You think they’d knock this shit off after that disastrous fighter jet Air Force One stunt the guy had to resign over, but there’s a two-hour delay on flights into JFK this afternoon because of an air show.
TunchCam 5: Bitching and Bathing
Just got home from getting the garden in and was sitting down cooling off in the AC before I took a shower, and you know who came into the room, sat down on the futon, and started to make a ruckus. So, thinking on my feet, I started filming:
It might be hard to hear because the central air and the HEPA were running, but if you listen you can hear him purring the entire time (it gets really loud at the end), and every now and then letting out one of his patented shrill meow/purrs. He can make that noise at will for HOURS ON END while trying to slowly drive me insane. It is one of the many reasons I think he has some Siamese or something in his blood, because he talks and chirps so much. I have to admit, too- I will always want a cat that talks in the future. He also is one of the loudest purring cats, ever. I can hear him purring from another room.
Speaking of the garden, I did a crappy job planning. I bought about a dozen too many plants, so I had to pick up a couple pots and am just going to grow them on the porch. Could have saved money by just chucking the plants, but what the heck- can never have too many fresh peppers and tomatoes.
I gotta get some work done and then go walking. I’ll be back later- you all behave.
They lost it at the movies
Jim Hoagland has another excellent column on Obama’s national security policy, which makes the rather complex points that closing Gitmo is an important first step, that the right’s fear-mongering over it is silly, that those on the left who say Obama is Bush-lite on these issues are absurd, but that Obama needs to go further by developing new international rules of conflict. I’m not sure that I agree with or even understand all of this perfectly, but it’s striking to read something so honest and nuanced side-by-side with all the “A Few Good Men” style idiocy that’s floating around (here and here, for example). Not surprisingly, Joe Scar makes the comparison with “A Few Good Men” explicit:
“This scene yesterday…I’m serious here, this comes straight out of ‘A Few Good Men.’ The reason why the closing scene with Jack Nicholson on the stand worked so well, is, of course, we were all rooting for the young attractive Tom Cruise, just like more Americans are probably rooting for President Obama. But at the same time, what was said on that stand by Nicholson…I was struck by that contrast.”
Let’s leave aside the fact that Scar is drawing the wrong conclusion from the movie (a point Steve Benen makes) as well as the fact that the conflict in the movie was about “toughening up” soldiers, not about torture. It seems to me that the real point is that “A Few Good Men” was a fictional movie. We’ve gotten used to wingers using Hollywood ticking bombs and asteroids to argue about reality, but it’s not just wingnuts who do this and it’s rather disconcerting to see this infecting so much of our discourse.
Where does this end? Can we use Harry Lyme’s ferris wheel speech to justify sending fake antibiotics to third world countries?
I understand why movie rhetoric appeals to pundits so much. There’s a whole genre of movie wherein one (usually younger) character’s idealistic view of the world is pitted against the “tougher” view of another (usually older) character. And that’s right in the punditocracy’s wheel-house: naive, hippie democrats versus tough, old Republicans. We see this on more or less every important issue, to some extent.
But doesn’t it seem that the issue of national security, in particular, is just a lot more complicated than that? And if Dick Cheney has such a good case, why won’t anyone other than his daughter defend him? Has anyone seen a single national security professional (Bush political appointees don’t count) argue in favor of torture or in favor of keeping Gitmo open? For God’s sake, even the Bush administration rejected much of the Cheney doctrine after 2005.
But what do I know, I’m just a hack blogger who drinks too much and falls in love with girls.
Your Sunday Morning Sermon
Courtesy of a Red State diary:
It’s likely even Jesus would have OK’d water boarding if it would have saved his Mom. He would’ve done the same to save his Dad, or any one of His disciples. For that matter, He even died to save all humans.
It’s obvious He would not be happy with those who voted for the candidate who kills because it’s above his “pay grade” to know if they’re alive. Checking the Commandments, killing innocents is against the 5th. Because pro-aborts don’t know for sure life does not exist at conception, they are still willing to risk that it’s not killing.
And there you have it- Red State has the answer to the question “WWJD.” The answer, of course, is he would waterboard.
The Onion has got nothing on these guys.
(via)
CBS Sunday Morning
Open Thread.
Another Winner From Michael Steele
Ya know, in James Bond film intros it’s Bond framed in the barrel of the gun. The blood belongs to the shooter, who gets drilled by Bond and dies. If I get the analogy right, Nancy Pelosi is James bond, the CIA tried to shoot her but she was too quick for them and they went down instead.
Um, ok.
Pens/Hurricanes
Let’s make it 3-0.