John Moltz

Mmm, that's good linkage!

Via Dori, here's something I think James was asking for a while back: the Regime Change Guide.

Other than shelling out a mess of money, it's got what you can do to defeat Bush in November.

Cause to be optomistic

Despite the continued parade of "Bush should be doing worse!" stories you will see, the best analysis I've heard was related to me by a friend over the weekend who said she heard it on NPR.

How many people have you heard of who voted for Gore last time who say they are going to vote for Bush this time? How many people have you heard of who are going to do the opposite?

My Life

I happened to find myself in a bookstore this afternoon where I picked up a copy of Bill Clinton's autobiography My Life.

I didn't buy it, I just read the first paragraph, flipped to the last page and read the last paragraph so I'd know how his life turned out. But this cursory look is more than enough to give me major-league clout in reviewing the book by the standards currently employed by the political press, so here goes.

Bill Clinton's My Life is a tour-de-force that lets the hot air out of all the years of the witch hunting of the 42nd President. His writing weaves a rich tapestry of a uniquely American life, from humble beginnings to a two-term presidency that ended with the highest popularity ratings in modern times.

I was surprised to learn that Clinton has performed professionally in Japanese Noh theater and once killed a bear with nothing but a sharpened pencil and an orange. His mastery of the arts of chain saw juggling and deep sea free diving, however, are already well documented.

Clinton's book is fascinating reading and can be recommended to all who are inspired by tales of rising through adversity. It has prompted this reviewer to give it his highest rating: five stars out of five.

There. It's at least as informed as any of the comments you've seen on cable TV or heard on the radio.

Dick

Cheney Says He Has No Regrets for Cursing Leahy

"I think a lot of my colleagues felt what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue," he added.

So... the Vice President of the United States thought that a senior Democratic Senator badly needed to be told to go fuck himself. In the spirit of bipartisanship, Big Swinging Dick thought the best way to improve the tenor of discourse in Washington D.C. was to tell Leahy, who disagreed with Cheney on some key issues but was still attempting to have a cordial relationship with him...

... to go fuck himself.

"I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it," Cheney said.

Mmm. That's very mature. Good for you.

Dick.

You know, I've often opined that, not knowing Bush, I really can't say whether I like him or dislike him as a person. He strikes me as someone who's often affable, seems to have a good sense of humor (if often inappropriately applied), but who has simply risen to the state where he's no longer a harmless, conservative goofball, he's actively doing harm.

But Cheney...

There just isn't a god damn thing to like about him.

Bush 2004! He should be far behind by now!

DemFromCT at Daily Kos discusses why Kerry isn't doing better and mentions David Brooks' position that Kerry should be ahead because Bush has had a terrible year.

DemFromCT rightly notes, as E.J. Dionne did on NPR when Brooks tried to sell the same line, that Bush should be ahead in the polls right now as an incumbent.

I'm not sure what a fabulous story the "Bush had a hard year" line is. Bush had a "bad year" because he sucks as president. He had a bad year much like the year before that and the six months before that. It's just that the press and the country have decided that, no, 9/11 didn't change everything. Accountability still matters.

So, Brooks is either saying Bush has a crappy record to run on, but people just aren't paying attention or, more likely, Kerry isn't registering well with voters. Well, you know what? If Kerry isn't registering well with voters, neither is Bush. And who do you think they know more about right now, Kerry or Bush?

Seriously, incumbents run on their records, and Bush's just blows. The "Steady leadership" catch-phrase is both inaccurate and uninspiring.

Enemy of my enemy and whatnot

I don't talk about Nader much, mostly because it's simply too tiring.

But if Ralph had any class he'd reject assistance from the Republican party, which clearly is of the belief that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, or they wouldn't be trying so hard to get him on the ballots.

So, Democrats think a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, Republicans think a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush...

The only people who don't seem to think so are Nader supporters.

Personally, if Nader had a true party behind him and we had a different political system and he a chance in hell of winnning, I still wouldn't vote for him, even though I agree with many of his positions. Ralph Nader just isn't qualified for the job. We already have a president who wasn't qualifed and look how that turned out.

If you don't have anything nice to say...

... go ahead and say it, even if you're pulling it out of your ass!

Driving home from work yesterday, I heard David Brooks and E.J. Dionne discussing Clinton's book on NPR. Dionne was at least honest and admitted that he hadn't read the book and, therefore, did not say much about the content.

Brooks, on the other hand, claimed to have "skimmed" it or "flipped through it" or something and, from such in-depth analysis, was able to determine that Clinton was not a good writer because the one skill that good writers need that politicians don't necessarily have is honesty. Brooks said the problem with the book was that Clinton wasn't being honest.

Uh-huh. See, Brooksie can harp on the "Clinton is a liar" theme because Brooksie is so honest. That's what makes him such a good writer.

Cough.

Presumably conservatives would only be happy with the book if Clinton wrote that everything he said during his presidency was a lie, he accepted responsibility for everything that's gone wrong in Bush's presidency, he admitted he made a fantastic amount of money illegally on that land deal in the Arkansas swamp that eight years of investigation at great expense turned up nothing on and, oh yeah, he personally shot Vince Foster in the back of the head and dragged his body out to the park on the GW Parkway with his personal cadre of bisexual female assassins.

You know, it's a simple rule: if you haven't read someone's book, just shut the fuck up about it.

Hot off the fax, hot GOP spin

Bush Camp Hits Democrats' "Coalition of Wild-Eyed"

Mmm, so this is what passes for enlightened discourse on the right, huh? I smell a scared campaign.

The Bush-Cheney campaign released a video on its Web Site that played up some of the more strident statements Democrats have made on the campaign trail and declared: "This is not a time for pessimism and rage."

Then why do you insist on giving us so much to be pessimistic and full of rage about?

Joking aside, the Democrats, starting with Howard Dean and continuing on with Kerry, have done a remarkable job of projecting enthusiam about the future, given the crappy state of affairs Bush has left things in.

Bush, meanwhile, can't seem to open his mouth without describing the great fear we should all be in 24 hours a day.

And why does this merit a story? How many of these kinds of videos about Bush have been posted to Kerry's or the DNC's or other liberal sites without garnering free press (except the one video that compares Bush to Hitler)? Does the political press only write up Republican press releases? This one reads like it came straight off the fax machine, featuring an out-of-right field reference to a "screaming speech" by Al Gore .

Lump this on in with the hatchet job Ezra noted on Pandagon yesterday.

Daily Show

Here are some excerpts from last night's Daily Show.

HAYES: I think the idea behind the Bush doctrine is that if you support or harbor terrorists, we are gonna come after you. We'll consider you a hostile regime. I don't think that, frankly, in the aftermath of September 11th, I really don't think that's an unreasonable doctrine.

STEWART: But, here, here's the problem. It's not unreasonable, but it's not the point. The point is, I'm gonna, I'll, I'll list you four things: developing weapons of mass destruction; inflamatory rhetoric against the United States; uh, supporting and harboring terrorism; uh, and, uh, oppression of their own people. Now, here's the problem with your doctrine: you can't tell me what country I just named. And that's a problem, when you're talking about war.

[APPLAUSE]

HAYES: That is a problem when you're talking about war.

STEWART: I mean, that, that's, that's, that seems like the issue. You don't know if I'm talking about Iraq, Iran, North Korea or Sudan.

HAYES: No, I think that's a good point. On the other hand, I think that Iraq, in this case, presented a unique threat. Because...

STEWART: Why?

HAYES: Precisely because of its weapons of mass destruction, because of its demonstrated use of weapons of mass destruction...

STEWART: Iran has done the same.

HAYES: They've used weapons of mass destruction?

STEWART: Yes.

HAYES: When have they used weapons of mass destruction?

STEWART: In the Iran/Iraq war. They both were mustard gassing back and forth.

HAYES: Well, that's one theory. I don't think that that's been shown.

STEWART: Well, you're no one to talk about what's been shown!

...

STEWART: It's the idea that, by, by invading Iraq and then we don't have to invade the others because everyone else will go "Ooh, these guys mean business!" Is that sort of the idea?

HAYES: Well, I think, I do think there was some of that, and I think we saw some of the results with Libya, to a certain extent. Of course, Qaddafi was then funding terrorist plots against the Saudi leader. That's why the Bush administration isn't talking about him as much anymore.

[LAUGHTER]

STEWART: I don't know, it strikes me as, I'm no pacifist and I'm no partisan, but this thing strikes me as a big clusterfuck.

Charts and graphs! Arts and crafts!

Kevin Drum has some great charts and graphs.

Who's recovering in this so-called recovery?

and...

Who's the war preznit?

Sa-wing and a miss!

Eeyup. Lehman was talking out his ass. (Link via Atrios.) Turns out that high-level Iraqi who was supposed to be a member of al Qaeda... er... just had a similar name to a member of al Qaeda.

Oh, John. I can forgive your faults. It's all the lying!

Holy Crap

Jon Stewart is ripping Stephen Hayes, author of The Connection, How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America, new holes he never even thought of. I'll get some quotes tomorrow if I have time.

Kerry takes on Slyance

Remember slyance? Remember, you heard it here first.

Kerry: Bush Chooses Ideology Over Science

Democrat John Kerry, backed by 48 Nobel Prize winners, on Monday criticized President Bush for allowing ideology rather than facts to determine science policies and repeated his pledge to overturn the ban on federal funding of research on new stem cell lines.

You know, back in my Dean days I got on Kerry for not being a strong opponent to Bush, and I think that was true for a long while. But, I have to say, Kerry has come out swinging on a number of key differences between him and Bush that I think have really made me like him. I've gone from and "anybody but Bush" supporter of Kerry to someone to who genuinely likes the guy for what he's saying and the vision he has.

Heroes in error

Iraqi Officer Tied to Al Qaeda - 9/11 Commissioner

If I may summarize the administration's position...

Documents we didn't know about might prove we were right when we said we knew things we didn't really know.

If the document pans out (just like all those times we found WMD stockpiles...), the best the administration can say is they took the country to war on a hunch about one individual's contact with Al Qaeda. Personally, I'd prefer it if the nation weren't run by T.J. Hooker.

POLICE COMMISSIONER: That G.W. Bush is a loose cannon!

POLICE CAPTAIN: Bush is a good cop!

Junk mail

Um...

Anyone else get an invitation to the President's Dinner?

Honoring President George W. Bush?

Celebrating His First Term - Strong And Steady Leadership?

Wednesday, July 21st, 2004?

Washington Convention Center?

$2,500 a head?

6:00 PM Cocktail Reception?

7:00 PM Dinner?

8:30 PM Dessert?

9:30 PM Live Sex Show Featuring Hot Lesbian Teen Action?

OK, I made that last one up, but the enclosed note from Dennis Hastert does say "You know the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is engergized."

Damn straight, beeotch.

Two final questions:

- Are they sending one of these to everyone in America?

or

- What mass mailing list from hell did I get on?

Fantasy

TBogg asks why does Glenn Reynolds take George Bush seriously on defeating terrorism when he's proved time and time again that he really sucks at it?

There is this perception that, if you're blindly willing to engage in military buildup at the expense of other opportunities and priorities, you must be "tough."

I remember sitting at the bar in the Alibi Room in Seattle with my friend Pete not long after 9/11 and overhearing a guy a few seats over arguing with a woman say "Thank god Bush is president. If Gore had been in the White House on 9/11 he would have gone screaming in the other direction."

What does that mean, even? Does he think that literally? And, if so, how does he reconcile that with Bush's flight around the country on 9/11 when he did exactly that?

Bush's blind, unthinking willingness to use force, even when all evidence points to doing so as a mistake, is clearly not an asset. And I would suggest that there's a difference between a tough guy and a bully or a bar room drunk.

When DO we invade Saudi Arabia?

Al Qaeda Beheads U.S. Hostage in Saudi, Site Says

The administration has gone to great feats of verbal gymnastics to end up at the point where they claim Saddam Hussein had to be removed because he allowed a sort of permissive environment where Al Qaeda was able to operate. This, of course, in reference to the Al Qaeda camp in Kurdish Iraq, not under Saddam's control.

Mmm.

The Kurds who were supposed to be our allies against Saddam. The camp that Bush decided not to take out before the war because it would hurt the case for the war.

Now we see that, well, gee, Al Qaeda seems to be operating in Saudi Arabia, too.

When do we invade them because of the permissive environment for terrorism they've fostered?

Linky goodness

James has a blog he likes and I'm forced to agree.

I like its style. I like its format. I like the cut of its jibb.

Or is it gibb?

Andy Gibb?

I-I-I-Iiiiiiiiii... I just want to be your every-thing!

I found it interesting that the Real Player file for the clip of that song on Amazon is called hurl.ram. Possibly... because it makes you want to hurl? I don't know. I'm merely suggesting.

Anyway, please welcome Winning Argument to the cavalcade of hits on the left.

I knew that

Bush Policies a Failure, Retired U.S. Diplomats Say

But it's nice to have someone validate it.

President Bush led the United States into an ill-planned Iraq war that weakened U.S. security, retired diplomats and military officers said on Wednesday in a challenge to one of Bush's main arguments for re-election.

"We all believe that current administration policies have failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership," said a statement signed by the 27 retired officials. "We need a change."

The rare criticism by career senior U.S. officials came from a group that included members of both major political parties, two former ambassadors to the Soviet Union and a retired chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Man, read the whole thing. It's a thorough indictment of the adminstration from a rather non-partisan group.

Makes me think that, as a liberal, maybe I should pump up the volume a little more. Crap, I mean, these are guys with legitimacy! Political experience! I'm just a technologist and part-time satirist! What am I doing?!

Veep

Kerry Running Mate Talk Picks Up, McCain Says No

What?! McCain says no again?!

Well... what about now?

Now?

How about now?

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnow?

NOW!?

Well, make sure to ask him again tomorrow and every day between now and November.

Sheesh!

Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam

Panel Says No Signs of Iraq, Qaeda Link

Why is it we have to have this argument every time Dick Cheney opens his mouth and nothing but shit comes out of it?

Is it the difference in the spelling of "al Qaeda"? Is it that it's like the existence of god, you just have to have faith that there was a link?

Or is it just that Dick Cheney is an unrepentant liar?

UPDATE: Josh Marshall has some excerpts from the press gaggle where Scotty McClellan gets his weasel words thrown back in his face.

MR. McCLELLAN: We certainly talked about the ties with terrorism between the -- between the regime that was removed from power, [JOHN: those would be ties between Saddam and Palestinian terrorist, not al Qaeda] and we talked about those ties prior to the decision to remove that regime from power. So that was well-documented. Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and talked about some of those ties to terrorism, as well. And Zarqawi is certainly a senior al Qaeda associate who was in Iraq prior to the decision to go in and remove the regime from power. [JOHN: With jelly on it! "I'm talking about Palestinians, I'm talking about Palestinians, I'm talking about Palestinians... AL QAEDA!"]

Q There's also al Qaeda in the United States. That does not mean the United States is cooperating with those members of al Qaeda. Just by the presence of someone does not mean there's a cooperation.

McClellan then goes on to obfuscate further by saying "But they were in power!" Uh... except for the Kurdish parts where, actually, the al Qaeda camp was located that, well, the Bush administration refused to target before the war because they wanted to use it as an excuse to invade.

Gah. Worst administration ever.

Ah... the Club for Growth!

It's a club! Kind of like a country club! Or, a club to try to hit someone over the head with!

So, see, the Bush campaign can go around saying they won't make ads featuring Reagan, because their surrogates at the Club for Growth will do it for them.

Now, apparently, they're going to try to bury Reagan every week between now and November. And without asking Reagan's estate! Hey, why not dig up Lincoln, too? Would he have supported Bush? Who knows?! Who cares?!

Conservative Campaign Ad Features Reagan

Former President Reagan is then seen at the Berlin Wall in 1987, saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." That's followed by Bush telling rescue workers at the World Trade Center after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks: "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

Mmm. Yeah. See, the thing about that is, Bush apparently didn't so much "hear" the rescue workers as he did "screw" the rescue workers, by cutting their budgets and benefits to fund tax breaks to his wealthy campaign contributors and an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Kerry is, of course, too classy to make an ad in which Nancy Reagan is seen crying over her dead husband's coffin and speaking out for stem cell research, and Kerry is seen advocating the same, saying "We must look to the future not with fear, but with the hope and the faith that advances in medicine will advance our best values."

Sucks to be an Expo

Watching the worst (Expos) playing the almost worst (Mariners), and you can see how constantly losing really can wear on a team.

On, admittedly, some questionable strikes, Brad Wilkerson was ejected after using what was possibly the "magic word" (cought - cocksucker - cough) to home plate umpire Charley Releford (sp?). Wilkerson went to the dugout but didn't go back to the clubhouse. The umps kept saying he had to leave, but he dinkered around and then Carl Everett (who I hate), who's on the DL, was ejected for yelling at the umps.

Don't know if he used the "magic word."

On his way out, Everett (who I hate) shoved over a Japanese TV camera (camera used by a Japanese TV crew - I don't know where it was manufactured). He's a dick (who I hate) so I wasn't terribly surprised by his poor sportsmanship.

But then, on his way back to the dugout, after appearing to be very calm and collected about the whole thing, baseball legend Frank Robinson shoved over a remote camera used by the Fox Sports.

So, for the kids watching at home, the lesson here would be...

... don't suck.

(Note: dollar for dollar, the Mariners suck more than the Expos by a long shot. Still, you don't see them shoving over cameras.)

Link update

Hesiod of Counterspin Central has, it appears, given up the ghost (bloggingly speaking).

I wish him well on his future endeavors and will miss reading his posts.

Please welcome TBogg to the pantheon of blogging gods on the side menu.

Sweet

Kerry Calls on Bush to Reverse Stem Cell Policy

After a week of political silence to honor Ronald Reagan, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry called on Saturday for a White House policy change to allow more research into Alzheimer's, the brain-wasting disease that afflicted the former president.

Bush has been trying to have his Reagan cake and eat it too all week. Kerry, after his week off in respect of Reagan, came out swinging on exactly the right topic. Bush wants to drape himself in Reagan's "legacy" (yeah, I know - why would he want that?) without making the man's death meaningful.

Call him on it.

Blogging etiquette

Via BoingBoing, I see this story of an irate New York Times reporting hauling off on a blogger who is a fan of hers for "appropriating" the Times' material. I don't know if this is a case of the reporter simply not understanding the different standard for blogs, there appears to be an issue about copyrighted pictures as well. But it's ironic that last night I had exactly such a conversation with my reporter wife who was reading this blog for the first time in a long while.

She asked who wrote the text below on Reagan and AIDS and I said it was from an AP story. She looked shocked and said "You have to cite this!" I replied "I linked to it right there. And it's in orange to show it's a quote. All the quotes are orange."

I was surprised that what seemed so obvious to me was completely not obvious to her. Looking at it with a traditional media perspective, you can see how it seems wrong, but the citation is there, and anyone who reads blogs would know that it was a quote.

In the comments of the post above, commenter Will provides what I know as blogging etiquette:

• don't quote more than 25% of an article or another post
• always link back to where you got it from
• reference a third party if you got the link from somewhere
• never steal original pictures

Does blogging need a better standard or do reporters just need to become more familiar with the medium? I lean toward the latter.

Sent to letters@nytimes.com

After reading today's Daily Howler.

David Halbfinger (Kerry Pays Respect To Reagan, But Takes A Swipe At Bush - 6/9/2004), in a typical display of the Times' attempts to turn the presidential race into a fight between high school Heathers, somehow feels it necessary to point out that John Kerry took "cuts" to hop in front of the line to pay respect to Ronald Reagan.

"Mr. Kerry, who came to Los Angeles to see his daughter Alexandra, 30, graduate from the American Film Institute on Wednesday, briefly paid his respects to Mr. Reagan at the presidential library in Simi Valley, Calif., Tuesday afternoon. Momentarily cutting through a cordon of mourners, he saluted Mr. Reagan's coffin with his hand over his heart, bowed his head, crossed himself, saluted again and left - all in the space of a minute."

Not only that, he didn't stay very long! Reminds me of the joke Woody Allen used to tell about the old women complaining about the food at a restaurant. It's so bad! And such small portions!

Would Halbfinger have had nothing but praise if Kerry idled around in front of Ronald Reagan's dead body for a while? Maybe did a little standup? A soft shoe? Worked the crowd?

Meanwhile, Sheryl Gay Stolberg describes a touching scene of Bush's visit (After Long Distances and Long Waits, Everyday Admirers Say Their Goodbyes - 6/11/2004). This is, of course, where you'll find Bush because, according to the agreed-upon script of the political press, Bush is an everyday guy.

"President Bush and the first lady, Laura Bush, made a quick visit on Thursday evening, surprising some of the everyday people who were already in the Rotunda. They approached the coffin silently and bowed their heads. Then Mr. Bush put his hands on the flag, smoothing it, before he led Mrs. Bush away.

Earlier in the day, Senator Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, escorted the new interim president of Iraq, Sheik Ghazi Ajil al-Yawar, who bowed his head and put his right hand across his chest. Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet president, lingered by the coffin and placed a hand on it."

Apparently, the Bushes, Frist, the Sheik and Gorbachev all stood in line for hours to get to see Reagan! Maybe somebody should have gotten them to the front of the line like Kerry! I mean, what are the tax payers paying Bush and Frist to stand in line for?!

Sincerely,
John Moltz

And then, reality set in

Poll: Voters Say Iraq Didn't Merit War

A majority of American registered voters now say conditions in Iraq did not merit war, but most are reluctant to abandon efforts there, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll.

I wonder what, exactly, it is that now causes people to think that it wasn't worth it. Is it simply that it's going badly and it looks like we're in there for the long haul?

I understand that people get busy, they have their own lives to lead, and they want to be able to rely on the people in Washington to, if not lead them in the right direction, to at least lay out the options. In that regard, our government failed them. The press failed them. But they also failed themselves by not paying attention.

And what's up with this, anonymous AP reporter?

A majority of voters said presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has done little to help: The poll found that 34 percent said Kerry has not offered a clear plan to handle the war, while 15 percent said he has. The other voters said they didn't know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 34 + 15 = 49, meaning 51 percent said they didn't know. Wouldn't THAT be the majority? Is 51 not greater than 34 anymore, or is whatever statistic that favors the administration always greater?

Maybe the headline should read: "America Still Not Paying Attention."

Big whoop

Putin Takes Bush's Side Against Democrats on Iraq

Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped into the U.S. political campaign on Thursday, saying the Democrats had "no moral right" to criticize President Bush over Iraq.

Oh, yeah? Well, if you don't like how we do things here, why don't you just go back to Russia!?

Of course, Pooty-Poot loves Bush's validation of taking a strong-arm approach to Cheneya. Two callous, torture-loving peas in a pod.

Sheesh!

To compound my crappy record with technology this week, Laughing Squid's server went down, so this site was hosed all day Thursday. I hope the despair of living without me for a day wasn't enough to drive you to the brink.

What's treason?

An important difference between administration supporters and detractors is each group's use of the word "treason." Supporters think news stories on anything but school building in Iraq and verbal criticism of the administration are treason. Detractors think outing CIA agents, declaring themselves above U.S. law and revealing secrets to foreign parties without clearance are treason.

So, again, supporters think free speech is treason, detractors think... well... actual treason is treason.

The Reagan Legacy

Many Still Troubled by Reagan's Legacy

As one of the first physicians to confront AIDS when it began its rampage through the gay community, Dr. Marcus Conant lobbied the Reagan administration in 1982 to launch an emergency campaign to educate Americans about the disease.

It took the president five more years to publicly mention the crisis. By then, almost 21,000 Americans had died and thousands more had been diagnosed. Conant, who lost scores of friends and patients to the disease, is still deeply angry — one of many Americans who view Reagan's legacy in a harsh light.

"Ronald Reagan and his administration could have made a substantial difference, but for ideological reasons, political reasons, moral reasons, they didn't do it," said the San Francisco dermatologist, who now deals with a new generation of AIDS patients. "President Reagan and his administration committed a crime, not just a sin."

But who cares what he did to a bunch of homos, right? How 'bout that tax cut and that big ass deficit?!

"Other than that...

... how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

In response to Lucien's question in comments below (now that I'm back on the blog horse), let me fill you in on the project I was working on this past week.

I've been taking a database class and the final project was to make something with MySQL and Java Server Pages. Things did not go well.

As I was wrapping it up this weekend, I was working remotely on the server at school and nothing was working. Pages just wouldn't even load. Unbeknownst to me, the Tomcat server there was out of memory because so many programmers were forgetting to close their connections. At any rate, I decided to get MySQL and Tomcat running on my PowerBook.

That chewed up a few hours, but then I was back coding. Things seemed to be working fine right before class on Monday. Then I put my PowerBook to sleep and headed off to give the final presentation.

I don't know if it was the process of putting the laptop to sleep or what, but when I got to class, nothing worked anymore. I didn't figure it out until later, but I think the user table in MySQL was corrupted. I could only log in anonymously and couldn't access anything I needed.

So, while the first groups went, I struggled to get it running again, but it was no use. I wouldn't find out until later that the only way to fix it was to reinstall MySQL. I meekly got up when my turn came, explained my project wasn't currently working, did my PowerPoint presentation and sat down in humiliation.

But, it's over. That's the best thing I can say about it.

What?

Memo Says Bush Not Restricted by Torture Bans

President Bush, as commander-in-chief, is not restricted by U.S. and international laws barring torture, Bush administration lawyers stated in a March 2003 memorandum.

Wait... does that mean Bush can be tortured without violating international laws?

Not that I'm advocating that. I'm just asking about international law and the rule of law and our nation's standing in the world where we hope that the rule of law applies for our benefit as well as the benefit of other law-abiding nations, inasmuch as our willingness to abide by such laws sets an example and such.

Seriously, I don't kill spiders in our house. So I don't advocate torturing Bush. Or even just shoving him around a little.

OK, maybe speaking to him condescendingly. That I could go for. Talking about him behind his back. Snickering. That kind of thing.

Reagan

Most flattering eulogy while still being accurate:

RIP Ronnie. You were better than George W. Bush (link via Atrios)

Best headline:

It's mourning in America

Truest headline that you won't see:

Reagan Posthumously Fellated

John who?

It's been a long few days but, come hell or high water, this project has to be presented tomorrow. I hate to say how many hours I've spent struggling with Ant and Tomcat as opposed to actual coding. Somehow I've managed to fuck things up on my account on the server at school so badly that I can no longer get anything to run on it. Hopefully my PowerBook won't have any trouble plugging into the projector.

Blech. I'll be glad when this is over.