Monday, September 30, 2002

Torricelli Bows Out, Leaving Opponent's Campaign in Shambles

Losing Bob Torricelli is going to hurt a lot of people, particularly those who paid top dollar for him. When I buy a Senator, I like him not only to stay bought, but to remain a Senator. What good is Torricelli to his benefactors now? Can he play their kids' birthday parties? He'd better practice twisting balloon animals, and fast.

But no one is going to be hit harder than Torricelli's opponent, Doug Forrester. I mean, just look at this guy's website (and do it now, before his operatives change it); it is genuinely hard to find stuff about Doug Forrester on it.

With only a month left, it might be too late for Forrester to run as anything but Not Bob Torricelli (and given Forrester's political views and the state he's running in, that's certainly for the best). But the problem is that Forrester will now be running against somebody else who's also Not Bob Torricelli. And New Jersey folks might be more likely to vote for a Democrat who's Not Bob Torricelli than a Republican who's Not Bob Torricelli.

So what's Forrester to do? Well, the FA Political Strategy Think Tank (FAPSTT) has identified two options:

1) Claim that the new candidate is Bob Torricelli. The public might not buy that the new Democratic Not Bob Torricelli literally is Bob Torricelli (though it might be worth a try...), but it's more than possible to imply that he's like Bob Torricelli. After all, the new Not Bob Torricelli is from the "party of Bob Torricelli," and might be descibed as such. "Brought to you by the same folks who gave you Bob Torricelli..." "The guy who endorsed Bob Torricelli..." See? This keeps Bob Torricelli's name in the Not Bob Torricelli campaign long after Bob Torricelli himself has gone off into the balloon-animal racket.

2) Claim that Forrester has been Not Bob Torricelli for longer than this new upstart has been Not Bob Torricelli. In other words, Forrester has always been all about not being Bob Torricelli, while this new guy is just jumping on the "I'm not Bob Torricelli" bandwagon. Forrester was Not Bob Torricelli before it was cool to not be Bob Torricelli. Why vote for some knock-off, not-Johnny-come-lately Not Bob Torricelli when you can vote for the original Not Bob Torricelli?

With a combination of the above, Forrester may be able to maintain his current lead in the polls wthout ever approaching those dangerous, shifty issues that would otherwise doom his campaign. "Forrester '02: Still Not Bob!"

posted by Adam Felber at 5:26 PM

Sunday, September 29, 2002

Outrage at UnAmerican Statements From Iraq-loving Congressman

Washington, Sunday (FA wire) - Administration officials and Republican congressmen were quick to condemn and refute the outrageous, dangerous flim-flammery offered up by Congressman Jim McDermott (D., WA) on ABC's "This Week..."

McDermott said: "They (Iraqi officials) said they would allow us to go look anywhere we wanted, and until they don't do that, there is no need to do this coercive stuff where you bring in helicopters and armed people and storm buildings."

"Why, that's insane," argued White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, "it's completely out of bounds. It clearly doesn't make sense because, well...hold on, I've got another call."

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott was even more persuasive. "Sure, it's all well and good for McDermott to suggest that we lose nothing by allowing Iraq the opportunity to prove they really will let us inspect, but in the real world, it doesn't work that way. We have intelligence that pinpoints Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in places where we wouldn't think to look when we went in to inspect."

Perhaps the most outspoken and measured condemnation came from Vice President Dick Cheney, who spoke to reporters via a Ouija board from an undisclosed location. "The McDermott plan could easily take a month or more. Our latest information is that while Saddam Hussein does not currently possess nuclear weapons, he is likely to have them within 20 to 25 minutes. Is that a risk worth taking? Hrrrmp?"

posted by Adam Felber at 5:41 PM

Friday, September 27, 2002

Zacarias Moussaoui in "The G's and Me!"

[In case you hadn't heard, here's the story...]

posted by Adam Felber at 10:52 PM

Thursday, September 26, 2002

Disinheriting the Wind

[UPDATE! The results are in - I guess I'll be headin' down to Georgia to "get my teach on."]

Over in Cobb County, Georgia, the Board of Education is poised to vote on whether it's okay to teach "alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution." They're not necessarily saying what alternatives. Just.... alternatives. After all, says a local resident, "evolution has not been proven."

Fair enough. As it happens, I've got some swell theories that could benefit schoolchildrebn enormously once their minds are freed from the tyranny of Darwin. Please note that the following theories all have the virtue of being technically possible and never disproven, and I urge parents in the Atlanta area to print up this page and bring it to their school boards. Here, then, is the
Fanatical Apathy Report on Alternatives to Evolution.

"The Grassy Knoll Theory" - Man wasn't created over a period of millions of years of painstaking genetic change. Man was created in a Philadelphia laboratory in 1977, complete with implanted memories, "historical resources," and a bogus fossil record. Nevermind who did this - it wouldn't be safe for you if you knew. This theory (and others like it) is one that is intermittently supported by marijuana smokers all over the world. Think about it, man: Somewhere, somehow, at the back of your mind, you've always known that there was never a time when we weren't awaiting the next "Star Wars" sequel.

"The Clumsy God Theory" - God did create mankind from whole cloth, just like the Bible says. But it took him more than seven days; it took millions of years of trial, error, and more error. The so-called "fossil record of evolution" is actually a sad history of Clumsy God's rough drafts. What archeologists should be looking for on their digs are hasitly-scrawled Post-It notes that say things like "Make forehead higher - brain doesn't fit," and "How's he gonna put on his pants with that tail in the way?"

"The Botany Bay Theory" - Evolution was progressing smoothly here on Earth until a few thousand years ago when a shipful of aliens crash-landed here, wiped out the Neanderthals, and took over the planet. This not only accounts for the so-called "missing link," it also explains why we're allergic to everything.

[Note: "The Botany Bay Theory" is also sometimes known as "Scientology." But it costs more if you call it that.]

posted by Adam Felber at 8:16 PM

Wednesday, September 25, 2002

The Last Temptation of Fanatical Apathy

I wonÕt! I wonÕt! I will not become yet another squabbling political blogger. I promise.

I often get emails asking why I donÕt Òtake onÓ certain columnists and bloggers, why I donÕt jump into the punditry fray a bit more... Well, for one, thereÕs plenty of poli-bloggers out there; some good, some downright awful. And IÕve got other things to do. And it gets pretty ugly out there. So I wonÕt get involvedÉ

And yet to really explain why, I have to do some of that selfsame squabbling for a moment. Sorry. I am truly sorry. I'll make a fun new cartoon soon and we can forget this ever happened, okay?

---------------------------------

LetÕs trace one story thatÕll illustrate the level of journalism out there these daysÉ

Today, in a multi-linked post that seeks to ridicule Al Gore, InstapunditÕs Glenn Reynolds links to Crooow Blog, saying ÒHenry Hanks has done some research.Ó

Over on HenryÕs page, we see the Òresearch:Ó Mr. Hanks has cut nÕ pasted a tidbit from todayÕs Fox News page, Brit HumeÕs Gore-bashing to be precise. Although Hanks links to the source for one of Hume's quotes (Gore's recent speech), the juxtaposition is Hume's.

So their we have it: Instapundit, which gets about 50,000 hits per day, is praising research that isnÕt really research at all, inadvertently characterizing a mainstream media commentary as a piece of groundbreaking blogger reportage. The piece, a juxtaposition of two Al Gore quotes that purportedly show a huge about-face, is now all over the internet, credited to various sources.

But wait. It doesnÕt end there. Dear god, it gets worse.

What of HumeÕs piece? It lambastes Gore for saying this week that he felt Òbetrayed by the first Bush administration's hasty departure from the battlefieldÓ back in Õ91. Hume goes on to quote Gore on the Senate floor on April 18th, 1991 as saying, ÒI want to state this clearly, President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein's survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus that the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that our objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop."

Pretty damning, no?

No.

First off, Hume truncates Gore's words from his recent speech to avoid including anything about Kurds and Shi'ites. This is an important excision, because it creates the impression that Gore is now claiming he wishes Bush had marched on to Saddam's rec room and redecorated the place.

But more importantly, anyone who felt like doing any real research or reporting semi-honestly could tell you that GoreÕs activities on April 18th, 1991 showed his true position on Iraq to be extremely clear and exactly what he now claims it was. All you gotta do is visit The Congressional Record, which is available to anyone with an internet connection.

Gore did acknowledge that the goal of the Gulf War was to free Kuwait, and he wanted to be clear that he didnÕt blame Bush for not continuing on to Baghdad. But his lengthy speech on the Senate floor that day was about the further international action that should be taken against Iraq, especially because of Saddam HusseinÕs (then) recent violence towards the Kurdish people and other dissidents. HereÕs some quotations that round out GoreÕs remarks from that same day:

ÒIt is essential now, however, to take stock of what else needs to be done, not only in the coming days but also in the longer term. We must plan better or be continuously forced to improvise. The suffering of the Kurds and others should be warning enough to us about the costs of being constantly overtaken by events. The President is having to make up for lost time now, and that, among other things increases the risk factor for our own troops. It is essential that planning for the relief operation overcome the disabilities of a late start. There are indications that the President has caught even the United Nations offguard, and it is not clear whether he has made sure that Saddam Hussein will stay out of the way.Ó

ÒIn the south of Iraq, there is yet another different kind of problem. As we withdraw our military forces from the occupied zone, it seems to me inconceivable that the almost 40,000 individuals who have left that zone and put their lives in our care should be turned over to Iraqi authority against their will. The image of men, women, and children in that part of Iraq, on the Kuwaiti border, hanging on to the trousers' legs of American soldiers as they withdraw, looking over their shoulders at Iraqi machine guns poised to deal with those who have in some cases been demonstrating publicly against the regime of Saddam Hussein , that cannot be allowed to take place. It is not too extreme to say that their blood would be on our hands if we were to acquiesce in such a tragedy.Ó

ÒAnd again here it seems clear additional steps are now needed. The behavior of Iraqi civilian police toward the people within the demilitarized zone needs to be officially included within the mandate of the U.N. forces. Kuwait's border with Iraq must be porous enough to permit flight and relocation to an emergency zone in the north of Kuwait, should that prove to be necessary.Ó

And finally Ð

ÒThe removal of Saddam Hussein alone will not reveal a layer of honest and decent underlings to lead Iraq. It will only reveal the next layer of those who are complicit in his crimes. Anyone who has studied the history of his rule understands that fact. If we look the truth in the eye, we will see it is not only Saddam Hussein who must be removed from power, but his government.

Until Saddam Hussein is gone, until his government is gone, and until the Iraqi state is reestablished on a new footing, there can be no solution on an enduring basis for the hundreds of thousands of refugees, nor durable basis for regional security and stability.

We must recognize that simple, if difficult fact.

This conclusion leads to clear operational consequences for American policy. We must decide that our goals in this region cannot be mortgaged to the survival of a government which has demonstrated time and time again a capacity for mass, unconscionable violence, against its own people and against its neighbors. On the contrary, our efforts must be focused on isolating that government internationally, and on encouraging its downfall at the hands of authentic forces from within Iraq.Ó

This sounds quite a bit like GoreÕs current position, doesnÕt it?

--------

That, dear readers, is why IÕd rather stick to satirical commentary on actual news stories rather than get involved in the finger-pointing under-researched blather that passes for political discourse on our brave new web (and make no mistake, said blather ain't comin' just from the right, neither...). Comedy's much more fun. And much more honest.

[Note: I don't mean to imply here that Glenn Reynolds is being dishonest. Nor is Henry Hanks or Brit Hume. Okay, maybe Brit Hume. Probably Brit Hume. But mainly this is dishonesty by committee, which is generally just a convergence of sloppiness and bias-based credulity.]

[Update: Andrew Sullivan and the Daily Rant (oh, find the links yourselves... I'm wasting too much time on this!) have both picked up this story and credited it to Hanks. The number of people who will come across this miscredited, under-researched distortion is now in the hundreds of thousands. And don't expect too many the above sites to print corrections. They're bloggers, after all, not ol' fashioned journalists, and the only relevant "standards" are html and javascript.]

[Egad, I must stop this....must....stop.....typing......]

posted by Adam Felber at 4:21 PM

Who's Really In the Loop

INT. OVAL OFFICE - LATE AFTERNOON

GEORGE W. BUSH and DONALD RUMSFELD are in the midst of a meeting. They've apparently been there for a while - the room is cluttered with dossiers, charts, and picked-over sandwich platters. As they speak, aides periodically filter in and out, depositing documents and sandwiches and carting off debris.

BUSH: No, really - Al Gore? What was he goin' on about?

RUMSFELD (sighing patiently): Like I said, he called Iraq a distraction. Basically questioned our ability to concentrate on two things at once.

BUSH: No!

RUMSFELD: Yessir. He thought the diplomatic fallout from unilateral action might weaken our alliances and impede our ability to locate and capture the architects of 9/11.

BUSH: They were architects?

RUMSFELD: Well, not really, sir...

BUSH: You got some bad intel there, Rummy. Those guys weren't architects.

RUMSFELD: Good point, sir.

BUSH: Kinda the opposite, really. Heh heh. (pause) 'Cuz, like, architects build things, see and -

RUMSFELD: I get it. Good one, Mr. President.

BUSH: Speakin' of that, though - have we appremanded that Bin Laden yet?

RUMSFELD: Not yet, Mr. President. We think he's either in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or somewhere else. Or he's dead.

BUSH: Damn, that's frusticating! Keep looking. Y'know, "Leave no stone a turd," like they say. Damn. If only we had an enemy we could pin down to a single country.

RUMSFELD: Well, there's Saddam Hussein, Mr. President. Over in Iraq.

BUSH: Excellent! Good thinkin', Rummy! Hey, ya think we could invade Iraq?

RUMSFELD: That's what we've been planning, sir.

BUSH: Cool! Wait'll I tell Dad! Let's go in with guns a-blazing, Cap'n. Send in everyone, and I mean everyone!

RUMSFELD: Well, we have to reserve some forces for the hunt for Bin Laden, Mr. President.

BUSH: Who?

RUMSFELD (wearily): Bin Laden, sir. 9/11...

BUSH: Right... Have we caught him y-

RUMSFELD: - Mr. President, we have to focus on both issues. Otherwise we'll be proving Al Gore right.

BUSH: Huh? Al Gore?

RUMSFELD: Yes, as we've discussed, he made a speech this week...

BUSH: No, really - Al Gore? What was he goin' on about?

RUMSFELD (sighing patiently): Like I said, he called Iraq a distraction. Basically questioned our ability to concentrate on two things at once.

BUSH: No!

[etc.]

posted by Adam Felber at 10:51 AM

Tuesday, September 24, 2002

War With Iraq: What You Should Think

First off, you should understand that nobody cares what you think. When running for office, George W. Bush let us know that he would not be the sort of leader who governed according to the results of the latest polls. At the time, no one realized that this would include the results of the general election. But you gotta admit that the guy was nothing if not honest about thatÉ

Okay, now despite this, thereÕs a lot of people out there offering you their opinions: Do we need to immediately effect a regime and topography change in Iraq? Or should we wait? Or should we try something clever, like luring Saddam out of the country and quickly changing all the locks so he canÕt get back in? All of these opinions have something important in common, as weÕll see in a moment. If I told you now, IÕd have nothing to write about.

First, letÕs look at the Òhawks.Ó All over the country, hundreds of pundits, columnists, analysts and wags are calling for immediate strikes on Iraq. In newspapers, on television, on the web, in columns and blogs and letters to the editor they tell you to Get Your Head Out Of The Sand. Iraq, they say, is amassing an arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and they could use them at any moment or distribute them to someone who would. They quote each other extensively and treat those who would argue for a more cautious approach with smug disdain, if not outright hostility.

[fig. 1 - Bloodthirsty oil-grabbing testosterone-
infused babykilling warmongering cowboy]

What the hawks do not have, quite simply, is evidence. Not a single person who youÕve been reading or hearing railing against Iraq has a single shred of first-hand evidence that Iraq is amassing weapons of mass destruction, or if said programs are complete or nearing completion. Nor do they have any credible and specific second-hand information. Third-hand information is scarce as well. They can point to no photos, documents, or eyewitness reports that would indicate that Iraq didnÕt abandon their illegal weapons programs a few years ago. Their opinions are loud and vociferous, but they quite simply do not know.

Now lets look at the Òdoves,Ó an uneasy brotherhood of liberals and so-called pragmatic conservatives. TheyÕre everywhere, and they affect an attitude of increasingly uneasy disdain and headshaking superiority towards the hawks. An attack on Iraq is not urgent, they tell you, at least not so urgent that weÕd ought not to wait for weapons inspections, international support, and a sign from God. ThereÕs still time, they say. They go on and on about how the greater danger is losing our allies in Europe and in the Middle East, and how this could slow down our war on terror, and how weÕd have to spend endless, expensive years in Iraq - rebuilding, keeping the peace, and tethering the landscape down to keep it from floating away after weÕve removed all the oil.

[fig. 2 - Cowardly pansy-assed do-nothing
peacenik-loving latter day Neville Chamberlain.]

What the doves lack, undeniably, is evidence. They have no reason to believe that Saddam isnÕt currently applying decals and last-minute frills to his newly-completed multiple-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles, which he intends to launch at Kansas City as soon as the paint is dry. There have been no weapons inspections, no satellite photos, no believable exonerations, nor anything else that would tell the doves that threat from Iraq isnÕt clear, present, and dire.

At this point you might be thinking that you have no idea what to think about all of this. That is good. Hold onto that. It is a position that contains more intellectual honesty than both sides of the debate put together. See, the punditry canÕt bear the idea that they might not have enough information to form a valid conclusion, and simply calling repeatedly for more specific information from our government (which is apparently not coming anyway) is boring. So the two sides stand in their respective echo chambers, emboldening each other with their increasingly loud but unchangingly uninformed opinions. Whatever they may say, their views are based on faith, assumption, and bias, but not on any real idea of whatÕs going on inside Iraq.

At some point we all will find out the truth about SaddamÕs Weapons of Mass Destruction, though it seems clear that this will happen after the war rather than before. At that point, those who were right about it will feel vindicated, despite the fact that theyÕd might as well have been betting on a coin flip. Those who were wrong will cry foul and begin spinning elaborate conspiracy theories. The world were turn out to be either a safer or a vastly more dangerous place.

And you, you who were courageous enough to utter the simple and logically necessary phrase ÒI donÕt know,Ó you will look like a spineless wimp.

posted by Adam Felber at 1:28 PM

Monday, September 23, 2002

Fanatical Apathy's 1st Annual Emmy Awards Awards

Who will judge the judges? Worry not, Fanatical Apathy is here to honor all that was noteworthy about last night's awards spectacular. Well, almost all that was noteworthy; like a lot of America, the FA Awards Committee missed the middle hour of the broadcast because it conflicted with a fine new episode of "The Sopranos." But the general consensus is that not much happened during that hour anyway (and that Chris' heroin problem is going to get worse and that Tony's sister is once again headin' for a big fall...). Here then, are the Awards:

Lamest Attempt at Humor - Winner: Larry King for "Makeup!." In a tribute to Milton Berle, Mr. King concluded by saying "make up," whereupon he was assaulted by a midget bearing a giant powder puff. Despite the wonderfully ironic visual metaphor for Mr. King's style of interviewing, the bit only proved that being the butt of a slapstick gag is a skill, and one that Larry King does not possess. The visual impact of the classic Berle gag was also impeded by the enormous stage: The midget couldn't suddenly appear out of nowhere as the bit requires. Instead, he had to gallop across 50 yards of real estate as Mr. King patiently waited to be "surprised" and for hilarity to fail to ensue.

Most Predictable Snubee - Winner: HBO. It's become a yearly tradition that HBO's programs are rewarded with nominations for being fresh, innovative, intelligent, and well-written. They are then largely deprived of actual awards because they make the networks look bad by being fresh, innovative, intelligent and well-written. This process of cooptation by friendly exclusion is not unique to the TV industry, as you could learn by talking to John McCain, Bill Bradley, Jerry Brown, or anyone else who's been relegated to holding a pole in the Big Tent.

Oddest New Fashion Trend - Winner: Uncleavage. Dresses this year featured wide, plunging necklines, though the term "neckline" becomes questionable when they terminate at navel-level. The expanses of exposed flesh were far too wide to allow for conventional cleavage. Instead, breasts had to be forcibly separated like quarreling children (remember all those muffled cries of "Hey! She's on my side!" from last year?) and sequestered in the vicinity of their respective armpits.

Best Uncomfortable Moment - Winner: Rudolph Guiliani. After a tasteful, touching speech and a commercial break, the formerly controversial New York mayor who is now destined to be remembered as "that 9/11 guy" was still on the stage! There was an overlong pause during which the world wondered whether some mistake had been made, and then he began to speak again. It became clear that some brilliant network executive had hit upon the great idea of having Guiliani present the award for "Best Drama Series," and to do so after the commercial break without any further introduction or fanfare. Guiliani seemed just as confused as we were. Some semblance of conservative dignity was maintained, however, as "The West Wing" took the award; fortunately for Guiliani, the show about the gay funeral director and his pot-smoking brother was on HBO.

posted by Adam Felber at 1:31 PM

Saturday, September 21, 2002

Fox: Revitalizing Democracy

By now you may have read the Drudge scoop on Fox's newest reality show - an "American Idol" style series that will help the United States choose its next president.

Don't be fooled - the winner of this contest might just be our next President (as my friend Mo Rocca pointed out on Crossfire recently, more people voted for their "American Idol" than will vote in this fall's mid-term elections!). We've run all the relevant data by our Fanatical Apathy analysts, and we've come up with some tentative conclusions: If Fox viewers stay true to form, our next president will have moderate conservative views, a strong pro-market stance, an aggressive interventionist military policy, and large, bouncy breasts.

posted by Adam Felber at 6:31 PM

Thursday, September 19, 2002

posted by Adam Felber at 7:54 PM

Wednesday, September 18, 2002

Domestic Tranquility: Your Congress in Action!

Sure, we're all aware that Congress (now that it's been back from vacation for a couple of weeks), is considering resolutions about sacking Iraq and pointing fingers about the 9/11 intelligence failures. But don't for a minute think that our legislature is neglecting the home front. Here's what they've been doing to strengthen our national pride, security, and the economy:

H. Res. 94: Recognizing and honoring Venus and Serena Williams - This shocking resolution had 114 sponsors and passed 398-0. The vote was taken the same day that the Pentagon announced it was sending tanks to the Persian Gulf "for exercises." 25 minutes of persuasive speechifying was all that was needed to convince the House that the Williams sisters are, like, totally awesome.

Renaming Post Offices - In three separate resolutions on the 4th and 17th of September, the House engaged in 35 minutes of presumably lively debate over the renaming of three US. Post Office facilities.

H.RES. 401 Yay, Flight Attendants! - This one's been in the works since May, so it's no wonder that it took only five minutes for the House to agree to the importance of "recognizing the heroism and courage displayed by airline flight attendants each day." There's no actual legislation here, just recognition of the fact that the job has considerable hazards in this day and age. Don't expect a similar resolution for airport counterpeople or baggage handlers until they start doling out little bottles of Johnny Walker to frequent-flyin' Congressmen.

H.CON.RES.320: Scleroderma is bad! - This one was controversial, passing by a narrow 369-2 and requiring 45 minutes of debate. Though it technically only recognizes that scleroderma is a bad disease and that the people fighting it are good and probably ought to keep doing it, the resolution was opposed by Representative Jeff Flake (R., AZ) and Fanatical Apathy's own Official Congressman Ron Paul! Presumably, both men were concerned that recognizing a disease might be an early step towards wasting taxpayers' money on it.

There's more - the resolution to commend the winners of the Little League World Series, the acknowledgement that the Irish-U.S. Business Summit was "historically significant," and today's vehement resolution that the practice of wrapping up and then sitting upon your adopted children is probably unsafe.

But for those who think that the U.S. House of Representatives shies away from the important legislation of the day in favor of making long, non-binding pronouncements about uncontroversial, obvious things, bear this in mind: Without the above decisive actions, certain things would be very, very different in this country. Like... um... well... "The Congressional Record," for instance.

posted by Adam Felber at 3:14 PM

Tuesday, September 17, 2002

Iraq Approves "Unconditional" Weapons Inspections; U.S. "Pleased"

In the wake of building pressure, the Iraqi government announced yesterday that they would allow weapons inspections "without conditions." The U.S. was cautiously "optimistic" about this "important step."

According to a "letter" to be delivered to the U.N., Iraq has decided to "prove" that they have "nothing" to hide. The United States is, of course, "glad" to see that the Iraqis have decided to "cooperate" and "hope" that this will lead to a "peaceful resolution" to the current crisis.

"We're 'committed' to this 'new' course of action and 'welcome' the return of 'weapons inspectors,'" said Iraq's "Deputy" Prime Minister "Tariq" Aziz.

Apparently, it's "possible" to "avoid" war. In the U.S., "President" Bush was similarly "conciliatory." "This sounds like a 'great' opportunity to 'avoid' armed conflict," he said, "like they say, 'An "ounce" of "prevention" is "worth" a "pound" of... other "stuff."'"

posted by Adam Felber at 1:13 PM

Monday, September 16, 2002

Looking for Bushlet?

Apparently, many visitors are here for "Bushlet" today. It was originally posted on August 22nd, but you can just click here.

For those of you who frequent this page and are wondering what this is about, it seems that our sweet prince was found strutting and fretting his hour upon the stage of the NY Times this morning.

posted by Adam Felber at 1:25 PM

Required Reading

What's the hot new book that everyone's talking about?

The "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me!" book hit the stands this week, complete with chapter intros by all your favorite WWDTM personalities, as well as a couple by yours truly. Originally entitled "Wait, Wait: Practicing Principled Leadership in Times of Crisis," we ran afoul of a copyright dispute with the author of another new book with the same subtitle. We eventually gave in on principle; the other book was funnier.

Still, this one's not bad.

posted by Adam Felber at 1:03 PM

Sunday, September 15, 2002

Fanatical Apathy's Summer Blockbuster Retrospective

Let's take a break from the news for the nonce, shall we? Throughout the autumn you, gentle readers, will be perusing the shelves of your local video boutiques, wondering if the movies you missed this summer are worth a look. They're not. But seeing as you're going to rent one anyway, here's a handy guide to the delights in store...

Signs - A terrifying tale of an alien invasion. The aliens are advanced enough to build a fleet of interstellar craft but apparently haven't invented clothing or a saw, either of which would've made their invasion successful.

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones - There are clones, and they do indeed attack. The movie also features the most tepid, unsexy, and unconvincing screen romance since Woody Allen's last film.

Minority Report - Despite the title, it's mostly about white people. Combined with the evidence supplied by "The Matrix," it is now clear that the future is vaguely greenish.

Spiderman - A taut, thought-provoking cautionary tale about the dangers of allowing teenagers to interact with genetically engineered arachnids. Accurate, poignant, and all too real.

The Bourne Identity - Matt Damon, as always, plays a guy who surprises everyone with his hidden abilities. Fans of Matt Damon surprising everyone with his hidden abilities will love this one.

posted by Adam Felber at 5:09 PM

Friday, September 13, 2002

A Message from Our President

posted by Adam Felber at 4:54 PM

Thursday, September 12, 2002

Alert! On carrots and sticks...
It's been pointed out to me that "carrot and stick" (i.e. gentle reward contrasted with harsh punishment) is as common a formulation as what lies below (the "carrot on a stick"). Though the former isn't a phrase I was familiar with, it is indeed valid.... As such, my ridicule of the President's usage of the phrase is... well... uh... wrong. There, I've said it.

Still, I'm going to leave the post as is. Perhaps because I want it to serve as testament to my own fallibility, a living example of the fragility of those whose hubris moves them to choose mockery as a profession.

But mainly because I like the picture.
-Adam

Bush at the U.N.

It's always a little frightening when President Bush orates - we all know that speaking isn't exactly our CiC's strong suit. But in the case of the President speaking to the U.N. today, there was a bit less fear of embarrassment - hey, most of them don't speak English either, right?

Still, Bush did manage to fire off one remark that has had the boys down in the Fanatical Apathy Linguistic Lab puzzling away for the past few hours:

"We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of oil for food and the stick of coalition military strikes."

The Carrot-and-Stick metaphor has a long and distinguished history. It's a simple, easily-understood piece of bucolic imagery despite the unnamed subject that is integral to the whole (see Cornfeld's The Implied Donkey, F.A. Press, 1994). But Bush's formulation somehow manages to escape scrutability:

[fig. 1: Bush's Carrot-and-Stick (dynamic imagery implementation)]

When illustrated by our technicians, the problem becomes clear. Military strikes simply don't work as the metaphorical constant distance between Saddam and "oil-for-food." The "stick" that Bush is presumably referring to is a stick of a completely different kind - one that can be used to beat Saddam when he misbehaves. It is in fact "Teddy Roosevelt's stick," the stick that one might carry while speaking softly. "Oil-for-food" itself makes a lousy carrot. A better approach might be to make "oil-for-food" the entire carrot-and-stick metaphor: Allow the carrot to represent "food" (a satisfying congruence) and the stick to represent the peaceful flow of oil. Then one can add Bush's (Roosevelt's) stick as the whip or switch that goads Saddam forward towards the goal of international good-citizenship.

Even this proposed re-imagining is troublesome; it's a mixed and imperfect metaphor. But it comes a great deal closer to making sense than what was actually uttered today at the U.N., which should have translators, diplomats, and metaphor fans debating vigorously for weeks to come.

posted by Adam Felber at 1:01 PM

Wednesday, September 11, 2002

posted by Adam Felber at 2:24 PM

Tuesday, September 10, 2002

The "Most Liberal State Awards," Part VII: Drug Enforcement and Treatment

This one's a bit of a surprise. You'd think it would be the one of the perennial MLSA finalists, California or Massachusetts. But neither of them show the same bleedin' heart of sympathy and compassion as our winner.

It's Florida.

The Sunshine State is stunningly progressive in its approach to drug abuse. In Florida, if you've got a monkey on your back you're treated as a victim, not a criminal. Even if your habit drives you to theft while in court-ordered treatment, you'll be placed right back in that treatment program so that you can take another crack at "kicking." Same thing if your problem leads you to take up forging prescriptions. And if your jones gets the best of you occasionally and you're caught with, say, a sizeable rock of cocaine, well, don't worry. Governor Bush will understand. In fact, he'll say, " the road to recovery is a difficult and long journey for those afflicted with addiction." He gets it. Back to treatment you go, and it's doubtful that your repeated offenses will ever earn you more than a day or two in prison. Qualifying for this program is easy. You're entitled to it, so long as you admit you've got a problem.

And you have to be the governor's daughter, of course. Otherwise, you're headin' for the slammer.

Still, for those that qualify, it's a truly terrific program. Compassionate, if not conservative. Congratulations to Florida on this well-deserved Libby!

posted by Adam Felber at 11:20 PM

Monday, September 09, 2002

Live from the Ramallah Chuckle Hut

" Fumbling with microphones and repeatedly straying from a prepared text, the Palestinian leader also offered Ñ apparently in jest Ñ to give up executive powers if asked."
- From an AP report on Yassir Arafat's speech to the Palestinian parliament today

The above "quip" doesn't get any more comprehensible when you read the exact text: Arafat said that reforms ought to be based on the separation of powers... "Unless you want to bring somebody else in the executive authority. I wish you could do it and give me a rest."

Maybe there was some kind of a funny face or a seltzer bottle or some other sight-gag involved. Or maybe he just 'sold' the joke really well. Because on paper, it looks like Yassir "Shecky" Arafat was just saying "I'm old." Or "I'm tired." Or "I'm old, tired, and the contents of my mind are slowly drifting away like HAL's at the end of '2001: A Space Odyssey,' my brain's once-complex crenelations now worn down to the smoothness of a desert dune or the cheek of an innocent babe." That last one might be a line that I try to work into my routine from time to time (it slays 'em in Jersey City!), but I don't think that Arafat was kidding at all.

Love him or hate him, Israeli or Palestinian, it's time that we all agreed that Papa Arafat has lost his mind.

Arafat: "Now it looks like you're
all standing on my finger! Lalalala..."

Apparently Arafat has made this "joke" about wanting to be replaced and get some rest "repeatedly," but his aides assert their belief that it's "always in jest." So maybe it's just that a lifetime of doubletalk and the ol' bait-and-switch has finally caught up with him. Come to think of it, that would be kinda funny.

posted by Adam Felber at 6:30 PM

F.A. Exclusive! Secret White House Intelligence Memo Leaked!
FA Out-Shocks Drudge Shocker!

With regard to your 9/2 memo ("Are you sure?") wherein you requested "any and all plans, no matter how weird" that might reveal Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, I truly thought that we had sent you all of our materials. However, I apparently overlooked one plan which we here at the CIA had rejected several times. But seeing as you've requested all plans, allow me to present CovOps file #769000/17b.

It's from one of our boys down in C.O., a certain Lawrence Muford. Muford's a smart kid, but his ideas are a bit on the extravagant side. Note that I am not recommending this plan; I am merely complying with your request to see all available options. I'll let you read Mr. Muford's plan in his own words:

---------------------------------------------------
"File #769000/17b - A Totally Great plan to catch Saddam making weapons!

Okay, this is SO cool! Here's how it goes...

Step 1) We float the story out there that Saddam is taking Viagra!! Right? Like he can't get it up at ALL! We send it through a reputable source, like a network, but also leak it to Drudge or somebody like that so there's plenty of lead time. Then we sit back and let the media go wild with all kinds of pun-heavy headlines ("Saddam's Droopy Scud Won't Launch," "Weapon of Mass Dysfunction," try some!). This'll bring on -

Step 2) Iraq denies that their leader's got no lead in his pencil! They have to, right? I mean, Viagra's American. Trust me, Saddam does NOT want to be the face of erectile dysfunction. No way. So they deny it.

Step 3) So then we're like, "Oh yeah? Then what about this factory you guys set up to manufacture Viagra for Saddam's li'l Hussein? What about this satellite photo?" And we show 'em this picture:

[Obviously, we don't really call him "Uncle Wilty,"
we use technical shit and numbers - this is just a mock-up!]

Step 4) Okay, so now they're really on the spot, and they're all upset because we're telling the world that this is where they're making medicine for Saddam's special friend. And they're all upset so they're like "No, we don't make Viagra there!" and we're like "Yes you do," so they'll be like "No! Really, that's where we manufacture all our biological and nuclear weapons!"

Step 5) Bazammo! We got 'em!"
--------------------------------------------------------

"Bazammo" indeed. Now Mr. President, let me stress that we do not think that this is a very good plan. It's way too baroque, and we suspect that Mr. Muford has been watching too many cartoons. This plan should only be considered after all other means of exposing Saddam's weapons programs have been exhausted, and we are positively desperate to convince our allies an attack is necessary.

We respectfully urge you to read this plan, destroy it, and forget about it, sir. Please.

Yours,

George ("Georgie T")

posted by Adam Felber at 12:03 AM

Friday, September 06, 2002

Letter from an Angry New Yawker

Hiya. Welcome to New York. Make yourselves comfortable, see a show or a ballgame, take in the sights. Siddown, take a load off.

Of course, most of you have been here already in the past year. We've seen you around, heard you, watched you. You've made speeches, attended services, and had your picture taken in front of the smoldering, ruined heart of our city. But this is the first time you've all come here as a group, holding a special session of Congress, and that's pretty special. But we're not so sure that it's necessarily a great thing.

For one, we know that it's not like you're going to get a lot of work done while you're here. We New Yorkers know that it's pretty hard to get serious work done when you're away from your desk. Lemme remind you that you're walking on the dust of tens of thousands of desks, the framed pictures on which were the last that thousands of us ever saw of our families.

Yeah, I know I sound angry. And yeah, most of my anger is reserved for the assholes who took over those planes, and the cruel, obsessed maniacs who helped them do it. But believe me - I've got plenty of anger to go around. I was here a year ago. I didn't have the luxury of turning off my TV to shield my 2 year-old nephew, because the cloud of smoke took up half of the sky. "Buildings collapse," was one of his first sentences, to my everlasting horror - I'd hoped he'd grow up believing that the world around him was solid and defensible, as I did.

Defending his world, making sure that we were safe and free... that was your job. I haven't heard any of you say it, but it's the simple truth. While this atrocity was being planned, you were mired in pointless squabbles, screaming about trivialities and arguing about the President's sex life.

You talk about the "symbolic importance" of being here now, of showing your support for New York. Honestly, we know the nation supports us. The people of America have been talking, calling, visiting, sending emails. And we appreciate it. You guys, though, you should be working.

Like howsabout, for instance, a few of you stop talking about our courage and show some of your own? How about standing up on the floor of the House and talking about the reasons behind 9/11?

We all know that 9/11 happened because of a breakdown of our intelligence networks. Those are the networks that run on money that we New Yorkers pay a large percentage of, and that you guys oversee. When you yell about failure, you're talking about your own.

But what about the other reasons? You know, the ones that you all never seem to mention, perhaps because you're afraid that someone might question your "patriotism?" Things like the reasons why there's enough hatred for us in the Middle East to fuel so many terrorist cells.

Yeah, our support for Israel's a biggie. And it's not gonna change. But we've been doing that for 50 years, and it's not the only reason. America's enemies keep talking about our military's presence on Muslim holy ground in Saudi Arabia, for example. That's what pushed Osama over the edge. "But," you remind us, "their government invited us." Good point. So I guess if the people of Saudi Arabia don't like it, they could always elect someone who- ... Oh, that's right: They can't. And the vast majority of terrorists and their money come out of Saudi Arabia? Why it's almost enough to make you think that the U.S. oughta be reserving its support and protection for democracies, huh?

How about some of you guys standing up in Congress and saying that once in a while?

Your visit kicks off a weeklong orgy of tributes, memorializing and mourning. But most of my friends and colleagues here are planning to avoid their televisions on September 11th. We don't want mass media tributes. We want to spend time with our families and friends, maybe find something trivial to do, maybe even get out of town. Those tributes aren't really for us.

Perhaps you guys should do that. Really. Spend the entire week off camera. We can get through this without you, I swear we can. Just go home, turn off your TV's, spend the week quietly at home. Maybe once in a while look at your families and neighbors and friends and think about how precious they are to you, and how awful it would be to lose even a single one of them to a preventable tragedy.

Then go back to work on September 12th and show some courage of your own. Start talking about exacting stern, unquestionable justice rather than quick, divisive revenge. Stop posturing and campaigning and start fixing. Take the steps - popular or not - that will protect the lives and rights of the people that you were chosen to lead.

And the next time you decide to take a field trip, why don't you go to some place that you succeeded in protecting?

Now that would be some worthwhile symbolism.

posted by Adam Felber at 3:04 PM

Thursday, September 05, 2002

LSU: "Only 'Uninteresting' Persons Need Apply"

Now that Attorney General Ashcroft has thoroughly ruined Steven Hatfill, our national trip back to 1952 is officially in full swing.

Attorney General Ashcroft: "I have here in
my hand... an invisible list..."

The new blacklists are currently limited to muslims and scientists, but give it time: "Person of interest" is an even vaguer and more flexible term than "fellow traveler" or "sympathizer." It is pure, unvarnished, content-less suspicion. This kind of innovation, if nurtured, will help distinguish Ashcroftism from McCarthyism and usher in a new and distinct era of fear and suppression.

But Ashcroft can't do it alone. If you find your colleague or neighbor "interesting" in any way, please don't hesitate to come up with some kind of tenuous link to activities that might possibly be terrorist-related, and call it in. These definitions ain't gonna expand themselves, folks...

We here at Fanatical Apathy applaud LSU, and hereby award the university our coveted F.A. Patriot Award (Invertebrate Division). Congratulations!

posted by Adam Felber at 12:29 PM

Wednesday, September 04, 2002

Pop Day!

First off, how's this for a great set of power-ballad lyrics? Imagine keening guitars and an anthematic beat:

"Friendship cannot mean that you do/
what the friend wants/
even if you have another opinion/
Anything else would not be friendship/
but submission/
-- and I would consider that wrong."

Okay, maybe it would be more suitable for a teen girl's diary, or a "just say no"-themed afterschool special.

But it is in fact none of the above. It's German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder talking about the complex political dynamics of the US's search for international support on our militaristic stand towards Iraq. It's further evidence that American-style Idiocracy is now a worldwide phenomenon, with leaders determined to make speeches that follow the policy of "Leave No Child (mind) Behind."

Schroeder went on to say, "The US thinks it's all that because it's, like, really popular and has all these really nice clothes, but I was just like, 'So what? You're so not the boss of me,' y'know?"

---------------------------------

Okay, now for some real music: You may have heard the band "OK Go" if you caught the live "This American Life" shows last year (they were the house band). Or you might have seen them at a "They Might Be Giants" concert (they were the warm-up band). Their debut album (on Columbia) will hit stores in two weeks.

Tonight they will be on Conan O'Brian.

Am I shamelessly promoting some friends here? You betcha. But they're also a tremendously smart, charismatic, rockin' band. See for yourself this evening.

posted by Adam Felber at 3:44 PM

Tuesday, September 03, 2002

Li'l Georgie in... Back From Camp!

posted by Adam Felber at 1:22 AM