Lipstick on the Pig
While I was watching Bush’s latest (6/28) captive audience pep-talk, it occurred to me (at the point he mentioned 9/11 for the fifth time) that his 9/11 speeches at least had the benefit of some literary color. For example, in one his speeches right after 9/11 he said “We have a saying where I come from: Don’t mess with Texas.” This inspired me to parody a Bush version of the Gettysburg Address that has Abe saying “Don’t Toy with Illinois!” My experience is that Texans love pithy sayings. I once had a colleague from Texas that loved the phrase “more fun than stomping baby chicks!” So what colorful phrases would fit with the situation in Iraq? Here are so more he might be able to use. The obvious standard phrases would be “putting the best face on things” and “sweeping it under the rug,” but they aren’t particularly colorful, are they? Somewhat better (or at least more “colorful”) are “rose-colored glasses” and “rosy scenario.” However, I have two that match Bush’s “happy talk” on Iraq perfectly: “lipstick on the pig” and “polishing the turd.” I also noticed he used the term “coalition” what must have been hundreds of times. Interestingly, compared to US forces of approximately 153,000, the average coalition contingent is about 800. This calls to mind the aphorism “lost in the crowd.” Speaking of the five 9/11s, rather than “mission accomplished” I’m thinking “bait and switch” works better. As to the hundreds of billions of posterity’s money spent on Iraq: “easy come, easy go” and “now you see it, now you don’t.”
07.02.05 @ 08:58 PM EDT [link]

Feature of the Week
With PBS under assault by right wing operatives disturbed by this oasis of balance in the vast right-skewed empire that is talk radio, SherWright.com humbly offers some return fire. It’s a new topic arc on the right border links (for example, on the home page) which starts you with our recent (and particularly funny, if we say so ourselves) Sesame Street parody.
07.01.05 @ 08:23 PM EDT [link]

So Dr. Sen Bill, Where’s Our Straight Up or Down Vote on Stem Cells?
A persistent mantra from the Republican Leadership, particularly Bush and most particularly Dr. Sen. Frist, is that it’s only fair that their legislation should be given a “straight up and down vote,” a phrase let’s dub the StUpAD approach to voting. We’ve many times heard the call for the StUpAD approach on Bush nominees for judicial posts. Most recently, the StUpAD approach has been associated with the nomination of John Bolton as UN Ambassador, held up because of Administration refusal to permit the Senate to review pertinent documents related to Bolton’s tenure in the State Department. (As an aside, Bolton’s colleagues there recently reported on how much more of the Nation’s business they’ve been able to accomplish with Bolton wrapped up 24/7 with his nomination). The StUpAD approach is usually accompanied by an anguished invocation of the need for more democracy, defined by the extreme right wing as “the winner takes it all, the loser has to fall.” Interestingly, Republicans we’re nearly so interested in the StUpAD approach when Dems were in majority. Anyway, there seems to be at least one item of legislation that has the support of a majority of Republicans yet for some reason is not getting it’s straight up or down vote. Is it because the Democrats are blocking this vote? Nope, they’re in favor also. So why isn’t Dr. Sen. Frist making his usual call for the StUpAD approach. Well, in this case he doesn’t have to call for it since it’s completely in his hands. He can have a straight up or down vote on the stem cell research bill whenever he wants. This is the bill that recently passed the House and reportedly has majority support in Senate. So why isn’t Dr. Sen Frist insisting on his normal StUpAD approach to legislation? Could it be that Bush has promised to veto this bill, and this would be the very first veto in his entire term in office? Apparently Dr. Sen Bill doesn’t always think that StUpAD is attractive!
06.30.05 @ 10:39 PM EDT [link]

Lost in Translation
Scene: Krishna Jambuserwala, an Indian visitor to the US who speaks no English, is the sole witness to a crime. The Prosecutor from the District Attorney’s office has assigned him a translator. T:“You are performing a great service for our city by agreeing to testify.” KJ: “How could I not? It is my duty to Shiva to ensure that justice is served. Just tell me what I must do.” T: “The Judge will call you before him, and you will do as he asks. Come, the hearing will begin shortly.” (Inside the courtroom). KJ: “What is that display on the courtroom wall above the Judge’s podium?” T: “That is the Ten Commandments.” KJ: “I know nothing about American law. What does it say?” T: “I will translate. I am the Lord your God. You will have no other Gods before me. Wait, here comes the judge!” (The hearing begins. The translator and Mr. Jambuserwala continue speaking to themselves.) KJ: “You told me that the Judge will call me before him, and the instructions posted on the wall say that there can be no other Gods before him. How can I repudiate the Gods of my ancestors? This is a terrible mistake!” Prosecutor: “What did he just say?” T: “He said that this is a mistake.” P: What do you mean mistake! Tell him that he is here to stand before the Court and testify, and that’s what he is going to do!” T: “But…” P: “No buts! Tell him exactly what I just said!” (Translator begins repeating the Prosecutor’s words). Judge: “Counselor, is there an issue?” P: “You Honor, the witness seems to have some concerns about testifying. The Court Translator is explaining his responsibilities to him.” KJ: “You say I am required to stand before the Ten Commandments and have the American God before Lord Shiva! Never!” (He runs from the courtroom). Judge: “Well, Counselor, it seems your witness really does have some concerns with testifying. Case dismissed! (Raps the gavel). I’ll see you in my chambers.”
06.29.05 @ 08:58 PM EDT [link]

Famous Last Throes
Dick Cheney has famously predicted that the Iraq Insurgency is in Last Throes. If so, it’s a remarkable coincidence that these Last Throes happen to look just like a dramatic increase in military effectiveness. Consider the statistics: 1,000 people killed since April, and 70 attacks/day compared to 53/day during this same period in ’04 and 8/day in ’03. If Dick is now seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, it wouldn’t be the first time in military history that this has happened. Remember the Iraqi Minister of Information during the invasion and his Cheneyesque "There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!" I’m guessing that at some point in the invasion he probably claimed that the US invasion was in its Last Throes! Let’s imagine whether these same words might have been used in other historical military events. For example, consider Russia's Interior Minister under Tsar Nicholas II, VK Plehve, famous for saying, “What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution.” I imagine that immediately before receiving word that Japan had just sunk the Russian Pacific Fleet in the Battle of Tsushima Straits, he might have said “The war with Japan is in its Last Throes, and will end as soon as our fleet engages.” That would actually have been a true statement! Can’t you just imagine King Priam of Troy saying “The Greek Assault is in its Last Throes. They’ve clearly been out on the beach too long – just look at that silly horse they just built!” A Roman era Germanic general may have said that the forces of Maximus were in their Last Throes when he saw a single flaming arrow and took it as history’s most pathetic fusillade. How about the Battle of Stirling? I can picture King Edward II saying to his aide de camp “Look at those Scots out there in their kilts and war paint! Those reports that William Wallace is crazy must be true. Thank God the revolt is in its Last Legs!”
06.28.05 @ 08:19 PM EDT [link]

A Theory Dittoheads Will Love Even More than Intelligent Design!
I’ve come up with a great alternative to evolution that addresses the concerns that the right wing has with Darwin’s theory, and does this even better than intelligent design. The latter is of course the idea that an intelligent entity must have created life because it’s just too damn complex. Proponents of intelligent design hasten to point out that they’re not saying it’s God that did the creating, but of course it must be God. Even if aliens rather than evolution originated life on earth, how could these aliens have spontaneously developed the intellectual complexity to have achieved this feat if such complexity can’t arise by natural means, i.e., by evolution? Clearly, God must be at the end of the question that intelligent design begs, a fact doubtless not lost on intelligent design proponents even as they claim it’s not a sneaky version of creationism. It has to cause them some discomfort, though, talking about how life on earth might have arrived from UFOs when they’re just dying to say that Adam and Eve were beamed down from the Deity, not an alien Enterprise. One interesting fact about advocates for intelligent design is that they admit that evolution might have a role in speciation. It’s just that the fundamental basis for life – cells – are too complex to have arisen spontaneously. Apparently the political religious right, the source of funding for intelligent design studies, is willing to allow evolution to have some sort of role, as long as origins are “clean.” This aspiration is sometimes expressed as “My ancestors weren’t pond scum!” In other words, the problem with evolution is vanity – humans are just too dignified to be associated with lower-class life forms. My new theory of human origins neatly addresses this dilemma. I call it Beautiful Design” or BD. BD holds that humans evolved from organisms much more beautiful than the ugly creatures that happen to have made it into the fossil record. For example, when human precursors were single-celled creatures, they weren’t disgusting and smelly like pond scum but gorgeous and luminescent, with a most appealing scent. When they had evolved to the amphibian stage, they weren’t green and gross like frogs but sleek and elegant, with a delightful turquoise coloration. When they advanced onto dry land (the first creature to do so, of course), they weren’t weird, hodge-podge creatures like lungfish; they had a perfectly functioning set of lungs from day one! And our immediate ancestors weren’t hairy and silly like apes, but were white, long-limbed creatures with functioning wings. In other words, they had the appearance of angels! I expect that scientists, being the sticklers for “evidence” that they are, will point out that none of the above human precursors have representation in the fossil record. Their objections won’t impede the growth of Beautiful Design as a “player” in alternative theories of human origins, for two reasons: 1) Evidence is an overrated factor in the popularity of such theories, considering the success that intelligent design has achieved and 2) well, it’s just such a beautiful way to imagine how people came to be! And doesn’t beauty trump truth any day of the week?
06.27.05 @ 08:32 PM EDT [link]

Karl Dials 9/11
Karl Rove generated lots of media play and doubtless a ton of right wing political contributions when he played the 9/11 card in New York last week. Specifically, he said “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," The White House and indeed the entire right wing media establishment have been diligently defending his comments. But is defense enough? My free advice to Karl is that he should turn up the heat by pointing out additional liberal failings revealed by 9/11. For example, liberal reaction to 9/11 clearly showed the bankruptcy of liberal energy policy. The Bush Administration had a muscular reaction to the terrorist attack as it related to oil: accelerating the slurping of domestic reserves. What was the liberal reaction? A wimpy call for conservation to reduce reliance on this essential but finite resource from a volatile part of the world. In other words, liberals want to hamper America’s strength by denying ourselves our God-given right to all the oil we feel like consuming when and how we want to consume it! Like, if you’re thirsty you should drink up. Can a high-performing athlete keep his strength up if he lets himself get dehydrated? Denying America its full measure of consumption is a call for weaknesses! It’s like saying we should compete with one arm tied behind our collective back! And energy policy is just the beginning. The liberal reaction to 9/11 clearly showed the bankruptcy of their attitudes towards Social Security. President Bush has been spending the political capital he rightly earned from the blood, sweat, and tears generated from his manly reaction to 9/11 (not his own B, S, & T, but no matter) by working to afford future generations opportunity to legally gamble with their retirement nest egg. Liberals would just keep things the way they are. People say that 9/11 changed everything, and how can everything be changed when liberals want to keep Social Security unchanged? Finally consider 9/11 and the United Nations. This is an organization over 99% composed of foreign countries, and it’s a fact that every one of the 9/11 hijackers was from a foreign country. There can be only one conclusion: this organization needs to be reformed! Are liberals supporting the reform that 9/11 has made so obvious? N-o-o-o-o-o!
06.26.05 @ 06:05 PM EDT [link]