A conservatory of Ldotter blogs.

Saturday, November 13, 2004

Who will be number three. . .

. . .in the trifecta of Ol' Dirty Bastards to die?

Wolfgang von Skeptik. . .

. . .checks in with a cautionary post on the Bush administration's naming of Alberto Gonzales to replace outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"The Gonzales appointment – which was applauded by one of America’s leading anti-gun zealots, Sen. Charles Schumer (D., NY) – is a disconcerting signal in at least three ways. First, it is a slap in the face to the National Rifle Association and to Second Amendment advocates in general, absolute proof the always-bogus Bush/gunowner honeymoon is forever ended. Second, the appointment is an important concession to Hispanics, 71 percent of whom are said to favor 'gun control,' though the survey-findings that make this claim. . .leave the precise meaning of 'gun control' undefined."

Also, a hat-tip to Wolfgang for introducing me to a new epithet to hurl at Bill Maher -- "titiot". Thanks for setting me straight, Wolfie!

Cheney's doing fine. . .

. . .having undergone tests to check his heart after he experienced some shortness of breath earlier today. It seems he got winded while running to answer the phone when he heard the special Halliburton ring tone.

Maher Har Hardy-har-har. . .

. . .of all the links I've ever posted, the Bill Maher story seems to be directing more traffic my way than any other. So, there's obviously quite a bit of interest in the story, and as such, I don't see any reason not to write about it. After all, Bill had no compunction whatsoever in slurring the President as a "cokehead", back when he still had his gig at ABC, with Politically Incorrect.

Believe it or not, I was somewhat of a Maher fan, at one point in my life. Back around the time of the GOP takeover of Congress, in 1994, Maher had some sane positions. And, while I didn't always agree with him, I thought he was a reasonably thoughtful person with opinions worth being listened to, if only for their basis in fact and his antipathy for political correctness.

These days, however, what seems to drive Maher's opinions is pure contempt for whatever happens to be the prevailing opinion among people like me -- which is strange, given the fact that I once counted myself among his fans.

But, then, the world has changed since 1994. The GOP has established dominance in American politics, making it a very large target. So, as a person whose contribution to society is pretty much limited to criticism, he has no choice but to shift against the tide of American culture and politics. It's either that, or starve.

So, should it come as a surprise that Maher might be overbearing and hypercritical toward those in his personal life?

Of course, that doesn't in any way indicate that Maher is guilty of physically injuring "Coco Johnsen". I personally think that part of her allegations is probably unfounded. But, one needn't be as contemptuous of Maher as I am to entertain the notion that he might be mentally and emotionally abusive toward the people in his personal life. Did he actually threaten to crack her skull with a hammer? I don't know. But, I won't let that get in the way of calling him Skullcracker Bill.

And, it's at least a little instructive that Maher would choose "Coco" as his paramour. After all, the man apparently has a longtime friendship with Ann Coulter, a constitutional scholar, bestselling author, highly-paid speaker on the lecture circuit, one-time editor of the University of Michigan Law Review, and willowy, blonde object of desire for every slightly masochistic conservative male political junky in North America. Yet, he shacked up with a flight attendant who had been a model at one time in her life -- apparently in a trade industry calendar for Udder Balm.

He has many friends in positions of power and influence in Hollywood, right where it intersects with Washington, D.C. He counts Arianna Huffington among one of his staunchest allies. His show's guest lists always feature prominent figures, and his regular guests get that way by developing personal relationships with him -- and there's nothing wrong with that. I imagine anyone with a talk show would tend to develop friendships with guests whose appearances they particularly enjoy.

But, why such a disconnect between Maher's professional and quasi-personal friendships and his love life? Why would Maher choose to cohabitate with someone whose worldview is, by virtue of experience, so far removed from his own? Is it a matter of love's ability to bridge all social chasms? Or, is Maher a Svengali -- the Phil Spectre to "Coco's" Ronnie and the Ronnettes? I won't profess to know, and I won't attempt to plum the depths of his psyche.

But, I can't help noting how hard Bill Maher has worked over the years to cultivate the image of a jerk among those with whom he disagrees, and especially among those to whom he feels morally and intellectually superior -- which is apparently just about everyone. Whether or not he's the jerk he appears to be is no more for me to say than whether or not he's a sociopath. But, in reading the allegations being made against him by "Coco" and deciding who I'm more inclined to believe, I have to operate on what I know about the two people involved.

And, the sum total of that is:

(1) Bill Maher, publically at least, treats people whom he views with contempt like dirt.

(2) Bill Maher feels nothing but contempt for his perceived intellectual inferiors.

(3) Bill Maher holds an English degree from Cornell University.

(4) English majors perceive lots of people as their intellectual inferiors.

(5) Cornell University graduates perceive lots of people as their intellectual inferiors.

(6) "Coco" is a flight attendant who at one time made a living based on her abundance of mammary tissue.

(7) "Coco" says Bill Maher treated her like dirt.

Those are the facts as I know them.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

TheAnchoress. . .

. . .has forwarded a heads-up about Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund:

"The injured Marine Semper Fi Fund provides financial grants and other resources to injured Marines, Sailors, and their families. The Fund works closely with the Marine Corps and military hospitals nationwide to identify and assess the needs of specific families. Its goal is to provide immediate and real financial assistance to Marines, Sailors and their families during this extraordinarily stressful time. The hope is that by alleviating the financial stresses of our brave Marines and Sailors, they and their families can focus on the important job of physical and emotional healing. Donations are accepted by check payable to the fund."

Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund
825 College Blvd, Suite 102
PMB 609
Oceanside, CA 92057

If there is such a thing as a worthy cause, this is one of them. Thanks for the heads-up!


. . .to each and every veteran who has set aside the pursuit of the American Dream in order to defend and preserve it. Without the sacrifice of so many men and women throughout our nation's history, there would be nothing for us to take for granted, which we too often do.

That's one of the ironies of being a soldier, I suppose -- that the greatest measure of your success is the degree to which the things you fight for are taken for granted by the people on whose behalf you've fought and died.

God bless you all.

The misanthrope. . .

. . .with the cauliflower face has been hit with something a little less heavy and blunt than I would use, but anytime Bill Maher gets hit with something, it's cause for my amusement. Unfortunately, instead of a bus, he's been hit by a palimony suit. Which is a lot less painful than what he allegedly had planned for the plaintiff:

"Nancy Johnson, a centerfold model and former flight attendant also known as Coco Johnsen, alleges that Maher, 48, reneged on promises to pay her expenses and purchase a Beverly Hills home. Johnson, who says she dated Maher for 17 months before splitting from him in May, also contends that the performer promised to marry her and have children. Johnson, pictured at right, does not detail the degrading racial comments allegedly made by Maher, and recounts only one episode of supposed physical abuse by the host of HBO's "Real Time." She charges that Maher pulled her arm and shook her at one party, causing "injuries to her back and neck," and later that evening warned he'd hit her on the head with a hammer if she was unfaithful."

My question to Maher is: Given your past references to the President as "Drinky McDumbass" and "cokehead", is it now fair to refer to you as, "Slappy McRacist" or "hammerhead"?

Nevermind. I don't care if it's fair or not. I can't wait to hear the rest of Slappy's sordid details.

Hat tip to blondie for the heads-up.

UPDATE: Forgot to include my obligatory reference to Bill Maher as the Nellie Oleson of political commentary.

And, apparently, he's now the Ike Turner of the comedy world, too.

"What's love got to do with it?"

The question. . .

. . .that ought to be in the mind of every Palestinian today is, "Why can't I be Arafat, instead of a martyr?" In fact, it ought to plague the minds of all Arabs and Muslims. Because, the truth of the matter is that the only reason Democracy hasn't developed in Arab nations is that Arabs simply accept the notion that they are fated to serve under human masters. The idea of personal autonomy is not simply rejected in the middle east; it's as though the concept has never even been introduced.

How else can you explain the fact that Yassir Arafat survived until his death by natural causes in a place where life is routinely bargained away for an explosive belt, $25,000, and some unseen virgins to be delivered after the fact? How do you explain Arafat's unquestioned position of power in a part of the world where power changes hands to the tune of small arms fire? How is it that a man can retain his control over a people who have seen no advancement whatsoever under his tenure?

From the time Yassir Arafat established his presence in international politics with the PLO, the one thing the Palestinians have pointed to as the reason for their hatred of Israel is that they are a people without hope. The constant refrain is that the poverty and hopelessness that come with Palestinian identity is the cause of Palestinian terrorism, and that until these problems are remedied, there will be no peace in the Middle East, and I have no doubt that the Palestinian people honestly believe that, themselves.

The question isn't so much whether or not the Arafat's followers are miserable -- I think there's very little doubt about that. No one is saying the Palestinians are carping over insignificant inconveniences, or looking for a free ride from the international community. (OK. . .while I'm sure some people do say that, they're in the minority and I take issue with the premise. I think the average Palestinian probably is sincerely miserable.) They are very poor, and they do live in squalor, for the most part.

But, Arafat rose to power with the promise of a better life for all of his followers. He established himself as the hope of his people, and vowed to prove that their hopes and wishes were not in vain. But, over the entire duration of his grip on power, the lives of Palestinians have not improved in any measurable way, and in fact, have mostly gotten worse.

Yet, no Palestinian was brave enough to stand up and say, "Arafat is a failure, and it is time for our people to stop sending our children out to blow themselves up in his name." Instead, they continued to support a man whose list of accomplishments reads more like the obituary page of a global newspaper -- and with good reason. That reason is that Arafat's list of accomplishments reads more like the obituary page of a global newspaper.

Middle East culture, it has often been said, respects force above and to the exclusion of all else. And that's how Yassir Arafat maintained his grip on power. He used shadowy groups to not only terrorize Israelis, but his own people. Anyone who dared to step forward and oppose Arafat, or even openly criticize him, ran a substantial risk of being executed in the streets as a collaborator. So, essentially, Arafat made the betterment of Palestinian lives something that could only be pursued with his blessing and control. And, if you're a Palestinian with different ideas, feel free to express them, but you'd better know that the price of such expression is often steep and bloody.

Now, Palestinians face a world in which the sole proprietor of their hopes for more than a generation has died. The person who takes his place in the world will assume domain over those hopes. Unfortunately, the likelihood that any great number of Palestinians will be willing to name themselves as Arafat's replacement is virtually zero. And, until Palestinians -- and Arabs throughout the mideast -- take rightful control over their own individual destinies, their hopes will lie encased in stone along with Arafat's rotting corpse.

The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are beginning to take steps toward wresting control of their lives from tyranny, in both its Islamic and Arab statist forms. They are the glimmer of hope for the people of Palestine and throughout the middle east. They are demonstrating that Islamism isn't by necessity brutal, and that an Arab state need not be gripped in an iron fist in order to be viable and vibrant. They are the new pilgrims seeking to bring freedom and self determination to their own people and land, rather than striking out to search for it elsewhere.

There will be setbacks along the way, and a large amount of blood will inevitably be spilled as totalitarianism asserts its will to perpetuate itself. Many people will likely die before life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the neue regel. But that has always been the case when human freedom asserts itself. And the loss of blood and treasure and life have always been accepted as a reasonable price for freedom.

Now, it's up to the Palestinians to figure out whether the price they've paid for what they now have is too much, and consider whether or not any one person -- whether Arafat, or one of his successors -- really possesses greater wisdom than the multitudes when it comes to realizing their hopes for the future. Now is the time to ask, "Am I truly advancing the cause of my people by spraying my flesh and blood all over the streets of Israel? And, if that is such a noble thing, why didn't Yassir Arafat do it, himself? And, what if I am the person who can lead my people to glory? How can I do that if I am dead? Don't I have more to contribute to my people in life than in death?"

These are just a few of the questions that go unasked in the Arab/Islamist world. But with luck, and the determination of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, those question could start popping up in some unexpected places very soon. God help them all.

The smell of used bookstores. . .

. . .always comes to mind when I read Peggy Noonan, because that's where I found her work for the first time. And there's just something about the discovery of great writing on the cheap.

"I think the people tended toward Mr. Bush because they saw him as a good American man, a man they know--an imperfect one with an imperfect past who turned his life around with grit and grace. That's a very American story. It's one we all know, and respect. There are Democrats--Chris Heinz was reportedly one, at the end--who amuse themselves referring to President Bush as a former cokehead. I don't know about that, but I know America went through the 1970s, and America is still in recovery. When nice people hear things like 'former drunk' they tend to put the internal emphasis on the word former."

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Those with delicate sensibilities. . .

. . .might want to keep scrolling. But, there's some great parody going on here.

Your Makeshift Cabana. . .

. . .tip of the day: The plastic canister that 2 lbs. of Folger's coffee currently comes in makes for a great bucket in which to chill three beers while you sit on your back porch, or deck.

Unfortunately, it's November.

Love is such a strong word. . .

. . .but, I'm sometimes tempted to use it in reference to Ann Coulter. I know. . .she can be spiteful at times. Ain't it awesome?

" In a major report on "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" last Monday, Olbermann revealed that Bush's win in Florida -- and thus the election -- was "attributable largely to largely Democratic districts suddenly switching sides and all voting for Mr. Bush at the same time"! You know Keith Olbermann is heart-attack serious when he starts using "largely" twice in the same sentence."

From blondie -- a one-time Olbermanniac, no less:

My Moral Politics test results.
They seem pretty accurate to me.
 Posted by Hello

Thanks to blondie for the artwork on the image.

(BTW: The ever-helpful blondie chose not to share her results publicly. But, if I had to describe them in one word, it would be "Attila".)

An Angry Mom. . .

. . .says it all about Michael Moore:

''I am the mother of a United States Marine. Jeremiah was killed in action in Ramadi, Iraq on May 12, 2004.

''People like Moore would have you believe that we hold President Bush responsible for my son's death. Michael Moore has not spoken to me — ever. So he cannot profess to know how I feel. He is a coward who thrives on the lives of others by twisting the truth and rewriting it to suit his own agenda.

''Lance Cpl. Jeremiah Edward Savage was a United States Marine. He was not drafted. He chose to join. It takes a special person, someone with a sense of honor, duty, commitment and courage to be a member of the Armed Forces. My son believed in his mission, in his duty to protect the way of life all Americans enjoy."

One little mouse. . .

. . .brought this blogger's work to an abrupt halt last night. While typing up a blog entry, my computer suddenly started to freeze and act up a bit, so I decided then would be a good time to reboot. Unfortunately, when I did, it didn't load my mouse drivers. Since it's an old computer with lots of little eccentricities, I wasn't too alarmed, so I rebooted again. And again, no mouse. Just a little white arrow sitting in the middle of my screen like a Soloflex at Michael Moore's house.

I tried again several times, jiggling the connector -- which has always been the universal strong medicine for my computer woes -- but to no avail. So, I decided to set it aside for the night (to give the vein in my forehead a rest) and take another look at the (insert string of expletives here) in the morning.

I used the remainder of the evening to finish the last half of "Kill Bill, Volume II", which I had fallen asleep while watching the night before -- and almost all of "Catch Me if You Can", which I fell asleep while watching last night. I'll finish it sometime today.

When I awoke this morning, somewhat refreshed, I made a pot of coffee, put some cat food in The Cheat's bowl, gave him some of the chilled water I use to make coffee, and rebooted the computer once again while I went about what passes for a morning routine in my life. Still, the mouse pointer sat there, immobile as the youth vote. With that, I went to my computer boneyard and extracted an old mouse to hook up.

Unfortunately, it was just a plain, old-school-type ps/2 mouse. I'm used to using a Marble Mouse, and if there's anything to know about me, it's that I don't like a whole lot of change in the comfort zone that is my computer. I've already gone from a great ergonomic keyboard to being forced to use an old, clunky one from a Compaq that must have come with Windows 95. That was traumatic enough. I must have my Marble Mouse.

After eyeballing the connector closely, I noticed that one of the pins had been bent somehow. I suspect it happened while I was rearranging things to hook up a sound system to the computer so I wouldn't be forced to wear headphones in order to listen to music while blogging and surfing.

And so, all is well in the cabana. Fair skies and red states as far as the eyes can see. Here's hoping for a more productive day, today.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

No need to apologize. . .

. . .Rep. Farr. When you say things like:

"I think if the rest of country had invested in higher education like California, you would have had a more educated electorate and a California outcome in the rest of the country."

you're only confirming everything I've thought for the better part of my adult life.

"If my comment offended somebody, I'm sorry. It was meant in humor. . ."

No, really. That's OK. I'm not offended in the least. In fact, I'm feeling downright vindicated.

UPDATE: It occurred to me as I read this post that I appear to say that all I've thought about for the better part of my adult life is what liberal California lawmakers think about folks in flyover country. This is not the case. In fact, I've only spent the last five or six years obsessing over it. But, now that the cat's out of the bag, I can move on. I just needed the closure.

A bit more libertarian. . .

. . .than myself, but invariably an interesting and thought-provoking read, Wolfgang von Skeptik's latest also explores the impact of gay marriage and other social issues on the elections, and comes to some similar conclusions -- albeit via a different route.

"I have been close enough with enough gay people over the years, particularly in Manhattan but also even now here in Washington state, to recognize that there is a tiny gay and lesbian minority who does indeed despise heterosexuals with the very same intensity of venom racists direct at “uppity” minorities. Hence – and very sadly – I can think of no other explanation for Sullivan’s ongoing invective. Especially given the fact he himself is one of a minuscule number of Bush opponents who have actually troubled themselves to analyze the post-election data – data that shows conclusively the (presumably gay-bashing) Amen Corner of the electorate made up only 22 percent of the President’s majority. In this sense it appears Sullivan is no different from Jane Smiley and Maureen Dowd – so blinded by hatred, he seems to reflexively assume all of us who pulled the Bush/Cheney lever did so because we are dangerously violent sociopathic cretins."

There's not a whole lot of ambiguity lingering at the end. either.

Monday, November 08, 2004

Ldotter Aussiegirl. . .

. . .has a great piece that dovetails nicely with my most recent take on the election results, over at Ultima Thule. It appears we both seized on the same idea. . .and I feel I find myself in good company.

"It's too easy for them to sieze on the "morals" issue and the perceived power of the evangelical Christians as the excuse for losing so badly. The real truth is that the Republican party is now the majority party, which embraces a wide spectrum of views, people from a variety of income, education and religious backgrounds. I'm listening to Laura Ingraham's show and a caller just wanted to tell the democrats what a typical Bush voter was. He is a graduate of Johns Hopkins University with a doctorate, a Jew and a moderate on social issues. Reagan's big tent Republican party is now a reality, and George Bush and Karl Rove have been patiently building a "new" Republican majority for years, patiently and steadily."

As you will note. . .

. . .there is a sparkling new logo atop the page. This is a product of the wizardry of, as usual, blondie, who managed to work me into very busy day. It is much appreciated. I think the logo looks right spiffy, myself. Click on blondie's link to check out the one she did for her own blog.

Hat tips, clinks, and many thanks!

The moral values issue. . .

. . .was the first explanation offered up for the election results, and both ends of the political spectrum embraced it with enthusiasm. The left was rather quick to pick up on that note, as it's a sure-fire motivator for a base in desperate need of a cause to get them out of bed everyday. The right seized on it as an affirmation of everything we've been saying since Ronald Reagan took office in 1981.

The truth, however, is somewhere in the middle -- and we all know that, deep in our hearts. It's reassuring to think that the whole nation has finally come to the realize that, in fact, I was right all along, and that the only reason the vote came out differently in the past is that I didn't do a good enough job of "educating" people to the facts. But, the truth of the matter is, the only thing that was really different about this election in comparison to those of the past is that more people who agree with me on the greatest number of issues decided to vote.

I have no illusions that America suddenly woke up one day and said to itself, "You know...that CabanaBoy is right. I think he should run for President." What I think is more likely the case is that the election was more or less a stirring of America's natural, ingrained conservatism. It was essentially an expression of Americanism, pure and simple -- a reaction of the vast middle to pressures being put upon it by the fringes. In this case, the most subversive fringe element happened to be Michael Moore and his gaggle of tragically radical cohorts, and middle America solidly rebuked it.

But, this doesn't strike me as an ideological conservatism. It's a cultural conservatism that doesn't fit the caricature of it that is often presented by our coastal culture mavens. At the same time, I don't think it's the mobilization of evangelical Christians that Bill Bennett and James Dobson believe it to be, either. I think it's far more likely that it was the reawakening of America as an identity -- one that was being assaulted by very unserious people taking themselves seriously.

No, middle America doesn't relish the fact that "the world hates us". We may not lose sleep over it, but we don't like it one bit. That's because we realize that the world that hates us does so based on a lot of false assumptions that have perpetuated by high profile left wing activists, from Michael Moore to Jimmy Carter to the Dixie Chicks. That hasn't always been the case, and politics is influenced as much by what the public doesn't know as what it does.

And, we haven't always known what these people were saying on their trips abroad. It wasn't until the explosion of the internet that it was possible to get these speeches and statements in front of the eyes of middle America through blogs and bulletin boards. So, up until recently, activists and celebrities have been free to embrace, and even exploit, anti-Americanism abroad to their own benefit without fear that it would get back to the folks in the states. You know -- the "dumb" folks who line up to vote for George W. Bush against their own self-interests, who wave the flag at the drop of a hat, who send their sons and daughters off to die in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

And, maybe, it's not just the Bible-thumping, hellfire-and-brimstone Christian who thinks gay marriage is a bad idea. It could be that middle America has seen the negative consequences of the sexual revolution, and doesn't want to raise its children in a world that it has no way of explaining to them, or guiding them through, because things changed too quickly to keep up. How do you teach your child to be tolerant of something that was considered anathema when you were their age?

And maybe you didn't have to think that the war in Iraq was going perfectly in order to bring yourself to vote for the President. It could be that people have access to enough information now that they don't feel the need need to hear the President's appraisal of his own performance in order to come to their conclusions. It could be that the voting population is savvy enough now to know that politicians have nothing to gain by conceding a single point to the opposition in the middle of a presidential campaign. And, of course, it could be that the average American understands that, even if the progress seems halting at times, it is still progress. Or, it could be that the public felt that its intelligence had finally been sufficiently insulted by the stream of propaganda that began the day after September 11 with Michael Moore dividing America into two groups -- those who didn't deserve to be killed, and George W. Bush supporters.

Between 9/12/2001 and 11/2/2004, we saw celebrity after celebrity proclaim that the war in Iraq was a horrible injustice. We read the words of the Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines as she, while in England, voiced her sense of shame for our President. A laughably inept propaganda piece attempting to blame the Bush administration's environmental policy for some cataclysmic weather disturbance that could conceivably happen at some point in a very uncertain future. The French made a bestseller out of a book which purported to expose the attack on the Pentagon as a hoax, staged by the US government in order to justify higher military spending. Michael Moore won prestigeous film awards for a movie which portrayed the President of the United States as an aloof, bumbling oaf bent on the destruction of American civil liberties for the benefit of unimaginably rich Saudis. Gay couples applied for marriage licenses in Massachusetts and they were granted, touching off a legal battle with immense social consequences the entire nation, most of which is decidedly more conservative than the Bay State. You don't have to be a die-hard Bush partisan, or even particularly conservative to find all of this troublesome.

You don't have to even go to church, let alone be a fundamentalist in order to be concerned about our nation's moral values, either, when they're so obviously in need of examination. It wasn't just the people driving back and forth to church who were in terror when the Beltway sniper was still on the loose, and it's not just pro-life activits who see something extra malevolent in the Laci Peterson case. Middle America didn't need a whole lot of nudging from pamphleteers in church parking lots to come to the conclusion that there is something morally wrong, and that they didn't agree with the liberals' proposed solution -- and it's far from certain that they ever offered one.

So, it's not so much a question of whether "Moral Values" was a driving force behind the President's victory. I'd say it surely was. But, the definition of "Moral Values" has been left to people on both ends of the spectrum, who both use it to their advantage. To the civil libertarian left, the words conjure up images of a stern monsignor heaping guilt and shame upon them from behind the Cross for their urges and desires, legislating what is acceptable behavior by decree. To the fundamentalist Christian right, "Moral Values" heralds the reawakening of Christianity in its God-given land.

I think the truth of the matter is that the election was decided by people who saw the moral condition of the country, factored their beliefs into a big mix, with the economy and the war, and their children's future, and saw a gaping hole in what the Democrats had to offer. After all, Michael Moore and his band of misfits said nothing about these things, and since they served as the biggest mouthpieces for the DNC, it's hard to fault the public for "not getting their message" on morals. There wasn't one to get.

Sunday, November 07, 2004

Six Feet Under. . .

. . .is going off the air soon, and that means that Lauren Ambrose will have some free time on her hands. In that case, I have two big hopes -- (1) that she quickly gets a great role in a huge feature film, and (2) that she has a thing for conservative bloggers.

I don't know what her politics are.
If you do, please don't tell me.

In honor of Michael Moore. . .

. . .I decided to have Ramen noodles for lunch, and to eat them while blogging in my underwear.

Sorry. No pictures.

UPDATE: They were quite good. They tasted like. . .like victory.

Just added. . .

. . .Brainster's Blog to the blogroll. Sorry for the delay, but I'm one of those terribly unfortunate people who suffer from procrastination, a short attention span, and bad memory all at the same time.

For proof that conservative America. . .

. . .can set aside its prejudices and listen to what cultured, foreign educated opinion makers have to say, here's Mark Steyn -- one of the most popular pundits on the face of the planet among right-leaning political junkies. Now, mind you. . .we don't normally put much stock into the words of anyone who knows as much about theater as Mr. Steyn. But, Steyn's brash level-headedness and willingness to skewer whoever needs a good editorial spitting, regardless of party or position, has put him in good standing in the vast swath of crimson on the electoral map.

". . .nobody who campaigns with Ben Affleck at his side has the right to call anybody an idiot. H. L. Mencken said that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Well, George Soros, Barbra Streisand and a lot of their friends just did: The Kerry campaign and its supporters -- MoveOn.org, Rock The Vote, etc. -- were awash in bazillions of dollars, and what have they got to show for it? In this election, the plebs were more mature than the elites: They understood that war is never cost-free and that you don't run away because of a couple of setbacks; they did not accept that one jailhouse scandal should determine America's national security interest; they rejected the childish caricature of their president and paranoid ravings about Halliburton; they declined to have their vote rocked by Bruce Springsteen or any other pop culture poser."

One of these days, I'm going to buy that man his favorite drink (up to $20, with tip).

free website counters