BLCKDGRD

Threat to the Homeland!

USMNT has unveiled a third kit:

   

My cat Munch last Saturday ate seven inches of olive green knitting yarn and then gacked a glistening amino-acid laced porridge of woolen goo, just slightly less puketacular than this splotch of street pizza.

Coherent Inheritance

Dionne and Brooks were on ATC last night for a lengthy chat about the presidential candidates and their "big themes." Soundbites of McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Obama, Edwards*, Clinton. Both Dionne and Brooks praised Edwards as being the only candidate with a "coherent" theme. Whatever.

(Coherent theme? How about coherent vibe? Listen to those six voices on the six bites, and you tell me which one doesn't sound like a shill even talking candidate-talk. I guarantee you, Edward's coherent theme gets obliterated by Obama's coherent vibe.)

Coherent theme? Who knows what constitutional, national, and international crises there'll be in six months, but at the Bushco pace of a new scandal a week, and each successive scandal being more stankrageous than the last, imagine what Tony Snow will be defending in his daily gaggles come October.

I got your coherent theme:

In the wake and damage done to this country's reputation and foundations by the current administration, we need to reestablish our bonafides as a government of fundamental fairness and integrity and legality and honor, not only with our international allies and rivals, but especially with our citizens. By the time the current administration is out of power, even with all checks by a Democratic congress, our government's credibility, in the world and with its citizens, will need to be rebuilt from salt.

Our job now, as Americans, as Democrats, as candidates for president, is to try as hard as possible to make the world we inherit in 2009 not as horridly damaged as it will be if we continue to let George W Bush have his way.

*(As I type this, it's two hours before a presser called by Edwards and his wife, with possibly, maybe probably, horrible personal news.)

*

UPDATE, and a CONTEST:

Suppose Edwards announces he's suspending his campaign until his wife is healthy. Say things go well for the Edwards, and he restarts his campaign in six months and makes quick strides back into the race.

Who will be the first ghoul in Piglandia to decry Edwards' cynical use of his wife's cancer for political gain?

*

UPDATE 2: Jeebus, read the comments here.

*

UPDATE 3: Edwards announces his campaign will continue even though his wife's cancer has returned. No doubt this will spark pigoinks to scream he's a publicity hound, cynical bastard, and heartless crap for NOT suspending his campaign (even though they would have screamed if he had).

*

Meanwhile, Colbert asks the pertinent question:

Fourteen

Happy Birthday, Sugar.

Birdshot Tuesday

Work bites. Not biblically, just massively. Have some reads:

Wolcott eviscerates fans of 300.  Dionne is too optimistic. Yglesias is not. Greenwald on tactics. TBogg has a picture of Jill St John from Diamonds Are Forever (plus political snark!). Digby on who blames America first. Drum wonders wtf happened to Michael Kinsley. The Editors on meme-transmission. Driftglass on the saga of Attorney General Mango.

*

I would inevitably have abandoned baseball for justifiable and obvious reasons (number one being: baseball SUCKS!), but at one time I was a devout Orioles fan, and the break-up of that relationship is directly attributable to this bastard.

*

There will be one - and it's vital - post tomorrow at precisely 12:38 AM.

Fidelity for Infidels

This post over at TPM on a snark from Pustular Joe Klein caught my eye:

Then again, the Republicans are fielding a motley crew right now: if you count Newt Gingrich, who'll probably join the fray in the fall, the four leading candidates have had nine marriages among them: Giuliani three, Gingrich three, McCain two and Romney one. The Republican faithful are left with a devil of a choice: moderate candidates who live like liberals, or religious conservatives who talk like liberals. (emphasis Klein's)

And of course, the kicker is, as Greg Sargent notes:

(T)he basic points here stand: The top four GOP candidates have divorced a total of five times, while the top four liberal candidates have a total of zero divorces among them. And the whole field of Dems deemed to have a credible (a flexible term) shot at winning has gotten divorced less often than the current GOP frontrunner. Not exactly heavy lifting, admittedly, but seems worth noting.

Two, three months ago, I stopped for a beer and a couple games of pool late, after work, and one of the regulars, a woman, and a fine one at that, one I'd consider out of my league if I was considering my league, noticed me for the first time and, in front of all the others, skillfully and (I flatter myself) seriously flirted with me. I took her arms from around my neck, thanked her sincerely and blushingly, and when she asked me what was wrong I said nothing is wrong, I'm married.

Shee-it, said head-cracker, I thought you was a Liberal. Meaning what, I said. You all don't care who fucks who (or what, sniggered a minor-cracker), you all are just fuck-crazy. Meaning I cheat on my wife, I said. Hell, said head-cracker, his wife sitting nearby, I'd be horse-dicked and naked that girl say boo to me. (I told you he's gay, whispered one minor-cracker to another, nodding at me.)

Then head-cracker called me a goddamn godless-bastard hypocrite for not cheating on my wife.   

(And then called me a lying, cheating, moth-eating cocksucker, but that was after I took $30 off him in APA-rules 8-Ball.)

Sundaggregator

Yesterday I wrote that Bushco desperately doesn't want new eyes on their soiled undies at DOJ (and all DOJ investigates), which is why Gonzales has not yet been snuffed. I appended an update to a suggestion that only the King's petulance was staying the execution. Friend Eli seconded that motion, and I resorted to wrestling metaphors.

Swerve: If Bushco was determined that Gonzales is too valuable a stooge to lose at DOJ, that a Gonzales-sized stooge is the minimum necessary to protect in-house secrets, they can't say that. The best they got is playing the Bush is a petulant child card (they'll say "pugnacious" and "fiercely loyal," but...)

But assume for the sake of argument that the stories of President Petulant are true, and that he and he alone is protecting Gonzales: Rove wants Gonzales gone? Cheney wants Gonzales gone? They aren't pulling PP's chain?

Either Rove and Cheney are still driving this bus or President Petulant himself is more dangerous than we thought. Imagine if he's telling Karl Evil and Dick Evil to bugger off, he'll handle it all himself.

(By the way, if and when Gonzales is fired, no doubt his boss will lose sleep over Gonzales' forced humiliations.)

*

David Broder: 

For the first six years of the Bush administration, these aides were allowed free rein to carry out whatever policy or political assignments they wished -- or supposed that the president wanted done. A Congress under firm Republican control was somnolent when it came to oversight of the executive branch. No Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration.

You have to feel a twinge of sympathy now for the Bush appointees who suddenly find unsympathetic Democratic chairmen such as Henry Waxman, John Conyers, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin investigating their cases. Even if those appointees are scrupulously careful about their actions now, who knows what subpoenaed memos and e-mails in their files will reveal about the past?

Yes, who knows?

I have to feel sympathy for people who knowingly cheated when they thought they wouldn't be caught but are now acting honestly because they're worried they'll be caught?

Incivility Warning! David Broder is the stupidest right nut in the moldy scrotum of dumbass Washington piss-stanky douches.

*

Jurassic Pork on assclowns of the week (bookmark him, OK?). Keillorgate. Instaputz on the Right's interpretation of Gonzales-gate. Maha on stupid activism. Nitpicker on Foxholes.

*

Vendler reviews Ashbery. Sharp Sand on politics and poetry contests. New short story by Jonathan Lethem. Two new poems by Eavan Boland (they'll be gone by Monday but in the Poetry Daily's archives). Shakespeare Wars. Granta's best young American novelists. Select Premiership players pick their favorite book.

And, a late Susan Sontag essay in defense of the novel:

One might suppose that in the 20th century, in the age of genocide, people would not find it either paradoxical or surprising that one can be so indifferent to what is happening simultaneously, elsewhere. Is it not part of the fundamental structure of experience that "now" refers to both "here" and "there"? And yet, I venture to assert, we are just as capable of being surprised - and frustrated by the inadequacy of our response - by the simultaneity of wildly contrasting human fates as was Voltaire two and a half centuries ago. Perhaps it is our perennial fate to be surprised by the simultaneity of events - by the sheer extension of the world in time and space. That here we are here, now prosperous, safe, unlikely to go to bed hungry or be blown to pieces this evening ... while elsewhere in the world, right now ... in Grozny, in Najaf, in the Sudan, in the Congo, in Gaza, in the favelas of Rio ...

To be a traveler - and novelists are often travelers - is to be constantly reminded of the simultaneity of what is going on in the world, your world and the very diff erent world you have visited and from which you have returned "home".

It is a beginning of a response to this painful awareness to say: it's a question of sympathy ... of the limits of the imagination. You can also say that it's not "natural" to keep remembering that the world is so ... extended. That while this is happening, that is also happening.

Bushco Risk Management

The simple equation for Bushco: Gonzales remaining in office equals less political damage than what a new DOJ will discover and, if the man's honest, disclose.

Bush will not get a Gonzales-sized crony-loyalist past a Pat Leahy/Democratic-controlled committee. If Gonzales resigns, Bush will be forced to nominate someone with an impeccable reputation for honesty and integrity (there have to be a few Republicans left with those qualities, yes?).

We are still tip-o'proverbial-iceberg of revelations of the astonishingly breathtaking breadth and depth of the corruption of these rapacious bastards' crimes high and crimes low. They know: that's why they're delaying and stalling, that's why they're giving Gonzales every chance to survive.

 I admit I thought Gonzales would be sacrificed by yesterday, but as always, even now, I underestimate the mendacity of this administration. They simply cannot run the risk that a honest set of new eyes gets access to their venality, and the slow-bleeding to death (if Gonzales survives, which he won't) until they're out of office is infinitely preferable to the strokes bright light will spark.

Which are coming. They've tainted and fvcked up everything they've touched. There's no reason to think they'll discover competence fighting for survival.

UPDATE: Of course, it could just be that our President believes being a stupid bully is a Churchillian sign of leadership.

FRIDAYMUSICFRIDAY

*

New! FRAMES New! AIR New! THE PONIES New! WILCO New!

*

DEAN AND BRITTA BEIRUT TROST EFTERKLANG CALLISTO MOGWAI LES BREASTFEEDERS

*

Im not sure I buy the hype, this is my least favorite song I've heard, but something's going on with AMY WINEHOUSE.

*

I don't buy the hype, but here's New! ARCADE FIRE New!

DCU 1, Chivas 1

It was sweet to shout for the tying goal if only to silence the Chivas' fans, but if ever a tie felt like a loss this was it.

As D says, Chivas are punkassbitches, but they are also better athletes and better soccer players. If they could have restrained their utter contempt for United long enough to finish they could have won 0-2, 0-3. And their post-game lack of sportsmanship simply recapped their game-length lack of sportsmanship.

United needs width in the midfield. I know I risk backlash in saying this (again), but an offense depending on Josh Gros' ball skills isn't good enough. He can run all day, he can play defense, he's got a terrific attitude, but he's got feet of stone. He's an extraordinarily valuable asset, he should be a starter, but he shouldn't be placed in positions his skills don't warrant.

That's the left side. Ditto the right side with Olsen.

And as long as I'm speaking heretically, what the hell's wrong with Moreno? And is it an accident that Soehn was quoted earlier this week (in a Goffblog, I think) praising Boswell for having an attitude reminiscent of ex-captain Ryan Nelsen? Is it time to start considering whether Moreno is damn near cooked? Is it time to start thinking about taking the armband off of him? (And what was with him just dropping the band when he was taken off last night instead of handing it to Olsen?)

I really am not trying to harsh, but if this was a "measuring-stick" game then assessing United versus a bigger team is required. The game ended in a tie, but by no measure was United equal to Chivas, and while that's disappointing in the small, in the large this can only help United identify how and where it needs to improve. This is why winning the Supporters Shield was important. United needs to play these games. They will be better for having played in this tournament, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

Burstothursday

I wrote yesterday that incompetence does not mitigate intent, but what if incompetence IS the intent?

If patronage is rewarded solely and intently for political loyalty to a party, and that party is ruled by loyalists who view the public weal as theirs for plundering (while simultaneously viewing safety nets as robbing them of their available plunder), why wouldn't incompetence be seen as an asset?

If your intent is to prove that government doesn't work, why would you put a conscientious and competent person in charge? Look who the Republicans nominated for President in 2000.

Michael Brown had no more business running FEMA than Alberto Gonzales running Justice or Harriet Miers being a Supreme Court Justice ONLY if you argue that competence rather than patronage is the priority. If they were nominated solely to undermine their agencies to the benefit of their patrons and rig the system to ensure their patrons' perpetual rule, they were fully qualified, at least motivationally.

And if Defense and State and Justice are beshatted - the agencies most crucial to this War on Terror so wankful to the Right - imagine what's happening at the FDA or at HHS or at Education or at Commerce, which they don't believe should exist.

Future historians have hit the lottery: it will take decades - and generate countless PhDs - to document all the pillaging.

*

Plausible deniability. Nowak is a knowing tool; Broder is a fool tool.

*

And it's just a coincidence this confession, extracted no doubt literally yesterday, is the lead in today's papers. Funny, that. (And Digby on how ridiculous this is even if it wasn't a laughably transparent attempt at changing the subject.)

*

And ZANG! a new online radio station:

COUNTERSTREAM

Goodness!