Completely Unnecessary

Or not me.

Chris sends me a link to this video today, with instructions to watch the Chicago section at 2:25:

I’ve watched the girl in the center like a hundred times now. That’s fucking got to be you.

Chris’ filthy mouth aside, he’s almost right. The girl, standing a little bit in front of the crowd making an ostentatious fool of herself ought to be me.

But it’s not.

An edited version of our conversation says more about how my friends view me (and how I view myself) than just about anything else:

Me: That’s not me - though I grant that her spastic movements might lead you to think that.

Chris: It’s a combination of things. The glasses and hair are reminiscent of yours, as is the “I’m being funny right now” facial expression. And the black tank top/cropped pants combo seems like a plausible outfit for you. I feel like if you were to replace whoever that is, the difference in grainy internet footage would be pretty much indistinguishable.

Me: Yeah, it’s really the mouth-open facial gesture during the ’sexy bit’ that makes it seem like me. If she’s from Chicago maybe it’s just something they taught us in public school.

Between this and the girl from Iowa, I’m not as unique and precious a flower as I’ve always assumed.

Though I am disappointed that Chris thinks I would wear those shoes.

(Btw: To Matt, the creator of the film - why such short shrift to Melbourne? We get half a second of Fed Square at 0:56 and that’s it!)

Vaguely Related

• Small World
• Wind (and a little bit of media studies!)

Senators Feingold and Dodd have delayed the Senate vote on the bill that would grant immunity to the telecom companies for their role in the warrantless wiretapping.

In December, Obama:

unequivocally oppose[d] giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect.

The situation today is somewhat different, Obama saying:

“Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program,” Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.

Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olbermann are screaming at each other across the interwebs, the latter seeming to suggest that a President Obama would be able to take advantage of the poorly written bill to get the telecoms.

That’s not a good enough answer. Aside from the fact that Obama hasn’t stated this ’secret plan’ as his reason for supporting the bill, Greenwald’s argument that no political leader should be given that much blind faith is compelling. Blind faith is what the Right gave Bush for - well - about seven years.

Granted, I’m no legal scholar, but from everything I’ve read, it’s a bad bill that erodes Fourth Amendment protections. Secret Plan or no, it’s time to restrict the power of the executive. I like Obama a lot, but I still want him to have far less power than Bush has claimed.

Obama’s promise to make sure that he doesn’t abuse his power is not a reason to vote for a bad bill. Bush promised to ‘carefully monitor’ all sorts of things and has paved our lovely little road to hell.

Which brings me to my point. I’m in the position of not only being an Obama presidential supporter, but also an Obama senatorial constituent- as are a goodly number of those to read this blog (thanks Google Analytics).

Senator Obama can be contacted here. Tell him to stick to his (December) guns on the FISA bill and not to get involved in political expediency. Make sure to check the box asking for a reply.

You can also call the Chicago office on (312) 886-3506 or the DC Office on (202) 224-2854.

Two weeks ago, Obama demonstrated that Democrats can and should push back on issues of national security. We don’t need to run to the center on this one either.

Vaguely Related

• Justice Kennedy Back In Fine Form
• You there, quit it.

In case you haven’t heard, the newest iteration of the Federal Marriage Amendment was re-introduced to Congress this week.

The amendment would, of course, protect the sacred institution of marriage from the destructive ways of teh homos and their big gay marriages.

The obvious need for such an amendment is given extra patriotic flare through the sponsorship of our nation’s two staunchest defenders of sacred unions, Senators Larry Craig and David Vitter.

Larry Craig (R-ID), as you may remember, sprung to fame last summer after attempting to solicit sex in the men’s toilets.

David Vitter (R-LA) is equally famous for hiring prostitutes.

I wish there some kind of bell or buzzer that we, as a nation, could collectively ring (or buzz) in moments of extreme irony.

It’d relieve some of the sputtering from the cognitive dissonance.

Links:
Pretty much everybody.

Vaguely Related

• Blogging Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry
• The Cheney Impeachment Response

I told you he was back in fine form.

As opposed to last year when I was not so pleased with him, Kennedy has made some interesting rulings. (Not that I always agree with them, but…).

Anyway, the Times has a feature about his role on the Court this year.

He’s like the new Sandra Day-O!

Vaguely Related

• Pictures in the Media: White vs. Brown
• NYT’s Clinton Must-Read

Jesus. That’s about all one can say about this past Friday’s election in Zimbabwe.

With Tsvangirai gone and the UN bravely refusing to do anything (the august body was even unable to declare a run-off with one candidate ‘illegitimate’).

Mugabe has declared victory and proclaimed ‘record turnouts’, though it appear (unsurprisingly) that the Zimbabweans that voted did so out of fear. Despite the increasing violence and terror waged against those supporting the opposition, it seems as though numerous voters spoilt their ballots or voted for Tfo. Some even boycotted the poll, despite Mugabe’s thugs checking for the tell-tale ‘I voted’ red ink on people’s fingers.

But, worry not, Mugabe is going to be magnamouous in his ‘victory’ - I suppose he can afford to be, having terrorized his opponent and his people.

Bush is going to put in tougher sanctions, but whether this will work or not is debatable. One of Mugabe’s ploys in the past has been to claim that Western sanctions on his government is what has driven the insane inflation in the country. But at least he’s doing something.

After the fact, of course. God forbid we act when it might be truly effective - say, before or during the intimidating beatings, murders and incarcerations. Say, before Mugabe could claim victory in an election.

Perhaps if we meddled in the right place for once we wouldn’t have to call it ‘meddling’.

Vaguely Related

• Zimbabwe: Mugabe Retaliates in Plain Sight
• Zimbabwe: Mugabe in Plain Sight II

…for not posting.

I mean, it does. I know that more than one of you check this blog regularly for new and (ahem) insightful content.

But I can’t control your poor life choices.

So I’ve been tempted this week to blog about the lovely and soul-inspiring weddings of biddies - because obviously that’s awesome.

I think if you can’t be happy for 80+-year-old women getting married you don’t really understand what life is about. There’s fundamental level at which you don’t understand happiness.

[Ed. note - Um, Firefox 3, vaguely appealing though it is, does not seem to have incorporated spellcheck in a timely manner. This is absolutely disastrous for your editor, who can't spell her way out of a very small shoebox.] [Oh thank crap, it kicked back in; I had spelled disastrous wrong. I'm more of a big picture kind of girl.]

Anyway, I’ve been sick and also working/marking/watching Angel, so it’s really a grab bag of reasons why I’ve lacked the wherewithal to fulfill the blogging duties that - I will remind you - come with little to no financial reward.

I had something to say. I think it was this:

I know the Administration only has a short number of months (yay!) left in office, but this doesn’t mean that they should drive down their game.

It will potentially frighten several of you to learn that my father is a Republican. Not of the truly alarming variety - he just believes in lower taxes, etc, etc. (whereas I believe in stealing from the rich, etc., etc.).

Anyway, he sends me an article last week in which George Will (displaying the youngest picture GenXers have ever seen of George Will) is all about drilling in ANWAR and everywhere offshore because the Chinese are already doing it.

Eh, they’re not.

But, if the story gets repeated enough times, it looks like good enough impetus for Bush to advocate drilling off all our coastlines a few days later. The NYT, however, is not so impressed with that, considering it won’t lower gas prices until 2030.

But hey - talking points trotted out in the press ten days before they become ‘policy’ is just typical. Could these guys try anymore? I mean, where are those bold policy suggestions of yore? Isn’t there a country we should think about invading?

Oh, or is it just that we’ve gotten lazy, considering the oil contracts with one that we’ve already invaded?

Personally, I’m happier thinking about old ladies getting married.

Congrats to them and everyone taking the plunge (especially to Elissa and Keith, who I love with all my heart… even though they’re not gay. It’s not, like, a definite criteria for my support of your union).

Vaguely Related

• Justice Kennedy Back In Fine Form
• Zimbabwe Election Redux

I am many things, but - as anyone who has watched me move can attest - graceful is not one of them.

Charming stories of my disastrous exploits can be found here, here (with picture) and here.

My inherent calamity-proneness is why black table tops against black carpeting in dark bars are a terrible, terrible idea. And, the use of marble is also a no-no.

That part that looks yellow? That’s all a bruise (exacerbated by the fact that I slipped on the bathmat the other day and slammed that area straight into the tub. Nice.)

Anyway, so I clearly walked into a table at the bar. Fair enough.

But it was also raining that night. And as I rode home, my bike slipped riding over the tram tracks and my tire went straight in the groove. Off I went, managing - amazingly - not to damage parts I’d already damaged:

I’m happy to say that my right leg bore the brunt of the insanity, including that amazing bruise on the inside/back of my right knee. That, my friends, is a difficult place to bruise.

I think it’s worth a 9.7 from the Russian judge.

Also notice the lumpage on the knee in the bruise picture. Awesome. (The left knee also took a hit, but the left shin stayed out of it, thank god. It does not feel good as it is.)

Anyway, all these pics are four days later and my tire needs some serious truing.

To be fair though, by bike took what should have been an obscene disaster and turned it into only a few bruises and a bit of a banged knee. I still have the utmost confidence in her.

Black marble tabletops, however, are on my shit list.

Vaguely Related

• The Obama/Clinton Race and Gender Debate: In Pictures

Okay, look - I’m not one of those people screaming at the media at the moment. I don’t think Clinton lost because of sexist treatment - though it certainly didn’t help.

This blog, however, has been like a treasure trove of unflattering pictures of HRC. See yesterday’s post, por ejemplo.

So, why - why, is this run now?! (And you can click on the pic for a larger version)

“Now, in her diminishment…” she finally gets a good picture?

I don’t want to sound like a feminist conspiracy theorist, but there’s something odd about the lovely words and images poured forth upon a woman who’s finally stopped being too brassy.

I mean, I’ve seen The Philadelphia Story. Katherine Hepburn learns to be ‘yaw’ and then everyone loves her. It’s a great movie.

But there’s also a reason for that.

NY Magazine Table of Contents

Vaguely Related

• Life Without Hillary Clinton
• NYT’s Clinton Must-Read

I know I’m behind the times; on the upside, I know far more about Australian irrigation, catchment levels and the Murray-Darling scheme than I’d ever hoped to learn.

Anyway, onto Justice Kennedy, who reasserted himself as my favorite Supreme Court justice after a lengthly period on my shit list. Writing the Opinion (.pdf) in Boumediene v. Bush (the case that gave Gitmo detainees their rights back) he said:

Although the United States has maintained complete and uninterrupted control of Guantanamo for over 100 years, the Government’s view is that the Constitution has no effect there, at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed formal sovereignty in its 1903 lease with Cuba. The Nation’s basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say “what the law is.”

I feel that ‘Snap!’ doesn’t properly represent the the six years of illegality under which these detainees have been held.

Kennedy first won his way into my heart via his Opinion in 1993’s Church of the Lukumi Babalu-Aye v. City of Hialeah:

Our review confirms that the laws in question were enacted by officials who did not understand, failed to perceive, or chose to ignore the fact that their official actions violated the Nation’s essential commitment to religious freedom… No one suggests, and on this record it cannot be maintained, that city officials had in mind [as the target of their ordinances] a religion other than Santería.

I might not always agree with him, but the man does not mince words, which I respect more than most things. The Hialeah ruling is like series of uppercuts to the judge below him - awesome.

Vaguely Related

• Democrats for President: Exhibits
• Blogging Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry

Here’s the lede to a NYT article run the other day about the media’s potentially sexist treatment of Senator Clinton during her presidental campaign:

Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a “Media Hall of Shame,” starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton’s rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter.

And here is the picture they ran (and, considering that I saw it on HuffPost today, continue to run):

That is a sloppy screen capture, I apologise. I feel I should also say…

For realz?!?!

Though, I guess what better way to give that extra bit of meta f-you to Clinton than to show a picture of her boobs in the story in which you pretty much of blow off those charges of sexism.

Nice work.

Then again, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann called Katie Couric the “Worst Person in the World” for backing up the Clinton campaign, so I guess there are worse things.

Vaguely Related

• Life Without Hillary Clinton
• Tony Abbott Knows the Lingo