scourge of the swimming pool

Hiatus

2006-08-01T11:31:00.000-05:00

We will return to your regularly scheduled programming Septembr 1st... Enjoy your August.

Jayson Blair, Kaavya Viswanathan Join NYT Ed Board

2006-07-18T08:15:00.000-05:00

The New York Times editorial board TOTALLY ripped off my gag.

The good news is I've already posted this joke three times - here, here, and here. (I realize that each was less funny than the last, but the horse is now dead.) Who's laughing now, Sulzberger?!

Thank god for those half-Japanese girls

2006-07-13T16:59:00.000-05:00

Who among us doesn't fondly recall being crammed in the back of your best friend's older sister's Honda and driving to the local venue for that glorious rite of passage - your first show? Happily fetching water and sno-cones for the big kids,y our permanent shit-eating grin barely allowed you to take advantage of the errant beer you might suddenly find in your hands. For us, that show was Weezer.

We loved that show, and every fist pump has stayed with us through every show we've seen since. Perusing the Internets today however, it looks like it all may be over.

Our reaction to this is fraught with conflicting emotions. For example, Weezer was emo before emo was cool. Being anything before it is cool demands a little respect. But emo is so uncool that it leaves a big black mark on that achievement. Also - Their first two albums were awesome. But after months of "Weezer returns!" hype, each album since has been so craptastic that we have stopped paying any attention to them at all. We've even heard the term "To cry Weezer" has been adopted by the music industry to mean a band that overhypes its album in an effort to make up for its sheer suckiness. (ex- Man, Arctic Monkeys really cried Weezer, huh?)

Sordid history aside, Rivers apparently dished to MTV a few months ago on the future of the band. We'd like to take this opportunity to respond to a few things Cuomo left hanging in the air.

On the reason for the breakup:

This is an obvious typo. The phrase "Make Believe back in 2005" should read "Pinkerton back in 1996"

On new material:

Right. Coz all your best songs were written when you felt "excited and creative" rather than "depressed and self-loathing".

On his new digs:

Ooo. How romantic. Also, nothing screems Weezer to us like a Japanese mega-mall.

On what to do with the new material:

No solo career. Thanks. Bye.

On the prospects of a greatest hits album:

You already made two GH albums. They were called Weezer and Pinkerton, respectively.

Insert 'desperate gays' joke here...

2006-07-11T07:05:00.000-05:00

I'm no supporter of efforts to limit marriage or define it in any particular way. If you don't believe me, I'll show you the pics of me circa May 2004, wearing a rainbow flag (and little else), cheering Ellen Goodridge as she walked out of Cambridge City Hall with her brand new wife.

As a matter of fact, I am all for the proposal to get government out of the marriage business altogether, leaving it up to religious leaders of the various faiths and denominations to work out who will allow whom to marry. Let the bureaucrats do the civil union thing, (for ANYONE), and if the God Squad is all that concerned about who is marrying whom, let them work it out their own selves, without any impact on peoples' statutory privleges.

That said, I feel like the gays up there in Mass. are getting a little ahead of themselves. Here they are, arguing for what they feel (and I agree) are their constitutional rights. Their opposition, however misguided, has worked to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot with the standard tripe about gays destroying marriage. So the gay-rights kids sued, claiming the proposed constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

Exactly. Aren't all amendments? Isn't that why they have to amend the constitution? And who does the attorney general think he is to decide what amendments are and are not constitutional? What ever happened to that whole demorcacy/voting/will of the people thing? How many rhetorical questions should I ask in one paragraph? Can I stop now?

Is "Mais pourquoi?" French for "What the fuck?"

2006-07-10T01:38:00.000-05:00

You can only ask so much of a Viking

2006-07-07T18:42:00.000-05:00

One of the best things about America is our general willingness to bully our hyper-commercial, lowest common denominator culture on the rest of the world. We've happily watched as precious morsels like the Whopper, CosmoGIRL, or Hasselhoff (who's BACK! AGAIN!) have been stuffed down the collective global throat.

The whole c'mon-you-know-you-want-it frat boy approach to globalization extends beyond K-Fed's latest hit to things like geomilitary politics and multinational economics, most recently seen in the Iraq war and the sheer number of U.S.-based multinational corporations. Some countries suffer our hubris better than others, but those shifty Scandinavians have always been the most sangfroid of the lot.

Until now, that is. Becuase there are some things you just don't do - lines in the sand that must not be crossed. So when the U.S. recently joined efforts to stop a coalition of countries from restarting large scale commercial whaling programs, Norway lost its shit and started blowing whales up left and right, while horrified American tourists viewed helplessly from whale-watching boats.

If you ask me, we had it coming. Norway needs lamp oil and corsets just as much as we need coffee and reality TV. And do you think the U.S. would sit idly by and watch if Norway tried to outlaw things near and dear to our national heart, like NASCAR or global warming? No! We'd just start blowing up Chevy Impalas and delicate international treaties. Since we're a vindictive bunch, we'd also probably round up all the cheap, odd-looking IKEA crap we could find and barbecue the shit out of it. And we would make damn sure some Norwegians were there to see it.

Fireworks and thunderstorms are NOT the same thing

2006-07-04T16:39:00.000-05:00

Dear Christian right,
Your god has clearly abandoned you AND your idea of America. That is the only explanation for the GIANT CUMULONIMBUS CLOUDS hovering over your "annointed" government when there are supposed to be FIREWORKS!

Only an angry god would do this. Where's your righteousness NOW?
Love,
Scourge

America, this is the best I can do

2006-07-04T12:52:00.000-05:00

Jimi said it best.

But only Marvin could get away with layin' it down to a beat.

Laws of physics need not apply

2006-06-27T15:05:00.000-05:00

You're thinking the same thing I am.

How does a 600 pound woman fit into an Isuzu Amigo, much less through its sunroof?
Seriously?

No.

2006-06-26T15:38:00.000-05:00

Social science: The flaw in columnist thinking

2006-06-23T16:14:00.000-05:00

As someone who goes through quite a bit of printed (and posted) media pretty much daily, I've often wondered what columnists do when they just can't flush an idea out of their enormous brains (serious - ENORMOUS! Just ask any one of 'em. They'll tell you.). Does the Washington Post Co. own some deep, magical well bubbling over with faux insights and snappy headlines? Is Artie Sulzberger guardian and manager of a sizable rainy-day deposit of poorly-sourced excoriation and outrageous claims (Tierny's personal stash, no doubt)? But today I realized, upon stumbling across Richard Morin's A2 column in the Post, they simply turn to social scientists.

Here's the glorious lede:

This is not funny: Jon Stewart and his hit Comedy Central cable show may be poisoning democracy.

The column cites a study done by two ECU polisci profs that found kids who watch The Daily Show develop cynical views about politics.

Participants also expressed less trust in the electoral system and more cynical views of the news media... Ultimately, negative perceptions of candidates could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls...

Alright. First of all, Richie, a series of lengthy quotes from the latest issue of American Politics Research linked up with a few segues and prepositional phrases does not a good column make. Second of all, maybe people watching TDS are more cynical about politics because Stewart gives a more realistic picture of what sensationally insane jackasses most of the folks on Capitol Hill really are.

And then we have the fact that the profs put up CBS News as their "control group" in this little experiment. CBS NEWS? Give me a break! The networks (which you describe as "hard news"...ok, whatever) are terrified of alienating even a single one of their viewers. As a result the reporters are forced to pick the lowest common denominator for their audience. Not exactly great broadcast journalism. These networks live in mortal fear of being labeled "BIASED", and as a result, water down their coverage to include only the most basic of facts in language that reads like the line down the middle of a highway, and is just as boring.

If anything, milquetoast networks and the bloviation of cable news programming have both prevented people from really thinking about the implications of a piece of news. The networks because they refuse to entertain the thought that news might MEAN something, and the cable shows because they spend all their time trying to tell you what it all means, which some people like, others laugh at, and still others just plain resent.

Meanwhile, all Stewart is doing is pointing out how absurdly our elected officials act, again and again, consistently reaching new heights of disingenuous shenanigans. Don't blame him for the fact that those guys are such a treasure trove of hilarity.

Apparently, it takes less then you thought to subjugate a nation

2006-06-23T15:44:00.000-05:00

Huh. Even his aides bested him. I would have thought being a brutal tyrant required a bit more gumption.

Hat tip: The Goo Report, natch.

I'm a prisoner in my own internet!

2006-06-22T11:36:00.000-05:00

Though I have been watching, I have yet to post anything about the World Cup because:

as a fledgling soccer fan, I really have little to add
every other blog and news site and little corner of the interweb is already talking about it

Since I am unable to skip out of work to watch today's critical match against Ghana, my roommate and I taped it (that's right - VHS BABY) to watch later. Which means that I have been spending my ENTIRE MORNING trying to avoid finding out the score. Which means no Washingtonpost.com, no New York Times Online. No DCist, DCeiver, or other blogs. I had to sign of gmail chat for fear people will give away the score in their status bar. I have the door to my office closed in case my co workers decide to shout out the score.

Seriously, I am behind bars here. Please don't tell me the score and make it all for nothing.

UPDATE: FUCK!!! Damn loundmouthed interns got me on my way to the bathroom. (I would have peed in a plant, had I a plant...). Anyway, we lost. Now all that is left is to root against Italy, Brazil, and Germany. I'd put France in there, too, but they are sucking like only the French can. With a loud slurp.

A monkey on her back

2006-06-21T14:56:00.000-05:00

After a long bout with Marion Barry's Frosted Flakes (Them's GRRReat, BITCH!), Carla Bozulich gave up drugs in her early 20s. Since then, she's made some incredible albums (what would YOUR cover of The Red Headed Stranger sound like?).

Earlier this month, she released a new one. Apparently she's back to chasing the dragon. Listen to the songs if you don't believe me.

Internets Don't Lie

2006-06-13T08:15:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post editorializes against net-neutrality today, making the argument that "if one broadband provider slowed access to fringe bloggers, the blogosphere would rise up in protest -- and the provider would lose customers."

Their argument makes two pretty absurd assumptions. First of all, when has the blogosphere ever demonstrated it can influence the market. Politics and public opinion are one thing. But I'm not sure Comcast is considers "bloggers" a key market indicator?

Second, they assume the barriers to switching service are small enough that people will be able to jump internet providers as easily as trying a new toothbrush. Clearly the editors at the Post have never waited from 11 to 4 on a workday for the cable guy to show up, only to have to reconfigure their hardware, and change their email address - oh, and there's also that cute hundred dollar "switching fee" for their trouble.

Broadband providers, who often also provide cable TV and are populated by the laid off spawn of the long distance phone corps, have a bit of experience with discouraging customers from leaving.

I just meta-puked

2006-06-10T09:59:00.000-05:00

We all live here in DC with a certain amount of tolerance for the endless parade of annual meetings, industry conventions, and trade shows. They all come with prime rib and a name tag, and the high point is probably the feigned interest required of congressional staff during the inevitable "lobby day".

But is this really needed?

The annual meeting of the association that represents people who arrange annual meetings for associations... I can't even begin to guess what will go on here.

I think I just bought this on Amazon...

2006-06-09T17:40:00.000-05:00

I feel dirty.

(But in a good way...)

Bombs over Washington

2006-06-01T10:15:00.000-05:00

Y'know, its funny. I've been in Washington DC for about a year and a half now, and I had no idea how dangerous it really is to live here! I mean, I see the crime reports, some friends have gotten their bikes ripped off, and I definitely recognize the sound of gunfire when I hear it, but apparently, DC residents are dropping like flies in some sort of massive underground wave of homicides. WTF?

"Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics complied by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C."

More then a little concerned for my adopted home, the editors here at the Scourge allowed me to venture out into the wilds of DC for a little investigative photo-journalism. After a harrowing trip around what I thought was our fair city, what I have come across will shock, SHOCK you!

OMG STEVE KING WAS RIGHT!!! RUN FOR YOUR GODDAM LIVES, PEOPLE!!! Or just read this fact check by Think Progress, and carry on with the rest of your day.

They could still kick my ascot...

2006-05-30T19:44:00.000-05:00

It is probably a bad idea to post this, as it will come back to Swift Boat my ass sometime later in life when I run for the goddam school board secretary or somthing. (Also because most of the people I am about to mock could totally kick my ass.) I really don't harbor any particular bad feelings toward the Navy, but does anyone else feel that it is time for them to update their basic sailor uniform?

I'm not a combat kinda guy, so maybe I am missing the point, but I thought that military uniforms were either supposed to help you in battle or convey some sort of badass ceremonial authority or something. I mean, those ads for the Marines on TV with the swords and all, they are kind of intimidating, right? (They certainly made me not want to join the the few or the proud, which has got to be a plus for them.) And the Army camos and Air Force flight suits have a pretty clear function. But what's going on over in the Navy? Is all the white because we are waging massive sea battles on polar bears and penguins or something? Do the hats and scarves perform some maritime function that I just don't understand? Maybe that's why naval warfare is conducted with long range missles and massive guns - everyone is too sheepish about their clothes to fight up close.

Anyway, unless the idea is to distract the enemy with immobilzing fits of laughter, they really need to not wear things called either 'jumpers' or 'neckerchiefs.' Walking home from work today, I saw a Navy guy in full uniform and had to concentrate so hard on not laughing I tripped over the absurdly well-groomed fox terrier that is constantly being paraded around Dupont Circle. Though his even more absurdly well-groomed owner was terribly upset, I think the little guy was just excited to see someone out that looked more ridiulous than he did.

Today in Sweetness

2006-05-22T13:05:00.000-05:00

Quite a day for sweetness, today. First of all, we have this sweet headline from The Washington Post via Wonkette:

If 'elections' are really truly the strategy here, we are in for one craaaazy election season. I mean, hold onto your seats. This is some cutting edge politiking here, folks.

Second of all, we have this sweet quote from a GOP operative: "If [Pelosi's] not the speaker, then conceptually I think we've turned this thing around..."

Did this guy just equate winning with not losing the House? Of course, you have to set aside your absolute lack of confidence in Pelosi as this all sinks in...

Today in False Hope

2006-05-15T12:37:00.000-05:00

Our dearest Wonkette is mercilessly cruel today, teasing us with this tempting headline.

As magically delicious as a soul-patched Dubya would be, it all turns out to be a cold-hearted ruse.

That got us thinking though... Could there be any better way for Team Bush to turn around their flagging poll numbers? To help you visualize what this country really needs, The Scourge has come up with this artist's representation of the power such a soul patch could have.

Hmmm... Maybe a porn 'stache, too?

Today in Lame, Somewhat Offensive Puns

2006-05-15T09:28:00.000-05:00

Even a good pun wouldn't make your opinion any better.

The democratization of the television

2006-05-15T01:02:00.000-05:00

I don't watch a lot of TV, but I've been saying for a while now that the way programming is currently paid for is going to come crashing down. Hard. The fall will almost certainly follow an epic legal struggle between networks and viewers, much like ongoing war between the RIAA and music downloaders. I'm sure YouTube, Google, and iTunes will all be involved (will the cable news coverage of that be facinating or what?), but in the mean time, the Sunday Times gives up some details (via Free Press) of the coming war.

Back when there were 12 channels you had to get up to change, your standard 30 second commercial was fine. The audience was pretty much captive - the only way to avoid advertising was to leave the room. But the remote control and hundreds of channels led to channel surfing, and when VCRs went mass market, network execs were shocked, just shocked, at the idea that viewers might skip the commercials and just watch the show. (Of course, there were also those premium channels, and everyone had a friend or two whose parents got HBO or Showtime - what ever happened to Cinemax? - that provided R-rated commercial free bliss for just dollars a month.) DVRs and Tivo made bailing on commercials even easier, but now Royal Phillips Electronics has filed a patent application for a new TV/DVR combo that essentially forces viewers to watch commercials:

...the patent application revealed that the proposed design would uphold the right to avoid commercials, but only for those who paid a fee. Those disinclined to pay would be prevented from changing channels during commercials [and] the new, improved [DVR] would detect when a commercial segment was being displayed and disable the fast-forward button...

I have a feeling that most Americans would consider this a direct assault on their Constitutional rights. Besides the IRS, I'll bet the FCC is the most loathed agency in the US government. Seriously, you don't fuck with television in this country.

Really though, an end to the ad-sponsored model of television programming would not be the worst thing in the world. With technology allowing content to cater more and more closely to viewers' actual interests, it might just be exactly what an industry that hasn't had a new idea since the reality show needs.

The FCC recently found that allowing cable subscribers to pick channels a la carte would actually cost them less, on average. When you think of how many channels you just don't watch, it is amazing that the cable industry has been able to prevent this from happening for so long. Unsurprisingly, the FCC found numerous flaws in previous industry reports saying that a la carte was unworkable and would cost consumers more anyway. The popularity of HBO's edgy, uncensored series like Six Feet Under, The Sopranos, and Sex in the City shows that people are willing to pay for quality programming if it interests them. The fact that the shows are ad free is a bonus. With the ubiquity of On Demand-style purchasing, why not take this model even further?

Imagine turning on your TV to find a navigation screen similar to what that of digital cable services. You can surf around, see what's on, and if something piques your interest, you can buy it for a buck or two. The show would be stored on a hard drive in you set, and pricing levels would vary according to popularity, length, and other factors (maybe reruns would be half price!). Time slots would disappear, ratings would move from the arcane Nielsen system (that no one quite understands) to one based purely on the number of people who buy the show. You could even imagine new channels springing up offering the kind of DIY production you currently find on YouTube and other sites.

I could see Google getting into the game by creating a searchable online listing, allowing you to buy and watch anything, anytime, with a few clicks. Aren't there times when you are just dying to see a certain episode of MacGyver, or maybe to run through the first season of Transformers? The copyright holders would get revenue from shows that aren't currently bringing in the a lot of ad money, Google would take a cut, and the viewer is able buy and watch pretty much anything ever aired. Not a bad deal.

The networks, of course, would oppose this all the way. By putting a price on each program, I would guess overall viewing would decrease. Since channel surfing would be difficult, sitting mindlessly zoned out in front of the tube would not really be an option. Television would be a much more deliberate act, like going to the movies, or at least renting one. Then there are the advertisers, who would be forced to find another way to market their products. Any startup that tried to implement this model would have to gain access to the telecom network, which might not be a simple task.

But it seems to me that this is the next step in the democratization of information and entertainment. Demand for such freedom is clear from the current direction of the internet (think myspace, YouTube, Flickr, and other sites where users define content). Television is just the next logical step.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

2006-05-12T10:45:00.000-05:00

From today's NYT piece about crazy new cocktails the kids are in to...

The pair are currently perfecting two new drinks, a "dirty" martini and a carbonated mojito "espherication." For the martini, they blend olive juice, vermouth and gin with xanthan gum and calcium chloride and drop it into a sodium alginate and water solution to form stable olive-shaped blobs. It is served as a lone olive in an empty glass; it reverts to a liquid state when popped into the mouth. The mojito is made with rum, lime and mint and shaped into a sphere through the same process, then carbonated in a pressurized container filled with carbon dioxide to mimic the bubbly mouth-feel of a real mojito.

Anyone else actually want liquid when they order a drink? Now, if they sold these little orbs of booze in vending machines or something, I might be into it...

UPDATE: Waiter agrees:

"I remember reading an article about avant garde bartenders making drinks into edible cocktails – pastes, beads, and candies that transform back to liquid in your mouth. Ugh. Give me whisky any day."

Someone to fuck with besides Jim Graham?

2006-05-12T09:47:00.000-05:00

When I lived in Mass., I always felt a little cheated that my senators and representatives voted the way I wanted them to like 98% of the time. I mean, what good is democracy if you can't fire an incendiary email off to a soul-less politician every few days?

Then I got to DC, and my rep in Congress couldn't even cast good votes. Not that I don't take great pleasure in ~~bitching to~~ communicating with my DC councilmember about important stuff like Metro service, rent control, and stop signs... But c'mon.

Knitta, please...stop.

2006-05-06T11:29:00.000-05:00

I'm not gonna claim to be any kind of authority on graffiti or urban art, but c'mon...a bunch of hipster white chicks with knitting needles and a website does not urban art make.

I've got nothing against the whole knitting meme, and have even gotten a few really sweet scarves out of it. But really, this is just stupid.

Reneg

2006-05-03T14:43:00.000-05:00

So I realize that not 3 hours ago, I was railing on the press for their fixation on what is essentially a result of basic economics. But I might be having a change of heart...yes, already. I mean, with all the articles about gas prices, the material is just endless...

In response to the cost of oil, President Bush was just begging Congress for the authority to adjust fuel-efficiency standards for autos last week. Love to do it, he says, but he needs him some congressional authority. Shucks. His staff even sent Anne Applebaum at the Post the particular part of the U.S. Code (Title 49, Subtitle VI, Part C, Chapter 329 if you are keeping track), which shows that the administration needs congressional approval to require that cars get more than 27.5 miles per gallon.

What I don't understand is, if he thinks it is so important to raise standards, why let Congress or the law get in his way? Or were the other 750 laws he broke somehow different?

Stop it. Now.

2006-05-03T11:49:00.000-05:00

We all know that high gas prices suck. No one likes paying more for anything - ever - and especially not when they deem it a necessity. But honestly, I am already sick of the absurd glut of human interest pieces being foisted on me by EVERY SINGLE G.D. NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD! None of you are innocent, reporters and columnists all! I know you all have some gas-prices sob-story half written on your stupid little notepads! Do yourself a favor and throw them away right now. That shit is just not news.

As a matter of fact, I am also sick of ALL the reporting on gas prices that I have to wade through every day. Editors, do you really think anyone is interested in reading the same "Expensive Gas is Crummy and Getting Crummier" headline 9 times a week, and then flipping to a page full of know-it-all smarmy columnists writing about how if only, oh if only, people owned sweet hybrids like them, everything would be cool? It's like I'm watching MTV circa 1994, except Beavis and Butthead have been replaced by Dan Froomkin and Tom effing Friedman.

DF: Huh-huh. Like, paying for expensive shit blows. Huh-huh.
TF: Yeah. We need, like, a solution! Heh-heh.
DF: Shut up, asswipe! Huh-huh. People, like, can't buy other stuff. That suuuucks!
TF: The earth is flat, dumbass! Yeah! Kickass! Heh-heh
DF: Huh-huh. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. Huh-huh.
TF: Hey Froomkin, you're a wus! Heh-heh. Read my book! Yeah! Kickass!

Lame.

HELP! I AM DROWNING IN MYOPIA!

2006-04-28T10:55:00.000-05:00

Somebody please help me. Because I am surrounded by myopic politicians with no vision and a penchant for pandering the worst sort of hysteria.

I am referring, of course, to the lather that Congress has worked itself into over gas prices. It is true that Americans are paying more at the pump, and not one of them enjoys spending the extra cash. But they are dealing with it. This country has emerged intact from depressions, wars, and Milli Vanilli. I think we can get through this as well.

But here in Capital City, USA, nothing gets politicians thinking votes like the price of gas. As the bloviation reaches fever pitch, some real dingers have blown out from in between the marble columns of the Capitol and White House. So let's indulge ourselves and take a quick tour of the ideas coming from our fearless leaders in Washington D.C.

Investigate price gouging - Last time I checked we still lived in a capitalist economy. Back in the 80s and 90s, our government decided it didn't like public ownership of utilities and deregulated both infrastructure and operations. That means oil companies are supposed to make profits. They can charge whatever the market will bear. While it is illegal to take advantage of disasters or other events to drive prices, the only real check on the price of a fill up is competition from the guy across the street. Say it with me: Supply and demand. It's like ECON 101...
Weaken clean air standards - Because, you know, if you can't have cheap fuel, clean air is pretty worthless.
Repeal the gas tax - Hey, I have an idea! Let's spend $6 billion and reduce the incentive to conserve! Brilliant! I am actually ashamed that this little nugget of legislative prowess comes from my very own Demo-crackhead Senator Bob Menendez. While the last transportation bill was rife with pounds and pounds of fine Alaska pork, as it is we don't have the money we need to build out our transportation system. The gas tax funds our transportation system. Hmmmm.... That could be problematic. You know, we GAVE you that Senate seat, Menendez, and we can take it right back.
$100 gas rebates funded by Arctic drilling - Ok, this is just petty. This is Frist's brilliant plan to make the Dems look bad. I can see the press release now: DEMOCRATS REJECT GAS REBATE, DRINK BLOOD OF AMERICANS. Really, what good is that extra hundred bucks going to do for most Americans. The cost of an average fill up (I'm estimating 15-20 gal.) is rounding $50. So basically, the trade is two tanks of gas for a redefinition of what "wildlife refuge" means in America. Sounds like a great deal, Billy. I'll pass.

There are dozens of other asinine anodynes out there that don't even warrant mockery. Seriously, though, is this all we can expect from our leaders? Coz I see not one ounce of leadership or vision, or even anything approaching a grip on reality down on the Mall.

Next time: A few ideas...

Yeah. It's a windmill pun. Deal with it.

2006-04-20T17:52:00.000-05:00

Ted Kennedy can blow me. Everyone's favorite liberal icon is opposed to the world's largest wind energy project. Yeah, THAT Ted Kennedy... He's against it because he might have to look at the windmills from his back porch on Cape Cod. I mean, who wouldn't sacrifice a few hunderd megawatts of clean energy for a view of Nantucket Sound? Suckers, that's who.

This, from the man who defined the Massachusetts liberal caricature. I thought he gay-married the lefty movement the minute it became legal. I was even told that not selling out was included in the wedding vows. But then again, wedding vows don't really mean anything anymore. And they certainly don't mean forever.

Seriously though, here we have a politician who has made his career sticking up for workers, women, civil rights - all those issues. His record is nothing to joke about, and he's accomplished a lot with some pretty deft politiking. But when you get elected talking about good government and energy independence and environmental health, YOU CAN'T KILL LANDMARK WIND PROJECTS IN BACKROOM SENATE DEALS. It's totally in the Constitution, or at least one of the Federalist Papers (I think #59). Anyway, Greenpeace is calling bullshit:

Kennedy literally rode his brother's coattails into a giftwrapped Senate seat, and at first was regarded as kind of a joke. He's turned that around and made some great contributions since then. But if he doesn't watch where he steps, he is going to leave the Senate the same way he came into it. A bit of a joke.

! BREAKING NEWS ! McClellan's Replacement To Be Announced

2006-04-19T10:59:00.000-05:00

The Scourge has learned through several sources close to the White House that President Bush has chosen a stack of smooth rocks to replace Scott McClellan as press secretary.

McClellan resigned today after nearly three years as White House Press Secretary. He replaced the controversial Ari Fleischer in 2003, and was widely respected for saying less than Mr. Fleischer without ever actually lying. The rocks beat out other candidates such as Fox News anchor Tony Snow and former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

The President is expected to appear at a news conference later today to announce the appointment. Sources have indicated that there is great support for the rocks among west wing staffers. "The press corps is getting way out of control, and a stack of rocks is the perfect choice to put them back in line," said one senior staffer who asked to remain anonymous. A slingshot was observed sticking out of his briefcase.

The press corps was divided in their response to the announcement. Some, like NBC's David Gregory were excited to get to know the rocks. "Though Scott and I always had a working relationship, he became increasingly difficult to deal with over the last few months," Gregory said. "I really think a stack of rocks is going to be more forthcoming with information, and less evasive. It will make all of our jobs a lot less frustrating.

Others in the press corps were less optimistic. Matt Cooper of Time felt that a stack of rocks was too far outside of Bush's inner circle to be of much use. "Rocks might be easier to work with than Scott, but they don't have that insight into the president's mind that made him so special," he said. Cooper worries that leaked information, both good and bad, will be harder to come by with a stack of rocks at the podium.

Happy Easter Edition

2006-04-15T13:04:00.000-05:00

While DC busies itself debating whether homosexuals and their kids should really be out rolling eggs on the White House lawn, I'd like to talk about the man of the hour for a bit. Jesus. Specifically, a Florida State professor's recent attempts to scientifically explain one of Jesus' miracles. I didn't write about this when it first hit the news, because honestly, I think the guy doing this research is a joke, despite his efforts to be an equal opportunity jackass. A self-described "miracle buster," he makes a living by what amounts to telling kids there is no Tooth Fairy. Classy.

But I changed my mind and decided to write about it after a recent episode of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! Let me explain. One of host Peter Sagal's quiz questions referred to this idea that the Sea of Galilee could have frozen, essentially allowing Jesus to 'walk on water'. After the contestant correctly answered, Sagal took the opportunity to editorialize, "A little hard to believe, don't you think?"

Harder to believe than someone actually walking on water? Really, Peter? At least the scientific option is plausible, however unlikely. But as absurd as it seems, is it really more reasonable than the miraculous alternative?

So why is Sagal, a presumably intelligent and educated man, easily able to make such an apparently unreasonable statement? If the person in question was not Jesus, the scientific answer would be the clear winner. But since the question deals with a religious figure that holds extraordinarily deep meaning, everything changes. The foundation of Sagal's value judgments shifted from truths of reason or science to truths of religion.

This creates a serious problem with the scientist's intent to explain the unexplainable. Science and religion each seek to interpret the world, doing so in very different but equally valid ways. However, each is based on its own unique truths, and it is irresponsible to debate them as if they oppose each other.

Various systems of geometry each are based on axioms that at times contradict each other. In Euclidean geometry, given a line and a point, there is only one parallel line that runs through that point. In hyperbolic geometry, there are infinite parallel lines that run through the point. Parallel lines don't even exist in elliptical geometry.

Because of this, a postulate that is true in one system may not be in another. But such a postulate isn't worthless. Its worth depends on its usefulness, and each system can be used to solve problems and create order in the world. For instance, you couldn't build a house without Euclidean geometry, but the development of non-Euclidean geometries is central to modern astrophysics. We don't reject a useful mathematical system just because another contradicts it. Similarly, the idea that scientific and religious truths must be reconciled creates a false dilemma where people feel forced to choose between one or the other.

Scientific and religious truths that are contradictory should not have to compete with each other. They are each based on their own distinct axioms and the end results are equally valuable. They provide an interpretation of the world and offer a direction in which to move. Scientific inquiry does not lessen the weight of religious canon, nor does faith negate scientific discovery.

The tension that is caused by this false dilemma is destructive to both science and religion. In Christianity, the miracle of Christ's resurrection forms the core of the faith. Miraculous events or ideas similarly underpin other religions. Working to explain how these miracles could have happened mistakes religious belief for some sort of suspended disbelief. The faithful do not begrudgingly accept miracles in spite of evidence that they could not have happened. That they are incredible is precisely what gives miracles their power and meaning. Miracles are not meant to be investigated or deconstructed, and when they are the reaction is hostile.

Such hostility is at the root of divisive controversies, most recently seen in the debate over intelligent design. Attempts to integrate theology and science introduce an element that reduces the usefulness of the scientific method. On the other hand, using science to probe theological questions reduces the usefulness and meaning of religion. It is understandable that people react so vehemently to attempts at either.

The professor who authored the research on Jesus' watery miracle states, "We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account." This statement not only refuses responsibility, it belies the worst part of such research - not the sins it commits, but the intention it commits them with. Both arrogant and disdainful, it fans flames in pursuit of noteriety, amounting to little more than scientific demagogy.

What's more, the results are doomed to irrelevance from the beginning. Who cares if/how Jesus walked on water? The Christian faith is not going to suddenly adopt a "good to know..." attitude, adjusting its canon accordingly. The only consistent results of this line of questioning are outrage among the faithful, inevitable smugness from non-believers, and a lot of meaningless rhetorical ping-pong in the media. Hardly a useful scientific discovery.

I learned it from watching you

2006-04-14T16:40:00.000-05:00

The Ad Council is one of those things that you know, but just don't know you know. Let's do some free association: Smokey the Bear. The egg in the frying pan. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. The crying Indian. Got it?

Well, the Council takes on serious "Issue of Its Time" kinda causes and then develops a really good ad campaign. Pro bono. I mean, you remember all the ads up top, right? Yeah. Well, they've decided that global warming is the Issue of Its Time, and hence, produced a really, really good ad campaign.

Pretty wild. But as good as the ads are, the decision to take them on means even more. Look at the issues the Council has taken on in the past. Forest fires. Drugs. Minority education. Drunk driving. The decision to take on global warming as the current focus of the Council puts global warming on that same level. This can be seen as a watershed of sorts. Bescause even though global warming is as important as any of the others (if not more), it has not gotten the same recognition in the media. I am not saying that the Ad Council gives it any more weight or gravitas. Rather, I am saying that the Ad Council's decision reveals the weight and gravitas it already has.

Zeitgeist Phrasology

2006-04-14T14:44:00.000-05:00

Our friends over at The Goo went through some pretty serious histrionics to prove to the world that they were indeed NOT hipsters, yupsters, yipsters, or any other derivative. I give them credit, but what they should have done is just make up a new category for themselves!

Over on DCist today, I stumbled across yet another apparent niche in the social strata. This one was coined by IndieCognition, describing himself. Without further ado, here it is, your new socio-descriptive zeitgeist phrase:

superliberal, new-age, indiehippie

Wow. I have included an artist's interpretation of this phenomenon as a visual aide:

cartoon by nataliedee

An open letter to people who drive cars in DC

2006-04-12T13:37:00.000-05:00

Dear DC Drivers,

I thought we had a deal. I don't cross against the light, and you don't kill me in the crosswalk. Apparently I misunderstood.

I am not saying you'll never have a good reason to drive at high speed down Columbia Road with no lights on. I'm sure cold Jumbo Slice tastes really bad. But last night, one of you hit 5 cars and 1 person, who might die. It probably isn't worth it.

In closing, please don't run my neighbors down. Especially not right in front of my building (see map for location). I cross the street there often, walking to work, or Safeway, or Adams Morgan Wine and Spirits. Even though I look both ways and use the crosswalk, you guys always seem to act as if I am just not there. What's the deal with that? Anyway, no more hitting people, OK? People are starting to talk.

Trying to be your understanding friend,
A Militant Pedestrian
(militancy growing daily)

Since when is the mafia so obvious?

2006-04-11T15:57:00.000-05:00

And it took them 43 years to find this guy? This is like the first place they should have looked! Either way, a little trite, don't you think, guys?

Motorcade of generosity

2006-04-11T00:46:00.000-05:00

Everywhere in DC, little signs are telling you to "Report waste, fraud, and abuse." It's all part of Bush's "CEO President" schtick. Very endearing, really. There are , signs on every federal wall, buttons on every agency website, and each year, the White House rates the wastefulness, fraudulence, and abusiveness of all the different federal bodies with color coded levels and awkward acronyms.

So let's talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. I saw my first presidential motorcade today. And yes, those are snipers on the roof across the street.

So what's the fuss? Presidents are muy importante and certainly deserve the best security we can muster. Even wildly unpopular presidents should never have to fear for their lives. So I was not upset by the whole production, even when the sniper with binoculars didn't wave back at me.

But then I saw what all this money and security was spent protecting. Not the man, but rather his actions. Because apparently he has now reconciled himself with the fact that he has no fucking idea what he is doing.

I am seriously considering reporting the president for waste, fraud, and abuse. I mean, is he kidding here? Thousands of dollars went into securing an event where the President of the United States spent a solid hour filling the minds of our best and brightest with a whole lot of "I don't know" and "I'll get back to you." This money is officially and completely wasted, he is a clearly fraud, and I feel a little abused.

Now, I'm not suggesting we, er, reallocate the president's security detail. I'm just sayin', keep the guy home more often and save us all a dime... He likes it there better anyway.

UPDATE: 4/11/06 - Sully agrees.
UPDATE2: 4/12/06 - Video. Sweet.

Trifecta

2006-04-10T11:25:00.000-05:00

So, I met with DCist editor Martin Austermuhle last week, to talk about blogging for them on transit.

They ran my first post today. Not bad, right? Anyway, this completes my triumverate of digital alter-egos...

Countering the liberal media bias

2006-04-10T10:40:00.000-05:00

Poofygoo: the educational materials just came in from the annual meeting
Poofygoo: I’m mailing them out today, if I can successfully navigate customs
Poofygoo: then people in Iraq can learn about noninvasive biopsy to diagnose amyloidosis
Scourge: who says there is no good news coming out of Iraq?
Scourge: Whaddya bet the damn NYT won't even report this?
Poofygoo: I know! And this shit is important!
Scourge: Whatever, send a press release to Hitch or Sully or, OOOHHH, Kaloogian! They'll make sure the world hears about it...

If only for lack of a window...

2006-04-09T15:30:00.000-05:00

What is it about really creative types that they always have to do something exasperatingly absurd before being brilliant. Are they just purging the bad creativity before getting to the good creativity? What I am talking about in this case Brooklyn's current art-freak-rock-folk flava boyz, the Animal Collective. Now really, standing ovation to you all, coz you make some tres killa tunes.

But what is with the names, guys? You know what I am talking about. Panda Bear? Avey Tare? Deakin? And (ominously, I presume) the Geologist? Is this really necessary? It makes it extremely difficult to talk about your music. I mean, who feels comfortable talking about "the frenetic precision of Panda Bear's percussion?" Or worse, "the rhythmic bobbing of the Geologist's head, as if he were after some apple of musical wisdom that would put the oh-so-finest point on Avey Tare's childlike yelps." You just can't write that shit and expect to have your audience finish the damn sentence.

Honestly, I really have nothing against nicknames or diminutives, pseudonyms, aliases, noms de plume, or even alter egos. I've had quite a few good ones myself. But c'mon. Panda Bear? No one is going to call you that on the street or at a party, y'know? Honestly, it just makes me want to defenestrate you ¹.

1. That's right! Word of the Day. April 2. Dictionary.com, bitch!

Sweet, Sweet Schadenfreude

2006-04-06T22:41:00.000-05:00

What happens when people who categorically deny the existence of significant global events begin to invest in the stock market?

a. They make a shit ton of money. The wingnuts, they got each other's back!
b. They are awarded an honorary seat in the US House of Representatives.
c. Austria puts them in jail and tosses the key.
d. People ignore them because of the sheer insignificance of their ideas.

While (c) is technically correct, the answer that is most correct (yeah, like the SATs) here is (d). As much as I would love to eloquently describe the current project of that masterpiece of human existence Steven Milloy, he does a far better job himself (emphasis mine, obvs):

I helped launch the Free Enterprise Action Fund (www.FreeEnterpriseActionFund.com), a pioneering mutual fund designed to accomplish two goals for investors:
Earn a market-based financial return from investing in the common stocks of Fortune 500 companies; and
Provide a pro-free enterprise, anti-junk science ideological benefit through advocacy that promotes shareholder value and defends the American system of free enterprise from the onslaught of activist-sponsored attacks.
Counter-pressuring corporate managements on global warming/energy availability is a key effort of the Free Enterprise Action Fund. We are sponsoring, for example, global warming-related shareholder resolutions at General Electric, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase.

I am asking you to consider investing in the Free Enterprise Action Fund and to join our effort to counter corporate managements that are siding with global warming and other social activists.

That's right. This guy is out there working to put and end to commie lovin', gay marryin' policies like <gasp> energy efficiency. Really, nothing says capitalism like wastin' stuff.

So this message was sent around by Steven in an effort to generate more interest in his little project. Why? Turns out investment has been, shall we say, less than stellar. How exactly has he been faring on his two lofty goals?

Notorious pinko rag The Chicago Tribune filed it under 'Stupid Investment of the Week.'

... Strip away the rhetoric, and you're getting a very expensive, underperforming index fund..." that "...makes stock market returns unrealistic."

And the Financial Times, which I heard Reagan wouldn't even wrap his fish with, said:

Goldman Sachs investors yesterday overwhelmingly voted down a unique shareholder proposal that claimed the Wall Street bank was misusing shareholder resources by pursuing an potentially expensive pro-environmental agenda.

Don't you just love when the free-market works?

Hat tip: Deltoid at Scienceblogs.com

It answers me before I even ask

2006-04-06T16:09:00.000-05:00

The other day, I was dicussing the finer points of selling out. Someone, hereafter known as Hirsch, quickly pointed out that there is no selling out any more. Everything is sold before is even comes out. Like The Concretes, who he first heard on that sweet Target commercial (you know the one...). He liked their sound, and wanted to find out who the band was. He Googled a line from the song, expecting links to one of those sing365 lyric sites or something like that, which would lead him to the name of the band.

Instead, the interweb actually addressed his question directly . In its current live/2.0/user-driven version, it apparently anticipates our questions and answers them before we even ask.

And this is not just some fluke. Last night at Ike's, a group of at least 8 people were tearing their hair trying to remember the name of that white horse in The Neverending Story. You had Atreu (who clearly grew up to be in a hair metal cover band), Falcor the Luck Dragon (who looked like some kind of dog-fish mutant hybrid), and then the white horse that sank in the swamp becasue he wasn't happy enough or something). But what was his name? I mean, the kid called it out like three dozen times as he was sinking. Powerful....

Anyway, I dutifully went home and Googled it up, expecting to find the answer on IMDB or some crazy NES fansite. But the first search result was actually a direct response to our exact question. So there was a whole website devoted specifically to answering this one question. Just for us.

Oh Google, how you walk that fine line between trusted friend and big brother.

Innaugural

2006-04-06T00:44:00.000-05:00

Well my friends, here we are... It's taken quite a while for us to get to this point. But we have made ourselves our own little cozy corner of Bloggyland. We've also learned a few valuable lessons over the past few weeks:

The kids that design all the junk on the interweb got some gumption.
They also have a lot of time.
Bill Gates can suck it.

Now let’s get down to what blogging is really all about: acting pretentious about music and then talking about politics to justify yourself as intellectually relevant. Verdad? Good!