Via War Room, can I just say I’m totally enjoying the “Dick is a Killer” remix from The Party Party. It’s amusing the hell out of me to hear W re-arranged.

I also greatly enjoy the “great frequency and vigor” line from Hillary in “My Generation Rx.”

Greatly amusing, as only famous people + swearing can be.

For a variety of reasons, I very rarely go for magazines targeted at a gay audience. Despite this longstanding policy, I found myself unable to resist a recent issue of the Brit mag “Attitude”, for who should be on the cover but Prime Minister Tony Blair.

I bought the issue, and imagine my surprise when I found inside that not only was Tony featured, but so too were the leaders of the other major parties (that would be the LibDems and Tories, or if you’re the formal type, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives.) All were stumping for votes and eager to prove that their parties had important and productive gay members.

I try to imagine Bush on the cover of “The Advocate” with Kerry and Nader inside, all trying to make themselves look like they’re the most gay-friendly, and my brain just shuts down: does not compute, it seems to be saying.

Instead we have things like this recent Houston Chronicle article:

TRENTON, N.J. – A millionaire businessman won New Jersey’s Republican primary Tuesday and will face Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine in November — the state’s first gubernatorial race since James McGreevey resigned in a gay-sex scandal.

Umm, a gay sex scandal? Howzat? Now McGreevey had an extramarital affair (with a man), yes. He may have improperly given his (male) lover a job and/or benefits, true. Yet had he done the same with a woman, would they even call it a sex scandal? No — because the scandal was corruption, not sex.

Clearly, we’ve got some catch-up to do.

I was generating church signs*, if you can believe it, when I clicked my way across to the George Says It site. With all the tools at hand, I just had to give it a go:

Another service from the fine folks who brought you GodHatesShrimp.com (love the banner ad.)

(* My sign actually has nothing to do with my kind of pink. It’s actually a reference to the recent pregnancy of my friend Georgie, who had pink hair the first time I met her.)

This week, Kuwait’s parliament voted 35-23 to allow women to vote (though with some strings attached.) About time, you might say, and it certainly is. But before we excoriate the all-male parliament for taking so damn long (however much they deserve it), perhaps it would behoove us to take a look at how well the good ol’ U.S. of A. has done with its head start.

Meet Mrs. Rebecca Latimer Felton, the woman who got us rolling. I put her picture here because you probably haven’t heard of her. Though she was the first woman to occupy a seat in the United States Senate, she also holds the record for the shortest term (24 hours: 21-22 Nov 1922.) As it happens, she also holds the title of oldest Senator at the time of first swearing-in (age eighty-seven, and when you’re born in 1835 I think just that is an achievement.)

Following Felton’s appointment, there was a bit of a lull. The 24 hours of excitement was enough to tide the electorate over for nearly a decade, until Hattie Wyatt Caraway won a seat in 1932. Hattie (love the name) had actually first occupied the seat in 1931, when she was appointed to replace her fellow excellently-named husband, Thaddeus Horatius Caraway. (Replacing husbands was something of a trend, as to this day nearly half of all female Senators have served less than a full term, most just a year.)

Fast forward to today. In a time when the population of the nation at large is 51% female, the Senate is 86% male. In the 83 years since Mrs. Felton, there have been 33 women who’ve held Senatorial office.

That number seems low to me, and I’m not the only one:

Based on percentage of women in the upper and lower house, [t]he Inter-Parliamentary Union ranked the United States 59th out of 121 countries in the world for representation of women. Countries ahead of the United States include Rwanda, Cuba, South Africa, Vietnam, Pakistan, China and Bosnia. (Center for Voting and Democracy)

I don’t have some magic number or quota in mind, but I do think that it’s not too much to ask that a representative democracy vaguely reflect its public (and don’t get me started on the millionaires in Congress…) Or, put another way: when it comes to women in politics, Kuwait took a long-overdue first step. I just wish we could say we’re a lot further down the road.

I have had just about enough of this piling-on “Newsweek” for their story which reported that interrogators may have flushed a Koran. This lunacy has really gotten out of hand:

Afghanistan’s government said Tuesday that Newsweek should be held responsible for damages caused by deadly anti-American demonstrations after the magazine alleged U.S. desecration of the Quran, and it suggested that foreign forces may have helped turn protests violent. (– Pakistan: Newsweek retraction “not enough”)

Newsweek should be held responsible? I really hate to trot out the word “surreal”, but… So Newsweek ran with a story that contained allegations which had been published previously. For the sake of argument, let’s say they were true. So? At what point do we make the leap that rioting mobs are a valid response to getting a book wet?

I’ve just discovered that there’s a film listed in IMDb that’s called The Fuck Up. The discussion board predicts the title will be changed, but I’d love it if they don’t. (It’s not entirely unprecedented: in Ireland I saw a Danish film called Fucking Åmål, though in the UK/USA/Can. it became Show Me Love.)

Anyway, the IMDb post includes a rough plot outline, but I’m going to suggest some current events which would be adequately summarized with the same title.

There’s the Guns N’ Roses album that’s cost $13m and gets no closer to completion:

The process was drawn out even further after Mr. Rose hired two new musicians – the guitarist Buckethead, a virtuoso who wore a mannequin-like face mask and a KFC bucket on his head (picture)…

…He accompanied Buckethead on a jaunt to Disneyland when the guitarist was drifting toward quitting, several people involved recalled; then Buckethead announced he would be more comfortable working inside a chicken coop, so one was built for him in the studio, from wood planks and chicken wire.

That’s clearly a fuck-up. Another contender would have to be Congress, which is back to its old naming tricks with the PIRATE Act:

The bill, obtained Thursday by Wired News, also would seek penalties of fines and prison time of up to 10 years for file sharing.

Ooh, Congress is often a tough act to follow in the fuck-up department. But hold the phone, we have a winner!

A federal lawsuit filed by several Navy SEALs and the wife of a special forces member claims the Associated Press violated copyright and privacy laws and endangered the servicemen’s lives by publishing photographs of them with Iraqi prisoners. …

The photos, distributed worldwide with a Dec. 3 story, appear to show the servicemen in Iraq sitting on hooded and handcuffed detainees and also what appear to be bloodied prisoners — one with a gun to his head.

Suing the Associated Press for copyright infringement for newsworthy photos obtained legitimately. Now, that, friends, is a masterful fuck-up!

Will the plaintiffs prevail? Have to wait for the film to find out, but I’m betting the AP will get off. If only they’d distributed the photos with P2P… Or perhaps if the SEALs had worn KFC bucket disguises…

From S.686 (“For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo”):

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.
Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

From Bush v. Gore:

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances…

When government crafts narrow decisions and laws solely to benefit certain people, is it really holding true to the ideal of the rule of law, and not of men humans?

Ahh, the first few months of the year. First we’re urged to buy big-screened televisions for “the big game”, then we can win trips to L.A. for “Hollywood’s biggest night” and of course now in March, there are “double dribble” specials on pizza and the like.

I used to find these generic ways of representing trademarks mildly amusing, but now I’m convinced they’re doing more harm than good. How is that we can allow groups to create names and then control how they’re used? I’m not talking about counterfeit products, of course, but who really cares if Best Buy uses the words “Super Bowl”?

Even worse are the recent lawsuits against Google for its AdWords tool. Companies such as Geico, AXA, and various travel agencies sued, claiming that competing companies were misusing their trademarks. No doubt they’d love to control every mention of their names, but where does it stop? Does an ad that boasts “Cheaper than GEICO®!” need to be approved by that very company?

As usual, I must ask: who’s looking out for customers?

So, somebody/ies leaked the details of the Mac mini and the iPod shuffle to gossip sites. Apple sued. On Thursday, a California judge tentatively ruled that Apple can demand the names of the source(s).

Apple’s being pretty aggressive on this one. Maybe we should sic them on Novak and finally get some answers. (It’s now been 20 months since the Plame affair began.)

(Bonus weirdness, from the top link:

Judge James Kleinberg tentatively declined to extend to the Web sites the protections of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and the California Shield Law, which is designed to protect journalists from having to divulge the names of sources or supply unpublished materials.

How do you “decline[] to extend” First Amendment protections? “Oh, thanks, fellas, but I’m just not into the whole Bill of Rights. Better luck next time”?)

Wow, I had so much to say about Senator Ted Stevens’s (R-AK) vow to place satellite and cable under the same indecency restrictions as broadcast TV that I was going to split it up into three posts. But your time is valuable, so I’ll keep it short(er).

First, let’s consider the audience. Telling the National Association of Broadcasters you’re going to regulate cable is a lot like telling the National Organization of Women you’re going to tax penises: wildly impractical, but a real crowd-pleaser. Maybe he was just pandering; we’ll know soon enough. Perhaps he’ll wise up and find his ticket for the cluetrain.

Still, my pick for biggest bonehead in this whole sordid affair is Mr. Edward Fritts, president of NAB. Sayeth Ed: “A 5-year-old doesn’t know if they’re watching cable or over-the-air.”

True enough, Ed. Of course, a 5-year-old also can’t tell the difference between sour grape juice and a nice Riesling, but I don’t hear anyone clamoring to ban alcohol.

I kid. Yes, youngsters may not be able to appreciate the minutiae of spectrum policy, but that’s why they have, um, parents. And parents have options:

• Use the book, the Internet, or the paper to determine suitable programs in advance.
• Use on-screen ratings to determine suitable programs on the spot.
• Use the TV’s “delete” feature to hide channels from young’uns. (Adults can still key in the channel.)
• Use the “V-Chip” functionality Congress mandated into TVs in 2000.
• Ask the cable company to block channels, which is possible on a per-house basis.
• Don’t get cable in the first place.
• Don’t get a TV in the first place. (We didn’t have one in the home for my 2d – 14th years, and I’m not too fucked up.)

I’ve left out the most obvious one: be a parent! When your kid wants to watch TV, watch along. Yes, there might be risky stuff out there — when it comes to cable, questions of “indecency” should be matters of taste, not law. It might take a village to raise a child, but we don’t have to reduce every channel to the level of “Blues Clues” to do it.

Now back to my reading.

Had to laugh when I got this e-mail. My friend makes the same points I would about the ten, but with much more of a bang:

So what the fuck is the deal with ten commandment displays at court
houses? I always hear people claiming that the ten commandments are
the basis of our legal system (or at least had a significant influence
on it) and the displays just commemorate this. But that's just fucking
ridiculous. Out of the ten commandments, only 2 mention things that
are even regulated by law: killing and stealing. What kind of dumbfuck
would try to claim that stealing someone's property or killing them
would be legal if not forbidden by the ten commandments?

Still maintaining pretty strict radio silence as far as political news goes, but had to tackle the whole drugs and tapes thing. First, let’s stipulate the secretly taping someone is truly despicable stuff, whomever does it (Mr. Wead or Ms. Tripp.) That said, what do we have here? Bush obliquely admitted he’s done pot, and probably more. Instantly, his allies fall in line around two themes:

1. He thought that guy (Doug Wead, who made the tapes) was a friend. Traitor!
2. How dignified of him not to answer the question during the campaign.

This is a classic double standard, executed in the usual Republican fashion. Does anyone believe that if Clinton had declined to answer the pot question, the Republicans would nod their heads, clucking in agreement whilst showering him with praise about his mature approach? No chance.

Everybody has heard of the Gillette model of business: give the razors away* and make your money on the blades. Of course, sellers of hygiene products are certainly not the only ones to love this model. Take printers, or specifically, Lexmark inkjets.

Lexmark thought they had a good thing going: they managed to engineer software that would interrogate a cartridge to determine if it was “genuine”, which in this case means “sold by Lexmark.” This procedure effectively killed the market for third-party cartridges, until somebody figured out how the system worked and created cheaper replacements.

So Lexmark sued the vendor, claiming the new cartridge infringed on their copyright. This, folks, is breathtaking audacity. Lexmark wants to sell you hardware and then electronically prevent you from using it unless you continue to pay them money.

All of this played out some time ago, and fortunately a District Court judge smacked them around in October of last year, vacating the injunction against the upstart, SCC. (The story is back in the news because Lexmark’s request for a re-hearing was denied.)

The fact remains, however, that we need to seriously re-examine copyright and other “intellectual property” legislation. And this time, let’s try to balance the public’s needs as well.

* I got a “Sensor” in the mail on my 18th birthday. Thanks, G.

Those clever wordsmiths in Congress have unleashed another piece of legislation with a catchy name: H.R. 2929, the SPY ACT. Or, more correctly, the “S.P.Y. A.C.T. Act”. Do you think they have interns who come up with this?

Anyway, we’ll have to see if this does better than the CAN SPAM attempt.

So Mr. Bush would like to renew the PATRIOT Act: “To protect the American people, Congress must promptly renew all provisions of the Patriot Act this year,” sayeth King George.

First, an aside: I love that “all provisions” part. For me it cuts right to the heart of what it means to be a modern Republican pol: concede nothing, ever. I remember some guests on Bill Maher’s show last year were firmly stonewalling when Maher observed that, after W. got word of the WTC attack, perhaps 12 minutes was a tad long to continue reading along with the children. Predictably, the guests thought there was not a jot wrong — or even questionable — with this decision. That’s the playbook: never admit, never allow that anything you or your guy has done could be anything but the wisest possible course. (With a few rare exceptions — I’m looking at you, Mr. McCain.)

Back to the topic at hand. We could take Mr. Bush’s statement, comb through a copy of the Act, and see if perhaps there were a few provisions that could use refinement (perhaps the ability to monitor library records?) Or we could go higher level and try a cost/benefit analysis, noting that the number of terrorists convicted as a result of this law is (last I checked) nil.

But why bother? For me, all we need to know about the Act is in its name. Anyone who would rush out a law called, officially, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, needs to be sent to the back of the class — in part for being a smarmy kiss-ass (like the authors of the RAVE Act), but mostly for authoring a nakedly manipulative attempt to shroud a law enforcement land-grab in the buzzwords of the day.

In short, people this worried about marketing surely have something to hide.