A Revelation

Mike! McGavick revealed today that he once drove drunk, and did several other things he wasn't proud of. He has yet to reveal why he thinks it would do anyone any earthly good to vote for him.

Wittman's Wake

McCain the center the awful awful awful liberals that attack my islamo-quack-quack-quack North Korea little man like Saddamedamgorgonzola glad he's gone but islamic fascism HitlerHitlerfofitlerbannanafannagogitlerfififofitlerhitler goosestepping over Arabia--Aarby in a world where Irish teenagers sneak out to visit bizarrebazaars and the merchants (of death) with the houkas I slept with a houka once she charged me ten dollars and was gone in puff of smoke ha ha ha ha Lieberman why oh why do they dislike people who hate them don't they know I hate them for their own good Saddam hated Iran who hated Osama so why do they wait dangerously close to asking a question a question don't question my heart Teddy Roosevelt had a big heart unless you were an atheist but they don't count for anything anyway they're part of that conspiracy conspire inspire up up up swingingonastarandspringingfromasponge into space on to heaven with Holy Joe and marvelous marvelous marvelous me.

The Reason Why You Can't Take Toothpaste On a Plane

This is how easy it is to blow up a plane by bringing a variety of liquids onboard (courtesy tapped):

Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together.

First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.
But let's assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you've got them on hand.

Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.
It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate - especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation - to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.

Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.

The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.

So here's the plan, we're going to make airport security an even bigger time-waster than it already is to avoid even the slightest chance that a terrorist can bring his plan to its likely fruition--an unholy, smelly (and quite exothermic) mess in a toilet. (The whole process sounds so delicate that one good bump would either blow our terrorist up or force him to start over.) Instead of confiscating everyone's soda and mascara, wouldn't we be better off just making a common sense rule that you can't take the champagne bucket into the john? That would stymie the terrorists without inconveniencing any but the fussiest first-class passengers.

My guess is that the London terrorist plotters are kind of like that shoe-bomber; they're people that the real terrorists don't feel too bad about losing because they're kind of stupid and given to plans that they probably stole from an episode of Get Smart. Terrorists don't need to take out planes. There are lots of crowded places for them to wipe out--malls, sporting events, titty bars, subway platforms, hotel lobbies, music festivals. The list is endless. One thing they might do, as sort of a clever bank shot, is set up some shitball terrorist wannabes in Washington. They'll get them to concoct some overly complicated and stupid scheme to blow up an airliner, let the FBI catch them, wait for the media freakout and the predictable TSA clampdown on somethingorother, then send some suicide bombers to what should be a very long, snaking, out-of-control airport security line. The loss of life would be horrific, of course, but on some level you'd have to smile at the irony.

But knowing the security mind as I do, they'd probably start making us stand in security lines to get into the security line. We'd all be nude, of course, to better facilitate the cavity search that would await us at the gate. I'm sure passengers will take it in stride (actually it's hard to take a cavity search in stride, but I'm sure we'll do what we can) because what price peace of mind?

Free Booze

Majikthise has a line on a wine offer for bloggers, specifically a free bottle of 2004 Amilie Cabernet Sauvignon-Merlot.

Click here for the rules.

Five Crock of Shit Quotations

Heard about this from Kevin Drum. I'll play:

I pay no attention whatever to anybody's praise or blame. I simply follow my own feelings.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756 - 1791)

Not such bad advice if you're Mozart, but pretty crummy advice if you're George W. Bush.

I can't think of any sorrow in the world that a hot bath wouldn't help, just a little bit.
Susan Glasee, The Visioning, 1911

Human Rights Watch says some prisoners in Uzbekistan might disagree with you, Susan.

Forgive many things in others; nothing in yourself.
Ausonius

Rubbish. Following this advice is a recipe for neurosis.

Political advertising ought to be stopped. It's the only really dishonest kind of advertising that's left.
David M. Ogilvy

Spoken like a man preparing to sell something. Orwell pretty much hit it when he said that all propaganda lies, even when it's telling the truth.

It is as hard to see one's self as to look backwards without turning around.
Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862)

Henry, meet the mirror.

Sillius Sodus

I'm not generally given to reading Rabbi Gellman, but thanks to Atrios I couldn't avoid him. Of all the takes I've seen on Joe Lieberman's collapse that were not uttered by the candidate himself or one of his few remaining flunkies, this wins the Palm D'or for fatuous punditry:

Please understand, this is not a political rant. Yes, I support the war and yes I support and admire President George W. Bush, but I understand and respect those who have come to another conclusion about how best to fight the war on terror. My disappointment is with my people. I simply do not understand why so many Jews bailed on Joe. I cannot understand why Joe's percentage of the Jewish vote was not in the high 90s instead of the 54-57 percent range (according to Lieberman’s campaign). I have opinions on way too many things I don't know nearly enough about, but I know about Jews. I am a professional Jew, and yet if you asked me to explain why Jews did not vote for Joe the way blacks voted for Barack Obama or Catholics voted for John F. Kennedy I would not know what to tell you.

In truth I am also bewildered about why Jews do not support President Bush more than the pathetic 22-26 percent (depending on which exit poll you look at) he received in 2004. Bush would win a landslide in Israel, and never once invited Yasir Arafat to the White House, but that is a bewilderment best left for another day. What has frozen me is the lack of support for Joe by Jews. Joe voted the Democratic line 90 percent of the time. Twenty-nine other Democrats also voted for the war and none of them was targeted (yet). Joe is the most famous Jewish politician of all time (unless you count former New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia whose mother was Jewish). He is an observant Jew and obviously he was on the presidential ticket in 2000. He is modest and self effacing. He is moral and faithful. He is principled and intelligent ... and he is one of us! What more do you want of the guy?

Well, leaving aside the hyperbole of Joe Lieberman as the most famous Jewish poltician of all time (I didn't know he beat out Golda Meir and Yitzak Rabin), the rest of Gellman's argument rests on a fundamental misreading of U.S. politics. Voters in the U.S. don't vote strictly along ethnic or religious lines. U.S. catholics did vote for John Kennedy, but split pretty heavily when it came to the other JFK, John Kerry. Yes, Barak Obama won the vast majority of the black vote in Illinois, but a white candidate would have probably done just as well among black voters because even though the republican in the race was black, he was also a raving lunatic.

Ethnic voters living in this country are not going to necessarily vote the same way, or for the same reasons, as people who live in their country of origin. Pakistanis in London don't see issues the same way as Pakistanis in Islamabad do. And I'm sure U.S. Jews see issues differently from Israeli Jews, Russian Jews, Polish Jews, Canadian Jews or Ethiopian Jews. The politics of any diaspora is complicated, with generational, regional, and religious dimensions. It can't be reduced to "he's one of us" because it begs the question of who "we" are.

It is possible that many Israeli Jews would vote for George W. Bush (and they can have him if they want him). Israeli Jews didn't live anywhere near Hurricane Katrina. They haven't had to put up with stagnant wages, jobless recoveries, "Kenny Boy", or Guantanamo. Their tax dollars and their kids aren't being shipped off to the blood and money pit of Iraq. There are a lot of things going on in this country that are not their problem. So they may just look at him and see a man who supports Israel. Fine. But U.S. Jews, QED, have to live here. They get a closeup view of Bush, and many of them apparently don't like what they see. And I guess they don't much care for politicians, Jew or Goy, Democrat or Republican, who make a habit of parroting the President's talking points.

Now, a few parting shots. "He [Lieberman] is modest and self effacing. He is moral and faithful. He is principled and intelligent..."

"Modest and self effacing": I really have to question whether a man who abandons his party after losing a primary to run on the ticket of "Connecticut for Lieberman" is either.

"Moral and Faithful": I know nothing about Lieberman's marriage, and if that's all Gellman is talking about I'll provisionally take "faithful". But Lieberman doesn't seem that faithful to his party, his colleagues, or to his youthful ideals. He'll jettison those the moment his career is threatened. (Once upon a time a young staffer for McGovern became a politician. He lost a race somewhere along the line--beaten up for being too liberal. So he, well, you know the rest...) As for "moral"--again, as long as it's a question of whose sex organs interact with whose, I'll accept the word. But Lieberman's backing of Alberto Gonzales's archipelago of torture farms, and his willingness to throw downfield blocks for people who lied us into a war don't sound moral to me.

"Principled and Intelligent." I think we've sufficiently covered Lieberman's principles. As for his intelligence, one need only look at the campaign he ran against Lamont to see Lieberman is completely blinkered and out of his depth. He can't really defend his views convincingly, and propounds ideas that six-year-olds could see through. Osama is really more evil than Hitler and more dangerous than the Soviets, Joe? A vote for Lamont is a vote for Osama? Only an idiot would think that, or in Lieberman's case, a principled, intelligent, useful idiot.

Maybe I'm just spitballing here, but I'm guessing that around 43% of Jews in Connecticut noticed some if not all of the things I've noticed about the erstwhile Democrat, and decided Joe Lieberman wasn't "one" of any "them" that they wanted to be associated with. I hope this cures your bewilderment, Rabbi Gellman, for a few minutes anyway. Good night, and good luck.

New Blog

Now that football season is nearly upon us, I have a new, all-Raiders all-the-time blog called The Raider Diaspora.

Vote

If you're from Connecticut, a registered Democrat, and here because your dryer is squeaking (it's probably either the belt or a missing screw in the bearings--either way, easy fix, don't panic), get out and vote for Ned Lamont. You'll have whiter teeth, fresher breath, fewer cavities, and sexier, tighter abs to attract whichever gender you prefer to fuck. Well, okay, but you'll at least pull a pretty nasty thorn from your side, and that's sure to make you feel better.

So vote, and call someone about the dryer. It's a cheap fix. Really.

Howard Johnson's Right About Olson Johnson's Being Right

Kevin Drum quotes from a Publius post that says that, while the blogs actually weren't at the center of Joe Lieberman's political problems, Lieberman's supporters are hell bent on making it look as though they are. This will, because perception is reality in these matters, make bloggers more powerful in the Democratic party. I doubt this was the effect that guys like Marshall Wittman and Jonathan Chait had in mind when they placed bloggers at the center of the Lamont campaign, but I guess that's how it worked out.

All this will obscure the truth about this race, but I still think that people who care will be able to find it. And when they look, I think they'll discover that it was Joe Lieberman's strategy of aligning himself with right-wing figures over the course of his career--Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity, and (though Lieberman has at times disputed it) George W. Bush--that ultimately led to his downfall. Now I know that Lieberman's remaining supporters will protest "But that's not the real Joe Lieberman!" But, in these matters, as Joe Lieberman forgot when it counted, perception is reality. It looks like that mistake will cost him his career.

Someone (I suspect Lanny Davis but I could be wrong) said of Joe Lieberman that he doesn't think politically. I'm sure he meant that as a compliment, but watching Lieberman flail through this primary against a rookie I can't help but think that a politician not thinking politically is a bit like a scientist not thinking scientifically or an athlete who doesn't think athletically. It's a good idea for a politician to appear apolitical, but underneath it there must lurk a shrewd political mind that monitors both enemies and friends and keeps close track of where the best political ground is located. Both Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell avoided serious primary challenges because they kept watch on local party officials during their tenures, stopping potential rivals before they could start, and because they knew when to throw the base a bone or two. If only Joe Lieberman had their sense. Too bad. So sad. Fuck him.

Joementum Defined

Joementum. n. A state or condition in which the identity of the loser is known to all observers of a contest except the loser, who believes he's winning. [ORIG: A speech by Joe Lieberman in which he claimed to be surpassing his rivals in the 2004 New Hampshire Primary. He ended up finishing fifth.]

I can't help myself

From Salon we get word that Ann Coulter thinks Bill Clinton is a latent homosexual. Here's why:

Her evidence? Well, all those sexual relations he's had with women, of course. "I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality," Coulter explained.

Other famous homosexuals (real and in fiction):

1. John Kennedy
2. James Bond
3. Babe Ruth
4. Hugh Hefner
5. Charlie Sheen
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Captain James T. Kirk

So just remember kids, if you have lots of sex with members of the opposite sex, it means you're gay. That'll throw a kink in your sexual identity, won't it?

Good For the Foreign Office

I haven't had a lot of cause to say that recently, but this time, they're saying more or less what I've been thinking:

And it's very difficult, I think, to understand the kind of military tactics that have been used. You know, if they're chasing Hezbollah, then go for Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation.--Kim Howells, British Foreign Office Minister.

Yeah. I'm afraid this is what's been bothering me about the whole mess. Is it really a sensible strategy for Israel (with tacit U.S. encouragement) to devastate Lebanon in order to pursue a cadre of terrorists in the southern part of the country? Doesn't that risk busting up the Lebanese central government and restarting the factional warfare that helped fuel the formation of these terrorist groups in the 1970s and 1980s? Why would Israel want to have that nightmare on their northern borders again? Hell, the Lebanese only recently kicked the Syrians out of Lebanon. Doesn't chaos there form a basis for their coming back in?

Israeli officials, in every interview I've seen, tend to focus on their right to engage in this kind of warfare. They were attacked, they say, and they're responding. Fine. But wouldn't it be better if their response actually brought Israel closer to desirable goals, instead of prolonging the misery and spreading it around?

I don't like the various World War analogies that local opportunists have been spewing in hopes of attracting the stupid vote, but there is one thing that George Kennan said about World War I that seems appropriate. I don't have the book with me, but he observed that World War I was evidence that suffering didn't always make people better, that war frequently gave people the excuse to believe self-flattering lies and imagine only the worst about their adversaries. War is intoxicating stuff, and it looks to me as if the Israeli government is already pretty sloshed.

The New Worst Movie Ever Made

Those who know me know that I have in my time watched a lot of crap. Red Zone Cuba, Amityville 2, Yor, the Hunter From the Future, Outlaw of Gor, Armageddon, Ringmaster, Pearl Harbor, Manos: the Hands of Fate, Glitter, The Lonely Lady, Battlefield Earth--these and many many other horrors have left craters on my retinas at one time or another.

But I have never seen a film so bad, just so unutterably stupid, as Monster A-Go-Go.

Monster A-Go-Go is the story of...hmm. What is it the story of? There's no monster. There's no A-Go-Go, and notwithstanding the protestations of the narrator, there's no horror. What there's a lot of is dark. Indeed, the movie The Dark didn't have this much dark. There are long periods where the screen is literally blank. Sadly, these are the film's better moments.

Essentially, the film consists of a few randomly placed shots of a tall man with oatmeal on his face interspersed with...well...the mind rebels against calling them scenes where characters talk about...actually, it's never quite clear what they're talking about, because the sound guy apparently didn't think that the audience needed to hear the actors. (I'm not sure whether I should condemn or praise him for that.) Characters come and go inexplicably. We never miss them when they're gone. We never really notice when they're there. The activities of Quaker-Oats Man, which are allegedly horrifying, take place largely off-screen. It falls to the various random characters to stumble upon the aftermath of the monster's mayhem and break into indivdual discussion groups to compare findings, which we never hear. In the end, a parade of stock footage tells us that preparations are taking place for something having to do with the monster, but then the narrator informs us that there was never a monster at all! Fade out. The end.

As I said, I'm a crap veteran. I was sure that when it came to cinema, I'd been to the ninth circle of hell, where Satan's three mouths chew on the worst offenders in all of film history: Coleman Francis, Hal Warren, and Michael Bay. But no. The Inferno has a subbasement, where Monster A-Go-Go lives and rolls in the filth of its own wretchedness.

From what I understand, the producer got his mitts on some footage from a movie that ran out of money. He then decided to add some other footage, mix in some stock footage, and run the confection as the bottom half a double feature. I can guess how it went over. It's a wonder he's still alive.

My My My

According to Political Wire, a Rasmussen poll not only has Lamont ahead of Lieberman by 10% for the primary, but he's also tied with Lieberman for the general election.

I guess there are lots of crazy bloggers in Connecticut.

Mr. Shyamalan, Are You Pondering What I'm Pondering?

I haven't seen Lady In the Water, so don't worry. I can't reveal the twist. But I did find a small measure of amusement in the name he gave his magical being: "Narf".

Mr. Shyamalan, are you by any chance familiar with Pinky and the Brain?

Nice Try For An Analogy, But I'm Unconvinced

From Bullmoose:

Almost forty years ago, the Moose witnessed a good and decent liberal unfairly slimed by the ideological predecessors of the nutroot blogosphere. In 1968, the New Leftists didn't have the internet, but with their voices they shouted out and heckled Hubert Humphrey with the chant, "Dump the Hump." The Moose will be damned if he stands by while another progressive leader suffers the disgraceful treatment that was accorded the Happy Warrior so long ago.

The progressive leader he's talking about is Joe Lieberman, but before Wittman gets too excited about his analogy, there are a few things that want pointing out. Hubert Humphrey was, for many years, the darling of the left. The appellation of Happy Warrior was placed upon him not for hawkishness, but for his outspoken way of pushing for social programs and civil rights. When Humprey was chosen as Johnson's Vice President, liberals felt like they had a voice inside the administration (particularly important because of the strains between LBJ and Robert Kennedy). Humphrey actually came to oppose war in Vietnam; but Johnson threatened to sink his candidacy for president if Humphrey refused to back his war policies during the 1968 campaign. This lost Humphrey a great deal of support among liberals, who tranferred it first to Eugene McCarthy and then to Bobby Kennedy. When Kennedy beat Humphrey in the California primary only to take a bullet in the head in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel afterwards, liberals, already pretty raw after the death of Martin Luther King, were doubly heartbroken. They could hardly be expected to transfer their enthusiasm to Humphrey, who they felt had let them down at the same time that murderers had robbed them of their heroes. It was a sad business all the way around, really.

Lieberman, by contrast, was never what anyone would call a darling of the left. When he's been a happy warrior it's been more often than not (or at least, more famously than not) for conservative issues than for liberal ones. He doesn't seem to like liberals too much, and they don't like him back. I don't think Lieberman actually disappointed anyone with his support of the Iraq War (which I take to be genuine rather than tactical), but it did confirm an opinion that many inside the Democratic party already had of him from his behavior on other issues.

So, Mr. Wittman, nice try, but I'm not buying. Incidentally, you can read more about this topic at Talking Points Memo.

Lame Questions Entertainment Reporters Ask

These are some questions that the L.A. Times's Channel Island is nominating for its Jiminy Glick awards (named for Martin Short's bizarro entertainment reporter character):

"Where do you get the bear spray? Where can you buy it?" - To Jenny Bicks, creator of ABC's "Men in Trees," which is set in Alaska

"When using an ATM, do you find yourself getting nervous?" - To the cast and creators of ABC's "The Nine," a drama about the aftermath of a bank robbery

"Do you try to solve mysteries? Like, if you are just sitting watching a mystery movie or something, would you try to figure it out before the credits roll?" - To Kristen Bell, star of CW's "Veronica Mars"

"What makes you really cranky and irritable? Is there anything?" - To the usually perky cooking expert/talk host Rachael Ray

"I'm very serious, looking for a serious answer from you: Have you ever had an experience where you truly felt there was an angel or a higher being looking out after you?" - To Rick Worthy, star of ABC Family's "Fallen," about a character who's half-man, half-angel.

The last one is especially funny. It has that faux-hard-hitting intro followed by a question that makes the actor fear that the reporter is going to whip out a holy book and insist he read marked passages.

Hunh

When it comes to this moment, I'm afraid I have nothing brilliant. I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently to the impulses that would drive the President of the United States to give a spontaneous, unsolicited massage to a fellow world leader. I do think, however, that before the President strikes again, he might want to remember the story of Tony Rocky Horror.

James Woolcott has a good post on this.

A Strange History

Gregory Rodriguez praises Barak Obama's speech (a speech I actually liked as well), but in doing so he asserts a history of the Democratic party that misses a lot:

That was not always the case. Some scholars point to the Democratic National Convention of 1972 as not only the moment Democrats edged toward secularism but the event that created the religious rift in American politics. Before 1972, both major parties were essentially indistinguishable in their approach to religion. The activist cores of both were dominated by members of mainstream religious groups: the GOP by mainline Protestants and the Democratic Party by Catholics and Jews.

But the Democratic delegation that nominated South Dakota Sen. George McGovern for president at the '72 convention represented a profound shift from what had been the cultural consensus in American politics. Whereas only 5% of Americans could be considered secular in 1972, fully 24% of first-time Democratic delegates that year were self-identified agnostics, atheists or people who rarely, if ever, set foot in a house of worship. This new activist base encouraged a growing number of Democratic politicians to tone down their appeal to religious voters and to seek a higher wall separating church and state. With little regard for the traditionalist sensitivities of religious people within or outside of the party, the Democrats also embraced progressive stances on feminism and homosexuality that the public had never openly debated.

Meanwhile, the Republican delegation — and by extension the party platform — remained unchanged, and the GOP essentially became the party of tradition and religion by default. "The partisan differences that emerged in 1972," writes University of Maryland political scientist Geoffrey Layman, "were not caused by any sudden increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the Republican activists but by the pervasive secularism and cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."

While I certainly hate to underestimate the power of 24% of Democratic party delegates, the major shift away from the Democrats occurred for reasons largely outside of Democratic party's religious policies. White southerners left the party less because of religion than because of race. Over the same period, blacks, both northern and southern, religious and not, switched overwhelmingly to the Democratic party. In the end, the demographic shift sank Democrats in the South, though it put them on the right side of history. Also, the 1972 Roe v. Wade deicison energized millions of fundamentalists and evangelicals nationwide and drove them into Republican politics, generating enthusiastic support for Reagan against Ford in 1976 and gradually driving moderate Republicans further and further northeast. The Republican delegation did not go "unchanged". It grew far more aggressively conservative through the 1970s and 1980s--so much so that George Bush Sr., known as "Rubbers" in the 1960s for his support of contraception and family planning, had to insist over and over again that he was anti-abortion enough for the GOP right to survive the 1988 primaries. Finally, in 1972, McGovern would never have been the face of the party had not Nixon's men ratfucked McGovern's primary opponents, especially Ed Muskie, the early frontrunner in the '72 primaries who was running ahead of Nixon before the forged Canuck letter sank him.

There have been religious changes in the Democratic party since '72. It's become less Catholic. Southern Baptists of various sorts--you need a program to keep track of the denominations--have grown in influence and power. In the last four Presidential elections we've nominated two all-Baptist tickets, a Baptist/Jewish ticket, and a Catholic/Methodist ticket. While Democratic candidates are typically less given to wearing their religions as if they were Captain Midnight badges, I don't see any effort to wipe out more overtly religious candidates. (Quick, which party was the last one to run an ordained minister as a Presidential Candidate, and from whence on the political spectrum did he run?)

The column's equation of secular left with religious right also ignores a vast difference in power. Religious right politicians hold the White House, the Congressional majority and its leadership, and four Supreme Court seats. Atheists and agnostics control...well...the Skeptics Society, the Socialist Worker party, Bernie Sanders, and, for at least a few years, the Minnesota Vikings's offensive backfield. We don't have the power to push politicians to do anything at all, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that our mere presence in the Democratic party suffices to help the Pat Robertson/Bill O'Reilly types spin conspiracy theories (as do a variety of lawsuits involving coinage and the Pledge of Allegiance that have nothing to do with the Democratic party).

The narrative the column spins--that once upon a time the world was stable and everyone agreed on unifying religious precepts until one day a cabal of evil atheists came and wrecked it all--resonantes deeply in our history. Unfortunately, the places where it resonates are pretty nasty. It would be nice if more religious Democrats would drop this kind of paranoid nonsense. It would also be nice if the Cubs were above .500 and the Raiders had a more solid front seven. Life's a bitch, huh?

If you want more: Digby has it.

Bad Naked

It's funny the stuff you think about when it's too hot to sleep. Tonight, my musings took me in the direction of movies that use nudity in ways that are corrupt, foul, and painful (in a bad way). In my time, I've watched no end of films with nudity in them. Some of it was sexy. Some was shocking or disturbing in a thought-provoking way. Some was comic or meant merely to provoke low grade thrills. Then there's the bad naked: the naked where it's impossible to even feel purient interest, the naked that makes you wish that you and the rest of humanity were dead.

Having now finished my preface, I give you five movies containing the worst kinds of nudity:

5. Amityville 2: The Posession: The Amityville series never scored many points for class, but the true nadir of the franchise was an icky incest scene that takes place about a third of the way through. I can understand why the demon possessed boy wanted to get it on with his sister, but the way his sister casually tossed off her clothes upon request drained my soul. I don't think I'll ever get all of it back.

4. Showgirls: For the rape scene mainly. A well-done gang-bang scene is possible (Last Exit to Brooklyn had one, as I recall), but not when it's just another excuse to get an actress out of her clothes. Joe Bob Briggs said it best: "What movie is so sleazy that, after you see it, you have to go to a Times Square live-sex show to feel better about mankind?"

3. Caligula: Have you ever seen dogs eat recently severed testicles? That's just a preview of the fun you'll have with this movie. Gore Vidal took his name off this thing. He should have taken his name off anything that might have been adjacent to this thing as well.

2. Ringmaster: There are many, many bad sex scenes in this one, but the worst involves Jerry Springer. During this movie I believe I briefly lost the will to live.

1. The Lonely Lady: HBO was a wonderful thing when I was twelve years old. I waited until my parents were asleep, sneaked into the living room, turned on the TV with the sound down, and switched over to the rampant nudity that would arrive once the clock passed midnight. One night, I turned on the TV, checked the TV guide by its light, and discovered that, yes, a movie with nudity and strong sexual content was upon me. I thrilled. I panted. I watched with great intensity as the credits rolled. The Lonely Lady. I saw Pia Zadora. I didn't know this was, on its own, a harbinger of doom. I pressed on. Come on nudity! I saw Ray Liotta. I saw Ray Liotta wrestle Pia Zadora to the ground. I saw him rip her top off. Bingo! Here we go! I saw a...garden hose? What's he going to...? Oh my God! Where's the remote? YUCK! WHY? HOW? WHICH?

It scarred me for life. Sometimes I have flashbacks, and I weep.

Sweet dreams, kiddies.