This weekend, I'll be putting the final touches on helping Melissa move out of her apartment in the Cities. So, tonight, if you happen to find yourself at Ol' Mexico in Roseville, and you happen to be playing NTN trivia, and you happen to see one of the players has the handle "MULE," do your best to let him win. He'll appreciate it.
Have a great Memorial Day weekend all!
I have a cousin. His name is Skip. He has a small manhood, but he manages to use it to his advantage. He also owns his own business. It has a funny name. Home Knob and Handle. So, please, if you have a need for knobs or handles in your home, give Skip a call. Or an e-mail. And feel free to ridicule his manhood, because it really is rather pathetic.
By linking to an essay I really liked a lot.
Thanks to Doug for the heads up.
UPDATE: And, oh yeah, read both parts, you know, if that's your thing.
The month of May was a time of great political strife in Washington D.C. Democrats clashed with Republicans in a battle of wills between the scrappy and eternally whiney minority party and the majority minions of the dark overlord, Karl Rove.
Caught in the middle of this political clash of titans was the up-until-recently relatively unknown politician by the name of Philip Buster.
Until May rolled around, Philip Buster was just an aging politician, known by both Democrats and Republicans as the old codger who sat towards the back of the Senate chamber who would occasionally engage in incredibly long and boring soliloquies that, though uncommon, were known to disrupt Congressional voting proceedings.
"I really don't understand what all the fuss was about," said Mr. Buster, during an exclusive interview with me last week. "It reminded me of that time, wayyyyyy back, I think it was in 1938, or maybe it was 1947. . . can't really recall. I remember that my wife at the time, Mabel, was having a tough time with the gout. She couldn't get around fer nothing. Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah, this whole uppity-up between the political parties about me this month. Wasn't that just something else? I couldn't figure out what they were all worried about. Actually, it made me remember that big thunderstorm back during The Great Depression, which, wasn't that a funny name for the Depression? There was nothing great about it, and. . . "
Through his long and undistinguished career as a party-independent representative of the American people, Philip Buster has attracted the ire of both Democrats and Republicans. During the Clinton administration, for example, many Democrats went on record, speaking against Philip Buster, saying that his presence in the Senate could disrupt voting on judicial nominees.
“I would object and fight against any Philip Buster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), back in June of 1998.
Mr. Buster recalls Leahy's comments with a nostalgic air today, saying "Oh that Leahy! What a character! Can he spin a yarn or what? Back when he was a boy, and I was just an old man, as opposed to the old, old, old man I am today, he used to sit on my lap and tell me all sorts of goofy little stories. You gotta love the mind of a child, there's so much imagination going on in there. Anyway, I didn't take his comments all that seriously back in 1998, because that was the style at the time, not unlike the style of the 1920s when you think about it. . ."
This time around, however, it was the Republicans who were looking to show Philip Buster the door. With a majority rule working for them in both the House and the Senate, the Republicans were eager to remove any potential impediment to President Bush's federal judge nominees, and they certainly didn't want to see Philip Buster shuffling his way slowly to the front of the Senate chamber to inflict upon the assembly longwinded tales about nothing at all.
The crises over Philip Buster subsided, however, after a deal was reached between the two parties which would allow Mr. Buster to remain in Congress. The Democrats saw the deal as a victory, while some Republicans felt betrayed by the leadership of their own party for allowing the deal. As for Philip Buster, he was optimistic overall.
"Oh, those Republicans will get over it," said Mr. Buster. "They're a good bunch of guys and gals. I sure did appreciate the Democrats going to bat for me though. That took moxie. Reminded me of that one time when I went fishing with Howard Taft. I fell plumb out of the boat, but that Taft, rotund as he was, he managed to fish my fool self out of that frigid water and back into the boat. We didn't catch much that day, crappies mostly, and a few perch. Oh, and I caught a cold, thanks to that frigid water and such. Of course, back then, catching a cold could have meant yer death, so I was kinda' worried. But, I got better and. . ."
UPDATE: Oh my God, I'm thinking like the people at The Onion.
online.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html">The Downing Street Memo.
Is it legit? I have no idea. I certainly haven't found it in any other form than the one presented in the link. Was it an e-mail? An actual paper memo? A pdf? I don't know, and no one seems that interested in finding out.
Leaked on May 1, it was quite likely timed to coincide with the UK elections. It's filled with damning stuff, touching, coincidentally, on practically every major talking point floated up about the Iraq war. . . almost. . . preciently.
It's big news in Europe, and it should be getting more play here. One reason I suspect the media is wary over here is because leaked memos have been a media bane over the past year. Another reason is probably because it was a leaked UK memo, with such presumptive wording as It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action.
Should the memo be investigated? Yes, both to establish its authenticity (just ask Matthew Rycroft, the supposed author, for some confirmation, for crying out loud) and, following that, to take the Bush admin to task, because if it is authentic, it's a smoking gun.
I hope this post makes SOME PEOPLE HAPPY.
I posted this as a comment over at Joshua's, but I think it warrants being a post here as well.
I'm just curious here, Joshua, but how many newsrooms have you been in? I mean, I'm not touting myself as a grizzled veteran of the newspaper newsroom. Hell, with about three years writing for newspapers under my belt, I know enough that it's terribly stressful work for terribly low pay. But, here's what I noticed in those few years; my co-workers were overwhelmingly liberal. The dismissive sneers bandied about regarding Republican office-holders, whether national or local, could practically be snatched from the air and stored in tupperware containers they were so tangible. You don't think that kind of bias doesn't sneak its way into news content? At least when it comes to conservative bias, such as that found in the Washington Post and Fox News, you don't have them pretending to be otherwise. newspapers like the New York Times and, more locally, The Star-Tribune, put themselves forth as bastions of non-biased news, when they quite obviously are anything but. When I cry foul about liberal bias, I'm not saying that news organizations consist of little Marxists advocating so-boner-pill-ism. I am saying that, given that newsrooms, by and large (again, from my experience, or phoney baloney streed cred; your choice) consist of staffers who bend to the left politically, their reporting and editorial content tend to reflect those leanings, despite their protestations. I believe that there is groupthink that exists in most newsrooms.
As an example, Time magazine last week ran a cover story about Bill Gates and the upcoming new XBox. This paragraph jumped out at me:
Bill Gates' time is valuable. There are Microsoft employees who wait their whole career to be alone with Gates for 45 minutes. As the richest man in the world and, arguably, the greatest philanthropist in history, at any given moment Gates could and probably should be off feeding the hungry or curing some horrible disease.
Why that whole thing about feeding the hungry and curing disease? It's been established that Gates is possibly the greatest philanthropist in history, yet the author opines that gates "probably should" be off doing more. Well, guess what? That's not Bill Gates' job. It was completely unnecessary editorializing on the part of the writer. And perhaps just as telling, that little bit about the hungry and curing disease made it through several tiers of editing. No one stopped and thought, "hmm, that part really doesn't belong there." I see that as a classic example of liberal groupthink in action in a news organization. Sure, it's a minor example, but I think it's indicative of a very real affliction in newsrooms today. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But, again, from my phoney-baloney streed cred experience, I think my position is pretty well justified.
I saw it on Friday night. I can't really add much to the already voluminous reviews circulating in print and online. Besides, I'm not much of a movie critic. Hell, I loved "Troy," if that tells you anything.
Overall, I enjoyed it. The acting, as is the Lucas trademark, was stiff and unconvincing, and the romance scenes between Anakin and Padme are pretty much barf-tacular. Maybe it's just me, but when I hear something like "whatever you say, my love," I think to myself "does anybody in the expanse of the universe refer to their significant other as 'my love?'"
The good news is that the action sequences and the omnipresent CGI make up for the horrific dialogue. I was sitting there, basically thinking "did Anakin really just say 'now is when the fun begins?' Because that's really stupid and. . . holy shit! That's the coolest space battle I've ever seen on-screen!!!" That's basically how the whole movie went.
There were all sorts of little things I could pick at, but why bother? In the end, it's just a movie. Tearing at the details just seems pointless, and I'm not enough of a Star Wars geek to take it that seriously.
There was a part of me, however, that felt somewhat horrified when Anakin proclaimed his fealty to Palpatine. I mean, how could anyone pledge themselves to THAT? He looked like dripping mayonaise after his bout with Windu. And his voice. Just cough, man! Get that loogie out of there!
Oh, and one more thing. Of all the numerous reasons I have to dislike George Lucas, I can now officially add one more thing: Yoda scraping his talons on that piece of metal during his battle with Palpatine/Sidious. Holy fuck, that sound made me age 20 years.
Again, overall I enjoyed the movie, and hearing James Earl Jones speaking in Vader's cavernous voice made me feel 10 years old again. And the desperate look in Anakin's eyes as the mask sucked itself into position for the first time actually made me feel sorry for the fuckin' brat, if only just briefly.
Not a great movie, but definitely the best of the prequel series, and an adequate segue into the trilogy that has become an international phenomenon. I guess I'm just happy that Lucas didn't blow it entirely. At least his third one wasn't a strike-out. Sure, it wasn't a home-run; it was more of a ground-rule double. But, I'll take it.
