September 28, 2006

Morning in America Stew


1 NY Times editorial
1 comedy sketch of indeterminate realism
1 foreign poll
1 domestic poll

Bring a large saucepan to temperature over medium heat.

Skim comedy sketch of actual performance; discard, keeping only audience reaction. If audience reaction is staged, discard. If audience reaction is not staged, add to saucepan. (Do you really think it didn't, or couldn't, happen?)

Add meat and trimmings from editorial. Ladle in juice from both polls. Stir. Simmer until gloomy about your nation's future.

Serves 6 to 360 million, hot or cold, rightly or wrongly.

September 07, 2006

Fresh Paths

More on "Paths to 9/11":

> A brief Salon Review and commentary

(Note that in order to read you may have to watch a brief ad, or join Salon.)

In passing, I will note that while no one in his (or her) right mind will dispute the fabulousness of oral sex, one really must wonder, really, just why conservatives remain so, er, worked up over it. Seriously. Why, I mean, it seems to loom so largely -- even overwhelmingly -- in their imaginations.

And I will also observe that the GOP needs new tricks. Every time they manage to crash their way into a crisis they can't get out of, the only move these guys come up with is to trundle poor ole Bill and his whingus-play out for a public gawk. Note to GOP: we get it. He was a horn-dog. He's also not the president any longer. (Oh, how we ever get that.) Yes, we're angry at him for the whingus-play -- mostly because it provides you with a distraction card you're all too willing to throw.

We are, however, far angrier with you for being dishonest, corrupt, bullyingly anti-democratic class warriors, not to mention deeply and hopelessly incompetent threats to the future of the nation, and maybe the world.

Stay tuned. I can smell the smoke of deliberation wafting out of ABC HQ.


In an effort to act more like a real blogger (you know: peripatetic, short-attention-spanned, unable to entertain complex thoughts and possessed of a mile-deep stash of weirdly inappropriate, semi-articulate bile), I am following yesterday's micro-post with another.

If you haven't clued in to the kerfuffle over ABC's upcoming "docudrama" (a nicely dodgy neologism that nudges aside tired old "fiction"), here are two relevant visits you should make:

> The "Path to 9/11" blog

> A NYT story on irked former Clinton administration officials.

The contention is that said "docudrama" makes the Fox-like move of -- how to put it? -- lying about the former Prez's core position on bin Laden. The filmmakers suggest, it's said, that he refused to sign the "kill orders" (or whatever they're called) with which the CIA presented him for bin Laden. This apparently contradicts the historical record (thus putting the "drama" in "docudrama" -- and you have to admit, it's way more, well, dramatic).

The Rachel Maddow Show today made the additional announcement that certain former Clinton administration officials, including the ex-Prez, may be contemplating defamation suits based on the number of, uh, dramatic depictions that conflict with the record, and on the character-assassinating (anyone up for "revisionist historian"?) implications of said depictions. Curiously, Maddow says, ABC has thus far refused to supply Clinton, Albright, or Sandy Berger with copies of the film -- though they've been quick to send them off to right-wing bloggers.

A final note: I tried to make a comment on the "Path to 9/11" blog last night. It was entirely civil and G-rated, not even directed at ABC but at other posters who'd made spurious comparisons between Michael Moore's last film and the upcoming one.* Strangely, the comment has yet to appear. Maybe it just wasn't dramatic enough.

Thus endeth the post. More later on 9/11 films in general, and "docudramas" in particular.

* My point in the comment was, essentially, that there's a big difference between, on the one hand, a film that is produced by a single, named author and that one must pay to see in theaters or on DVD, and, on the other hand, a presentation by an infotainment conglomerate with a substantial news reputation to be broadcast over public airwaves. The expectations audiences reasonably bring to each are very different. A number of posters seemed to be cheering on factual inaccuracy (er, I mean dramatization) in the new film as not only justified but necessary by way of some kind of vengeance for Farenheit 9/11. Leaving aside the painting of Moore's film as inaccurate (which I don't accept, since I've never once heard a single cogent and credible assault on its specific facts), the two are different beasts altogether.

September 06, 2006

Mo' Joe

Though I can't verify this or determine corroboration, it seems worth mentioning as a rather strange -- but not altogether unpredictable -- follow-up on Connecticut:

Shortly and sweetly: enough of this clown. I will gladly contribute to a fund for the purpose of printing this headline on giant billboards and posting them across Connecticut's densely travelled commuter routes.

On the bright side, all that GOP cash couldn't even buy him a working web site on primary day. Seems the price of Republican money not only includes your soul but any trace of competence too. Alas.