Art Machine
Just another former infatuation junkie

Bush is stating that the threat of another terror attack is very, very real, prompting me to ask the question:

Real compared to what?

Real compared to Weapons of Mass Destruction^TM? Or real compared to, say, the “Big Tent” of the Republican party? What’s our basis of comparison here? What is real?

And don’t you dare ask me what my definition of “is” is. That one’s been tried before.

Before we start, let me just say: From a purely spin-related standpoint, I would advise the President – or any other politician – to avoid making any policy or moral statements in the same speech as the following:

I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course.

Now, obviously, Bush is not familiar with the tale of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Otherwise, he would be reluctant to go around making vague statements about possible attacks against America without offering up any intelligence or evidence to support it. Especially when people are asking

• Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
• Where’s the Uranium?
• Where’ the proof?
• Where’s the money that’s going to pay for all of this?
• Where are the pages that were cut out of the report? (Pick any report – they’re all missing pages)
• Where’s the beef?

In all fairness, Americans have been asking that last one for years, now. But the rest of them are all valid questions.

Also, you have to wonder about Bush actually stating that we should codify marriage as a “man-woman thing”. Then, there’s Bush’s response to questions over how he plans to spend over 150 million in campaign funds (direct quote: “Watch me”). Oh, and remember that whole bit about “If you don’t support our President, you don’t support our troops”?

Um, yeah, about that....

The Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that a local bar is getting around the new smoking regulations by serving a nicotine-laced cocktail called the nicotini – similar to what’s been going on in New York for a while now.

But Tony Miros, who has followed South Florida nightlife as a columnist for a variety of publications, said he hopes other places follow Cathode’s lead and that the nicotini soon comes to South Beach. Yet Miros, a smoker with a healthy dose of skepticism, said he will drink one only after he sees someone else try it.

“That’s just too original,” Miros said. “This is the point of desperation that they have us to.”

In other words, “I’m a skeptic, but I’m so committed to my addictions that I’ll drink anything they hand me if it will just make the pain STOP!”

I’m of two minds about the subject, actually.

One mind says that there’s nothing wrong with people experimenting with legal chemicals. If nicotine is legal and alcohol is legal and people want to blend the two and sell them, there’s not really much problem with that.

The other says that this is really flippin’ dangerous and stupid.

Curious Americans who do not have access to absinthe legally have developed several ways to homebrew their own – each method qualifying as both dangerous and stupid, way into the “really flippin’” category. One of these methods (the really flippin’ dangerous one featured on a lot of sketchy websites) involves steeping the major herbal content of Absinthe in a bottle of vodka for a week or longer, straining it, and drinking it.

In addition to pointing out once again that this absinthe recipe is both dangerous and stupid, I would like to point out that the end product is nothing at all like real absinthe, so please stop trying it before you blind and/or kill yourself.

What makes the recipe so dangerous and stupid? The herbs in question secrete essential oils – some of which are dangerously strong neurotoxins. We’re talking strong enough to cause instant, irreversible and crippling nerve damage with just a small dose.

In real absinthe, these herbal essences (cue shampoo commercial) are combined with the licqour in a process of distillation (not steeping). The end result is a carefully-controlled herbal concoction in which several gallons of the mix contain only enough neurotoxin to give you a mild headache (and you’ll pass out from the alcohol long before you hit that point).

Steeping the herbs in vodka creates an uncontrolled product with potentially lethal amounts of neurotoxins in a bottle. Plus, it’s just downright nasty.

What’s the connection, you might ask?

The primary ingredient of a “Nicotini” is vodka in which tobacco leaves have been allowed to steep.

See the connection?

Let me spell it out for you. You can’t reasonably expect to control the level to which the tobacco is leached into the vodka. By guzzling what is essentially a homebrew by mixologists who – for all their amazing drink-mixing abilities – are not geneticists or chemists, you are taking your life into your own hands.

Want to experiment with nicotine and alcohol? Call Skyy. Call Shmirnoff. Call Jack Daniels. Sell your idea to them for a million bucks.

At least then it’ll be regulated, controlled, and be reasonably safe for consumption.

Don’t drink stupid, people. There’s enough of it around, already.

Massive picture for this one that I got from Rin. To spare you having to click to see, the quiz is “Angel or Demon?”, it’s all right but mediocre, and I got “Demon”. And, apparently, she wants to “glomp” me.

Fandom is funny.

Ei!! You’re a demon!! If you are a guy: glomps
you!! If you are a girl: Smiles and hugs you!!


Are you an Angel or Demon?? (with pictures!!)
brought to you by Quizilla

This just occurred to me the other day.

Does anybody know what happened with Doctor Germ? Or Mrs. Anthrax? Or any of those other people who weren’t in the deck, but whom we were assured were “the most important arrests” of the entire operation?

Weren’t they the ones who were supposed to lead us to the WMD’s?

Well?

Has anybody heard what happened to them?

It’s Sunday morning – just about time for me to do the Friday 5.

1. If your life were a movie, what would the title be?

The Unbelievable Adventures of C. Glen Williams, Man of the Extraordinary. Either that, or Ang Lee’s Glen.

2. What songs would be on the soundtrack?

• “Out of Range” and “Do Re Mi” – Ani DiFranco
• “Step Right Up” – Tom Waits
• “Sharks” and “Honey White” – Morphine
• “I Love My Car” and “Marx and Engels” – Belle and Sebastian
• “Kiss Me, Son of God” – They Might Be Giants
• “We Close Our Eyes”, “Elevator Man”, and “Whole Day Off” – Oingo Boingo

3. Would it be a live-action film or animated? Why?

A blend of live action with animation, portraying the real events of my life in live action with my imagination (That would be the “unbelievable adventures” part) represented in different styles of animation ranging from Miyazaki to Batman: The Animated Series to one self-satirizing segment in the style of 1970’s Hannah-Barbera.

4. Casting: who would play you, members of your family, friends, etc?

Well, I’ve had other people suggest that my role should be played by Michael J. Fox – but for this movie, I think it should be cast entirely with unknown actors – meaning that they have a new opportunity to get noticed, but no career to be ruined when the movie tanks at the box office.

5. Describe the movie preview/trailer

Announcer: In a world gone mad…

Explosions, planes zooming through the sky, somebody slips on a banana peel

Announcer: ...One man thinks it isn’t mad enough yet.

Animated Glen(speaking into a trout): Hello? Is this thing on?

In an editorial for The Moscow Times, Chris Floyd suggests that the Bush administration’s insistence that it would minimize civilian casualties in Iraq was – to fashion a crude pun – a load of bolshevik.

The armchair warriors who directed the American-led conquest of Iraq would like us to believe that the estimated 10,000 innocent civilians who died in the invasion were simply unfortunate, inadvertent, unavoidable, accidental victims of a just and noble action. No one wanted these innocent people to die. Surely no American leader ever knowingly ordered a mission with the certain knowledge that innocent people were going to be killed by it. These deaths just happened; no one is to blame for them.

That’s what the armchair warriors tell the world—and themselves too, no doubt, when they look into the mirror every morning. But like almost every other statement issued by the Bush Regime on the subject of Iraq, this comforting fairy tale is a cynical, blood-soaked lie.

Perhaps one of my favorite comments I received on my still-popular entry written on the night of Bush’s first strike in Iraq was the one that asked me how I could suggest that American soldiers would intentionally target civillians.

I think I was gravely misunderstood. I never intended to suggest that they would intentionally target civillians. In fact, I don’t think I even unwittingly suggested it. I think they just wanted to call me a traitor (among other nasty names). I did, however, point out that in a war innocent people die. It’s part of what makes a war a war. It’s part of what makes war Hell.

But who do we believe?

On one side, we had the media telling us every day that our laser-guided missiles were working spectacularly, and that people in Baghdad were going about their daily business as if nothing was happening, because they knew they wouldn’t be hit by stray fire.

On the other side, we had reports coming in from European and Middle Eastern news sources telling us about missiles that landed in market squares and bombs that blew apart schools and community centers. And plenty of pictures of wounded children. Plenty of pictures.

So, which side do we believe when we ask the question: How many innocents had to die for a war that Bush is now having trouble justifying to the world and to his own country?

Maybe the answer is neither of them. Maybe we need to believe a little bit of both.

In a debriefing for American and “Coalition” brass, U.S. Lieutenant General Michael Mosley confirmed that all air war commanders were required to get Rumsfeld’s direct approval for any airstrike that would likely kill more than 30 innocent people, The New York Times reports. That certainly sounds like admirably strict oversight for such a momentous battlefield decision. In practice, however, Rumsfeld’s management of the process was based on the same philosophy that his boss George W. Bush applied to death-penalty cases when he was governor of Texas: “What the hell, let ‘em fry!”

More than 50 times, Rumsfeld was approached with mission plans likely to leave at least 30 innocent people vaporized and mutilated by unstoppable high-tech weaponry crashing down on them without warning, without the slightest chance of escape. More than 50 times, Rumsfeld signed his name to these multiple death-warrants: Every such mission was approved, said Mosley.

Rumsfeld is not a stupid man. He knows – as everybody who has half a brain knows – that no matter how good the technology is and no matter how good your intelligence is, innocent people are going to die in a war. Going in to attack targets in a civilian area means civilian casualties.

Is that a defense for Rumsfeld? No. Not in the least.

Because Rumsfeld did not sign off on civilian deaths in the name of a just war. Rumsfeld signed off on civilian deaths in the name of a conflict pushed through unilaterally by an imperialistic administration, in violation of the rules and the wishes of the international community. Rumsfeld signed off on civilian deaths in the name of a war in which we were the aggressors – a war shored up by lies, half-truths, faulty intelligence, and jingoistic macho grandstanding.

But the ultimate responsibility must be laid at the ultimate authority, the man who indeed insists that it was his imperial will alone that launched the invasion: George W. Bush. True, it’s painfully obvious that he is the witless mouthpiece of ideological extremists like Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney—those Bolsheviki of the boardroom. In fact, Bush is apparently ignorant of the actual events that led up to the war: In one of his very rare unscripted remarks, he panicked and told reporters last week that he invaded Iraq only after Saddam Hussein “wouldn’t allow UN inspectors into the country”—a breathtaking display of disassociation from reality.

Some would argue that music swappers could use a better spokesman than a baby-dangling, surgical mask-wearing paleface with a Peter Pan complex, but every little bit helps, right?

“I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music. It is wrong to download, but the answer cannot be jail,” Jackson said in a statement released Monday.

The pop star’s comments referred specifically to a bill before Congress that would make it a federal felony to obtain copyright works over the Internet without permission.

All tabloid freakshow angles aside, Jackson does have a point. A mindlessly optimistic one, but a point nonetheless.

The point that jackson has made in a shocking moment of clarity is that it is wrong to trade copyrighted works without the artist’s permission, but there’s really no reason to put internet traders behind bars. There has to be a better way.

While we’re marvelling at Jacko’s momentary relapse into reason, let me just slip this thought into the mix. The record industry is blaming their slump in sales on internet file swapping. Maybe they have a point. But I think that their sales might possibly see an increase if, say, they stopped treating all of their customers like they were thieves. Or if they started treating their artists fairly. Or if they actually produced something worth listening to. Come on, guys. I payed $11.99 for Jewel’s 0304, and my level of satisfaction is clear to anybody.

But, wow. Mikey made sense. Hey, everybody! Mikey said something that makes sense!

Jackson, who’s seen his own record sales lag in recent years, suggested the music industry and music fans work together to figure it all out.

D’oh.

For those of you keeping score, I’m a consumer of music. I pay for my music. I follow independent bands, and I do purchase the occasional used CD. I’m known for complaining that the music industry does not produce worthwhile artists and for complaining that the industry charges too much for an inferior product. I’m also known for constantly bellyaching that the labels mistreat their artists.

So far, the music industry has called me a thief, a liar, a communist, and a no-good, low-down, dirty, ungrateful brat.

I get the feeling that the RIAA will “work together” with us when their kids are held in front of a flamethrower, if then.

TalkLeft reprints Michael Tomasky’s advice to Democratic candidates on how to solve “the Nader problem”.

So here’s a thought for an enterprising Democratic candidate: Attack Nader right now, and with lupine ferocity. Say he’s a madman for thinking of running again. Blast him especially hard on foreign policy, saying that if it were up to the Greens, America would give no aid to Israel and it would cease to exist, and if it were up to the Greens, America would not have even defended itself against a barbarous attack by going into Afghanistan. Have at him, and hard, from the right. Then nail him from the left on certain social issues, on abortion rights and other things that he’s often pooh-poohed and dismissed as irrelevant. Cause an uproar. Be dramatic. Don’t balance it with praise about what he’s done for consumers. To the contrary, talk about how much he’s damaging consumers today by not caring who’s in charge of the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Communications Commission.

It’s been said before, but it bears repeating: The problem with most liberal politicians is that it’s hard to be liberal and be a bulldog. But if we expect to survive, we’re going to have to learn how.

Of course, things like this are what send the media into a feeding frenzy as reporters jabber on and on about how divided the liberals are, how we have no direction, and how we’re a bunch of headless chickens ready for the plucking. Well, okay. They don’t say that last one in exactly those words, but it’s certainly implied.

It may seem contrary to liberal ideals and philosophy to turn and attack one of our own – but it’s becoming apparent that Nader is no longer operating from a liberal position politically. Stories from inside the Green Party suggest that at the last minute, Nader ignored advice to throw his support behind Gore over what amounted to a personal vendetta. Throughout his campaign, it was clear that Nader considered his race to be against Al Gore – not George W. Bush.

Anybody looking at things from a liberal standpoint should realize by now that we cannot stand four more years of Bush and his administration. So what we need – as has been suggested by other writers – is for Ralph Nader to provide us with an absolutely foolproof plan that guarantees he will carry a significant majority in the Electoral College and beat Dubya for the office, or we need him to get out of the way and throw his support behind another candidate. And considering that the college campaigns and the Nader Traders couldn’t even swing third-party status for the Greens in the last election, I think it’s highly unlikely that Nader will provide us with a guaranteed win.

And if we’re going to demand a progressive candidate in office, it’s possible that Ralph Nader really isn’t the one. As we’ve seen, he allows his sense of vendetta to cloud his attention to facts – anybody running in the last race should have been able to see that Bush’s policies toward the environment were much more worthy of attack than Gore’s. Plus, as Tomasky points out, Nader is incredibly weak on many economic and social issues. In fact, his tendency to dismiss issues as “irrelevant” sounds a bit like our current administration.

And, honestly, where is Nader in the public eye when he’s not talking about running against the Democrats? Say what you will about the current Democratic candidates, but when they stand up and say something they tend to be seen. Where is Nader while the FCC offers major media conglomerates a big ol’ Monopoly board? Where is Nader when Bush is editing the environmental reports? Or when Bush is stating that there’s still no evidence for global warming, and that we need to pay our top polluters billions of dollars over the next ten years to study the natural causes of global warming? I’m certain that somebody out there will point me to Nader’s comments on these issues. And they’ll probably point out to me that Nader says plenty, it’s just the media that doesn’t cover it.

But isn’t that kind of the point? At least when Howard Dean attacks Bush on his foreign policy, the cameras are there. We need somebody vocal on the issues who can stand toe-to-toe with Bush and who gets attention from the media and the people.

Ralph Nader, frankly, is not that candidate.

Walking through the Charlotte airport on my way home, I’m started to realize just how important it was to actually have a watch. I’ve gone for a long time now without wearing a watch of any kind – and since the last show I directed ended, nobody’s really complained about it.

But my problems in Charlotte involved the fact that I had arrived far too early. Earlier that morning, a brusque customer service representative had checked me in at the Washington National Airport and had offered me a seat on an earlier flight than the one on my ticket.

“It’s your choice,” she said, never looking up from her monitor. “You either hang out here for another two hours, or I can get you on a plane in the next ten minutes and you can spend the extra time in Charlotte.”

I’d had enough of the airport now named after the man who screwed America’s air traffic controllers – I opted to spend the time in Charlotte.

I arrived in Charlotte at 9:20, and my next flight wasn’t scheduled until 12:55. Somewhere along the way, I started thinking that a watch would be incredibly convenient to have. So would some money – which was starting to run low. Unfortunately, watches cost money.

I had just about decided to give up on a watch for the rest of the day when I passed by a table covered in cheap ballpoint pens and clipboards.

“Would you like to sign up for a credit card and get a free gift?”

“What are you offering?”

“You can choose to get a Charlotte teddy bear, a U.S. Airways T-shirt, or a digital watch.”

“Sure. Let me have a form.”

Five minutes later…

“Now, can I decline this card if I change my mind by the time it arrives?”

“Well, you don’t actually get the card. This form just lets them see if you qualify for the card. You’ll get more paperwork in the mail if your credit checks out.”

“All right. Here’s the form.”

“What would you like?”

“I’ll take the watch.”

With plenty of time left until my flight, I took a leisurely stroll down to the concourse at which my plane would arrive (a stroll that was – approximately – the same distance as a stroll across New York City, diagonally). I stopped at a video monitor, found my flight, and pulled the watch out of its plastic box to set it.

The first thing I noticed was that it was actually a pretty cool watch.

The second thing I noticed was that the buckle was broken.

So I walked briskly across NYC (diagonally) and back to the table where the salesman was busy chatting up another couple who had come through (probably wanting a Charlotte teddy bear, from the looks of them). I held up the watch, showed him the buckle, and he nodded and handed me a new one, taking the broken one and stashing it behind the table.

The watch was identical to the broken one – except, of course, for the fact that it wasn’t broken. I set it, then checked in for my flight and waited to board.

The watch lasted all through my flight home and out of the airport.

And when I decided to show the watch to my parents, the buckle promptly broke. In exactly the same place the other watch broke.

If the incentives are any indicator of quality, I don’t think I’ll be filling out the rest of the paperwork for the card.

WPVI (an ABC affiliate) reports that the Kingdom Life Christian Church in Milford, Connecticut, has finally raised enough money to make a major purchase. They have paid $245,000 to buy out Video Pleasures – a porn shop. According to Bishop Jay Ramirez, they will take their new acquisition and close it down. Which begs the question:

Will the church be sponsoring a “Going out of Business” sale?

I have to admit, this is an interesting (and potentially profitable) new approach to enforcing morality. Especially considering the fact that, according to Ramirez, this is only the first step. The church plans to continue its crusade by raising more and more money to buy out the remaining adult video stores in Milford.

I can’t be the only one who sees amazing business potential blossoming in Milford’s adult entertainment industry. Particularly in the closing of it. With a rich enough church community and an enterprising purchase-and-dump system, one could be a millionaire in a matter of months (note to readers: remember where you got the idea and be generous).

At least the former owner of Video Pleasures will be happy now. With 245 thou in hand, he can finally afford to leave behind his grotty little smut shop and pursue his true goal.

Opening up his own adult film studio and producing original videos.

And, in other news, Bishop Jay Ramirez announced that – contrary to popular Biblical interpretation – Jesus did not throw the moneychangers out of the temple. He quietly bought out their operations and phased them out over the course of a year while allowing the moneychangers to set up in temples across town.

Ramirez also announced that everybody (above the age of 17, of course) was welcome to attend Video Pleasures’ “Great Jumpin’ Jesus, We’re Goin’ Out of Business Sale!” 25% off all couples videos, 50% for fetish porn, and a group discount for parties of twelve or more.