Open thread

You can't stop the open thread, you can only hope to contain it.

It's customary to toss out a subject for these, if only for the delight provided by seeing how quickly that subject is abandoned and in how many different directions. So, OK, here's a topic: If, as President Bush said Monday, "There's no wrongdoing" behind the Justice Department's firing of at least eight U.S. Attorneys for insufficient voter intimidation, then why did Monica Goodling take the fifth? Was she claiming a constitutional protection against self-exoneration?

Corollary: Were President Bush's remarks intended to sound the way they came across, i.e., "You know we're guilty, and we know you know we're guilty -- but you can't prove it, neener neener"?

(Regular blogging will resume once I've slept off the corporate-training-is-during-the-day-so-there's-no-need-to-skip-your-nightshift jetlag.)

Comments

[Darryl Pearce]

Well..., I loves me some Dr Who. Alas, fiction cannot compete with the adventures, peradventures and drama unleashed upon us by people whose sole expression of power is to abuse people.

No, we can't catch them because they suffer neither guilt nor shame.

...safe travels.

Verlander threw a no-hitter last night! Woohoo!

[85% Duane]

I just finished watching VH-1's Soft-sational Top something or another soft rock songs of all time Special and you aren't going to ruin my mood with BDS.

*floats away*

[Peter]

How do I work this open thread thing?

[aunursa]

I am attempting to post a comment on the Torture thread; however it is being rejected as spam. Help!

[aunursa]

In order to bypass the spam filter, I had to change my screenname and/or email address.

[jeffk]

WooHoo! Another Doctor Who fan! The new series keeps getting better and better.

Regarding Bush's remarks: Just about anything he (and most of the GOP) says is the opposite of the truth. So when he says "There's no wrongdoing", that clearly means that there is wrongdoing, and probably lots of it. The only exception to this is when they accuse someone of something, in which case they're projecting. For example, when they accuse Dems of being "political" or "partisan" about an issue, the truth is that the Repugs are the ones being political and partisan.

[Jos]

I have a theory about this. Well, two, actually. I'm not sure if they are in any way accurate, but hey.

1) George W. Bush is an idiot who isn't really up to speed on what the law actually says about quite a few things.

2) George W. Bush is the President of the USA. That makes him The Most Powerful Man In The World. It also means that he is always right. Because he is the Decider. But it's not as though he is above the law, he makes the law. The law is whatever he damn well says it is because he is The Most Powerful Man In The World.

And that is why Bush thinks no wrongdoing took place.

[Jos]

Addendum: I am, of course, working under the assumption that Bush actually believes what he says.

[Jesurgislac]

"You know, he -- they haven't said, here's -- you've done something wrong, Attorney General Gonzales."

Hm. Perhaps someone should point out to Bush that when a man who was then the Acting Attorney General testifies under oath that Gonzales wangled his way into the ICU to attempt - at the very nicest interpretation - to bamboozle the man who was then the Attorney General into signing off on a program that the Department of Justice had found to be criminal, it's not really necessary in most people's eyes to have to say, out loud, "You've done something wrong, Attorney General Gonzales."

Or is Bush thinking that this doesn't count because Gonzales did it before Bush appointed him Attorney General?

[Jeff]

Or is Bush thinking that this doesn't count because Gonzales did it before Bush appointed him Attorney General?

Nope Bush did it because both he and Gonzales are men, and all men are Eeeeeeevil. Just ask your friend, Ms Dworkin.

[Jeff]

As an aside to Prankster: The best series on TV right now is neither Heroes or Lost, but is, of course, The Shield. I'm going to miss Claudette, Dutch and even Vic and Aceveda when next year is over. :-(

[Jesurgislac]

Nope Bush did it because both he and Gonzales are men, and all men are Eeeeeeevil.

Why is it that non-feminists and anti-feminists have a much lower opinion of men than feminists do? It's a question that's often puzzled me.

Just ask your friend, Ms Dworkin.

Actually, I think I'll just send her over to your house.

[Tonio]

I'll latch onto the subject of Monica Goodling and Regent University - the media focused on Regent's apparent lack of education quality and missed the larger picture. The stated missions of schools like Regent and Patrick Henry College almost certainly equate to theocracy. With that in mind, what is the nature of the relationship between the Bush White House and these Dominionist instituations? It's possible that the hiring of so many Regent grads was simply a political reward for the fundamentalist wing of the GOP. But I can't help wondering if some in the Administration seek to promote Dominionism.

[damnedyankee]

"You know we're guilty, and we know you know we're guilty -- but you can't prove it, neener neener"

Yep, that sounds about right.

I don't suppose there's any chance of Bush actually being a pawn of the Daleks, Cybermen, or even the Master? No, that'd be too easy, dammit...

Why is it that non-feminists and anti-feminists have a much lower opinion of men than feminists do? It's a question that's often puzzled me.

Subconscious reaction to Rush Limbaugh? God knows you can't listen to the guy without at least some part of your soul recoiling.

Or it could also be the Right's tendency to take the position of a marginalized extremist associated with any opposition movement (Dworkin with feminism being the example thoughtfully provided) and use it to smear the mainstream of said movement. This being done, ironically, by the Right's own extremists (Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, etc.), who have been moved to front and center on their own side.

[damnedyankee]

Addendum: Not in actual leadership positions, mind you, just to keep their pet voting blocs distracted, gullible, and pliant.

[Geds]

Why is it that non-feminists and anti-feminists have a much lower opinion of men than feminists do? It's a question that's often puzzled me.

Perhaps they just hate people?

[Jesurgislac]

dammedyankee: I don't suppose there's any chance of Bush actually being a pawn of the Daleks, Cybermen, or even the Master? No, that'd be too easy, dammit...

Hm. We haven't seen the Master since 1996, and he was in the US then. When did the Republican Party pick George W. Bush to be the next presidential candidate?

[damnedyankee]

Hm. We haven't seen the Master since 1996, and he was in the US then. When did the Republican Party pick George W. Bush to be the next presidential candidate?

Well, that would probably have been just after the previous election cycle which would put it in late -

...

Oh. My. God. And I thought that the finding of shrunken remains of Goldwater Republicans scattered throughout the primary states were just coincidences.

Grab Cheney! Take off his mask!

[Jeff]

Why is it that non-feminists and anti-feminists have a much lower opinion of men than feminists do?

So you admit you're a non-feminist or an anti-feminist? Thanks for that. :-)

[LM]

(throws the topic)

And I thought those crazy "women's magazines" that are all about sex, makeup, fashion, and whatever celebrity is pregnant were bad. Check out the web site for Women Today. Each article is a plea for you to accept Jesus and ends with this stupid button that says "Yes! I prayed to Jesus!" sort of like how things work in Jack Chick land or maybe the LB books with the "Sinner's Prayer." Only...that's how desperate we've gotten today. Click a button, receive Jesus! I'd rather get some bacon!

Damn it...where's the "No! I'm going to hell so I can listen to Jewish punk rock all day!" button? Or maybe I'd rather have some bacon...again.

[Jesurgislac]

Jeff: So you admit you're a non-feminist or an anti-feminist?

Now, Jeff, even you must realize that's passive-aggressive taken to extremes.

As a non-feminist/anti-feminist yourself, why do you think you have a much lower opinion of men than us feminists?

[The Master]

Grab Cheney! Take off his mask!

I'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

[treeandleafster]

The Master is too smooth, articulate, and generally classy to be Bush... but if Bush was being mind-controlled by the Cybermen, it would probably make a lot of sense.

[McJulie]

Maybe Cheney is a Dalek.

[Brian J.]

First question: Yes. Monica Goodling knows that if *she* is indicted for lying to Congress, no one will save her.

Second question: Also. Yes, and were I the shrub, I'd do the same. Congressional Democrats have proven themselves to be, if anything, even more craven in the majority than in the minority.

[LM]

But will Cheny give me bacon?

[Jeff]

I heard that e-Harmony is being sued for violating California's sexual orientation laws.

e-Harmony does not currently accept gays, and the owner/creator has a plausible reason for that: He did exhaustive research on straight couples, looking at all the factors that determine why one couple stays together while another, seemingly simular couple breaks up. Seen this way, e-Harmony is a long-term socialogical project run for profit.

The owner did not do any research on gay couples, and he says that he's not qualified to put together a simular project for gay couples. I believe that he's said he would work with a group that has done / is doing the research.

Dating services are allowed to discriminate (there's "Christian Singles" and "Jewish Singles" and probably "Color Out of Space Singles"). I would think that if e-Harmony was the standard "get a bunch of names, throw them together and see who sticks" kind of service, the suit might have merit.

In this case, though, I'm not sure. What's the view of other Slacktivists?

[Jesurgislac]

In my second year at college, one of my programming projects was to write a couples-match program for an imaginary dating agency. All the other students were busy figuring out either ways of ensuring F only matched to M, or (if a step more imaginative) that Gay-Male only matched with other Gay-Males, Straight-Male only matched with Straight-Female, etc.

In a stroke of genius, the program my team submitted eliminated the whole problem: we invited our users to identify themselves as F or M, and then to specify whether they preferred to be matched with F or M or Both.

In the real world, however, if I were thinking of dealing with a dating agency that used to deal with mixed-sex couples only and that then opened up to same-sex couples, I would want to be absolutely sure that the agency had really considered the differences in dating style and other cultural differences between the GLBT communities and the straight community. If the agency felt it was incapable of dealing with the differences, I wouldn't want to be registered with it anyway
In short, I think this is an instance where the agency is entitled to say that it's area of expertise is mixed-sex couples, and that it doesn't deal outside its area of expertise.

[Elmo]

"I am, of course, working under the assumption that Bush actually believes what he says."

At least at the moment he says it.

[Arakasi]

Although it is an intriguing theory, Bush can't be controlled by either the Daleks or the Cybermen - neither race can manage petulance

[damnedyankee]

Oh, I dunno. Daleks can get really pouty when their genocidal plans don't go their way...

[Jeff]

In the real world, however, if I were thinking of dealing with a dating agency that used to deal with mixed-sex couples only and that then opened up to same-sex couples, I would want to be absolutely sure that the agency had really considered the differences in dating style and other cultural differences between the GLBT communities and the straight community. If the agency felt it was incapable of dealing with the differences, I wouldn't want to be registered with it anyway.

That will be Dr Warren's defence, I believe.

There are several LGBT dating sites (gayout.com for example). If eHarmony (no dash, I've found) must take LGBT clients, must LGBT dating sites take straight clients. Sounds dumb to me.

What I find interesting is that even tough Dr Warren is an evangelical Christian, the site has been used by non-Christians, as well as interacial couples, to meet and connect.

[Geds]

Can we just do something to get rid of the eHarmony commercials? I don't really care about their sexual politics (being neither gay nor prone to wanting to go to a website that basically works to create arranged marriages for desperate people. If I'm internet dating it's match.com all the way, baby). I do care deeply that the commercials creep me out, especially the founder guy.

I don't know what it is about them.

[Jeff]

I posted this on the Late Night Phone Call thread, but wnated to pop it into a fresh thread:

BTW, I realize that it has about 0.0001% chance of happening, but I really want Ehud Barak to lose to his opponent; and for Labor to win the next elections. That way "I, alone, will rule Israel!"

[cjmr's husband]

Aside from the possibility of George W Bush meeting a Cyberman on eHarmony, his behaviour is reminiscent of Tobias Vaughn or Mr Ratcliffe, so I wouldn't be surprised at all.

[damnedyankee]

"Mechanical pawn of genocidal agenda seeks same for long-term relationship. Must have own WMD's."

[mmack]

Because he is the Decider

Jos, please, "The Decider" is SOOOO 2006. W is now The Commander Guy.

:^)

[toxicfur]

On a different topic entirely, Massachusetts is keeping marriage gender-neutral. This makes me extremely happy, especially since the legislature voted on the issue (to allow citizens to vote in 2008 on a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage), rather than avoiding it procedurally. The proposed amendment needed 50 (out of 200) votes to be put on the ballot; it only got 45. Yay for the Massachusetts state government.

[Drocket]

*What I find interesting is that even tough Dr Warren is an evangelical Christian, the site has been used by non-Christians, as well as interacial couples, to meet and connect.*

Are you sure about that? Out of boredom one day, I decided to play around with the profile creator, and every time I said that I wasn't particularly spiritual, it automatically kicked me to the 'sorry, but we can't help you' page. That one bothered me more than the 'no gays allowed' thing. I can understand the 'we don't understand what gay people want' (though, quite frankly, I suspect that it's the exact same thing as straight people want, only with a different set of genitals.) Saying that only people who are extremely religious, though, seems a little fishy.

[mmack]

Gonzales isn't going anywhere since this is the same person who said to GWB "Who really needs to abide by the Geneva Convention anyway? You're President of the United States of America and above all of this."

The closest thing we've had to a "Scrap of Paper" memo in US History

And as far as why Monica Goodling took the fifth: She's a lawyer, isn't she? About the LAST thing any competent lawyer will do is put the accused on the stand to testify on their own behalf if there's a strong case against them (think O.J. Simpson). Granted, the first thought everyone has when someone takes "the fifth" is "What do they have to hide?", but to paraphrase an old saying: Isn't it better to stay silent and be thought the crook rather than open one's mouth and confirm all suspicions?

[Geds]

W is now The Commander Guy.

I feel like I've been very not-so-subtly mocked for some reason...

[damnedyankee]

mmack: The suspicion about Goodling started when she used the Fifth as a reason not to appear, and before any questions had been asked. That's what got people to wondering.

[mmack]

Geds,

Here's where it comes from, a May 3, 2007 story on Iraq:

"The man who last year proclaimed “I’m the decider,’’ in response to a question about whether he would fire Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, came up with this latest moniker in explaining why he vetoed an Iraq war spending bill that dictated a timeline for troops to withdraw from Iraq.

“The question is, ‘Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?,’’ Mr. Bush said. “As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.”

Remember to keep up to date on your presidential nicknames everyone.

Heckuva job with the blog, Freddo :^)

[Geds]

Really, mmack?

So then my decision to refer to the head of eHarmony as "the founder guy" was just a coincidence?

Aw, I wish I'd known that before hand. I could have pretended to be making a funny...

[Mike]

The reason Doctor Who has been getting better recently, in my humble opinion, has to do with the fact that Russell T Davies hasn't been busy executive producing instead of writing lately. I hope he continues to avoid the typewriter/word processor for a long time to come.

As for the thread, why the hell do I care what Bush said on Monday? Every word he says is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'.

[Jeff]

mmack: And as far as why Monica Goodling took the fifth: She's a lawyer, isn't she? About the LAST thing any competent lawyer will do is put the accused on the stand to testify on their own behalf if there's a strong case against them (think O.J. Simpson). Granted, the first thought everyone has when someone takes "the fifth" is "What do they have to hide?", but to paraphrase an old saying: Isn't it better to stay silent and be thought the crook rather than open one's mouth and confirm all suspicions?

damnedyankee: The suspicion about Goodling started when she used the Fifth as a reason not to appear, and before any questions had been asked. That's what got people to wondering.

The suspicion that she was concealing importinformation came from the fact that she took the fifth to "avoid a perjury trap". Since no-one had asked a question that led to perjury, the reasoning was that she knew that one of the previous witnesses had committed perjury, or that she herself was going to. The notion that she could plead the fifth because the Congress was going to be really, really mean was laughable.

[Tonio]

Toxicfur, count me as a straight married man who believes that gays should be legally entitled to be married. Or more correctly, I see no compelling reason for government to outlaw it. When some opponents claim that gay marriage would destroy straight marriage, I regard that as irresponsible fearmongering. To hear them talk, you would think that straight married people everywhere would be tempted to fly to Boston to tie the knot with Raoul the Thin, Single and Neat Poolboy or Lisa the Lipstick Lesbian.

[toxicfur]

Tonio: First, thank you. I haven't heard any justifiable arguments against the civil recognition of same-sex marriages, with all of the attendant rights and responsibilities granted by the state. Religious arguments against same-sex marriage seem to me to be the same as religious arguments against certain sexual practices - don't like it, don't do it.

[Jeff Weskamp]

"Color Out of Space Singles."

Actually, that should be "Colour Out of Space Singles." :-) A singles group for Lovecraftian creatures and humans would really bring up challenging issues of sexual orientation and identity. If you go out with a Deep One, how can you tell if it's male or female?

OK, since this is an open blog, I'd like to let you all know that I got a copy of Dianne Wynne's "Tough Guide to Fantasyland," which someone mentioned at this site last week. It is absolutely hysterical! As a reader who gave up on sword-and-sorcery fantasy because everything was a reiteration of Tolkien, I loved how Wynne skewered every cliche and trope. I recommend it highly!