Archive for November, 2006

Today, our beloved leader issued his annual pardon of a pair of turkeys (after having them fully interrogated in Syria, of course). The web site of the Imperial Palace offers up some fascinating information on the history of this heart warming tradition, along with a breakdown of this year’s vote, which I’ve reprinted below.

Slate is offering an in-depth analysis of the race and its history.

Every Thanksgiving, the president actually pardons two turkeys – the official Thanksgiving Turkey, who poses for the cameras in the Rose Garden, as well as an alternate, who remains in an undisclosed secure location, ready to take over if the Thanksgiving Turkey is eaten by terrorists. The two turkeys then retire to the Elysian Fields of Disneyland, where they will serve as Grand Marshals for Disney’s Thanksgiving Day parade, and be free to volunteer as mascots for California congressman Duncan Hunter’s 2008 presidential campaign.

A few years ago, Bush aides launched an online contest to name the turkeys. That was back in the days when the Bush White House enjoyed elections.

The turkey naming contest has been more successful than other administration experiments in democracy, like Iraq. But like the administration itself, the contest may be fading away for lack of interest.

In 2004, nearly 20,000 people voted, lifting the names Biscuits and Gravy to a 27%-22% win over Patience and Fortitude. Last year, turnout dropped by a third, to a mere 12,726 voters, as Marshmallow and Yam beat Wattle and Snood by only 27%-26%. The Wattle and Snood campaign is still whining that with a shift of just 65 votes, Marshmallow would have been stuffed and the press would be writing about a Wattle comeback.

This is an election year, so turnout ought to be higher. But the choices in this year’s “Gobble the Vote” contest won’t help. Each year, the race attracts four types of candidates: Famous Founders (Lewis and Clark in ’03, Adams and Jefferson in ’04), enduring values (Stars and Stripes and Hope and Glory in ’03, Patience and Fortitude in ’04, Democracy and Freedom in ’05), turkey parts (Gobble and Peck in ’04, Wattle and Snood in ’05), and Thanksgiving favorites (Pumpkin and Cranberry in ’03, Biscuits and Gravy in ’04, Marshmallow and Yam in ’05).

The race usually comes down to a choice between food and values, and food almost always wins out. Stars and Stripes won on a values mantle in 2003, when the nation was still in shock from 9/11. But Pumpkin and Cranberry finished second that year, while Biscuits and Gravy and Marshmallow and Yam won the last two contests. Turkey parts nearly pulled an upset last year with Wattle and Snood – but without exit polls, we’ll never know how many voters thought those were Republican values, nor how many regions consider those parts prized holiday fare.

This year, the White House faces the same challenge in naming turkeys that it had defending them in the midterms: No values are on the ballot. The Founders have three candidates: Washington and Lincoln, Ben and Franklin, and Plymouth and Rock. The other two entries are Fusion candidates: the Food/Founder hybrid Corn and Copia and the Turkey-Parts/Food combo Flyer and Fryer.

Even lifelong political birdwatchers don’t know how to handicap this race. Washington and Lincoln, who dominate the nation’s currency, will have a tougher time with turkey voters, who have never given a Founder more than 10%. The same bias against historical figures will hurt Ben and Franklin, despite their namesake’s impeccable credentials as the father of Thanksgiving and champion of the turkey as the national bird.

For once, the Founders may have a contender in Plymouth and Rock. Unlike Lewis and Clark and all those ex-presidents, it actually reminds people of Thanksgiving. Of course, if Plymouth could carry the top of the ticket, Lee Iacocca would have won the presidency in 1988, and we could have avoided a pair named George and George W. Bush.

While nobody ever lost money betting against the Food candidates, this year’s entries are more kitschy than appetizing. Like Wattle and Snood, Corn and Copia will leave many voters scratching their heads – although a holiday built around birds stuffed with bread and drenched in cranberries is enduring proof that Americans will eat anything.

Flyer and Fryer is another candidacy built on confusion – two appealing ornithological concepts ill-suited to this particular species. If Corn and Copia sounds like a Bushism, Flyer and Fryer sounds like the Bush Doctrine. Maureen Dowd is drooling at the chance to write up the father-son symbolism of a Flyer and Fryer win, as World War II flying ace Bush 41 sups with third-degree-electoral-burn-victim Bush 43.

As you can see, Slate was way off in theorizing that Plymouth and Rock would win this year. As it turned out, the victory went to Flyer and Fryer. Personally, I think the fix was in. Somebody in the administration is looking to stick it to the boss and set things up to make sure those two would be the winners — not because of the MoDo concept mentioned in the article, but because of what happened today when Bush made the announcement. With his comical, artificial Texas accent, he was unable to properly say the names of the birds, and it came out “Flahr and Frahr”.

OK, while I try to figure out something both valuable and pissy to say about product placements in churches (because I don’t think “grrrrrr” is quite sufficient, but that’s all I can think of at the moment), I’d like to say something short and sweet about Apple’s new spots for the iPod Shuffle — the one featuring the song Who’s Gonna Sing by the Prototypes: good song, good editing, absolutely great tag line. You’ve got a series of people clipping the player to their clothes, and the tag is “Put some music on.” That’s just damned good.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the acronym WOM, but in marketing-speak it’s what we call “word of mouth,” which has become one of those marketing buzzwords like Web 2.0 and viral marketing. Sure, everyone knows what word of mouth is, but there are people who are paid to manage it for companies, or at least to try to manage it.

It’s the sort of thing that can get out of hand. After all, nobody owns the interweb tubes, and despite the efforts of some, public opinion is pretty hard to tame. That’s the situation the venerable Bank of America currently finds itself in.

BoingBoing is reporting on a huge customer service gaffe on the part of a Bank of America branch. As word has spread about it, people have been closing down their BofA accounts to express their disgust, to the tune of about $50 million.

And then there’s the video below, of a couple of BofA folks performing their version of U2′s “One,” with lyrics extolling the glory and wonder of their mastery of the world of credit cards (which BofA actually invented, by the way) as they absorb competitor after competitor. The headline of its page on YouTube describes it as “funny/terrible,” but I have to admit, the guy has a good voice. What’s funny/terrible about it is the concept of singing with passion about the credit card business, and the way these guys are dressed. It makes me want to shake them by the shoulders and angrily scream BANKER at them. It’s kind of like the way the space hippies called people “Herbert” in that Star Trek episode.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhYg_7e3X54]

There’s one thing that it seems many people don’t know about BofA. That abbreviated version of the bank’s name is pronounced “B of A” by most, but some of us prefer the single word “Bofa,” and that just happens to be a word of celebration in the Zulu language. Just imagine a bar in Soweto, full of fans watching a World Cup match between South Africa and the hated Italians. Italy is favored to win, and moved ahead with three early goals, but the South Africans are making a comeback. Every time the goal tender makes a save, the crowd shouts “Bofa!” With each goal by the South Africans, the shouts of “Bofa” grow louder, until the game is won when a player from the Townships makes a miraculous penalty kick and the whole nation shakes with screams of “Bofa!“

It’s true. Would I lie?

Hey Kidz! Put down those boring books and let Uncle Karl and his pal Freddy explain it all for you the fun and exciting way!

Dear Yoplait,

In that series of spots you’ve been running for a few years now, you’ve got two friends expressing how much they enjoy your product by comparing it with other pleasant experiences.

I’m fine with that, but if all of these commercials are going to be written around the word “good,” don’t you think you should have made sure both of your performers were able to pronounce the word? I’m not going to buy yogurt that’s “gid,” because I’m just not certain what what “gid” is. It could be some slang term for “yucky” for all I know.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9u2UUrHU_g]

Glenn Greenwald comments at Crooks and Liars about the president’s casual admission of lying at a press conference yesterday.

At his Press Conference today, President Bush expressly admitted that he lied last week when he said that Donald Rumsfeld would remain Defense Secretary for the next two years (only to announce today that Rumsfeld is being replaced). When the President was asked about this discrepency, he simply admitted that “the reason why is I didn’t want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer.”

That the President would so brazenly lie is not, of course, surprising (although the lie was so glaring that even conservatives James Joyner and Byron York objected to it).

Well, sure he lied. He lies all the time. There’s a war going on. Remember how that got started?

If people want to call Bush on this particular lie because he so clearly copped to it, that’s fine, but let’s think about the consequences had he told the truth when he was asked about whether Rummy was going to keep his job.

Had Bush said something like, “Well, the Vahs Prizzidint is a-gonna be stayin on the job. Ah gots complete faith in Dick. But ahm the decider, and ah done decided that it’s tahm we got us a new secerturry a’ deefense. Rummy’s done a fahn job, but he and ah agrees that we needs us some new ahs on our War agin’ them thar Evil dooers,” the following would most likely have taken place:

• The Left would have gone apeshit over this, saying he’d held off on making the announcement until just before the election in order to get a boost in the election. No doubt Rove knew that the basiest of the base was a bit less zealous this time around, and they needed to draw a little more of the middle of the road vote. This would have been viewed as an attempt to do that.
• The Right would have, with very few exceptions, grudgingly admitted that the time had come and this was the right thing to do.
• Two or three moderate Republican senators who got tossed out in this election would have squeaked by, and they would have retained control of the Senate.

Would that really have been preferable? We all saw how Bush was jumped on when he announced that Rummy and Cheney were definitely staying on. It helped Democrats and hurt Republicans. It was a stupid thing for him to do. Look how angry the campaign staffs of numerous losing Repugs were, both when they first heard that Bush gave Rummy a big thumbs up, and again when he admitted it was a lie. Poor poor Lincoln Chafee was completely screwed.

This is the best lie Bush has ever told.

No, I take that back. We knew you far better than we ever could have wished to. So long, you arrogant, rude, mean-spirited, dishonest, authoritarian ass.

I don’t know much about this Gates character, and despite the fact that he appears to be a Texan (and call me prejudiced, but Texans worry me), I suggest the Senate, be it the outgoing one or the incoming, confirm this guy quickly — not just to send Rummy off ASAP, but to make sure Bushy doesn’t decide to offer the gig to Joe Lieberman, making himself look bipartisan while taking back a Senate seat for his side of the aisle.

Former Bush speech writer and all-around neo-con weenie David Frum wrote the following in his “diary” at the National Review Online under the heading “Hypocrites“:

Dear Diary…

A sensational but to-date unsubstantiated allegation has been hurled at a major American religious figure. On much of the left, the reaction is gleeful delight: See! He is no better than anybody else!

In my mind, however, this story highlights a widespread moral assumption that I have never been able to understand.

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue – or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his “real” life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.

Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character – and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.

How does this make moral sense?

Let me put it another way:

In every other avenue of life, we praise people who rise above selfish personal wishes to champion higher principles and the public good. We admire the white southerners who in the days of segregation spoke out for racial equality. We admire the leader of a distressed industry who refuses to ask for trade protections and government handouts. We admire the Arthur Vandenbergs and (someday) the Joe Liebermans who can reach past party feeling to support a president of the opposing party for the sake of the national interest.

If a religious leader has a personal inclination toward homosexuality — and nonetheless can look past his own inclination to defend the institution of marriage and to affirm its benefits for the raising of children — why should he likewise not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity?

“I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self.”

Oh, David, David David. Where did you find these two straw men you’re talking about? These are two extremes, neither of which accurately represents poor innocent Mr. Haggard. Why not talk about a man who, frightened by his feelings, marries, raises kids and does all he can to harm the lives of the people who are brave enough to admit to those feelings themselves? That’s what matters here, Dave. It would be sad to me if Haggard had married, raised kids, and just denied his true feelings (if they turn out to be true, of course). What makes this ugly (and, no, I am not “gleeful” over any of this matter) is that he has cowardly and hypocritically chosen to not just deny his feelings, but to promote the gay-bashing agenda. His whole professional life has apparently been an attempt to say, “Queer? Me? No way! Look how much I hate queers!”

Not all gay men hire prostitutes and use illicit drugs. I wouldn’t be surprised if one or two straight men did that, by the way. If Haggard had learned to respect himself, maybe he’d have spent the past twenty or thirty years in a healthy relationship with a nice guy — a nice Christian boy. They could come live in the Glorious PRM and get married, just like any loving couple. They could even open a church together if they really wanted to.

But if you’d rather talk about your two naughty boys as if they’re the only possibilities, fine. I’d say (surprise!) that bad boy #2 is the more moral of the two, assuming the “traditional moral principles” he vilifies are the ones that involve labeling him as sick or evil. He’s being honest with himself and about himself.

Bad boy #1, on the other hand, is the kind of hypocrite who makes millions of children hate themselves. He’s the cause of pain, suffering and suicide for people who aren’t quite as good as he is at lying to themselves and others.

You suggest that your closet case is encouraging people to “lead stable lives.” It’s becoming increasingly clear to people that a life of denying one’s true self is not stable, no matter how hard one tries. Moreover, if you want to imply that the life of a homosexual is unstable, maybe it would be a good idea to think about why that might be. Do you think it could have anything to do with living in a society that marks you as sick, a sinner, someone not deserving of the full rights enjoyed by others? How would you like it if your very identity were to be described by society at large as “deviation, sin, and error”?

You ask why #1 should “not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity.” (heh. you said “firmness”) I’ll tell you why. He’s not overcoming his desire to kill people. Being gay is not (at least according to the US Supreme Court) criminal. All he’s doing is perpetuating a collection of ugly myths and harming people, and when he makes use of his power, position and connections to try to codify that ugliness, he is hurting everyone. And the more he has to work to “overcome” those feelings, the more he has to prove to himself and others that he’s not one of those people, the more harm he’s going to do.

Finally, this suggestion absolutely astonishes me: “Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue — or at least as a mitigation of his offense?” Absofuckinglutely no! For one thing, hypocrisy need not be considered the “ultimate sin,” but let’s recognize that it’s not a good thing, no matter what one’s intentions are. But let’s think of this concept a little more broadly. This is the neo-con/Bushy apologist’s entire philosophy. Why are we in Iraq? We’ve gone through a series of excuses, none of which mean a lot, but they’re not the point. The people who took us there wanted to invade Iraq. It doesn’t matter what excuse they give us for doing it; they know better than we do, and lying to us is probably our fault rather than theirs. We aren’t smart enough to get the real reason, whatever it might be, so they simply had to lie to us.

Why are they taking away our rights? We don’t need to know the real reason. They’re protecting us. Sure, they’re insisting that they’re not spying on Americans, they’re not torturing anyone, they’re not shirking our international responsibilities. They have to lie to us. But they know best. They have to be hypocrites. It’s for our own good.

Have you seen the recent Harris Poll about belief in god among Americans?

A lot of people are making a big deal about the fact that the results indicate that while the vast majority are still believers “only 58 percent” are “absolutely certain.” Jeez (so to speak). Only 58%? It seems to me that 58% of Americans claiming they’re absolutely certain about the existence of a deity is still kind of a lot.

But there is good news out there, even for someone coming at this from my perspective. Have a look at this table.

Not only are belief and certainty down, but disbelief is up! And no, that is not automatic. Do you know how many times after telling someone I’m an atheist they’ve replied with something like, “OK, but you still believe in God, right?”

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

A dumb thing to say? Hell, yes. But mostly because Kerry is a stiff who just isn’t funny. It was meant to be a joke about Bush, but even if he’d gotten it right, it wouldn’t have been funny at all.

But now you’ve got all these people (including his old friend McCain) jumping all over him for it, even after he’s explained himself and apologized. How many times can you insist that someone apologize after they’ve apologized?

Tony Snow has pointed out that Kerry claims all he did wrong was omit the word “us,” but Tony just can’t find a way that adding the word would make sense. Lemme give you a hand there, Tonester:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get us stuck in Iraq.

Get it now? Har de har. Good one.

Here’s the bit I don’t get, though: if you’re going to express anger at Kerry for saying this, I can only see two possible reasons:

1. You think he meant it that way. You think that a decorated veteran who serves in the US Senate and aspires to be president would intentionally state that he believes that one has to be stupid to join the military. If you think that’s the case, you simply have to be stupid yourself.
2. You know he didn’t mean it that way. But if you know he didn’t mean it that way, and you jump all over him for saying it, that makes you a liar.

So… which one is it? Tony? Dubsy? Anyone?