Dept. of Retro Onion

Posted on by

This Onion story just isn’t anywhere nearly as funny was it was four years ago:

“We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two,” Bush said. “Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there’s much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation’s hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it.”

Sigh.

In which we point out other clever people

Posted on by

Missouri Loves Company has this to say about Hero:

“Hero,” by the way, is an outstanding movie, even if the fight scene between the two chicks did remind me of a Bjork video. Think Rashamon meets Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. With an athletic, sword-wielding Bjork.

We recommend you go read the whole post, especially the part about people demanding their money back because they didn’t understand what “subtitled” meant on the poster.

In case you missed it, we live in a police state

Posted on by

At least, you know, if there’s a convention in town. Check it out; the NYPD basically arrested everyone they could find — more than at any other political convention in the US — and held them far as long as they wanted (i.e., until the convention was over) with no regard for whether or not the people arrested were breaking laws, or were really even protesters.

Dollars to donuts says there will be no real repercussions against the cops who did this, and even less against those who ordered it, and that makes it much easier for NYPD or LAPD or anyone to do exactly the same thing again, any time they decide they want to quash legal dissent.

Who is it that hates freedom again? I forget.

If you think secret laws are bad, how about secret arguments supporting them?

Posted on by

John Gilmore has sued the US Government in order to force it to disclose the laws requiring ID checks when we fly; the government’s response has been that the laws themselves must remain secret for “national security reasons,” which precisely no one with half a brain believes.

It gets better, though: now the Feds are insisting that their own arguments in the case must be kept secret as well. What about oversight?

“We’re dealing with the government’s review of a secret law that now they want a secret judicial review for,” one of Gilmore’s attorneys, James Harrison, said in a phone interview Sunday. “This administration’s use of a secret law is more dangerous to the security of the nation than any external threat.”

Damn right. I fear what an unchecked Executive may do far more than I fear Al Queda. We will always have enemies beyond our borders, either because we backed friendly dictators or committed some other foreign policy cockup, or because sometimes people just hate for no good reason; that’s a given. But we shouldn’t have to deal with these kinds of enemies of freedom, liberty, and transparent government within our own republic. Christ.

Who’s unfit?

Posted on by

From Sen. Kerry:

Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you’re still on their payroll makes you unfit. That’s the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it’s not going to change. I believe it’s time to move America in a new direction; I believe it’s time to set a new course for America.

Atrios has more, natch.

JWZ gets the best pix

Posted on by

We recommend you investigate this (“Everybody ready? Okay. Now, you’re walking down into the dungeon — Rummy, pay attention!”), this (“Good God! What is that thing?”), and, if you’re feeling milky, this (“Wait. He shoots what from where? On purpose?”).

Of course, we should remember that whole “justice deferred is justiced denied” thing

Posted on by

I’m sorry the sanctions against the city and NYPD weren’t harsher, but a NYC judge has ordered the release of more than 500 “demonstrators” (including some juveniles) held too long in legal limbo in what was clearly a ploy to assure a quiet RNC, and never mind the Constitution.

The good news is “the courts still work.” The bad news is it took this long, and the people who ordered this approach — “arrest everydamnbody, and hold ’em until somebody with a lawyer starts squawking” — will see no real consequences.

We’re not sure what to tell you about this, but click it anyway.

Posted on by

Spider-Man Reviews Crayons:

The cool thing about “Yellow” is that you always end up needing it a lot more than you anticipate. Nobody ever picks yellow out of the box just for the Hell of it, but once you start coloring in whatever coloring book or colored coloring you colored, there’s a 99.9% chance you’ll eventually need the yellow for something. In that I cheerfully liken it to bay leaves.

What more need be said?

Um.

Posted on by

In the annals of advertising, there are a variety of campaigns that really stand out. “Where’s the Beef” became a national catchphrase; Miller Lite’s initial “Tastes Great/Less Filling” ads lived for a full generation.

We’re not sure, but we think Carl’s Jr. (Quicktime) may be on to something here. But we’re not sure it’s precisely what they’re shooting for.

If they’re going to refute Al Franken’s allegations, they need to stop doing shit like this

Posted on by

Dennis Hastert — the Speaker of the House, for crying out loud — suggested in an interview with Chris Wallace that progressive patron George Soros was funded by drug lords:

On “Fox News Sunday,” the Illinois Republican insinuated that billionaire financier George Soros, who’s funding an independent media campaign to dislodge President Bush, is getting his big bucks from shady sources. “You know, I don’t know where George Soros gets his money. I don’t know where – if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from,” Hastert mused. An astonished Chris Wallace asked: “Excuse me?” The Speaker went on: “Well, that’s what he’s been for a number years – George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he’s got a lot of ancillary interests out there.” Wallace: “You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel?” Hastert: “I’m saying I don’t know where groups – could be people who support this type of thing. I’m saying we don’t know.” Daily News, via TPM

As Josh Marshall put it, there’s literally no depth to which these people won’t sink. Lest you think this is just a case of loose lips, Marshall notes that Hastert has been repeating the charge at the convention this week, a technique we might call the Big Lie, because that’s what it is. Soros, however, isn’t taking this lying down, and has issued a public challenge for Hastert to put up or shut up:

I’ve talked to reporters who’ve asked Hastert this around the convention hall. And he’s been aggressively restating the ‘charge.’ I’m told he even shoved his finger in the chest of one of them when repeating it. Now Soros has written this letter to Hastert, asking him to put up or shut up, or, more specifically “either substantiate these claims — which you canont do because they are false — or publicly apologize for attempting to defame my character and damage my reputation.” Whatever you think of Soros, this is the sort of slur that only comes from a real pig. And to think that the author of it is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and out in the light of day. TPM

Remember: one side of this race has aggressively mislead the American people at every possible turn, and when they’re not misleading they’re stonewalling (e.g., the 9/11 commission, or GWB’s military records). Their fetish for secrecy is anathema to the freedoms we claim to cherish. They have and will continue to disparage the records of honored veterans with ridiculous insinuations (see Cleland, Max) or outright lies (see Kerry, John). They’ll even recruit other honored veterans who know better (see Dole, Bob). If someone with resources puts his money where his mouth is, they insinuate that he’s up to no good just because he’s against their agenda. They do this because they cannot compete on ideas and merits, and know the only way they can keep power is to keep the debate from every becoming substantive by cultivating a culture of fear and lies. They will keep doing this until someone calls them on their bullshit, and you can be damned sure the lapdog mainstream media won’t do that. Pay attention.

Dept. of Egregious Programming Jokes

Posted on by

In web development, you’re always working to minimize the amount of intelligence in the web page itself while maximizing user-friendliness. It’s a hard thing to balance, of course, and nowhere is this problem more obvious than in validation of inputs, like dates. Usually, dates are put in using two or three “select” controls, though sometimes the year is a text box. Of course, unless you imbue these controls with a bit of intelligence, you can get dates that make no sense (September 31, for example, but with leap years it’s more complex than that).

For a couple days, I’ve been working with a client on how we might deal with yet-another-date-entry, this time for a birthday. While I’ve coded the fancy Javascript and DHTML stuff required to make one of these work in the past, I’ve come to believe that depending on Javascript is bad juju, and so we were trying to think of ways around it (there aren’t really any; you just have to do your validation on the server). In thinking of options, though, my partner and I jokingly suggested that we could just put in a list of all the birthdays, and have the user pick. This would mean:

  • We’d have no chance of getting invalid input; and
  • We’d have NO client-side scripting involved.

This combination of factors respresents, at first blush, a sort of web programming Holy Grail, but only until you inspect how it’s been accomplished. This particular approach is untenable on its face for lots of reasons, but that doesn’t make it any less funny to deploy just long enough to get a laugh out of the project manager and client, so I set out do just that.

Creating such a select-box involves having a defined list of options; the only difference here is that the list of options would be very, very long. Here some interesting things to note about this particular list of options:

  • It contains every date between January 1, 1900, and August 25, 2004.
  • This means the file — and the resulting select-box on the page — contains some 38,233 entries. Next time you complain about how many entries there are on FedEx.com’s country picker, remember this little experiment.
  • The list took too long to generate on the fly (i.e., every time the page loaded), so I wrote another script to dump the whole long option list to a file that I then included in the HTML template.
  • The file containing the list is 2.1 megabytes all by itself, so the page takes a couple minutes to download even on broadband; best not to try it at all on dial-up.

I put the thing together and called the project manager, mentioning that I’d found a way to solve the date entry problem that (as the list above notes) ensures we’ll only get valid data, but wholly eschews scripting. He was shocked and very pleased, so I told him where he could inspect it and asked him to call me if he had any questions.

Two minutes later, the phone rang. The project manager (whom we’ll call Andy, as that’s his name {unless you’re flying a jet with him [HDANCN?]}) was amused enough that he’s having a hard time talking, and insisted that I leave it live long enough to spring the joke on the actual clients. Heh.

Sometimes, being a geek is fun.

The media aren’t liberal. They’re just idiots.

Posted on by

And they’re not doing their job. They’re behaving as if giving equal time to both sides of an issue — say, the Swiftie thing — is being “objective,” when in reality we have actual facts on one side and an enormous pile of lies on the other. Any real journalist — are there any on TV anymore? — would actually examine what’s being said, and try to separate the wheat from the rhetorical chaff (read: bullshit).

At least SOME people are noticing this. From the Times’ Alessandra Stanley, quoted at TPM; she referrs to the softball treatment Wolf Blitzer gave Bob “Hatchetman” Dole, who said demonstrably untrue things about Kerry’s war record on his show:

That kind of air-kiss coverage is typical of cable news, where the premium is on speed and spirited banter rather than painstaking accuracy. But it has grown into a lazy habit: anchors do not referee – they act as if their reportage is fair and accurate as long as they have two opposing spokesmen on any issue.

More satirically, The Daily Show made the same point Monday night:

STEWART: Here’s what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry’s record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven’t been disputed for 35 years? CORDDRY: That’s right, Jon, and that’s certainly the spin you’ll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days. STEWART: Th-that’s not a spin thing, that’s a fact. That’s established. CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one side of the story. STEWART: But that should be — isn’t that the end of the story? I mean, you’ve seen the records, haven’t you? What’s your opinion? CORDDRY: I’m sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don’t have ‘o-pin-i-ons’. I’m a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called ‘objectivity’ — might wanna look it up some day. STEWART: Doesn’t objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what’s credible and what isn’t? CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well — sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [high-pitched, effeminate] ‘Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.’ Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me. STEWART: So, basically, you’re saying that this back-and-forth is never going to end. CORDDRY: No, Jon — in fact a new group has emerged, this one composed of former Bush colleages, challenging the president’s activities during the Vietnam era. That group: Drunken Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability. They’ve apparently got some things to say about a certain Halloween party in ’71 that involved trashcan punch and a sodomized pi–ata. Jon — they just want to set the record straight. That’s all they’re out for. STEWART: Well, thank you Rob, good luck out there. We’ll be right back. Via Atrios

No wonder mainstream media hates these guys. They’re the only ones still doing any sort of real commentary.

Fafnir and Giblets contemplate the end times

Posted on by

Fafblog:

“But Giblets!” says me. “We are faced with an eschatological dilemma! If the world ends don’t we end too?” “Never!” says Giblets. “The world may be temporal but Fafnir an Giblets are forever!” “Yes!” says me. “We defy all ends! An middles an beginnings for good measure!” “We defy linearity!” says Giblets. “We are of the internet and embrace its heady disjointed bosom!” “We are hypertextual dispensationalists!” says me. “The endtimes cannot touch us!” “But what will we do after the world ends?” says Giblets. “Dunno,” says me. “We got that ol Yahtzee set.” “An Risk the game of world domination,” says Giblets. “An Fafblog,” says me. “An Fafblog,” says Giblets. “Even after the end of the age.”