http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:49:19 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/20/134919.php Brian FlemmingI kid you not: The Bush nose job story, entirely manufactured at Brian Flemming's Weblog, made the "Late Show with David Letterman" monologue last night. David Effing Letterman: Here now is my favorite story of the week: a rumor that President George Bush had a nose job, that he had some kind of plastic surgery, he actually had a nose job. And I was thinking, well, if this is true it would be the first new job he's created since taking office.You can hear the monologue as a Real audio file if you click "Dave's Monologue" today at the "Late Show with David Letterman" home page. The nose job joke is the closer, so it's all the way at the end of that audio clip.Or listen to it here:Letterman: Did Bush have a nose job? 32 kbps MP3 | 90K | 22 sec. Sci/Tech12981@blogcritics.org Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:49:19 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/17/175359.php Brian FlemmingSo said Houston Mission Control to Apollo 8. And so said Brian Flemming's Weblog to the Mainstream Media with its exclusive! report on President Bush's plastic surgery.And how did the Mainstream Media respond just one week later?"Transmission acknowledged. We are go." Sci/Tech12867@blogcritics.org Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:53:59 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/13/163925.php Brian FlemmingThe mainstream media is tip-toeing lightly around this issue, but it seems pretty likely to me that the President has a criminal record, probably involving illegal narcotics, dating back to the early 1970s. There is not yet iron-clad proof that would stand up in a court of law, of course, but I think a reasonable person could put together the known facts and reach the conclusion that President Bush is likely hiding an arrest or conviction on a criminal charge, most likely involving drugs, most likely in Texas.You don't have to hate Bush, you don't have to imagine the worst about him. You just have to look at the facts and use logic. For example, if you ask a child five times, "Did you break this lamp rough-housing around the house?" and the child refuses to answer, tries to change the subject, offers that there certainly are lamps that he didn't break, accuses you of hating him and demands defensively why you're asking...well, you don't have iron-clad proof, do you? There's no confession, no smoking gun. But you're allowed to use your brain and assume that it is most likely that the kid broke the lamp.That's all you have to do with this situation. Just take the known facts, including the President's responses to questions, and apply some common sense.The known, undisputed facts:1) NO DENIAL. President Bush and his spokespeople have consistently refused to say whether the President has a criminal record dating to the early 1970s.2) WELL, OKAY, A WEIRD NON-DENIAL DENIAL OF SORTS. The President has played an odd game, however--in response to questions about cocaine use during his 2000 campaign, Bush said he could have passed an FBI background check when his father was President. Those background checks apparently go back 7, 11 or 15 years, depending. George H.W. Bush took office in January 1989. A conviction for, say, possession of illegal narcotics in 1972 would not be covered by any of the possible time spans. Why would Bush give such an odd response? Why not issue a blanket denial? (FYI, he had no problem issuing a blanket denial regarding sex--he freely claimed, in a very clear way, with apparently no privacy concerns whatsoever, that he had never cheated on his wife.)3) HE STOPPED FLYING WITH THE GUARD IN APRIL 1972. This is unusual--the Texas Air National Guard does not take lightly the inactivity of its very expensively trained pilots. 4) HE DIDN'T SHOW UP FOR HIS MEDICAL EXAM IN MAY 1972. As a result, he was officially grounded by the Air Guard. This remarkable fact remains unexplained to this day. David Niewert posts the latest evasions:MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Q Why did the President miss his physical? MR. McCLELLAN: Are you talking about when he -- whether or not he -- I put out a response to that question yesterday, about whether or not he was rated by his commanders as a pilot. Q Can I just ask you today, in 2004 -- MR. McCLELLAN: No. Q -- why he missed his physical? MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, there are some that -- again, this is a question of whether or not he served. That question has been answered through the documents that were released yesterday, and released previously. Q I just want to hear from the White House Press Secretary -- MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not -- no, there are some -- Elisabeth, we've already addressed this issue. I'm not going to engage in gutter politics. I'm going to focus on what we're doing to make the world safer, to make the world a better place, and to make America more prosperous. If others want to engage in gutter politics, that's their choice. But I think that -- Q How is asking that question engaging in gutter politics? MR. McCLELLAN: But I think the American people -- I think the American people deserve better. Q Scott, how does that engage in gutter politics if I ask that question? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've been through these issues. I wasn't accusing you. I'm accusing some -- (Laughter.) But, you see, we went through -- Q -- the answer to that question today? MR. McCLELLAN: No, we went through these -- no, we went -- we've already addressed this issue. We went through it previously. We went through it four years ago, for sure.Yes, with similar evasions--a disingenuous claim that "the question has been answered." If it had been, McClellan would just give a quick recap of that answer and move on.5) BUSH APPARENTLY PERFORMED COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR SEVERAL MONTHS IN 1972. This was totally out of character. He was a carousing young man, then he suddenly became a charity worker for a few months, then he went right back to carousing again. Why the sudden, temporary urge to perform community service? Weird. And unexplained.The evasions regarding community service are now getting bizarre. Josh Marshall put the latest weirdness up on his site. An excerpt: Q: So you won't answer the question or you won't try to find out?Scott McClellan: Well, I'm asking you, what's your interest in that question? I'm just curious, because rumors --Q: Did he have to do any community service while he was in the National Guard?Scott McClellan: Look, Helen, I think the issue here was whether or not the President served in Alabama. Records have documented --Q: I'm asking you a different question. That's permissible.Scott McClellan: Can I answer your question? Sure it is. Can I ask you why you're asking it? I'm just -- out of curiosity myself, is that permissible?Q: Well, I'm interested, of course, in what everybody is interested in. And we have a very --Scott McClellan: Let me just point out that we've released all the information we have related to this issue, the issue of whether or not he served while in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous --Q: I asked you whether he had to do any community service while he was in the National Guard.Scott McClellan: Can I walk through this?Q: It's a very legitimate question.Scott McClellan: And I want to back up and walk through this a little bit. Let's talk about the issue that came up, because this issue came up four years ago, it came up four years before that -- or two years before that, it came up four years before that --Q: Did my question come up four years ago, and was it handled?Scott McClellan: Helen, if you'll let me finish, I want to back up and talk about this --Q: Don't dance around, just give us --Q: It's a straightforward question.(Did I say the evasions were getting "bizarre"? Actually, I guess "sinister" might be more accurate. Asking journalists why they want to know as a response to a question? Um, is this still America?)6) BUSH HAD A NEW DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER ISSUED IN 1995. This is another unusual event with no apparent explanation. But it is what one would do if one wanted to help cover a trail that might lead to an expunged criminal record. You don't have to be a rocket scientist. Every fact above could have an innocent explanation, just like a broken lamp on the floor could have an innocent explanation. But Bush refuses to provide those explanations, which wouldn't be all that hard to do if they existed.There's a good movie on the festival circuit. It's called "Horns and Halos," and I highly recommend seeing it if you can (UPDATE: Cinemax Feb. 18, 7 p.m.). It tells the story of the publication of "Fortunate Son" by J.H. Hatfield. Short version: Hatfield writes book for major publisher suggesting Bush was convicted on drug charges in Texas in 1972. Hatfield himself is exposed as having a criminal record--for solicitation of murder. Publisher says "Yikes" and pulls book. Indie publisher picks up rights and publishes book. Hatfield, facing unrelated fraud charges, later commits suicide.Hatfield cannot at all be considered reliable. However, one conversation he relates in "Fortunate Son" is worth reading, if only because some enterprising reporter might want to check out where it may lead (not that there aren't several doing so already). Here's the (edited) excerpt of Hatfield's conversation with Madge Bush (no relation), for 31 years the director of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Community Center in Houston, which was rumored in 2000 to be the place where young George W. Bush had performed community service as a legal punishment. She tells Hatfield she's denied the story to more than 50 reporters, then Hatfield says (p. 311)..."Ma'am, I know Governor Bush wasn't ordered by a judge to perform community service at MLK Community Center for illegal drug use.""Finally, someone believes me. Then if that's the case, what do you want to talk to me about?""I've done my homework, and I know you serve as a Texas state executive committee woman, precinct judge, and treasurer of the Harris County Democratic Party in Houston.""You got a point to this call or is this where I hang up?""Yes, ma'am, I understand you've been hounded by the press and for that I'm truly sorry. But I just want to know if a diehard Democrat like youself would tell the truth about the governor if the right question was asked?""What do you mean by the 'right question?'""Did Governor Bush perform community service at another agency in Houston or elsewhere in Texas other than the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center?"[Pause.]"No comment...I'm not getting into anything about George except that he's the governor of Texas. That's all I'm gonna say about George W. Bush."[Hangs up.]Do I care if George W. Bush did some blow in the early 1970s and got caught? Not really. Bush, a Democrat, whoever--I wouldn't change my vote one way or another based on anyone's drug use as a young person. It's not a disqualifier.But this is a guy who has fought the drug war like a motherfucker. There are people sitting in jail for life right now, in Texas, for doing what Bush himself may have done. He was their governor, and he did whatever he could to punish them even more.He is accountable for that.[Originally posted to Brian Flemming's Weblog.] Politics12725@blogcritics.org Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:39:25 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/13/014119.php Brian FlemmingYikes. I'm in the majority. The Washington Post reports that in a recent poll "54 percent thought Bush exaggerated or lied about prewar intelligence."These doubts have affected Bush's reelection prospects. In a head-to-head matchup, Kerry beat Bush by 52 percent to 43 percent among registered voters. Bush had more passionate support -- 83 percent of his backers said their support was strong, while 59 percent of Kerry supporters said so -- and retains an advantage over Kerry in dealing with Iraq and the war on terrorism. But the Democrat was seen as better able to handle the economy and jobs, education, and health care -- all top issues with voters this year.The survey found a steep drop in public perceptions of Bush as a president and as an individual. In a sign that Bush has been set back by recent controversies over Iraqi weapons, his National Guard record and the federal budget, the number of Americans viewing him as a "strong leader" has slipped to 61 percent, down 6 points from December and the lowest level since the 2001 terrorist attacks.I'm sure President Bush realizes the problems his lying has gotten him into, and he'll stop lying any day now.(Via CalPundit.) Culture12701@blogcritics.org Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:41:19 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/12/173325.php Brian FlemmingWonkette! linked yesterday to my exclusive! report on President Bush's apparent nose job. And now the established expert site on the matter, Awful Plastic Surgery, has picked up on it:Did George Bush have a nose job? It looks like he might have had his nose tweaked, see this site for evidence. His new nose looks very obvious; it has that 'plastic surgery' look. I will be following up on this story in the next few days!Whoa! We have an Actual Expert Opinion now, so the next level up is officially allowed to report on it. New York Post, where are you on this one? You slooze, you lose.[Originally posted to Brian Flemming's Weblog.] Culture12687@blogcritics.org Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:33:25 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/10/083705.php Brian FlemmingThe pictures above are undoctored. The nose? Not so sure. The political significance? Zero.Nonetheless, it is very important to speculate as much and as loudly as possible. Experts should be consulted. Columns written. International attention gained.We need to focus. What matters is not that this doesn't matter. What matters is that we're open-minded enough to have a discussion--nay, to inflame a discussion--about how it might be possible that it could matter. For example, what if everyone started to talk about it, so even though it doesn't matter it starts to matter?This is a realistic possibility, so it is vital that we start talking as much about it as possible right now.XXXXX UPDATE XXXXX NEW GRAPHIC XXXXXThanks to John Staedler.And a very very special thanks to MATT DRUDGE!!!!!!![Originally posted to Brian Flemming's Weblog.] Culture12585@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:37:05 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/03/040339.php Brian FlemmingIn a Washington Post article on George "AWOL" Bush:White House communications director Dan Bartlett said yesterday that although no official record can be found, "obviously, you don't get an honorable discharge unless you receive the required points for annual service."Some other things that may be "obvious" in the bizarro world in which Dan Bartlett apparently lives:Obviously, you don't get into the Texas Air National Guard, which had a waiting list hundreds long in 1968, without waiting your turn. (Actually, George W. Bush somehow rocketed right past the other would-be draft avoiders on that list without waiting his turn.)Obviously, given the many potential applicants, you don't become a pilot trainee in the Texas Air National Guard without an impressive score on the pilot aptitude test.(Actually, George W. Bush scored the lowest possible passing grade on that test and still got into the program that kept him safely away from the Vietnam War.)Obviously, when you fail to show up for a medical exam and drug test in the Texas Air National Guard, you are arrested as soon as possible and made accountable for your actions.(Actually, despite being suspended from flying duty for missing his 1972 drug test/medical exam, George W. Bush was never arrested, a fact that no doubt sits well with soldiers who actually did time in the brig for similar offenses.)Obviously, you don't get a new drivers license issued by the State of Texas without having a solid legal reason.(Actually, Bush somehow was issued a new drivers license by the State of Texas for mysterious reasons. What records are connected with the old one? He won't say.)The list goes on. While it is obvious that the average person would not have received these special official favors, Dan Bartlett perhaps needs to be reminded of one thing: His boss had a powerful father, who stepped in time and again to get his son out of trouble and to make life easy for him. Securing an honorable discharge for a son who had just gone AWOL to work for a Republican political candidate would have been one in a long string of special favors Poppy secured for his son.Obviously. Politics12292@blogcritics.org Tue, 3 Feb 2004 04:03:39 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/02/043749.php Brian FlemmingI hate it when Apple makes me hate Apple.Tune Recycler, a site where you can give away your Pepsi iTunes codes to help indie artists, puts it well:Pepsi has begun airing an ad for this [iTunes giveaway] promotion that features 16 of the children who were sued by the major record labels for filesharing. It's a perfect cycle: now that these kids and their families have been put in debt by the major labels, they have to sell themselves in a soda commercial to make back some of what they owe.I made a movie about it... Music12260@blogcritics.org Mon, 2 Feb 2004 04:37:49 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/26/004254.php Brian FlemmingTo be "AWOL" means to be absent without leave from a branch of the military. "Desertion," on the other hand, is a "prolonged absence." You can be AWOL for 30 days. After that, you are a deserter. The military is a show-up sort of business. When you don't show up--you get court-martialed. There are peacetime desertions and wartime desertions. Wartime desertions are generally considered worse.In the early 1970s, young George W. Bush was a wartime deserter.This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. It is backed up six ways from Sunday by solid documentary evidence, witness statements and research by journalists.The short version is this: In 1972, Texas Air National Guard Lt. George W. Bush, an F-102 pilot, either failed or failed to show up for his medical exam and drug test. George W. Bush has apparently insisted that his military records be sealed, so we don't know whether he failed the medical exam and drug test or just skipped it, but what is certain is this: he was suspended from flying. Then, basically, he failed to show up for a year of part-time Guard duty. Just didn't show up. He had no permission not to show up, mind you. Just didn't. Normally, the military doesn't like it when pilots in whom it has invested much expensive training just fail/skip drug tests and then don't show up for duty. Usually, a court-martial and the brig come into play in these situations. (Did I mention W. was the son of a Congressman, who pulled strings to get his son safely in the Air Guard in the first place?)It's true that George W. Bush was never convicted of desertion. It's also true that the Hollywood image of desertion (a soldier fleeing a battlefield in cowardice) does not apply here. Bush never got anywhere near a battlefield. He wasn't capable of committing that kind of desertion. But that George W. Bush was guilty of desertion--and in more than just a technical sense (i.e., "missed a few meetings," the RNC spin)--is virtually undeniable. It's not an opinion. It's the only reasonable conclusion from the facts.Personally, I don't care if young George W. Bush was snorting cocaine off the bellies of prostitutes instead of doing his Air Guard duty. His desertion adds some hypocrisy to the more recent Operation Flight Suit, but in the big scheme of things Dubya's lost youth (even though it lasted until he was 40) is not the most pressing of national issues.But when, on a nationally broadcast debate, one of the top three news anchors in America, Peter Jennings, states unequivocally that the claim that George W. Bush is a deserter is "a reckless charge not supported by the facts," there is a problem.A fact being irrelevant is not the same thing as a fact being untrue. Michael Moore is a liar if he says Bush is a deserter when Bush was not in fact absent from duty without permission for more than 30 days.But if Bush was absent without permission for more than 30 days...well, shouldn't we at least proceed based on the facts? Do we start calling people liars because we don't like the facts they cite?The Boston Globe articleA chart laying out the factsMichael Moore's statement Politics12032@blogcritics.org Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:42:54 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/25/052713.php Brian FlemmingI made this extremely fair and balanced video comparing George W. Bush to Howard Dean to help Americans puzzle out who would be better for America: an inspiring leader, or a witless drunk? I report, you decide.Oh, and don't miss the Diane Sawyer interview with Howard and Judy Dean. (And, yes, she is known as "Judy Dean" to her friends and neighbors--she goes by "Dr. Judith Steinberg" at her office.) Video12009@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:27:13 EST