative by the authors.
For all the high tech-gadgetry that promised so much, the testimony in this book suggests it didn't live up to it's hype. And as for Frank's and Rumsfeld's planning, those schemes were not as solid as they represented either. Indeed my impression from this book, which in its narrative it does not explicitly iterate , is that that the best laid plans of mice and men are often thwarted--yet it is the men on the gorind who have to carry out the plans who make the plan succeed, not the planners themselves.
The descriptions of combat are uttely clinical with no drama added. Yet in the cold prose the pain and chaos of warfare is stark and disturbing. As much as this book is a critique of the politicians that chose to conduct the war and upper miltary echolons who enabled it, it is also a testament to those who were given no choice but to conduct it, to fight it and to die or be injured in it.
Beyond the exemplay research of the authors what impressed me most was the actions of the soldiers as they were described--mostly importantly the frequent conflict they experienced in trying to balance the orders they were given with the realiteies on the grounf, their own respective perceptions, knowledge and experience and the demands of their superiors, the mission and the "cause".
COBRA II is not a diatribe with a political bent. It is as honest an account as you will find of the Iraq war. And as comprehensive as it is, it is not comprehensive enough.
Nonetheless it provides an exceptional insight into why and how this war was conducted. Given such a contemporsary example
I would urge every reader of this book to then delve into the political and military histories of past wars and then compare--I'd suggest you will find the similarites with seemingly ancient conflicts shockingly familiar.
War is war, it is bloody and cruel no matter the century in which it occurs. But what truly distinguishes one war from another is not so much the military victories but the aftermath. And the aftermath and thus ultimate victory is not determined by the will and might of the military, but that of the politicians.
Sadly this book makes it clear that no great public cause served this war, only the fantasies of delusional power-players, politicians and generals alike, egoists of the highest order who paid lip service to the root of their power, the will of the people.
Certainly a majority of the US agreed to war against Iraq by a slim margin, and of that majority there was a belief in the the leaders pronouncemnts of legitmacy for the cause and the competence of those on high and in charge.
So much for that.
For a dose of reality and a real perspective read Cobra II, and compare to "Plan Of Attack", amongst other available books. It illuminates in it's own right, and will help illuminate other perspectives of your choice.
I wouldn't normally provide free advertising but I found this an exceptional and well researched book. Not only is it intellectually stimulating (and often depressing) it is also viscerally exciting.
The first third of the book substantially corrobarates Woodward's "Plan Of Attack" regarding Rumsfeld's influence and relationship with General Tommy Franks and how the invasion was concieved and prosecuted. Personally I learned little more than I already knew about the reasons and planning of the Iraq invasion which is covered in the first third of the book so that aspectof it can be read as a prologue for those of us who have been paying attention.
What particulary struck me about the book was its representation of the experiences of the Army 3rd Infantry Division. the Marines and the Special Forces as depicted by personal testimony and official record woven into a narrative by the authors.
For all the high tech-gadgetry that promised so much, the testimony in this book suggests it didn't live up to it's hype. And as for Frank's and Rumsfeld's planning, those schemes were not as solid as they represented either. Indeed my impression from this book, which in its narrative it does not explicitly iterate , is that that the best laid plans of mice and men are often thwarted--yet it is the men on the gorind who have to carry out the plans who make the plan succeed, not the planners themselves.
The descriptions of combat are uttely clinical with no drama added. Yet in the cold prose the pain and chaos of warfare is stark and disturbing. As much as this book is a critique of the politicians that chose to conduct the war and upper miltary echolons who enabled it, it is also a testament to those who were given no choice but to conduct it, to fight it and to die or be injured in it.
Beyond the exemplay research of the authors what impressed me most was the actions of the soldiers as they were described--mostly importantly the frequent conflict they experienced in trying to balance the orders they were given with the realiteies on the grounf, their own respective perceptions, knowledge and experience and the demands of their superiors, the mission and the "cause".
COBRA II is not a diatribe with a political bent. It is as honest an account as you will find of the Iraq war. And as comprehensive as it is, it is not comprehensive enough.
Nonetheless it provides an exceptional insight into why and how this war was conducted. Given such a contemporsary example
I would urge every reader of this book to then delve into the political and military histories of past wars and then compare--I'd suggest you will find the similarites with seemingly ancient conflicts shockingly familiar.
War is war, it is bloody and cruel no matter the century in which it occurs. But what truly distinguishes one war from another is not so much the military victories but the aftermath. And the aftermath and thus ultimate victory is not determined by the will and might of the military, but that of the politicians.
Sadly this book makes it clear that no great public cause served this war, only the fantasies of delusional power-players, politicians and generals alike, egoists of the highest order who paid lip service to the root of their power, the will of the people.
Certainly a majority of the US agreed to war against Iraq by a slim margin, and of that majority there was a belief in the the leaders pronouncemnts of legitmacy for the cause and the competence of those on high and in charge.
So much for that.
For a dose of reality and a real perspective read Cobra II, and compare to "Plan Of Attack", amongst other available books. It illuminates in it's own right, and will help illuminate other perspectives of your choice.
Substitute For Another Guy
Scott McLellan at a 2006 press conference indicating the direction of Bush's latest approval ratings.
Note the placard behind his head that reads "whitewashing".
Once Scott McLellan actually leaves the press-gaggle podium for good, he will leave behind an empty, cavernous void; a space where for the past 2 years and 9 months there has always been (excuse me--getting a little choked-up here), Scott.
Of course, he was an empty cavernous void when he took the job in the first place.
But how shall we remember him?
Will it be for the tightness of his shirt-collar that made his pudgy head look like it was constantly on the verge of exploding?
Will it be for the robotic monotony of invented facts and talking points? Or that when challenged one could actually hear the cogs in his head protesting as he tried to move from “drive” through “neutral” to “park” via an improbable “sideways” gear?
For myself I think I’ll remember him most for his pioneering work in communications, wherein he steadfastly refused to actually answer questions and challenged the conventions of logic and history and what it is that constitutes a “discussion”.
Perhaps nothing sums up Scott McLellan as well as how he responded to questions of his own departure.
After he had made the formal announcement on April the 19th he was asked when he’d made the decision to resign. Scott said it was on the 14th. And when had he informed Bush? In the morning of the 17th.
And yet in the afternoon of the 17th when asked “Do you plan to stay on?”, with his resignation already settled and a matter of fact, Scott replied: “Look, I never speculate about personnel matters”.
WTF?!!!
The Press Secretary isn't supposed to overshadow the President himself, so a lack of personality is an important qualification for the job. But McLellan lacks so much more...he has no spine, no thoughts, no charm, no wit, no....well you name it and he doesn't have it.
McLellan was simply too good at channelling Bush's psychoses, lies, illogic and stupidity, and so his competence of course eventually did him in.
What might the future hold for the man who substituted for a substitute president? He might still be able to 'serve the public'--perhaps by being cemented into part of a New Orleans levee wall?
Of course a book deal with Regnery is possible; what might it be called?
My Stuffed Pet Goat?
Another Million Little Pieces?
I Think We've Discussed That Already?
McLellan has only offered one clue to his immediate future--he's thinking of helping his mommy's political campaign (which is how he got started in the first place). Of course the fact that mommy doesn't want his help because even she is pissed-off with Bush is neither here nor there.
Poor little Scott, I'm afraid, was, is and will remain the ultimate substitute for another guy. And there will never be a substitute for Scott.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
