The NEW Smut Greekery's topics - tribe.net

Jason Reviews: The Dark Knight

jason_s — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:50:04 GMT

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2008/08/dark-knight-2008-dir.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Jason Reviews: Redbelt

jason_s — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:42:27 GMT

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2008/05/redbelt-dir.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Iraq Hearings: A Turning Point?

jason_s — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:02:59 GMT

Listening to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, and I feel like I've fallen OUT of bizarro world and back into real life.

There were experts, generals, the usual gang. What was different this time was the tone. To wit: it was agreeable and reasonable.

Everybody agreed that Gen. Patraeus has done a lot with a little
Everybody agreed that it hasn't been enough and that the surge has pretty much fizzled
No one questioned anyone else's patriotism
The general dude lamented Congress' lack of meaningful oversight over the years, attributing it to faux patriotism and bullying
Each expert said "this administration won't change things in Iraq, and things have to change"
Each expert was clear that they were not "recommending" troop withdrawal, they were saying it is inevitable
None of the Republicans on the committee tried to bluster or to obfuscate or to question the motives of anyone
None of the Democrats tried to rationalize their capitulating behavior
Everyone agreed that the course has to change, that "this thing is over" and that there's no more "just give it a try!" scenarios to play out

We may be past the point where anything can be done about anything, but I haven't heard this kind of frank, direct, complete talk from this situation...ever.

Which got me to thinking about George Bush's lame duck status. The administration has been able to do what it has been able to do because of bullying, intimidation and other strong arm tactics. When you've still got years in office, few people have the cajones to stand up to you under those circumstances.

But as your time in power whittles down to months, a few of the braver souls with the deeper seniority might start coming forward...as this lot did today...to not just respectfully disagree with your ideas, but to suggest that you are, in fact, a drooling idiot.

And I think the politicians are catching on. There's no money left in supporting this war, and they know it. And there's no election strategy around "give me another six months and I swear I can fix this thing!" And they know it.

Patreaus testifies next week. This ought to be good.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 4 replies

A Protest Darkly

jason_s — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:48:12 GMT

Spent some time this weekend trying to do a cheap "scanner darkly" effect in After Effects.

Here's some video of one of last year's war protests done up Keanu style:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OlXDhtm4s7s

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

My Own Private Scheider

jason_s — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:39:15 GMT

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2008/02/my-own-private-scheider-youre-gonna.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

EA v. FOX News

jason_s — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:44:21 GMT

http://kotaku.com/348187/ea-calls-fox-out-on-insulting-mass-effect-inaccuracies

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Thank you, Senator Dodd

jason_s — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:39:45 GMT

Thank you, Senator Dodd, for taking a principled stand and resisting the FISA bill.

I have lived this past year with a heavy heart, watching the Democratic party consistently betray the voters who gave them a simple, clear mandate: restore our great Republic.

I am most impressed that you were in Washington doing this and not in Iowa pouting about youthful drug use or whose religious faith is stronger than whose.

Thank you, sir. Thank you for standing up for what is right.

I'm with you. I am persuaded. You have my vote.

Sincerely,
Jason Shankel
Independent Voter

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Another letter to Nancy

jason_s — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:48:49 GMT

Dear Rep. Pelosi,

I have been very disturbed by two items in the news which I would like you to address to us, your direct constituents.

To wit:

1) Is it true that you are considering sending the president a no-strings-attached war budget that gives him everything and holds him to nothing?

If so, will you please do us all a favor in the future and not pretend that you will stand by your beliefs and your mandate?

At least just tell us up front that you intend to give the president everything he asks for without so much as a fight.

Not that any of us believe anything else at this point, but it's just hurtful and humiliating when you insult us by pretending otherwise.

2) Were you briefed on illegal torture in 2003? We need to know what you knew and when you knew it.

-Jason Shankel

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Jason Reviews: The NIE

jason_s — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:59:01 GMT

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2007/12/national-intelligence-estimate-2007.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Oh God...they're wearing their armor

jason_s — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:38:17 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVZczLuoJoU

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

I Heart Chuckabees

jason_s — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:59:35 GMT

Okay, Mike Huckabee is a right wing pinhead same as any other, but this is high-sterical:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE

"When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he doesn't push himself up...he pushes the earth down."

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Jason Reviews: American Gangster

jason_s — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:06:21 GMT

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2007/11/american-gangster-dir.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Kucinich has my vote

jason_s — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:12:30 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYbgouqlMw&eurl=http://crooksandliars.com/

He brought articles of impeachment to the floor and the fucking Democrats buried it.

Too afraid of being made fun of.

So that's it. No Democrat now has any basis to accuse Dick Cheney of any improper abuse of his office. This was the moment to complain about it. If you're not willing to stand up and make the charge, then you have no moral authority to whine about anything.

But Kucinich has my vote. That's one Democrat I'll back.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 1 reply

Oh, prah

jason_s — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:17:02 GMT

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=fd71cb1a-a079-4d43-8a55-995056908d1e&sid=fd-news

Hmmm...wonder if she'll give the kids copies of 'The Secret' and tell them to visualize NOT being molested and abused.

After all, they must have brought it on themselves, right?

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

400 PPM

jason_s — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:21:40 GMT

Southern California is on fire...again.

Welcome to 400 parts-per-million CO2! Grasses love that shit.

Time to plant trees. Short, stubby, low-surface-area, high-water-content, flame-resistant trees.

Cactuses are good.

And every year, harvest trees and put them to carbon sequestration use. Build houses. Publish books. Bury the fuckers in the Nevada desert.

But stop it with the grassy hills already.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

The O'Brien Moment

jason_s — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:27:17 GMT

Watching the joint House committee hearing on Maher Arar, who was kidnapped by the US and Candian governments and "rendered" to Syria where he was tortured for years before being released.

Canada has apologized and compensated him. The US has said that, while Mr. Arar DOES appear to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, that We The People(tm) have done nothing wrong. Why? Can't tell you that. National security. Why have we kept him on the terrorist list? Can't tell you that, but no one ever gets promoted for taking names OFF a terrorists list.

The D/R breakdown is:

D: this shows that rendition is an ugly and probably unconstitutional and internationally illegal policy that should be stopped
R: rendition works, has prevented all the nines eleven that would certainly be going off every week without it and this was just one regrettable bad case

The O'Brien Moment came from comedian and amateur Neanderthal Dana Rohrabacher. Mr. Arar, unable to enter the US, is testifying via closed-circuit TV from Canada. In an effort to bring some "balance" to the debate, Mr. Rohrabacher asks Mr. Arar if he has any children (he does) and expresses gratitude that programs like rendition protected their mutual families.

That's right. Dana Rohrabacher invited a victim of torture to express gratitude for the program that had tortured him. Mr. Arar did not immediately respond, but a while later explained that he loved the US and that so did his children and the children of many others, but warned that if the US keeps treating people in this "extraordinary" manner, well, no love is unconditional.

Until there is no love but love of Big Brother.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 1 reply

Jason Reviews: 3:10 to Yuma

jason_s — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:34:55 GMT

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2007/10/310-to-yuma-dir.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

The Hollow Man

jason_s — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:28:58 GMT

On Christopher Hitchens' dark night of the soul:

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2007/10/hollow-man-so-its-tears-now-is-it-ive.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Phony soldiers?

jason_s — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:03:29 GMT

Rush thinks those in uniform who favor withdrawl from Iraq are "phony soldiers."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=h_top

I assume the Senate will be, uh, RUSHING to condemn this attack on serving military personnel, as they did for poor, vulnerable, sensitive Gen. Lying Motherfu...uh, Patraeus.

I await, as always.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

WWWDD?

jason_s — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:06:33 GMT

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2007/09/wwwdd-or-ddwwdd-when-you-find-yourself.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Need some inspiration

jason_s — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:20:10 GMT

Think I'll break out the 'Firefly' DVDs this week.

Sometimes it feels like they're taking the sky from us...

http://cyphertext.net/escapekey/Mal_studio.mp3

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

The Last Democrats

jason_s — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:10:18 GMT

The Lieberman/Kyl amendment (pretty much daring the president to attack Iran), passed in the senate with 76 votes.

Seventy. Six.

So, I'm done with the Democrats now. Unless the war funding bill has a lot of juicy surprises in it, I'm out. I'll keep voting Boxer/Pelosi, but that's it.

Oh, and Barak Obama and John McCain couldn't even be bothered to show up to vote. And Hillary voted for it.

To hell with all of them.

Sent to

Dear Mrs. Boxer,

Thank you for voting against the Lieberman/Kyl amendment. I want you to know you will continue to enjoy my support for this and other courageous stances you have taken in this war.

But it is with a heavy heart that I tell you that I can no longer support the Democratic party in any way, other than to continue voting for you and Rep. Pelosi.

It is clear from the overwhelming support for this despicable bit of saber rattling that neither major party is willing to serve the interests of the nation any more.

Which is not to say there are no differences between Republicans and Democrats. Surely there are, just as surely as there are differences between a father and a mother in a bitter divorce. Differences though there may be, it is nonetheless cruel and narcissistic to demand that the children pick sides.

It's time for us all to grow up and realize this. We have been duped. We are being manipulated.

I won't play anymore. You and Rep. Pelosi shall be the last Democrats I shall ever support.

And there's one, and only one, chance left for my mind to change: the upcoming war funding bill. Though it is clear from the votes of the past week that this will be another rubber stamp, another blank check, another exorbitant bill charged against the "soft bigotry of low expectations" we have for this war policy.

I will be disappointed, but not surprised, when it comes to that.

And that will be the end. The living end.

Continue the good fight, Mrs. Boxer. I'll be in the Green room.

Sincerely,
Jason Shankel

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

What'd'ya mean, "how's he always know?"

jason_s — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:51:22 GMT

So, I'm watching the second Matrix movie and the part where they first dock at Zion comes up.

As the ship moves into place, there's this driving ochestrated soundtrack: "Da DUM DUM!!! dum ditty DUM!!! da DUM DUM DUM!!!"

When Neo & The Gang(tm) get off the ship, the annoying "kid" comes running up to greet them.

"How does he always know?" complains Trinity.

Gee, Trin, I don't know. Just a thought, tho: maybe if you want to SNEAK into the city, you shouldn't so much, you know, have the fucking Zion Philharmonic accompany you everywhere you go.

Just a thought.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Sent to Barbara Boxer

jason_s — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:37:59 GMT

Dear Sen Boxer,

I want to thank your for your support of the amendments to restore habeas corpus and parity in troop rotations and for voting against the unconscionable Cornyn amendment condemning the free speech of MoveOn.org.

While I think MoveOn's ad was a cheap shot at a worthy public servant who has been put in an impossible position by a cowardly commander, I don't think the US Senate has any business condemning anyone's legitimate political opinions.

I'm an independent voter who has long supported Democratic candidates. I have voted for you and congresswoman Boxer at every opportunity for my entire life. I'm proud of the work both of you have done for my country, my state and my home town.

But that support is now failing. I knew 20 years ago that I could never, never vote for a Republican. Their values are out of whack with common human decency, and no sound fiscal policy or fair-minded tax proposal can make up for that.

I'm beginning to feel the same way about the Democratic party. Not for their failure to stop the war (it's clear that the Republicans will not let that happen), but for their failure to fight to the last and to hold the Republicans accountable for their delusional pursuit of the destruction of our beloved country.

I understand the decision to try to reason with the Republicans in the hopes of getting to 60. The failure of the Webb amendment (little if any daylight being between Webb and a flat out, Republican-style blank check) makes plain that this is folly. Nothing will break the Republican caucus on this. Nothing.

How much less popular can this war get? How much more evidence do we need? What will we accomplish in another six months except to give the president time to move the goalposts...again.

Will we be hearing in six months that it's not the central government, nor the regional tribal leaders, but some OTHER sign of "the good progress" that we should pin our hopes on? What will the standard be THEN? For that matter, what is it now?

Where is Iraq in six months? A year? Five years? Ten? Can anyone give us a straight answer? A set of possibilities? A fanciful musing? ANYTHING?

We're dying here.

So, as far as I'm concerned, time is up. My solid benchmark, my "date certain" to forever withdraw my support from the failed Democratic/Republican government, is the upcoming appropriations bill.

If you send the president another blank check to sign, I'm out. I'm out for good. I'll split my vote between the Greens and the Libertarians and hope for the best.

And I'm not alone.

I know the Republicans will filibuster. Let them. Why should you give in? WHY? Fear of "defunding the troops?" You're not defunding the troops...the Republicans are by filibustering. And if they break their filibuster and the president vetoes, then HE'S defunding the troops.

Putting a bill up that the other party rejects makes THEM the defunders. Putting up a bill that you don't believe is right or good for this country means YOU are abdicating your constitutional responsibility and cannot therefore be worthy of further support.

It pains me to say so, believe me. I'm no radical. But these are radical times.

Courage isn't just about fighting when you think you'll win...it's about fighting when you know you'll lose.

That's what the "values voters" on the other side understand and that's what I'm starting to learn.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Obama: We Will Do Nothing

jason_s — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:51:17 GMT

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXhIn6Dsn59np7LYG6eYS5GubXUA

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Jason Reviews: Near Dark

jason_s — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:52:40 GMT

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2007/09/near-dark-dir.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

A letter to Nancy

jason_s — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:01:53 GMT

Sent this to Nancy Pelosi today.

Mz. Pelosi,

I'm a child of Watergate.

I was in high school in the late 80s when the Iran Contra scandal broke. It was at that time, watching Oliver North and the others proudly proclaim that not only did they break the law, but that they were right to do so and that the law had no business interfering with their noble mission to arm rapists and terrorists in Central America that I realized I could never, under any circumstances, vote for a Republican.

They had declared themselves in opposition to the rule of law, plain and simple, and no amount of fiscal discipline, "straight talk" or "compassionate conservatism" will ever remove that stain. They must utterly repudiate it, and they never have.

I am now on the precipice of making the same judgment on the Democrats.

The Democratic leadership has declared that this latest kabuki fiasco song-and-dance is just a delaying tactic, kicking the can down the road, etc.

I couldn't agree more.

Therefore, when you all vote in the upcoming weeks to continue giving the inept, criminal Bush Administration a no-strings-attached blank check to continue doing whatever they want with no accountability, you will be more than merely a passive player. You are now wholly complicit in the ongoing, illegal war. You're not being dragged through it against your will. You're choosing to condemn it in words while you endorse it with actions.

The Giants and the Dodgers may have a rivalry, but both are committed to the game of baseball.

It is becoming clear that the Democrats and the Republicans have a rivalry for votes, but are both committed to the power game that is now bankrupting and grievously wounding this country.

I'm not there yet, but you have until the end of this year...THIS year...to prove me wrong. That's a firm date. A "date certain" for me to withdraw all support for the failed Democratic/Republican government.

I recognize that you may not be able to change course, the realities of the Senate numbers game being what they are. I'm not asking for the impossible. But you CAN control the conversation. You CAN set the terms of the debate. And you CAN resist, with every tool at your disposal, this unwarranted attack on our most basic values (not to mention interests.)

But what you cannot do is have it both ways. If this is as much a disaster as you say, then ACT like it.

Or lose us. Forever.

-Jason Shankel

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Ah, Kabuki

jason_s — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:41:26 GMT

Listing to Patreus today. Nothing at all surprising.

Bottom line: the surge is working, but its effectiveness is being hampered...by Iran. Give it more time.

The Dems huffed and puffed all weekend talking about "not buying it" and "the surge has failed" and "no money without withdrawl plan" and it's all VERY cute and all, but they will fold like a warehouse full of card tables and by the end of the month they will give Bush another blank check.

No, the only thing that's going to bring reality to this is...reality. April 2008, drawdowns must begin. We simply do not have the forces to continue past that point. It's not a brick wall, but a slow bleed: 4000 troops a month.

Patreus foreshadowed that. Shall we prepare reasonably? Shall we assume that the laws of physics will remain unchanged between now and then? Or will we just declare victory in October 2008, right before the election?

What do YOU think?

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Dick

jason_s — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:14:13 GMT

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2007/09/dickies-dick-dick-dick-dick-dick-dick.html

Dick.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

A refeshing gust of facts!

jason_s — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:54:52 GMT

Now I have seen everything. David Walker, Comptroller General of the GAO, gave his Iraq benchmark report to the House and Senate this week.

He was precise and clear. Described his methodology. Described the standards under which the report was generated and emphasized that those standards were agreed to ahead of time both by the Iraqi government and the Congress. He presented his results as simple facts, without spin or recommendation (aside from recommending that people be clear.)

After the ridiculous cavalcade of equivocation and half-answers that came out of the Justice Department, this was incredibly refreshing.

The report is mixed, of course. The upshot is that the security situation is better but the political situation isn't.

This gives everyone something to latch onto and to attack their opponents with. The surge is working! The government is failing! Why do you hate freedom?

Every time anyone from either part tried to lure him into endorsing this or that broad conclusion based on cherry-picked interpretations of his findings, he would point out the rest of the cherries and reaffirm that you have to consider the whole batch.

The result? There was no vitriol. No grandstanding. There were a few efforts to dismiss him as a "bean counter," but when you've got a bunch of beans to count, that's who you hire and everyone there knew that. We've seen what government without reliable bean counters becomes...a frat house echo chamber...a hall of mirrors.

Everyone up on the panel, R and D, seemed awake, alert, accepting. They presented their agendas, but with a slight air of chagrin, as though they knew they were caught.

And everyone...EVERYONE...drew the same meta-conclusion: Iraq is messy, complicated and difficult. The natural conclusion from that sentiment is to reject simple, jingoistic "solutions" like "victory" and "withdrawl" and to move on to finding ways to be a constructive, accountable partner for Middle East peace and stabilization, which is what we should be and which is no mean task and which absolutely cannot be done with military gusto and cowboy diplomacy.

This is the safe ground to which all the congressional candidates will retreat next year.

Of course, all of this will go up in smoke on Monday when Gen. Patreus issues his report. They're gonna jump on him like Rikki Tikki Tavi on Nagaina and bludgeon each other with his findings.

The Dems, in fact, are setting up their attack with Walker, highlighting the differences between his methodology (count everything) and Patreus' (only count stuff that makes you look good.)

But the mood has definitely shifted, though it could shift back. Going forward, whatever your attitude toward the war, there's a strong appetite for setting standards up front and measuring progress against those standards. It's the only way to regain any credibility.

Politically, it's the universal solvent. It gives the Dems the cover they need to push troop withdrawl. it gives the Republicans the cover they need to qualify their support for the war and to live down their rubber stamp image. It'll be a welcome change for everyone whose voting issue is the war.

Who it won't sit well with is the White House. They've never been fond of this idea that you evaluate reality based on evidence. They prefer to simply assert that what ought to be in fact is and to attack anyone who says otherwise. That works, so long as you pick an "ought" that's popular and evidence is in short supply. Not the case now.

The question now is, how aligned to actual reality is the administration? Every administration plays the "ought/is" game...but the good ones advocate the "ought" while privately acknowledging (and working with) the "is." See Clinton, Bill and Reagan, Ronald. (no comment as to the advisability of their respective agendas, just effectiveness in pushing same)

April 2008 is where the ought/is interface converges. At that time, the simple laws of military physics will prevent further escalation and demand staged withdrawl, about 4,000 troops per month. The only thing that will prevent that is pushing rotations to 18 months, which is "off the table" according to the generals we're all supposed to be listening to.

Even if they go that far, it'll only buy them three months. Then again, Bush seems to be ready to buy himself a month at a time if he has to. He can push it to July at tremendous cost. Then he'll have six months to deal with. Six months in which each time-buying strategy will seem a graver and graver mistake. Six months in which he will either ruin the Republican party or be rejected by all but the hardest hard liners.

Bill Clinton's impeachment trial only took three weeks. But this will be worse.

Some, myself included, say that Nancy Pelosi never should have taken impeachment off the table. We say this because, as a matter of principle, we must hold the president to the rule of law and there's ample evidence that that rule has been violated.

But politically, it's the right thing. It takes an issue away from the Republicans while simultaneously putting them in the position of continuing to assert that Bush is doing the right thing.

That's gonna be a harder and harder case to make come April.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Wide Stance II: The Return of Larry Craig

jason_s — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:36:49 GMT

He's reconsidering!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070904/craig-senate/

Now, Senator Craig is a homophobic troglodyte, it is true. But even homophobic troglodytes can get a raw deal. If everyone *I* knew lost their job for a little "wide stance lovin'," well, I don't think our unemployment system could handle it.

And, besides, he'll just be replaced by another homophobic troglodyte who will have less power, true, but also better chances of getting reelected.

So, politicswise, pretty much got no horse in this race.

So I say, hang in there Larry!

But, word of advice, back off the "I'm not gay" thing. Didn't work for Mr. Garrison, doesn't work here.

Go with "it's none of your business, but even if I was gay, what's wrong with cruising for ass as long as you don't EXPOSE any?"

Some people say that if he'd flirted with a woman that way, he wouldn't have gotten into trouble, but I disagree. Take it from me, if a man walks into a women's restroom and starts waving his hands and feet under the stall doors, he's likely to get a little talking to.

Still, hang in there, Larry. Then maybe the other closet doors will swing open.

And maybe we can just all be humans for a while.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

The Reluctant Libertarian

jason_s — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:08:42 GMT

On the 2-axis political compass, I'm a left-libertarian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass

That is, I believe that the presumption should be that people are free to do what they want to do and that we, as a society, should act collectively to create a socially just and secure economy.

I've never had much truck with capital-L Libertarians because, frankly, I don't think taxation amounts to outright theft and I don't think that traffic laws should be voluntary guidelines.

But I'm starting to think that they may be on to something in our particular moment...not because governments fundamentally CAN'T work, but because our government DOESN'T.

Look, if you don't pay taxes and don't invest in collective interests, shit just starts falling over and bursting into flames.

But so long as shit keeps falling over and bursting into flames anyway, why not just let us keep the money?

The conservatives in this country have been on a 30 year mission to "starve the beast." Unfortunately, they didn't make a plan for getting out from under the beast when it collapses on top of you from hunger.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 1 reply

Idahomo Sapiens

jason_s — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:24:54 GMT

Six thoughts on Sen. Craig:

1) He's not gay. Nor is he straight. He's an Idahomosexual. 'Gay' 'Straight' and 'Bi' are words we use to describe people who are familiar with and honest about (if not always completely comfortable with) their sexuality.

Being so deeply closeted that you're closeted even from yourself is Idahomosexuality.

2) There's nothing inconsistent between opposing gay marriage and cruising other guys in a toilet. That's like saying you must support polygamy if you frequent strip clubs. Marriage is marriage and sex is sex and the two are correlated, but not identical.

3) He did cruise that officer. He did. Either that or he was playing shitbox football and neglected to call an offsides foul. That could explain the wide stance.

4) Cruising with little hand and foot signals should not be illegal. Buttfucking someone in a public toilet, okay, yes, I can see why we'd want to discourage that sort of thing. But if Sen. Craig had made those same signals to a woman (or a man) at the airport bar, we wouldn't be having this ridiculous conversation.

Cruising is not a crime. Public buttfucking is. See the difference kids? On the one hand you have cruising. On the other hand, there's public buttfucking. Cruising. Buttfucking. Cruising. Buttfucking.

Unless and until a suspect demonstrates the intent to buttfuck or cocksuck in public, all they've done is flirt and flirting is LEGAL.

5) Even if he did buttfuck in a public restroom, he shouldn't be thrown out of the Senate for that. If we threw all the buttfuckers and cocksuckers out of the Senate we'd...uh...probably not have gotten into the mess we're in now.

But that's besides the point. Buttfucking in a public restroom may be against local ordinances, but I don't see anything in the Constitution that says it's an impeachable offense.

He's paid his debt to society.

6) There is no, repeat, no reason why hypocrisy precludes one from public service. Politicians are elected to serve the people, not implement their OWN values. It may be hypocritical for a Roman Catholic to vote to support abortion rights, but if that's what his constituency calls for, then that's the interest he serves.

We'd prefer that our politicians personally hold the values that we elect them to defend, but it's not necessary. I'd rather have an effective but cynical and dishonest defender of my values (Bill Clinton) than a sincere villain (George Bush.)

True believers are dangerous. Give me a leader who LISTENS to his people. And the people of Idaho, right or wrong, dislike them gays. Idahomos.

---

Why all this defense of this tiny, pinchy-brained weasel of a man?

Because whatsoever you do to the least of us, so you do to me.

How many of us would like to have our lives and careers ruined and our families paraded down Main Street in the public stocks just because we tapped our foot at the wrong paranoid cop?

There's nothing wrong with being gay. The only people who don't seem to understand that in this story are the cops and Sen. Craig.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 4 replies

The converging narrative

jason_s — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:45:33 GMT

At dinner several months ago, someone asked me why we shouldn't just "give the surge a try" since we were locked into Iraq anyway and improving security was a certain necessity.

The reason, of course, was because "giving it a try" was based on a false premise, invalidating any distinction between success and failure.

That false premise was, of course, embraced by all sides...all sides over here anyway. For supporters, the "surge" was the last, best hope for a stable Iraq. For detractors, the "surge" was a fool's errand, designed to fail.

It was, of course, neither. It was bound to "succeed," in that putting soldiers in places where you have low levels of security tends to lead to higher levels of security. It was bound to "fail," in that securing isolated sections of Baghdad, while a good and necessary thing, wouldn't produce the results we want.

Just like the war itself. Opposing the war didn't mean supporting Saddam Hussein. We "prevailed" in the war because Saddam was a pushover. We "failed" because our vision of post war Iraq was hopelessly naive.

So, just giving the surge a try is like just giving regime change a try: you're likely to accomplish your mission, but you're not likely to get the results you want.

And now we see the left and the right coming together to one deeply, deeply, deeply, hideously, criminally negligent, genocidal, murderously flawed conclusion: that the Iraqi government has failed to take advantage of "the surge," so we are now permitted to get the hell out with honor because, hey, if they're not gonna work with us, then they must be working against us.

So now we get to have a two year semantic argument over whether the surge failed or whether Maliki failed. Semantic, because the practical sentiment is the same on all sides: fuck 'em.

And that's the murderous tragedy of this. Instead of working on a comprehensive plan (which likely would have involved a surge in US troops as PART OF A LARGER EFFORT...double underlined in red), we thought that just bringing the bombings down was all we had to do and everything would just pop into place.

Oddly, we think that the Sunni's and the Shia, each divided into Allah-knows-how-many sects, would just iron out their differences in the absence of any real tolerable status quo in under six months.

Yet, in our own country, Democrats and Republicans routinely block each other over the simplest details of running the government. And they come from a relatively coherent country which is (so far) mostly prosperous and functional and not divided into purely religious enclaves battling each other in the streets.

Look at our Congress. Now, imagine that each political party was strongly religiously divided. Now, imagine that Washington was enduring a half dozen explosions a day. Now imagine that we were occupied by France. Would things get much better if France brought the total down to three or four explosions a day?

We're in Iraq now. We can't leave. So, in, we have to stop it with the "victory" oriented fantasies.

The president is correct to warn of dire Khymer Rouge consequences to withdrawl. It will happen. A genocide is coming. The good news is its avoidable, but only if we stop pretending we're fighting WWII and start understanding the situation for what it is.

We are wasting time hunting for a narrative that saves US face. Unfortunately, no accurate understanding of Iraq is particularly complimentary to our ridiculous delusions.

Make no mistake, what's coming will be the result of American arrogance, hubris and addiction to reality distortion...left and right. Whether we stay under the "stay the course" banner or leave under the "we're the problem" cop out, we will have, once again, thrown the Iraqi people under the bus of history.

And that's why we shouldn't "just try" anything else...do, or do not. There is no try.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Sending our love down the mineshaft

jason_s — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:05:09 GMT

Sorry to seem cynical about this, and no one deserves to die this horrible, horrible way, but, uh, why are we so upset about six or maybe nine people dying in a hole?

If we heard that today in Iraq a MERE six people died in an ACCIDENT, we'd be calling that "the good progress."

So I say, leave those miners down there until the job is done! If you truly support the miners, then you have to support their mission. Anything else will just send a signal to our enemies that we don't have the stomach for the long fight.

I say, send 20,000 more miners down that hole. Without radios. Or breathing equipment. Or hardhats. Or rations. Or a well defined mission. And keep them there. Until our enemies are defeated.

Now is no time to cut and run.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

My Favorite Candy Bar: Sino-Persian Crunch

jason_s — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:01:38 GMT

The Sino-Persian Crunch is coming!

Breaks down like this.

China has been buying up our foreign debt, like Grama does to Worm in 'Rounders'

America is a thorn in Iran's side vis Iraq.

China is energy poor.

Iran is nuke poor.

China has nukes.

Iran has oil.

I smell a deal coming. China's already holding our feet to the fire over basic trade relations. How much do you think they'll be willing to do in exchange for Iranian oil at $20/barrel?

A barrel over which now we, collectively, are.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 3 replies

Jason Reviews: No End In Sight

jason_s — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:10:49 GMT

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2007/08/no-end-in-sight-dir.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Emma Sez

jason_s — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:56:58 GMT

Fitness should not be too easy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJLusDwl5E

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 1 reply

Snake Sez

jason_s — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:48:26 GMT

Someone hasn't eaten their goji berries!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFsEgwpLRTc

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 1 reply

Misha sez...

jason_s — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:46:30 GMT

...if we don't fight them in the garage, we'll have to fight them in the kitchen!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ZD4_FL0ms

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 1 reply

The Perseids are Back!

Alexandra — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:35:43 GMT

more info: from a NASA story a few years ago:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast08aug_1.htm

Main story posted below:

Falling stars on hot nights
by Dave Adalian
Visalia Times-Delta

About every 130 years or so, Comet Swift-Tuttle swings by Earth, circles the sun, then heads back out into the dark, cold recesses of the Solar System. As it sails along, the comet loses bits of itself, leaving a trail of tiny specks of ice and rock in its wake.
As the years go by these comet crumbs spread out along Swift-Tuttle's orbit into a huge doughnut-shaped cloud. Then, each August, Earth dives into that cloud, and the result in the annual Perseids meteor shower.

The Perseids are the year's most reliable shower, with only a dud or two in the last decade. The 2007 show isn't expected to bring the 400 or more meteors an hour seen in the early 1990s, but away from city lights under a transparent sky, 80 to 100 an hour during the peak isn't an unreasonable expectation.

The 2007 Perseids shower reaches an apex the night of August 12-13, with the greatest number of meteors predicted to fall between 10 p.m. and half an hour after midnight.

The new moon will be absent from the sky, which is perfect for a meteor watch. Unfortunately, the peak's timing is a bit off.

The best time to see meteors is around 2 a.m., when the sky overhead is facing forward with respect to Earth's motion around the sun, making it just like a car's windshield.

There are always more bug-splats on the front window than on the sides, and during the peak, the sky here will be like the side window of a car. So, like bug-splats on a side window, there will be fewer meteors but the ones we do see will be more like spectacular streaks than splats.

These meteors, known as earthgrazers, will come blazing in from the northeast, where the constellation Perseus — which gives the shower its name — will be rising, then shoot across the sky toward the opposite horizon.

Fortunately, the Perseids are very active around the peak. Rates of 40 meteors an hour the nights before and after are a real possibility.

The Perseids is also a long shower that began July 17 and lasts through Aug. 24.

But, the best night for Perseids watching will be the night of the peak, and meteors will still be falling when 2 a.m. rolls around. And for those who stay up late, there's the bonus of seeing Mars rise among the meteors around 1 a.m.

# Dave Adalian is an amateur astronomer and president of the Tulare Astronomical Association. Reach him at dave.adalian@sbcglobal.net.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 1 reply

Ski South Africa

jason_s — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:24:37 GMT

It hadn't snowed in South Africa since 1981 before this June: http://www.canada.com/cityguides/hamilton/story.html?id=c97f0cfa-aa60-47f1-a0c0-fa7dea5eb908&k=18493

Conservatives are using this, as usual, to "debunk" global warming because...hey!...looks pretty COLD for WARMING, eh?

Well, we can expect it to get colder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline

South Africa is at the southernmost tip of the global thermohaline circulation. Obviously, you can't go by a single storm (could have just been a rogue wave off of Antarctica), but harsh winters in South Africa and the Northern Europe are one predicted consequence of global warming.

I know that's baffling. I know back on your grandaddy's farm, warm was warm and cold was cold. I know your pet theory is that "everything balances out" but it's not that simple.

On the other hand, if thermohaline circulation shuts down, then some of the glaciers will reform and global warming will "self correct"...in just a few thousand years. Blink of an eye.

I guess we don't have a problem.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Win/Win/Win

jason_s — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:04:09 GMT

Okay, a modest proposal.

Premise: human combustion of fossil fuels is a major contributor to global warming
Premise: volcanic eruptions produce short term global cooling
Premise: there are too many nukes in the world
Premise: global warming and oil politics contribute to terrorism (by dislocating and disenfranchising local populations)

So...

To mitigate global warming, reduce terrorism and break our dependence on foreign oil. we should drop nukes into the biggest volcanos, inducing lava flows which can be tapped for energy and releasing ash and water vapor into the air, which will increase the albedo of the earth and deflect heat back into space.

Then again, maybe all we need to do is wait for the sun to pop up above the galactic plane and we'll all fry in the intergalactic cosmic radiation (which is normally blocked by the ginormous dust cloud we're currently sitting in)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/10/MNGFIBN6PO1.DTL

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Old women and fools

jason_s — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:45:36 GMT

In honor of the complete breakdown of decorum in Congress today over the Agriculture bill, with Republicans storming out and shouting "cheater!" because, well, they just won't STAND for not being listened to by the majority, I bring you today's moment from "I, Claudius."

The emperor Augustus Caesar has just died. Poisoned. By his wife, Livia Augusta. The senate is in session and Livia's grandson Claudius (whom she detests) visits to pay his respects. Livia is three sheets to the wind, trying to drink away her sins.

Livia: Have you been to the senate?

Claudius: The steps. I'm not allowed in the Senate.

Livia: Neither am I. They won't let me in because I'm a woman and they won't let you in because you're a fool, which is strange when you come to think of it because the senate is filled with nothing but old women and fools. Well, what are they doing now?

Claudius: Debating whether to make Augustus a god.

Livia: "Debating" are they? What do you think?

Claudius: I think they should. It was foretold.

Livia: Who foretold it, idiot?

Claudius: Jove.

Livia: Jove, eh?

Claudius: Yes, Jove burned the 'C' of Caesar's name, leaving 'easer' and in Etruscan 'easer' means 'god.'

Livia: Oh, you fool! If Jove wanted to speak to us don't you think he'd do it in LATIN, not ETRUSCAN? What would be the point of that. Still, I'd slip your uncle (Tiberius) a note. Sounds like he can use all the help he can get.

Claudius: Yes, grandmother

Livia: And remember this, if Jove ever burns the 'C' off your name, what remains would mean 'jackass.' You may go now, Clau-Clau-Claudius.

To compare our lawmakers to fools is insulting...to fools.

If you're interested, the "debate" is here under "Debate on Agriculture Bill" Astounding.

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=Congress&ShowVidNum=7&Rot_Cat_CD=Congress&Rot_HT=&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=365&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Baiting the trap

jason_s — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:01:03 GMT

The thing to recognize is that no one with any real power in the world has the slightest interest in returning bin Laden's calls.

Terrorists are terrorists precisely because they are weak and friendless. Rather than allowing ourselves to be baited into surrendering power and allies, which seems to be our current plan, the better idea is to attack Osama where he is weakest.

Osama is vulnerable out in the open. No one person can betray the US to our ultimate downfall (though Bush is taking a shot), but Osama must be absolutely sure of everyone around him. We can miss time and time again. He can't miss once.

So, assuming he's in Pakistan and enjoying the tacit support of Musharif, let's start closing all the doors around him...except one...before we attack. That door must be the most trusted door. That is the door we must compromise. Flush him into our trap.

Next, we must recognize that capturing bin Laden is a symbolic, not a military, victory. Al Qaeda can operate without a head...like a chicken. The finance and intelligence network, however disrupted, can reform itself quickly.

So, we must leverage the symbolism, not depend on the material outcome.

Around the world now, the sentiment is: "The United States is doing the wrong thing." Why? Because we're invading and occupying.

If, instead, we hold the criminal bin Laden to a public, global trial, two things will happen.

First, the world will start saying "The United States is doing the right thing." That's good for us.

Second, nations across the planet (like Pakistan) will see that there's more profit in cooperating with us than in trying to manipulate us. Thus will we be in a position of strength when it comes to negotiating the formation of a global anti-terror coalition. You know, the kind of organization that can coordinate law enforcement intelligence, cooperate to deny banking privileges, facilitate rapid local responses to terrorist incidents, etc.

The kind of stuff it's hard to do alone, in other words.

Everyone hates our enemy, therefore it's in our enemy's interest to get everyone to hate us, too. Let's not indulge them.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Tracking the lure

jason_s — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:37:42 GMT

Question: how does an inferior force prevail against a superior force?
Answer: by luring them into expending their strength unprofitably

This is how al-Qaeda is operating. By taunting, baiting and sending us on wild goose chases through the Muslim world, they are stripping us of our allies, our purpose and, ultimately, of our view of the exit.

They have trapped us within a hedge maze of sectarian conflict and our Chainsaw of Liberty(tm) is rapidly running out of fuel.

What was to be Bush's war of liberation for the middle east has become a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, fought by their attack dogs. Which leaves us to decide which group we'd rather support: al-Qaeda or Hezbollah. Hezbollah seems the more reasonable, but they are allied to the hated Iran. Al-Qaeda is our sworn enemy, allied to our sworn partner, Saudi Arabia. Not to mention the Turk vs. Kurd thing.

Quite the little bear trap, eh? And the more we struggle with concepts like "victory" and "freedom" and "democracy on the march," the deeper into our flesh it rips.

However, I'm sure things will be much clearer and easier when president Obama invades Pakistan:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/08/02/2007-08-02_id_invade_pakistan_for_osama.html

Another fool's errand. We. Are. Being. Played. Again.

Musharif will use the rise of Al-Qaeda to lure our forces into his country and then he will use our strength to push against Kashmir, which will put a stone in India's shoe...a stone with "made in America" written all over it.

Just as the Saudi's had to be placated after we handed Iraq over to the (Iran-friendly) Shi'ites, so to will India hold our feet to the fire. Unfortunately for them, unlike Saudi Arabia, they are on the outskirts of the "war on terror," so we'll send them packing.

It is foreseeable that India will then re-radicalize the Tamil Tigers, whose connections to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban could prove useful in the campaign against Pakistan: help us with Kashmir and we'll help you with Sri Lanka.

So, basically take the Iran/Iraq war of the 80s, make the United States a committed military ally of Iraq and a cultural ally of Iran, distract the US by getting them to obsess over hunting down terrorists in the theater of war and then give everyone involved nuclear weapons.

That's what we're walking into this time. Can we please, uh, not? While I greatly respect Obama's ethics (in fact, he's my first choice right now), I'd like to see him take a more measured approach.

George Bush's inexperience combined with hubris and a denial of the laws of reality led us down this path. My great hope is that Barak Obama will temper HIS lack of experience by attending to good advice and a little respect for the foreseeable consequences of our actions.

Time is not on al-Qaeda's side; it's on ours. What strength they have comes from us. We can afford to do things intelligently.

The problem is not that Bush pushed the WRONG war...the problem is that he pushed war at all. Had Osama bin Laden himself been walking freely through the streets of Baghdad before we invaded, we'd still be in the same situation now.

War is the stupidest, most expensive, destructive, distracting and demoralizing experience a country can go through. The power of the military is NOT that it will prevail in battle, but rather that it will make the other side fight at all. The key is to make your enemies know that it will be expensive to fight you, thus dissuading them from doing so.

Al-Qaeda is not deterred by the threat of war...they SEEK it, even if they cannot prevail. Why? Because, even if we win, we lose. So long as they can bait us into fighting anywhere they want any time they want and so long as protracted, poorly understood military campaigns cost us blood, treasure and good will, then Al Qaeda owns us.

We've talked ourselves into the idea that we can't leave Iraq so long as Al Qaeda is there. Intelligence tells us that there are about 1000 Al Qaeda in Iraq.

1000 men hiding in brick huts have trapped the entire US military in a downward spiral. Leonidas himself could have done no better.

As it is in Iraq, so it shall be in Pakistan.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

The Young Americans

jason_s — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:06:49 GMT

Looks like young Bushies are being grilled by the Senate:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1649240,00.html

The thing about child soldiers is, for all their fanaticism, they are easily turned. Watch out, George.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Quote of the day

jason_s — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:13:02 GMT

Paraphrasing a letter in Salon:

If the president had announced to the nation that God has spoken to him through his television set and told him to attack Iraq, it would precipitate a national crisis.

How, then, does the absence of a television set make this idea less alarming?

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

RIP Ingmar Bergman

jason_s — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:24:30 GMT

That's check and mate.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/30/MNGC68C5R14.DTL

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 1 reply

In the style of Ernest Hemmingway

jason_s — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:26:28 GMT

Senator: Why did John Ascroft go to the hospital?
Gonzo: To die. Alone. In the rain.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

In The Style of Tom Stoppard

jason_s — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:23:59 GMT

Senator Leahy: We are Senators, sir, and as such being neither senile nor Tory, we shall proceed with our business, as it is the business of the house to keep and housekeeping is our business, busy we are and shall remain in the house.
Gonzo: You have my full attention
Leahy: Well met, indeed, your attention. For it is your attention I wish to draw to a tension that has arisen, it seems, twixt your sense and your sensibility as it were, your words and your meaning. What concerns our pretty play today is the meaning, and the deviation from the meaning.
Gonzo: No mean deviation.
Leahy: But from the deviation we set course to a derivation
Gonzo: A derivation of the mean?
Leahy: You've struck at the root of the matter.
Gonzo: Allow me to explicate. If my meaning is straight and my words be crooked, the derivation must be in error, for nothing straight may reasonably derive from the crooked.
Leahy: Go on.
Gonzo: On the other hand, if my meaning is crooked and my words are straight, the derivation must still be in error
Leahy: Fascinating.
Gonzo: Ah, but if my meaning is as straight as my word, then the derivation must still be in error, for either meaning or word must be in error.
Leahy: All fruit of that tree having been poisoned
Gonzo: Now you're catching on.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

In The Style of David Mamet

jason_s — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:06:44 GMT

One of my favorite writers but dear GOD someone tell him to let his actors act.

Chuck Schumer: This is important
Gonzo: Yes?
Chuck: Yes. Important. For if a man is to say...
Gonzo: ...to say?...
Chuck: Yes, to say, as in to utter before God that it wasn't
Gonzo: wasn't?
Chuck: No, that it wasn't...which is not to say that it was but that it was NOT the program that we...
Gonzo: The program under discussion.
Chuck: Yes.
Gonzo: The program we discussed.
Chuck: Yes.
Gonzo: No.
Chuck: No?
Gonzo: No, if I may clarify...
Chuck: Please
Gonzo: To clarify that it was in regard to OTHER programs.
Chuck: Other programs? And not...?
Gonzo:: That is correct
Chuck: What is?
Gonzo: I don't follow
Chuck: A man said "we have known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
Gonzo: He said it indeed.
Chuck: And what appears unknown here is just what the fuck program it is about which your lips continue to flap?
Gonzo: Fuck you.
Chuck: No no no, FUCK YOU!

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

In the style of David Milch

jason_s — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:35:28 GMT

Having been a fan of Deadwood and not quite yet ready to completely abandon the needlessly confusing John from Cincinnati, I thought it would be fun to apply the Milch Filter to Gonzo's testimony.

Arlen Specter: The moment bears us but one question, Mr. AG, to wit what fucking credibility remains to a cocksucker trapped in such obvious and apparent contradiction between not only words and deeds, but words and words? What, pray tell in the name of Cass's great camera in the sky, reconciles your previous assertion of "no disagreement' with the testimony of your immediate subordinates quite to the contrary of your cocksucking recollection?

Gonzo: All calumnies against my recollection aside, I tell you now that such disagreement as may have existed rested not on the firmament previously identified, but rather upon a more rare and distant star.

Arlen: With a single hard cock you've buggered credulity and sense frankly senseless. Upon what post of evidence do you offer us a place to hang our hats?

Gonzo: If I may be indulged. A brief sojourn into the heady atmosphere of this dispute may serve to clarify matters and restore to virginity the sense and credulity so unduly deflowered. If I may?

Arlen: No fucking ball gag remains between your teeth. Speak, villain!

Gonzo: Twas brilling and the slithy toves did gire and gimbal in the...

Arlen: To hell with it. To the depths of fucking cocksucking hell with it!

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Affirmative Inaction

jason_s — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:49:35 GMT

Watching the House Judiciary Committee contempt hearing today. Rote...by the numbers.

But, what's interesting is that the Republic Party members introduced a number of pointless amendments, each of which called for a roll call vote.

During the vote, the camera moves past each member of the committee.

Rolling past the 22 Democratic members, we see 8 African Americans and 7 women, including two African American women.

Rolling past the members of the Republic Party, we see: white dude, white dude, white dude, white dude, white dude...and on and on. 16 white dudes.

I'm not big on race politics, being a white dude myself it's not what we would call and advantageous battleground. But the image is striking.

The Republicans have lost a lot of ground due to Dubya. They don't have much to run on.

Wonder how bad the race baiting will get?

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Going, going, Gonzo

jason_s — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:13:34 GMT

Prince Alberto was on the hotseat again today.

More of the same. "I can't recall." "I can't answer that due to an ongoing case/investigation/fever dream." "I'll get back to you." cluck cluck cluck

But there were some nice change ups.

First, I was struck by what I DIDN'T hear. Republican supporters of the AG DIDN'T give long soliloquies about how "there's no there there" and "Clinton did it too" and "this is just a fishing expedition."

It seems like we're long past the question of where the mysterious firing list came from. Only DiFi (always a fan of golden oldies) pushed on that issue.

Rather, Senators pushed on the inconsistencies in his past testimony, and no one rushed to his aid on that one. Instead, his supporters made a few half-assed attempts to clarify a few of his less egregious points and then just moved into their pet issues (GITMO, internet gambling, the price of tea in China, whatever.)

Basically, it got a WHOLE lot chillier in that room today. No one likes being lied to or made a fool of. It's one thing to defend a politically-motivated reorg, which is certainly tacky but probably legal. It's another thing to outright duck questions.

Also, the gallery was very animated. Leahey made a few half-assed attempts to maintain decorum, but the AG was repeatedly subjected to sighs, laughter and cries of "YOU'RE HURTING AMERICA!" "RESIGN!" and "IMPEACH HIM!"

The pot, it seems, is boiling.

To be clear, however: the AG is going nowhere. All those pundits who predicted he had to resign were operating under the old "reality based" paradigm that says that when you're demonstrated to be at best manifestly incompetent and at worst downright criminal in the application of your job, honor demands that you withdraw.

But this is the Bush Administration. Defiance, defiance, defiance. Nothing short of impeachment will do, and the Democrats are allergic to the idea.

So, he'll stay...and diminish...and diminish...and diminish.

What will be left to restore?

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Cootapalooza

jason_s — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 03:07:16 GMT

What a day to be a c-span junkie! A good, old-fashioned Phil E. Buster(tm) brand Coot-Off!

Ahem...

The Democrats say:

"Mr. President, I rise in support of the Levin amendment. Four years ago, the president convinced this country to stick its penis in a mousetrap and, for the past four years, we have been trying, in vain, to remove our penis from this mousetrap with a hammer.

"Some said our initial strategy of banging our penis itself with a hammer, in hopes of making it 'lean and mean' enough to slide out from under the mousetrap was misguided.

"It was in fact, tragically so. In November of last year, the Penis Study Group issued its report,

"In January, the president announced a NEW strategy of alternatively banging our penis with a hammer and banging the mousetrap itself with a hammer. While this has produced some modest progress, the fact of the matter is that we're still banging our penis with a hammer, only now our penis isn't just flattened, but also twisted like taffy.

"My friends across the aisle are saying, 'why not keep on banging our penis with a hammer until September?' Mr. President, the American People are tired of being hammered in the penis and want us to stop, now.

"I yield the floor."

To which the Republicans respond:

"Mr President, I rise in opposition to the Levin amendment. This body made a pledge to General Patraeus to keep on banging our penis with a hammer until he issues his report.

"Maybe some of my colleagues on the other side don't trust the Generals, but this body is only as good as its word and its word has been given.

"Mr. President, we all know that the American people are getting pensive, impatient, even downright colicky. Who can blame them? They've endured four long years of having their penis banged with a hammer, but let me ask my friends on the other side of the aisle this, what's YOUR plan? Who would YOU hand the hammer to?

"Mr. President, it's clear to anyone who supports our penis that its better off being hammered by us ourselves than by Osama bin Laden! And that's what this amendment does: hands the penis hammer to our most hated enemy.

"Some people say that we never should have stuck our penis in the mousetrap to begin with. Mr. President, it's easy to nitpick. But this body should stop second-guessing and Monday Morning quarterbacking.

"If we stop hammering our penis now, that would mean that all the pain we've endured over the last four years has been for nothing. And I don't think the American People support that. They want to know that when their sons and daughters are having their penis hammered, that we'll be there supporting them!

"I yield the floor."

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Where have you gone, Papa Bear?

jason_s — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:50:36 GMT

Someone send flowers to Stephen Colbert. Bill O'Reilly has announced that we can't win in Iraq:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/OReilly_takes_on_Tony_Snow_You_0713.html

Actually, he said "you can't win" to Tony Snow, so maybe he just means that Snowjob can't single-handedly win in Iraq.

Come on, Papa Bear, don't let us down now! What are you? Some kind of weak-kneed, panty-waist, liberal, terrorist-appeasing, freedom-hating jihadi hugger?

I agree that we have challenges in Iraq and we're not seeing as much of the good progress as we'd like, but the consequences of failure would be disasterous.

And don't kid yourselves. The same people who flew planes into the World Trade Center are fighting us now in Iraq. The very same, specific people. All 19 of them. And if we don't fight them there, they'll come here. We'll be fighting running gun battles with Jihadists in the streets of Omaha.

Do you want that, Bill? Do you want to see the Lincoln Memorial replaced with a statute of Osama bin Laden?

Because that's what's at stake. Your children's safety. Let me be clear: if we don't support the president's policies, our children will die, surely as night follows day.

But you'd probably like that. Because you like child murder. Because you're a liberal. And before you complain that you're not a liberal or a conservative, let me just say, you're a liberal because you oppose the war.

You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Guess we see now which side you're on, Bill.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Montezuma's Revenge

jason_s — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:12:28 GMT

Zoom's birthday video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4GQNgUYfdTs

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

The 305

jason_s — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 03:15:37 GMT

Claudius, guard those goats!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8wpa2Qplm8M

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 1 reply

Trent Lott's Electrified Goat Fence

jason_s — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:49:55 GMT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/21/trent-lott-compares-illeg_n_53186.html

Wasn't 'Electric Goat Fence' a one-hit-wonder band back in the early 70s?

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Prole

jason_s — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:17:58 GMT

I've been thinking a lot about '1984' lately, and not just for the obvious reasons. I've been watching the John Hurt version with an eye toward recutting it as a magical-realism romantic comedy called "Do It to Julia."

Anyway, thinking about Orwell's vision and remembering how I struggled to understand the subtlties when I was young (the less than subtle stuff is pretty easy), it always seemed to me that the prolitariat were the hard nut to crack.

I remember thinking in high school that the proles had it pretty good, relatively speaking. By and large they are not subject to arbitrary arrest, coercive politics or any real oppression. They're given state-provided food, shelter, drugs and pornography in exchange for (admittedly tedious, back-breaking and life-destroying) labor.

Okay, not great...but really, not bad given the alternatives. In an Orwellian world, the greatest commodity is anonymity, and the proles are barely acknowledged by the party.

Inner party members have it better...privilege upon privilige, but they have to toe a very, very narrow party line. Outer party members are totally screwed. They have neither the priviliges of the inner party nor the anonymity of the outer party. They have to eat shit and like it...especially in room 101.

Winston believes that the proles are the hope for the future. O'Brian sees them as little more than farm animals. Indeed, if the pattern of Animal Farm is followed, the proles WILL rise up, destroy the party and then pretty much implement the same society all over again.

Where all this breaks down for me is with the philosphy of INGSOC, especially NEWSPEAK and ARTSEM.

The party wants to ensure total loyalty. To achieve this, they must biologically excise the capacity for disloyalty and they have two essential lines of attack (besides propaganda, torture, etc.) NEWSPEAK is designed to reduce human language to something that can only be used to express party-friendly ideas...or, better yet, no ideas at all. ARTSEM (artificial insemination) is designed to obviate the family unit and remove any "unorthodox loyalties" in party members.

The problem is, the proles don't speak NEWSPEAK and they don't practice ARTSEM. They have families and they have their own guttural slang that is allowed to evolve on its own.

"By 2050," says one of Winston's friends, "no one will be able to have a conversation like this."
"Except the proles," responds Winston.
"They don't count. They're animals."

Yeah, they're animals with a language you can't speak and intense interpersonal loyalties. In 70 years, if no one in the party can even conceptualize the notion of revolution, how will you stop this idea from taking hold among the proles? You won't even understand it.

It's like global warming. "What's that? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere retains heat and that changes the weather? It doesn't say that in the bible. Your lips are moving, but you're just making meaningless cluck cluck noises! Shall we gather at the riiiiiiiiver?"

Winston is right. The mistake the party is making is in actively divorcing themselves from reality while allowing other humans to go on living in the real world.

The mistake Orwell makes is in asserting that the proles will need organized leadership (a capacity that has been bred out of them) to rise up. They won't. All they need is for the party to stop believing that the CAN rise up...which has already happened in Winston's time.

No, the party has one prolitariat management strategy: keep 'em happy. Give 'em dope and porn and XBox and American Idle (heh) and everything else and they won't WANT to rise up.

But, if you stop believing they can, you'll stop thinking it's necessary to prevent it. It'll become thought crime to even suggest it. It'd be like, say, threatening to fire anyone who suggests that you might need to plan an exit strategy when you invade a foreign country. TRAITOR! HANG HIM!

The prole leader that brings down the party won't be Malcolm X, he'll be PT Barnum. Some huckster will sell them a pyramid scheme and armies of prolitariat Amway salesmen will baffle and confound party members who can no longer even understand what's going on, much less do anything about it.

I'm thinking, computer game. First person shooter: '1985: Attack of the Proles'

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 1 reply

Ever heard Cloud Cult's "State of the Union?"

V. — Fri, 25 May 2007 22:39:29 GMT

This just in from "Harper's Weekly:"

"Hillary Clinton released a video on YouTube. “So now I'm turning to you, the American people,” said Clinton in the clip. “Here's the issue: what do you think our campaign song should be?"

Well?

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 6 replies

Chase or Coppola?

jason_s — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:17:31 GMT

'The Godfather' by David Chase

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6A_jsBet3T0

Outline:

Michael Corleone returns from World War II and attends his sister's wedding with his girlfriend, Kay.

Shortly after the wedding his father, having run afoul of an up-and-coming drug dealer, is shot in the streets of New York.

Fredo, Michael's brother, overcome with guilt at having failed to protect his father, takes a prolonged vacation upstate, does some antiquing, meets a showgirl with a no-good boyfriend who Fredo ALMOST kills but then the boyfriend suddenly decides to move to California, so he's out of the picture.

Oh, and the girlfriend has a cat or maybe like a small dog or something and Fredo tries his best to win it over but ultimately doesn't get very far.

We burn about three episodes on that while the Don is in a coma.

Back in NYC, Michael decides that he must kill the drug dealer and his law-enforcement sponsor before they finish off his father. The Don, did I mention the coma?, dreams that he's squeezing olives to make olive oil but blood comes out instead of oil. That whole episode takes place in Sicily. Michael is in the dream too, as an old man, drinking the blood. The symbolism is subtle.

In between episodes, we learn that Michael has, indeed, killed McClusky and Solozo and moved to Sicily for a while, was married, widowed and has returned the US. We see none of this. We get it as expositional dialogue between Kay (who has reunited with Michael) and Connie who burn about 30 minutes of screen time trying to find a good canoli on the Upper West Side.

Then we find out that Kay's mother's brother's teenage son has become a heroin addict. Some attempt is made to tie this tragic turn of events to the "collateral damage" of the Corleone family's increasing involvement with drugs, but that idea never really goes anywhere and besides the kid who plays the son just got a callback from The OC and we can't recast because he's already appeared in last week's episode so, what the hell, one of Michael's guys beats a hooker to death in a parking lot because we need some action here and that will eat up the OD time.

Michael decides to move the family interests to Las Vegas where Fredo has been laying masterful groundwork with local big shot Moe Green. Moe Green's wife has leukemia, so we burn an episode on that.

Connie asks Michael to be godfather to her child. Michael agrees, and uses the ceremony as a perfect alibi to kill everyone he knows. As the priest intones the blessing, we intercut between several gangsters stalking Michael's enemies. As the music swells, the gangsters move in and...

...don't stop believing.

'The Sopranos' by Francis Ford Coppola

Having spent 8 years dicking around being a bad guy Tony, overwhelmed with guilt, gives his confession to a Vatican priest. Absolved of his sins, he kills the priest.

The way he figures it, he now only has ONE sin to live down.

He explains this to his therapist and she says "go on."

Tony goes to a dinner to await his family, skips 'Journey' on the jukebox and selects "Cavalleria Rusticana"

The family arrives, Meadow is late, accidentally takes a bullet intended for Tony who screams, but no sound comes out.

Fin.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Will Wright & Brian Eno on generative systems

jason_s — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:44:11 GMT

http://matrixsynth.blogspot.com/2007/06/will-wright-and-brian-eno-generative.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Jason Reviews: The Sopranos

jason_s — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:33:50 GMT

http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2007/06/dont-stop-believing-sopranos-finale-now.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Chris Matthews Admires Fred Thompson's Musky, Mature Man-Scent!

jason_s — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:27:24 GMT

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/14/tweety-thompson-is-the-aqua-velva-man/

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

When a conspiracy is not a conspiracy

jason_s — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:39:40 GMT

So, more notes from beyond the looking glass.

I'm watching Lurita Doan's testimony today. She's the head of the GSA and is under investigation for alleged Hatch Act violations, namely hosting partisan political meetings at GSA and possibly using her official power to advance the Republican party.

The facts appear to be that Karl Rove hosted a political meeting at GSA, which itself is not necessarily Hatch violating so long as it was voluntary and off time. Mz. Doan apparently attended this meeting and asked 'what can we do to help our candidates?'

Much rests on the definition of 'we.' If by 'we' she meant loyal Republicans, well, that's probably not flat out illegal, though it would have been better to hold this kind of meeting at a Applebee's something. If by 'we' she meant the General Services Administration, that's unambiguously illegal.

Doan and her supporters accuse the Dems of being on a gotcha witchhunt, overplaying what might have been a minor line crossing, but no significant wrongdoing.

Waxman and Doan's detractors see this as the tip of a vast iceberg that threatens the very ship of state.

Of course, everyone is wrong.

Even is the worst is true of Doan, it is a small sproutling of a tree in a vast forest of Bush Administration crony corruption. Even if the best is true of Doan, she's still obviously a paranoid party hack who had no business being anywhere near power in the Washington bureaucracy.

From Nixon to Reagan to Clinton to Bush, we've seen a steady lowering of the bar for the expectations of our leadership.

Did Doan seek to use her power as a government official to help the Republicans? Almost certainly. Does she believe that she did nothing improper? Almost certainly. Because 'proper' now means doing whatever you can to help your friends and hurt your enemies and to deny, deny, deny that that's your motive...because it's not...your friends love America and your enemies don't, so helping your friends IS your job, IS your responsibility not just to them but to America itself.

Same with Monica Goodling. It didn't occur to her that there would be a problem vetting employees for their political loyalties because, well, Democrats cannot be trusted to enforce the law properly.

The deer-in-the-headlights show will go on with Harriet Myers, I'm sure.

"What? Hunh? I thought I was supposed to do whatever the president wanted...that's my job, right? Isn't it? I work for him, don't I?"

Well, at least Harriet's case, that's true. But not so Monica Goodling, Lurita Doan, Alberto Gonzales et al.

It's not a conspiracy. Just like the whole Clinton thing was not a conspiracy.

Did James Carville make fundraising calls from a White House phone? Yes. Illegal? Probably. Make a difference? Not really, except to dig politics deeper into governance.

Did Ronald Reagan know about Iran Contra? Depends on what you mean by 'know' but I'm sure they kept him in the dark enough that he could plausibily deny operational responsibility. Does that let him off the hook? No, the buck stopped with the Gipper.

Did Clinton lie about a blowjob? Yes. It does not matter what the definition of 'is' is. Would he have had his people destroy Monica's credibility if that blue dress didn't show up? Yes. He's a vile, fratboy rapist, but luckily a good steward of the economy, the military and our foreign policy, so he gets a walk.

Bush seems to have overcome any personal demons, but he's running this country into the ground so we love Bill and hate George and that's as it should be. We don't elect people for their ability to keep it zipped...we elect them for their ability to implement their agenda.

There's a scene near the end of 'Broadcast News' when (ace reporter) Albert Brooks is trying to convince (high-standards having producer) Holly Hunter that (coifed dumb prettyboy) William Hurt is Bad for America(tm)

"Tom, while being a very nice guy, is the Devil. ... What do you think the Devil’s going to look like? ... Come on. No one’s going to be taken in by a guy with a long, red, pointy tail. No, he’ll be attractive, he’ll be nice and helpful. He’ll get a job where he influences a great and God-fearing nation. He’ll never do an evil thing. He’ll never deliberately hurt a living thing. He’ll just, bit by little bit, lower our standards where they’re important. Just a tiny little bit. Just coax along flash over substance. Just a tiny little bit."

Welcome to hell.

My prescription? It's radical...it's forming...I haven't decided on this yet...but I am a hair's breadth away from simply starving the beast.

I was born into the Nixon Administration and grew up under Reagan. By age 16 I knew I would never, never vote for any Republican. I give Reagan some credit for shifting our point of view on the Cold War, but the values he represented (poverty is vice, Jesus wants you to have nice things, AIDS is ignorable, etc) were monstrous. Simply monstrous. He didn't do it to us...he was reflection of our coked up selves. He occupied the Oval Office like an aging portrait of Dorian Gray, reminding us all of the slickness to which we had succumbed. He was the rash we'd broken out in...but the disease was deeper, buried within the flesh of the body politic.

I'm coming to that same place now for the Democrats. I am disgusted beyond words that this has allowed to proceed...not just the flagrant lawlessness, but also the tiny little coaxing lowering of standards so that now good government means no one gets caught breaking the law. As long as no one gets caught breaking the law, there's nothing to oversee.

And the Dems have gone along with this when out of power and pushed it when in power.

I'm done. Both parties must be destroyed. They are not just useless, they are harmful. Choosing between Republicans and Democrats is like choosing between Soviet Communists and German National Socialists. It's no choice. All of it is facism.

Still, I like that Barak Obama. He might end up being the last Democrat I ever vote for.

And to those who say a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, well, a vote for Gore is a vote for Lieberman.

And to those who say it's throwing away your vote to go any way but Dem or Repub, well, when's the last time we had a Whig president?

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

The consequences of failure

jason_s — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:28:01 GMT

Remember how if we just 'cut and run' from Iraq, the violence will spread throughout the region?

Yes, imagine how bad that might be.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/13/beirut.blast/index.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

A hearty 'FUCK YOU' to the Democrats of Connecticut

jason_s — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:26:11 GMT

Oh, NOW you want Joe Lieberman to resign from the Senate because he "no longer represents the views of the citizens of Connecticut."

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=6647788&nav=3YeX

Ahem...maybe you should have voted for Ned Lamont, then? Hmm? Lieberman was way off the rez back in November. You elected him, you live with him.

And to all those Dems who believe they OWN my vote just because I'm a liberal and who intoned that a "vote for Nader was a vote for Bush," all I can say is, well, a vote for Gore would have been a vote for Lieberman and I am PROUD that I have NEVER voted for a candidate who advocated bombing Iran and escalating this insane war.

Just because the Republicans are evil bullies doesn't mean the Democrats AREN'T incompetent wimps.

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

Only in KY

V. — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:33:10 GMT

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/04/smoke.guitar.ap/index.html

posted in The NEW Smut Greekery - 0 replies

The Judgment of Paris

jason_s — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:46:44 GMT

Sometimes the news just makes you happy, like "Bush Popularity At All Time Low." Here's another "Paris Hilton Dragged Crying And Screaming Back To Jail"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070608/paris-hilton/

I think Bush should pardon her...the ultimate "Wag the Bitch" scenario!

The NEW Smut Greekery's topics - tribe.net

Jason Reviews: The Dark Knight

Jason Reviews: Redbelt

Iraq Hearings: A Turning Point?

A Protest Darkly

My Own Private Scheider

EA v. FOX News

Thank you, Senator Dodd

Another letter to Nancy

Jason Reviews: The NIE

Oh God...they're wearing their armor

I Heart Chuckabees

Jason Reviews: American Gangster

Kucinich has my vote

Oh, prah

400 PPM

The O'Brien Moment

Jason Reviews: 3:10 to Yuma

The Hollow Man

Phony soldiers?

WWWDD?

Need some inspiration

The Last Democrats

What'd'ya mean, "how's he always know?"

Sent to Barbara Boxer

Obama: We Will Do Nothing

Jason Reviews: Near Dark

A letter to Nancy

Ah, Kabuki

Dick

A refeshing gust of facts!

Wide Stance II: The Return of Larry Craig

The Reluctant Libertarian

Idahomo Sapiens

The converging narrative

Sending our love down the mineshaft

My Favorite Candy Bar: Sino-Persian Crunch

Jason Reviews: No End In Sight

Emma Sez

Snake Sez

Misha sez...

The Perseids are Back!

Ski South Africa

Win/Win/Win

Old women and fools

Baiting the trap

Tracking the lure

The Young Americans

Quote of the day

RIP Ingmar Bergman

In the style of Ernest Hemmingway

In The Style of Tom Stoppard

In The Style of David Mamet

In the style of David Milch

Affirmative Inaction

Going, going, Gonzo

Cootapalooza

Where have you gone, Papa Bear?

Montezuma's Revenge

The 305

Trent Lott's Electrified Goat Fence

Prole

Ever heard Cloud Cult's "State of the Union?"

Chase or Coppola?

Will Wright & Brian Eno on generative systems

Jason Reviews: The Sopranos

Chris Matthews Admires Fred Thompson's Musky, Mature Man-Scent!

When a conspiracy is not a conspiracy

The consequences of failure

A hearty 'FUCK YOU' to the Democrats of Connecticut

Only in KY

The Judgment of Paris

G8 minus 1?