Friday Night Video

Been a quiet week for posting around here, but I'll be stepping it up over the weekend with a few blogs that are almost (but not quite) ready to go---including fresh reviews of The Hurt Locker and (500) Days of Summer...movies still out in theaters! A veritable first for Boy Hates Girl! But until then, it's time for the best part of the week. Don't try to pretend otherwise...

Last Friday, in order to mark the 10-week countdown to my seeing Rick Springfield live in concert in Atlantic City, I started a Friday Night Video countdown to correspond with ten of Rick's greatest hits/videos. Last week we saw him perform "Everybody's Girl," a song which even John Williams had to admit showed that "he kind of can play guitar." John found this shocking, so this week I try to completely blow his mind by showing Rick playing...the piano, too!

"My Father's Chair" is not the kind of song you would ever think to associate with Springfield. Forgetting for the moment that he plays piano in it, the song itself is a serious meditation on the premature death of his father, someone who Springfield routinely credits in his lyrics as the person most responsible for encouraging him to play music. Sadly, his father died just before Rick became a star, another common lament which permeates some of his best songs. It's a moving song, as honest and sincere as it is surprising. One of my favorite moments happened during the 1985 Grammys, I believe it was. Springfield was introduced, but instead of rocking out and gyrating around as everyone was expecting him to do, he instead sat down at a piano wearing a tuxedo and played the following song:

This version, not from the Grammys, is from a concert video called The Beat of the Live Drum, directed by...Fight Club's David Fincher. Fincher, actually, was responsible for many of Rick's early videos. The audio quality isn't great, but this is the best I can do.

Vive le pants!

When is a story about pants more than a story about pants? When it's about a woman courageously standing up against arcane laws which single women out as second class citizens.

A Sudanese female journalist facing 40 lashes for wearing trousers in public in violation of the country's strict Islamic laws told a packed Khartoum courtroom Wednesday she is resigning from a U.N. job that grants her immunity so she can challenge the law on women's public dress code.

Lubna Hussein was among 13 women arrested July 3 in a raid by members of the public order police force on a popular Khartoum cafe for wearing trousers, considered indecent by the strict interpretation of Islamic law adopted by Sudan's Islamic regime. All but three of the women were flogged at a police station two days later.

The cool part of the story is that she openly defied the court by showing up to her own trial wearing...yes, pants. It's hard to imagine pants being considered indecent for women to wear, but that was also the case here in America not so long ago, lest we forget. Based on how things have evolved here in the States, I give the Sudan ten years before mini-skirts and fuck-me-pumps on 15-year-old girls are all the rage. Progress! Progress?

Which is more shocking?

Just saw a headline entitled:

Kevin Federline Shocks Fans Over New Size

I don't know which is more shocking---that Kevin Federline has fans, or that he's now a fat tub of goo.







It's close, but I'm going with the revelation that he has fans. Who knew?

Is VH1's Celebrity Fit Club still on the air?

Suck it, Chris Pine.

Hey, I liked Chris Pine just fine as the new Captain Kirk in the J.J. Abrams relaunch of the Star Trek franchise, but can Chris Pine turn Sarah Palin's resignation speech into beat poetry? No. There's only one Kirk who can pull that off...

Movies #63 - 65: Bad, Worse and Awful

Oh, silly Pirate. You and your odd assortment of DVDs you bring for me. Me and my weakness for bad films. Together, we might just be the most perfect match in history since peanut butter and chocolate.

#63 Transporter 3 (2008)

If you've seen either of the preceding Transporter movies then you pretty much know what to expect for this third installment. Jason Statham takes his shirt off in increasingly inventive ways, uses his shirt to kill about twenty guys who stand around and rush him one at a time, and then he has sex with an under-aged girl barely able to utter a complete sentence. The Transporter movies are very French...which is my way of saying that they're sort of endearing, but sort of awful. They weirdly fuse solid action moments with bizarre Jerry Lewis-type humor. If you've seen Luc Besson's The Fifth Element, then you know the sort of odd combination I'm talking about. It's no coincidence that Besson also handled the writing duties here. This is probably the weakest of the three movies, but it's breezy entertainment and has a good turn by Robert Knepper as the villain. If you have a Pirate who brings you this for free, I think it's okay for you to watch it. If you don't have a Pirate who brings you this for free, it's not okay to watch it.


#64 Punisher: War Zone

No longer can you utter the words, "they just don't make them like they used to." Punisher: War Zone, the third Punisher film to be made (I know, right?), is a total throwback to the action days of yore. Gore. I meant "days of gore." If you love exploding heads, this film will make you forget about Scanners. What's that? More a fan of the exploding chests? Have no fear. Punisher: War Zone has enough exploding body cavities to make the chest-bursting scene in Alien seem like a Disney cartoon. Huh? You say you want plot and dialogue, too? Did I not mention the exploding heads??? Supposedly this version of The Punisher, played without a hint of irony by the brooding Ray Stevenson, is truer to the comic book...if that matters to you. If it does...you're weird. This is a B-movie from start to finish and, as such, there is a certain joy in seeing Dominic West mug for the cameras in his jigsaw-like skin mask, and in seeing hundreds of people killed real dead, real good. But even judging by B-movie standards, Punisher: War Zone just isn't that entertaining. Except for the exploding heads. Oh, holy hell, this is the mother of all exploding head movies.


#65 The Spirit (2008)

What the fuck? No, seriously, wtf??? Here's an example of a movie with an A-budget striving to be, I guess, a B-movie...and failing miserably. That's just awkward. I don't even know how to discuss The Spirit, to be honest. There were times when I was giving it the benefit of the doubt as a campy, off-the-wall, outside-the-box action film. Except it's not campy. It's bad. It's not off-the-wall. It's retarded. And it's not outside-the-box. It just doesn't know what a box is. The visual style, that same look from Sin City and 300, is particularly washed-out and dark here. It's not a fun movie to look at, regardless of what the "characters" are doing on-screen. There are a few good lines, but those lines are only made possible by the rest of the film being so god damned awful...the sort of half-winking, "Christ, this movie is so bad we can say anything we want now," lines. Like Samuel Jackson's character going on a rant about eggs: "Free-range chickens with their big brown ugly-ass eggs. They piss me off. Every time I think about those big brown eggs they piss. Me. Off." Every time I think about The Spirit it pisses. Me. Off. Also, die Scarlett Johannson, die.

Transporter 3 4/10

Punisher: War Zone 3/10

The Spirit 2/10

More on Gates: The 911 Call.

The 911 recording of Lucia Whalen's call to Cambridge Police was released today and there are a few important things to take note of:

First, as has been previously (but not widely) reported, Whalen is not actually a "neighbor." I had incorrectly identified her as such in a previous blog. She was, in fact, just a person who was walking by and came to the aid of an older woman who was witnessing Gates and his driver enter the home. This is the definition of a Good Samaritan.

Second, at no time does Ms. Whalen make reference to the race of the "gentlemen" she is calling about. The 911 operator prompts her for this information, but she's only able to suggest that one of the men "might" be Hispanic. Race was really the last thing on her mind when she made this call.

And third, the caller is not insistent or presumptive in the least. Whalen does not know if it's a break-in or just someone entering their house, but she dutifully reports the suspicious behavior. If there's one thing that's clear from the 911 call, and I think it's an important point, this is not a call where a white woman reports two black men breaking into a house. That is factually wrong on all counts.

The real victim in this whole case might very well be Whalen. Crowley was unprofessional and Gates was a dick, but Whalen seems like a good person whose account of things was wrongly reported and/or speculated upon (by me, too). Funny, she's not going to the White House for a beer...and she's the only one who didn't do anything wrong! Ugh.

Paging Rick Sanchez, Paging Rick Sanchez

New Taser stun gun can deliver 3 shocks

FOUNTAIN HILLS, Arizona – Taser International unveiled its first new stun gun since 2003 Monday, a device that can shock three people without being reloaded.

Older Taser stun guns, in use by 14,200 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States, have to be reloaded after one shot, which can be a problem for an officer who has missed a target or has more than one suspect to subdue.

More On: Avatar

Ah-ha! Finally, some reports that Avatar's hype is simply over-the-top and unlikely to meet its insanely high expectations:

"The consensus among the people who saw Thursday night's footage was that it was glorious and eye-popping — but they had no trouble telling the CG animation from reality, especially in the scene where live actors are interacting with the CG animated avatars. And the 3-D didn't seem to add all that much to the viewing experience. The footage was great, but not quite photorealistic."

"The criticisms boiled down to saying that the Avatar footage was better than the CG people had seen in the past — but not the massive world-shattering change we'd been promised."

"It's not that Avatar wasn't a hit, it just wasn't the grand slam everyone expected. I've talked to a number of people - fans and people in the industry - who were a little underwhelmed by the 24 minutes of footage. No one disliked it, but the weight of expectations kept the film from really taking off."

This is good news. Now I can start lowering my expectations in hopes of being suitably blown away come December. Let the five-month cool-down period begin...now.

Movie #62: Public Enemies

#62 Public Enemies (2009)

Did you see Michael's Mann's Heat? Good. Now imagine Johnny Depp as Robert DeNiro's character, and Christian Bale as Al Pacino's character. Now dress them up in 1930's attire and swap their assault rifles for Tommy Guns. Now take the role played by Amy Brenneman and replace her with Marion Cotillard, and replace Tom Sizemore with...and so on and so forth. Yes, it's an oversimplification to say Michael Mann's latest film is just Heat repackaged with a 1930's veneer, but the similarities are beyond striking. Virtually every character and every scene in Public Enemies can find its simulacrum in Heat without stretching things too far. This is not, mind you, a bad thing. If you enjoyed Heat, as I did, then Public Enemies is a fun spin around the block in a spiffy retro model of one of my favorite cars. Aint nothing wrong with that...just don't look under the hood.

If you should happen to pop the hood, you might be disappointed to learn that Public Enemies strays rather far from historical accuracy. While John Dillinger was somewhat of a folk hero back in the day, he was also a cold-blooded cop killer. And yet, oddly, I don't recall Johnny Depp's Dillinger killing any cops. In fact, the film goes out of its way to paint him as likable, humane, romantic and full of disdain for those who did take aim at cops. This kind of revisionist history drives me crazy. I know, I know. It's a movie. So what? While it's not on the level of Holocaust revisionism, I take great issue when cinema overly romanticizes the violent acts of real people who committed real crimes. In this regard, Heat is the superior film because of its unblinking honesty about the "bad" guys...which is to say they aren't evil, but if you happen to be standing between them and their escape, they will not hesitate to put you down. There are other inaccuracies as well, such as a time-line of events that is seriously manipulated for dramatic effect, more bullets and shootouts than what actually took place, and a "dying words" scene which is very romantic but very fabricated, but it's not intended to be a documentary...so fine.

The performances in Public Enemies are generally solid, except for Christian Bale who, once again, manages to find himself in a movie where the material is superior to his ability. Bale dully sleepwalks through his role as FBI agent Melvin Purvis, the man tasked by J. Edgar Hoover with rounding up the various public enemies who wreaked havoc in the 1930's. Depp, however, is certainly up to the task, giving a smooth, measured performance that, facts aside, doesn't seem overly stylized. Still, in this particular movie at least, I was struck by how oddly similar he looks to actor Robert Knepper---he of the character Tea Bag on the now-canceled show Prison Break. Knepper, a fine actor in his own right, looks like the evil twin of Depp...harder, edgier, less attractive. However, Knepper looks even more like the real John Dillinger. You decide.



Public Enemies 7/10

Breaking: Obama Apologizes

I'll say this much for Obama, the man is extremely self-aware and doesn't work inside a bubble (unlike certain other Presidents of recent notoriety). He's also mature enough to admit when he's made a mistake...another thing I haven't seen in the previous eight years. It's an admirable quality. Cynics will suggest he's only responding because of the criticism he's received, and that's partly true, but I think he's a little embarrassed and genuinely regrets commenting in the manner he did. His initial comments were so unlike him that it ruffled even my feathers.

But here's the problem: While I think the cop in question is probably a "good" cop in the large scheme of things, I think his actions were likely unprofessional (not racist). But because Obama went ahead and stuck his nose where it wasn't wanted or needed, at a minimum prematurely so, the officer now becomes more of a victim than a guy who probably deserves some sort of warning about his overreacting to Professor Gates. Hell, now he's getting invited to the White House for a beer! Oy.

In any event, the Obama who made a surprise appearance at the daily press briefing today is the Obama I know and love. He certainly has made the best of a bad situation.

My Brain Isn't Ready for Avatar.

The buzz surrounding James Cameron's forthcoming Avatar, his first real "movie" in over twelve years, is about to make my head explode. And if the hype doesn't do it, the movie very well may. I've been anxious for a sneak peek of Avatar for almost a year now and, finally, Cameron is starting to show off his latest creation to the press. There's still no trailer, still no mass-leaked footage, and still only a handful of production stills, but today at Comic-Con 2009, the geek event which has almost nothing to do with comic books anymore, Cameron showed off 24 minutes of 3-D footage. He did the same thing about two weeks ago for various foreign distributors. Uniformly, the preview is being hailed as "jaw-dropping", "a game-changer", and as something which "will change the way we watch movies." Other people have claimed "there's just never been a film that looks like this."

There's a part of me which now really wants to hate Avatar. The more hyped people get, the more I gravitate towards the role of the anti-hype---the guy who has to remind people just how awful Titanic really was...just how racist and uneven True Lies was...and just how damn irritating Cameron was when he accepted the Oscar for Titanic. Except...Cameron is a guy who is able to make game-changing movies. Aliens, The Abyss, and Terminator 2, three movies he made consecutively between 1986 and 1991, are not just three of my all-time favorite movies, they're also movies which represented giant leaps forward in special effects. Who can forget when the alien pseudopod in The Abyss emerges from the water? Or when Robert Patrick's Terminator in T2 transforms his limbs into shiny metallic knives? These special effects were beyond cutting edge at the time---they were next generation effects, templates for what's still being widely used today. But more than that, Cameron incorporated those effects into compelling narratives. His movies weren't just showpieces for the wizards at ILM. The effects backed the movie, not the other way around.

Now, as if the buzz wasn't enough, there's legitimate discussion that the movie may actually blow your mind. Literally. There's been a lot of chatter in recent months about how this 3-D experience will finally allow viewers to cross the uncanny valley, "the point at which a viewer’s responsiveness to a simulated human takes a sudden drop into revulsion as the image comes close to reality but strikes the watcher as being zombie-like, or not quite right." This barrier, if crossed, has some respected scientists suggesting it will tap into areas of our brain that 2-D movies have been unable to reach. "Dreaming with your eyes wide open," is one way it's been described...a feeling that "stays with you for days after you experienced it." This sounds simultaneously thrilling and terrifying. Joshua Quittner, a technology writer for Time magazine, saw a 15-minute screening of the film several months ago and had this to say about it:

“It was like doing some kind of drug,” he said, describing a scene in which the movie’s hero, played by Sam Worthington, ran around “with this kind of hot alien chick,” was attacked by jaguar-like creatures and was sprinkled with sprites that floated down, like snowflakes.
“You feel like the little feathery things are landing on your arm,” said Mr. Quittner, who remained eager for another dose.

Feeling the hype yet? I keep waiting for someone to step in and say, "it's good, but it's not THAT good." It aint happened yet. In fact, Cameron is so confident in Avatar, he announced today that free 15-minute previews will be shown at IMAX theatres on August 21st, a fairly unprecedented move to say the least. I'm really not sure which is going to kill me: the hype, or the movie? All I know is this sounds like a drug I'm willing to try. I just hope it doesn't leave me passed out in a pool of my own vomit like most other drugs tend to do to me.

Friday Night Video

Considering it's exactly ten weeks away from when I see Rick Springfield live in concert at The Borgata in Atlantic City (the excitement is palpable, I know---control yourselves), it seems obvious I should use the Friday Night Video segment to count down his ten greatest hits. Yes, for the next two and a half months, every Friday, I'll be counting them down. That's how little I care about my page views. I'm not about ratings, I'm about quality.

#10 Everybody's Girl

Off his 1981 album Working Class Dog, the one which also features Jessie's Girl (which, I suppose, will make an appearance on this list), Everybody's Girl is a quick, poppy, high-energy rant (just count the number of high kicks he does!) about a slutty girl who managed to get under his skin and break his heart. Sluts always be doing that. The chorus is really the hook...as evidenced by him calling her "Everybody's Girl" no fewer than 18 times, but I swear there's some damn good guitar work in here, too. I promise. So, here he is, live in concert at the Universal Amphitheater in 1982, calling out some bitch who's "got no apparent sensitivity," and who's "cut deep with self-destructivity." The best moment happens around 4:15 with a nicely choreographed duet-dance-hop with his bass player.

Let's get this party on the road!

More On: Skip Gates

So much for this issue dying a quick death.

President Obama fielded a question about the Gates arrest at a press conference earlier this evening and, somewhat shockingly, he deigned to go ahead and call the actions of the Cambridge Police Department "stupid." He issued the usual caveats about "not having all the facts," and that he may be biased because Gates is a friend, but he nonetheless used the arrest as an opportunity to remind us that race is still an issue in America. I have no problems with the latter part, but I do take great issue with the President using this incident as his gateway into such a serious discussion. It's not that it's irrelevant. As I said in the last post I made, Gates's reaction is understandable when viewed in a broader, historical context. The problem here is that the President is speaking more like a blogger than a dignified leader. I love that Obama is willing to speak off-the-cuff on important issues, but passing judgment on the entire Cambridge Police Department is irresponsible. He admitted he doesn't have the facts. So...get them. And be mum on the issue until you do! In fact, not only does he not have the facts, he pretty much simplifies it to a level that even Gates's own version doesn't support! Verbally attacking police officers without having the facts doesn't play in Peoria. And it doesn't play with me.

One of the main ways Obama was able to be "post-racial" was through demonstrating an understanding of how whites view issues of race...and expressing empathy for those views without saying everything was fine and dandy as is. The clip below doesn't show that same understanding. I expect the conservative blogs to murder Obama on this, and they won't be entirely wrong to do so. Again, the issue of racial profiling is an important one. This just isn't the entry point to that discussion.

Close This FloodGate(s)

By now many of you are familiar with the incident involving the arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr., arguably the most prominent and respected scholar in the country. He is also black. Most of the facts in the case are not really in dispute. If you read both the police report and the account Gates gave to the Washington Post, both stories are strikingly similar. In other words, both sides are being honest...and yet both sides are seeing the incident with a sort of Rashomon twist. This is telling, I think. Yes, the police report gives more details and paints a less cooperative picture than the one Gates offers, but reading between the lines and combining the two accounts I think it's fairly easy to get a decent idea of what took place.

Gates arrived home to his Cambridge house following a trip to China, whereupon he struggled to enter the premises because his front door was jammed (evidently from a previous break-in attempt, Gates told the officers). With the aid of his driver, a "large Moroccan" as Gates described to the Washington Post, the two attempted to pry the door open for about fifteen minutes before finally succeeding in breaking the door---an act which caught the attention of a neighbor who promptly called the police to report a possible break-in. The police arrived and asked Gates to verify his identity, something he eventually did, but it's clear from both party's accounts that Gates was taken aback and resistant. There seems little doubt that Gates was belligerent to some degree. Whether it was a little or a lot is anyone's guess. Gates was arrested shortly after he left his house and continued his "tumultuous" behavior outside.

What is mainly at issue is Gates's charge that this incident was racially motivated. He has demanded an apology and has said he will now focus his future research on the issue of racial profiling. This story has naturally exposed the ever-present divide that white America and black America experience when it comes to dealing with the police. Most of white America, it would seem, read the accounts of this incident and concluded that Gates overreacted. Anecdotally speaking, I heard one person say, "He should be thankful the police arrived so quickly." I think this attitude is likely a pervasive one among whites. On the other side of the spectrum are the usual characters of racism-claiming civic leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, ever at the ready to point out racist acts as they see it. This, of course, only serves to make that Rashomon divide ever wider. Sharpton and Jackson cry racism so often that when genuine racism has occurred nobody who should listen listens.

I wish this story would die. Now. Racial profiling exists. Racist cops exists. It's an important issue. But my Rashomon point-of-view tells me that both parties here are simultaneously right and wrong. There's simply NO evidence that this is racially motivated. None. Even so, that doesn't mean Skip Gates is crazy. His feelings of persecution are valid in the greater context of what we know has routinely taken place in Boston, Dallas, New York and every city and every town in America at various points in time. Black resentment and skepticism toward the police is understandable. But was this such a deserving case? It seems unlikely. Does that mean the cop acted responsibly? No. If you assume for a moment that this white cop is an upstanding citizen with no bias against blacks, it's understandable that he would be upset by a black man accusing him of being a racist for simply doing his job. If Gates was verbally abusive, as I believe he probably was, it's understandable that the officer would have lost his cool and arrested him. Understandable, but not excusable. Police officers are trained to diffuse situations...not exacerbate them. He's probably not a "bad" officer, but he is a human who exercised bad judgment. This incident should be used as a training tool for all officers. Has no one ever watched COPS before? How many times have you seen belligerent white trash verbally abuse officers and then get arrested after failing to heed their warnings? That's like every episode. It's not always a black/white issue. It's a cops-love-power issue at least as often.

And that's really what the legacy of this incident should be. It shouldn't be about race, it should be about how officers need to know when to walk away. I don't believe Gates was arrested because he was black. I believe he was arrested because a police officer failed to execute his responsibilities to the best of his abilities. Gates aided that failure, but the onus is on the officer, not Gates...and that, no doubt, is why the charges have been dropped. Gates has a brilliant mind so it's disappointing that in the days following this arrest he's not gained any greater perspective on the matter. The post-racial era of Obama is suffering a setback when claims of racism are levied without merit. I believe white America is largely understanding of black America's skepticism toward the police, but this incident widens the divide unnecessarily. Please. Please let this "story" go away.

Update on: Swoopo

Fuck you, Swoopo.

P.S. They're trying to be a little less evil.

Update on: Tom Watson and the British Open

I'm really glad I missed the conclusion of Tom Watson's near fairy-tale ending at this year's British Open. I ended up going to see Johnny Depp in Public Enemies, but had I been forced to witness first-hand Watson's collapse on the 18th hole and subsequent defeat in a four-hole playoff to Stewart Cink, I might very well have cried. Watson held the lead at Turnberry for almost the entire tournament. All he needed to do to win was sink an 8-foot putt on the final hole. He missed. With one stroke, the year's best sports story became its most cruel.

The dust has started to clear and the net result of the story will be a positive one, but excuse me for wanting just a bit more. And what's worse? Unless he wins next year, Tom Watson will be allowed to play in just one more British Open. Watson, at age 59, is one year away from the age limit imposed on past champions. I move to abolish this rule immediately. It's golf...not Logan's Run. With his second place finish, Watson moved up in the world rankings from 1,374th to 105th. Amazing. He also showed more dignity and class in losing than any human being could be expected to show under such heart-breaking conditions. This is, as they say, one for the ages...and the aged.

Update on: The CIA and Dick Cheney

Didn't want to leave you hanging on some of the stories I've blogged about in recent weeks. This is the first update of several coming your way:

The CIA and Dick Cheney

On Friday, the House Intelligence Committee announced that it would move forward with an investigation into charges that the CIA misled and/or lied to Congress about the existence of a covert program widely rumored to involve hit squads empowered to target members of Al-Qaeda on foreign soil. Dick Cheney, to no one's surprise, is alleged to be the man who insisted on Congress being kept out of the loop, a possible violation of the National Security Act. While it would be nice if this investigation could proceed in a non-partisan manner, that will clearly not be the case. Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the committee who had previously indicated he would support such an investigation, now says, "At no time will the Republicans of this committee agree to or take part in congressional Democrats' efforts to tear down the CIA to provide cover for Speaker Pelosi. In the absence of substantiated facts, to even speculate on potential criminal behavior shows that this is little more than partisan, political theater and continues the politicization of important intelligence matters by Democrats."

Hoekstra seems to forget that the purpose of an investigation is to separate fact from fiction...something you can't do if you don't proceed with an investigation. There's little dispute that the CIA withheld information and that alone merits a fact-finding mission. What's in question is whether those actions constituted a criminal act, a question both valid to ask and important to answer. Both sides are posturing, but in the end it's patently obvious that a fact-finding investigation is the right way to go. This isn't exactly grasping at straws. There's a strong basis for pursuing this no matter what hidden agendas may or may not exist. The people of this country can ultimately conclude for themselves what's being politicized or not. They don't need the GOP to make that decision for them, and they certainly don't need them to block efforts to provide the facts upon which those decisions can me made.

Besides, the GOP doesn't have much to worry about. Here's how this will likely shake out in the end: the investigation will verify most of what's already been reported, but the question of its legality will be murky enough that some of the very Democrats who asked for this to be pursued will decline to press the matter as a criminal one. Also, it's just not very popular to prosecute someone over their plans to kill members of Al-Qaeda. That's a tough sell. It's like trying to convict a vigilante who went after child molesters. Good luck getting the average voter to bite on that. Failure to notify Congress is the issue, of course, but "killing Al-Qaeda" is all anyone will hear.

Republicans will claim victory, saying the investigation proves the Democrats were just trying to cover for Pelosi, while the Democrats will say their refusal to pursue a criminal complaint is not evidence that a crime was not committed. Cheney will laugh and celebrate by drinking goat blood. The best thing to come out of this, or so we can hope, is a serious discussion about how intelligence should be shared between the various branches of our government. The issue of transparency, especially in matters of national security, is a challenging one to address, but it's one we should address and not simply ignore. We all want to kill Al-Qaeda. It's the issue of how that needs to be front and center.

Weinermobile Attempts Suicide---Fails.

"Fed" up with its shitty existence as a non-kosher hot dog on wheels, a Weinermobile in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin drove itself head-first into a house on Friday. Although damage to the home was extensive, the Weinermobile itself sustained little to no damage. Authorities credit the mysterious components of the Weinermobile for making it virtually indestructible. Sheriff Oscar Mayer, father to singer/songwriter/womanizer John Mayer, said, "nobody really knows what a Weinermobile is made of, but it handles surprisingly well, goes zero to forty in under three minutes, and it's quite clearly impossible to destroy. Hell, I wish I was one. That is what I'd truly like to be."

The suicidal Weinermobile is being held under 72-hour observation at a nearby garage. When asked why it tried to kill itself, the Weinermobile said it was tired of being honked at, and especially tired of being on the receiving end of countless cock jokes. "I didn't choose to be this way," the Weinermobile said. "This is worse than being a Hyundai." Calls to Hyundai Motors were not returned.

OMG, OMG, OMG!

Oh hell, I've really gone and done it now.

It was about 26 years ago that my sister inadvertently turned me on to the musical stylings of one Rick Springfield. She also turned me on to Pat Benatar and Foreigner, but it was round about 1983 that I got officially hooked on Rick's "Living in Oz" album...from which Human Touch was probably the most recognizable hit. At the time of this budding obsession, serious efforts were made to win concert tickets via the local radio station---efforts that exhausted many hours and which all ended in futility. His shows instantly sold out back then and the only alternative was to buy scalped tickets, something which was wasn't much of an option for an eleven-year-old kid.

Years passed, albums came and went, and so, too, did his popularity within mainstream music. The one unwavering constant, however, was my deep and abiding appreciation for his music...something which has brought much shame to my family and friends. True, not every song was a winner, but the more I delved into his discography, the more it became obvious he was not just a one-trick-pony. Jessie's Girl came out in 1981, but Rick has been making solo albums since 1971...some of which are totally different than what you might expect from a pop legend. In fact, his introduction to American audiences was as an animated character on the show Mission Magic. He did the catchy theme song for it which you can check out in the YouTube video below. Rick Springfield...cartoon hero, rock star, soap opera actor, kicker of David Carradine's ass. Awesome.

Anyway, long story made less long, as John Williams dryly suggested in the comment section here, Rick Springfield is coming to Atlantic City on September 25th. Little did John know when he left his comment, but I'd already woken up bright and early on Saturday morning to buy my tickets the second they went on sale. Oh, yes. After all these years, I'm finally seeing Rick Springfield LIVE. And if you think that's lame, consider that I'll be surrounded by a few thousand screaming women anxious to bond with the one straight male there not named Rick. Okay, so most of them will be in their 40's and 50's and probably have children, but still! Rick Springfield and high stakes poker. Best. Weekend. Ever.

Just Like Old Times

I wouldn't exactly call myself a professional golf enthusiast, but it's safe to say I pay some attention when one of the four major championships is being played. And while it's always fun to follow the highs of Tiger Woods, the lows of John Daly, and the near misses of Phil Mickelson, nothing gives me greater pleasure than to see veteran Tom Watson atop the leader board after the first two rounds of this year's British Open. At-59 years-old he's already the oldest player to ever hold the lead in a major. The odds are heavily stacked against him retaining the lead for two more days, but then they were already knocking his chances when he took the lead after day one.

When I was a child, Tom Watson was my favorite golfer by far. I don't know why I chose to follow him at the time, but it might have had something to do with him being a fairly unassuming fellow with a pleasant countenance and a cool visor. Being the best player in the world from 1978-1982 didn't hurt either. One of the things I would do when I was about 10 or 11 was to crumple up pieces of notebook paper into "golf balls." I would then create my own golf course around the house and pretend to be Tom Watson...swinging a wooden Louisville Slugger baseball bat as my one and only club. Watson needed a rival, however, so I would also play the dual role of Seve Ballesteros---alternating shots with equal intensity and fairness. I did this for years. Hundreds of holes were played and, thanks to my baseball bat, several holes were made, too.

It's damn near impossible to win a major golf championship from wire to wire, but if Tom Watson can manage to do just that, it'll be the greatest golf story since the dominant rise of Tiger Woods. For me...it'll be even better.

Good luck, Tom!

Glenn Beck: Vampire Hunter

Well this didn't take nearly as long to happen as I thought it would:

Friday Night Video

Two weeks from today Hall & Oates will be performing at The Borgata in Atlantic City. There's been some chatter amongst my friends about possibly heading out to see it and I, for one, hope it comes to pass. If you're interested in going, do let me know as soon as possible. Applications for accompanying duos are now being accepted.

In honor of Hall & Oates' upcoming gig I was going to dedicate today's video to them...but in searching for just the right song for a Friday afternoon, I instead found a cover of Rich Girl as charmingly performed by a cute girl with a ukulele for entry into the 2008 Bushman World Ukulele Video Contest. Yes, evidently this is a thing. Her cover of Rich Girl only took 15th place (an Mmm-Bop cover took first...and sort of deserved it, too), but she's got a great voice and has cute glasses. I'm sold. She even freestyles a little bit of No Scrubs in the middle. Nice. If nothing else this contest proves there are other ukulele songs beyond Somewhere Over the Rainbow.

A True Mitzvah.

This story made me smile. And then it made be sad, because I am a horrible, horrible person by comparison. But then again, so are we all...

A North Shore philanthropist yesterday paid out $5 million of his own money to restore the retirement savings of his employees who lost their nest eggs to admitted swindler Bernard L. Madoff.

Robert I. Lappin made up for the lost savings of the 60 employees of his company, Salem-based Shetland Properties Inc., and of his private charity, the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, whose 401(k) plans were managed by Madoff.

“Restoring his employee benefits speaks to the type of guy he is,’’ said Pierce, who also serves as president of the Jewish Historical Society of the North Shore. “He’s always been the most philanthropic and generous of people in the area of charities. He’s done it without fanfare and he’s done it generously, even though he’s suffered some significant setbacks with the Madoff scandal.’’

Glenn Beck Discovers New Octave

I'm think I'm beginning to like Glenn Beck more and more. The less relevant he becomes as an actual force in political discourse, the more I can relax and appreciate the comic hilarity of his persona. Whether it's a put-on or whether he's authentically crazy is irrelevant. He is, bar none, the most entertaining television and radio personality out there. He's like a cross between Eric Bogosion in Talk Radio and the televangelist Robert Tilton. His popularity is still on the rise, but I'm comfortable in my assessment that very few people take him seriously. And those who do? Well, those are the people who will look to anyone willing to say what they want to hear...people I don't really concern myself with.

Beck's latest comedic offering comes via his radio show. It's a hilarious rant against a poor caller who is discussing health care reform. The whole clip is worthwhile, but if you want to skip ahead to about the 3:00 mark, you won't be disappointed. At the 3:31 mark Beck discovers a sound I've never quite heard before. It's...amazing.

Update: Key Republican Now Supports Investigation

This is encouraging:

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., the senior GOP member of the House Intelligence committee, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he would support an investigation. But from what he knows now, Hoekstra said, he does not believe the effort merited congressional notification.

Like many other Republicans, Hoekstra believes the Democratic anger about not being notified of the program sooner is meant to bolster House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who came under an avalanche of GOP criticism in May for saying she believes the CIA lied to her about its harsh interrogation program in 2002.

He offers two resisting ideas to the investigation---that he doesn't "think" it merited congressional notification, and that this is really all about Pelosi---but fine. Whatever. At least he's supporting a simple fact-finding mission. Was that so hard? There's almost certainly more to this than meets the eye, so let's skip the "I think" and "I feel" and do due diligence to get to the point of "We know."

Deep Breaths

While I don't have many conservative-minded readers of this blog, I do know for a fact I have at least a few. Some of them have commented publicly in the past, some privately. They exist, though mostly as lurkers in the shadows of my left-leaning rants. I would be curious to hear from them, however, on this recent issue of investigating the CIA-withholding-information which has dominated my blog over the last week. I'd be interested in hearing if they, as non-politicians, find there to be value in a fact-finding, bi-partisan investigation into what information was withheld, why it was withheld, and who directed such actions to take place.

If I'm understanding the arguments correctly, here are the reasons (both explicit and implicit) being offered by GOP leaders as to why they are against such inquiries:

1) This issue is being raised to give Nancy Pelosi cover for her previous controversial claims that the CIA lied to her with respect to interrogation techniques.

Response: I may have jumped the gun on proclaiming that these new revelations help her case. Most information now seems to suggest the withheld information related to a program dealing with the assassination of Al-Qaeda operatives, not interrogation of detainees. While this would certainly substantiate general claims that the CIA is not above lies and deception, things I believe most reasonable people already assume to be the case, it does not help her case in the specific.

Further, if this truly was designed to give her cover, it ain't working. The GOP has been merciless on this issue and keeps bringing everything the Democrats say on this right back to the lap of Pelosi. This would mean the Democrats completely blew it in strategizing how to defend Pelosi---certainly a possibility, but then there's been no evidence of any collusion between Pelosi and the House Intelligence Committee and, as previously pointed out, Pelosi had pretty well made this go away by just shrinking from sight in recent weeks. This is not attention she wants (probably because she really did play fast and loose with her accusations). “The longer Democrats are talking and obsessing about the CIA, the more they are prolonging an already disastrous narrative for Nancy Pelosi and their party,” said Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Why Democrats would want to keep this in the news is mind-boggling.” Good question, Ken. Maybe, just maybe...because it's not about Pelosi. Maybe it's about right and wrong?

2) These constant attacks on the CIA harm their ability to function successfully.

Response: I can honestly say that no Democrat wishes to impede the ability of the CIA to do its job. Where honest minds can disagree, however, is what methods are appropriate for executing the responsibilities of that job...especially since laws are already in place to govern those actions. More importantly, I've not yet heard a good connection made as to how or where such inquiries make it harder for the CIA to do its job. This argument is always made in a casual, non-specific manner...essentially suggesting that the connection is so obvious as to not merit further explanation.

I suppose the argument can be made that any time spent answering questions in an investigation is time spent not gathering and analyzing intelligence. True enough, but if the investigation has merit then that's just a fact of life that any individual or any agency has to deal with. I seem to recall a certain President being forced to deal with countless investigations during his two terms in office...some of which were valid and of his own doing, some of which were not. Somehow I don't think the GOP would have bought the argument from Bill Clinton that he shouldn't be investigated because it distracts him from doing his job. But maybe this isn't the causation the GOP means? I don't know. They've never said. I'm just guessing.

3) The CIA has helped keep us safe since 9/11. Their tactics deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Response: Liz Cheney said yesterday that she didn't think the Democrats were "up to handling national security," which sounds to me as though she doesn't think Democrats are willing to dirty their hands in the defense of the nation. I would agree that Republicans have showed a greater willingness to disregard laws if they feel those laws make it harder to protect us, but whether willfully breaking those laws is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing is certainly a valid question. This seems to be more of a philosophical debate---with one side willing to give almost unlimited power to the executive branch to do whatever it takes to defend this country, with the other side wanting to act pragmatically, but in accordance with well-established law.

Expansion of executive power isn't inherently a bad thing, but seizing that power without appropriate debate of the merits is fundamentally wrong. You want warrentless wire-tapping? Fine, let's discuss it. You want the power to redefine the definition of torture? Fine, let's discuss it. You want the power to create black-ops programs without informing anyone in Congress (even the Gang of 8)? Fine, let's discuss it. I don't think Democrats would be universally opposed to all of these ideas if there's legitimate reason to believe the benefits outweigh the costs. What they oppose, or at least what I oppose, is the belief that the power to break these laws is inherent in the Presidency. It's not. And failure to investigate instances where it seems as though these laws were broken is tantamount to approval of those acts. If the GOP approves---then just say so.

4) The Democrats are doing this strictly as a political move designed to punish Bush-era officials.

Response: If the shoe fits. But really, if crimes were committed, what's the fear? Even the GOP makes political hay by separating themselves from the Bush days. More to the point, this is sort of like beating a dead horse in terms of scoring "points." You can't really elevate yourself any higher by standing on the backs of ex-Bush-era officials. Also, if Nancy Pelosi broke the law, or if she lied, she should suffer the consequences, too. These are vastly different issues, of course, but the point is I want my officials to own up to their actions---right or wrong---and face the consequences. Accountability is not a political concept...it's an American one.

Did I miss any of the main points?

I'm really trying to understand why it would be so bad to get to the bottom of this. Why is it so bad to try and figure out the what, where and why? Also, for what it's worth, the Obama administration is threatening to veto the Intelligence Funding Bill if a provision is included which would expand the number of members of Congress who receive briefings on secret operations. Obama is no different from other Presidents in wanting to keep what power he has, but I disagree with him on this. I believe the balance of power should shift back towards Congress...for the very simple reason that we've seen what happens when power is put in too few hands. Sure, I trust Obama to exercise this power more prudently (and legally) than Bush did, but trust is never enough.

Laws.

Accountability.

That's worth more than trust.

The View From My Ex-Girlfriend's Window

If you're even a casual reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog then you're probably somewhat familiar with his daily feature "The View From Your Window." Once a day he posts a fairly mundane photograph that someone has taken from their window. It's a nice way to show the diversity of his reader's surroundings without going to extremes by posting only the most sensational of views. It's been a popular element to his blog over the last year and supposedly it will culminate in a book.

I hadn't been on his blog much today since Andrew just left on a two-week vacation to do a long-form article (what I like to call journalism) and his fill-ins just aren't the same. Nonetheless, I just checked it this evening to angrily confirm that his blog has not written a single post this week on the CIA story I've been interested in (confirmed---grrr) when I came across today's "View From Your Window" picture:

(Kileleshwa, Kenya, 12 pm)

I instantly recognized it as a photo taken by Dianna Long, my notorious ex-girlfriend (see name of my blog) who is currently doing a summer internship in Kenya for an organization that deals with breasts...or breast milk...or babies...helping people...some shit like that. Interestingly, when she posted this same pic to her Facebook page a week ago, I commented, "Andrew Sullivan would be proud." And he is! Or his lackey replacements are, anyway. Even if it was chosen by a sub-Sullivan, I can't fault her. It's still the single coolest thing she's ever done (aside from occupying the coveted role as my ex).

Congrats, Dianna! Now go work out all your other problems and I'll consider changing my blog's name to Boy Silently Loathes Girl.com. Aww, I kid the Dianna...I kid.

Of course it was Cheney.

This story is making me lose my mind and I'm not even sure why. It's not like I'm shocked the CIA lied to Congress. I'm not shocked Dick Cheney was behind it. And I'm certainly not shocked the GOP is accusing the Democrats of playing politics simply by their bringing these self-evident truths to light. Even so, there's something so sickeningly routine and predictable about this whole process of revelation, denial, and counter-accusation, that it makes me really think there's little hope for bi-partisan agreement on matters of national security.

I try very hard (most of the time) to put myself in the shoes of the "other" side on most issues---to experience news stories not only in the way they instantly strike me, but also in the way a reasonable-minded person with a different belief system might perceive such stories. My gut feeling on water boarding, for example, is that it's undeniably torture and one of the biggest black marks our nation will ever have on its permanent record. I'm highly critical of torture apologists, but mostly those who defend it in the most disingenuous of ways...such as denying it even qualifies as torture, or suggesting that the Bush administration did its due diligence in considering the alternatives. If someone at least openly admits that torture is a necessary evil in the war on terror, while I vehemently disagree with that assessment, I have "some" respect for someone who calls a spade a spade...even if they're whacking that spade over someone's head in the name of protecting Americans. Similarly, while I believe Bush/Cheney and their assorted strategies did far more harm than good in the war on terror, I can somewhat relate to the basic opposition premise that, "well, we didn't have another 9/11 on his watch." I find that reasoning incredibly facile, but it's factually true and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

All of this is just my way of saying that when I can't see the other side of an issue, it blows my mind that ANYONE would be on the opposite side of that issue. This whole CIA concealment issue is one such issue. In response to the newest revelations about Cheney's directives to the CIA to keep certain programs and information away from Congress, here's what two prominent Republicans had to say:

Sen. John Cornryn (Texas): "This (new assertion) looks to me suspiciously like an attempt to provide political cover to Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats."

Sen. Judd Gregg (New Hampshire): "This continued attack on the CIA and our intelligence gathering organizations is undermining the morale and capacity of those organizations to gather intelligence."

First, as to Cornryn's statement, Pelosi didn't really need any cover. It was a dead story in the mainstream press. And while I personally think these revelations add credibility to Pelosi's claims, plenty of analysts think this only hurts her by having this old story brought to the surface yet again. Further, who cares what it looks like to you, Sen. Cornryn? Is it more important how something "looks," or is it more important to get to the truth of the matter? If the Democrats are truly playing politics with national security, do the exact opposite. The more the GOP acts like the mature, responsible, nation-first party, the broader their appeal. It's mind-boggling to me that nobody in the GOP has any interest in verifying these claims. The only claim they seem interested in investigating is the one made by Pelosi.

As for your statement, Sen. Gregg, if the fucking CIA is so fragile that they can't organizationally withstand some (valid) criticism, then we truly need to overhaul the CIA pronto.

CIA Agent: "Hey, Bob. I can't make it to work today."

CIA Manager: "Why not, Ted?"

CIA Agent: "I'm just so beat down by all the criticism our agency is getting."

CIA Manager: "But we need you. Today is important."

CIA Agent: "Yeah, I know. But I'm just so...down. Nobody respects what we do."

CIA Manager: "But you help save lives!"

CIA Agent: "Meh. Check back with me tomorrow."

The "undermining morale" argument is a go-to argument for the GOP when it comes to not wanting to deal with certain issues. "How dare you speak out against the way we planned the war in Iraq! That will undermine the morale of the troops and that's dangerous---not to mention unpatriotic!" Bullshit. Complete and total bullshit. By this standard, we should never critique or investigate any action by the military or any action of our intelligence gathering organizations. It's downright insulting to think of these professional men and women as incapable of doing their jobs when there is a legitimate question raised as to the ethical conduct of a small group of leaders within the organization. In fact, it's more likely that because they are such professionals, they, too, would want to have whatever rot there is removed.

I just don't get it. I just don't get why the GOP, at least on this one issue, can't be honest. Any investigation would be bi-partisan. And EVEN if this feels like a witch hunt, something I don't believe it would be, the end result would be a cleansing which would benefit both parties and the nation as a whole. If it were the Democrats who were responsible to playing fast and loose with the laws of this nation, there is NO WAY I would seek to justify it, nor would I tolerate evasion of the truth. There has to be some accountability, folks. We've now seen the horrors which can (and will) happen without it.

This is inexcusable.

Swoopo: This Could Become A Problem.

Perusing Andrew Sullivan this morning I saw a blog post entitled, "ebay Meets Online Gambling," which is a siren's call to me as potent as a barker's call of "free pizza with free porn." He was referencing an article from Slate called "The Crack Cocaine of Auction Sites"---again, this only served to hype my interest. The article pertains to the "auction" web site Swoopo.com, something I was blissfully unaware of until about an hour ago. I now fear a new phase of my life has begun, and it's probably not going to be a pleasant one.

The concept behind Swoopo is really quite genius. It's so genius I can't believe it's legal. The Slate article cites an example of a MacBook Pro Computer, brand new, which retails between $1300 and $1800 depending on how good of an online shopper you are. One of these sold on Swoopo yesterday for $35.86. How is that possible?

For each "bid" the price of the computer goes up by a penny and Swoopo collects 60 cents. To get up to $35.86, it takes, yes, an incredible 3,585 bids, for each of which Swoopo gets its fee. That means that before selling this computer, Swoopo took in $2,151 in bidding fees. Yikes. In essence, what your 60-cent bidding fee gets you at Swoopo is a ticket to a lottery, with a chance to get a high-end item at a ridiculously low price. With each bid the auction gets extended for a few seconds to keep it going as long as someone in the world is willing to take just one more shot. This can go on for a very, very long time. The winner of the MacBook Pro auction bid more than 750 times, accumulating $469.80 in fees.

"The very, very long time," is somewhat of an understatement. I've been watching some of these auctions go on for an eternity this morning. It's mesmerizing. Utterly hypnotic. I'm not sure what the longterm future of such a business model would be, but I suspect that, after a time, people would get sufficiently beaten down by having spent so much money in the pursuit of an elusive dream. Then again, much like playing the slots at a casino, one good spin of the wheel will keep you playing (and losing) and coming back for more long after you've concluded how stupid it is to be playing (and losing) something in which the odds are so heavily stacked against you. Jonah Lehrer summarizes Swoopo's devious appeal best: "It's one near-miss after another, as we bid and then bid again. The experience feels awful - we know we're wasting money - and yet we can't look away." If you've ever played slots at a casino, you know this feeling well. You've spun 100 times and lost, but you don't want to walk away and have the next person spin once and win the jackpot. This feeling, the "sunk cost" theory of gaming, is what makes Swoopo work so well.

What a brilliant scam. I can't wait to be its next victim.

Friday Night Video

Tonight's video is a 3 for 1 bargain featuring one of my favorite musicians, one of my favorite actors, and one of my favorite directors.

Michael Penn's career seemingly "peaked" in 1989 with his debut album March, off of which the song "No Myth" became his first and only top 40 hit. While that first album is certainly a good one that has mostly retained its charm over the last twenty years, Penn has consistently churned out good work ever since, not the least of which is the criminally underappreciated album Resigned...which I played on an endless loop back in 1997. The best song on the album is "Try," a song whose video was directed by...P.T. Anderson (Magnolia, Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood).

Anderson's unique stamp is all over the video for "Try," most notably in that it's one long, uncut, tracking shot---and a complicated one at that! The video was filmed in downtown Los Angeles in what, according to Wikipedia anyway, is the longest hallway in North America at just over a quarter of a mile long. The video also gets bonus points for making a reference to one of my favorite movies...They Shoot Horses, Don't They? Even if you don't like the song, you have to admire the artistry in pulling off such a complicated shoot.

And if you don't much care for the song or the video, then how's about you try and locate cameo appearances by Philip Seymour Hoffman, Thomas Jane and Melora Walters.

And if NONE of these things interest you, you and I likely don't know each other...and never will. So be it.


Michael Penn - Try (Official Music Video) - The most popular videos are here

Obama: Socialist, Muslim, Lover of the White Women

All of conservative America's fears are now fully realized. Obama, the coolest guy in the room, wants your guns, your money and now your women, too.

Actually, this may not be as bad as it looks. Here's a frame-by-frame analysis suggesting that Obama didn't really look. Much.

But really, how priceless is the look on Sarkozy's face? That's the dude I want to party with. Not Obama.

Update: CIA lied big, GOP still clueless.

Details on what exactly CIA Director Leon Panetta told members of the House Intelligence Committee in his June briefing are beginning to come to light and, not surprisingly, it suggests a systematic effort by both President Bush and the CIA to keep Congress uninformed. Panetta, who only took over as head of the CIA in February, spoke of an eight-year covert spy operation which, while never fully operational, nonetheless was "on-again, off-again" and never discussed with Congress...a possible violation of the National Security Act. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a House Intelligence subcommittee chairwoman, characterized the program as "a very, very serious program deserving a serious debate at the time and through the years." Panetta, to his enormous credit, killed the program upon learning of its existence last month and then dutifully reported such to the House Intelligence Committee. Panetta has also launched an internal probe to investigate why Congress was not told. It's worth nothing that Panetta is an Obama appointee.

A few obvious points. First, as I wrote yesterday, this may or may not have anything to do with Speaker Pelosi's accusations that the CIA mislead her during her briefings. While it does lend credibility to her claims, it would be foolish to call this the "smoking gun" which vindicates her completely. It would be equally foolish to ignore it, however. Second, I'm not so naive as to think that the CIA had never lied before George W. Bush took office, nor am I naive enough to not believe that misdirection and a bit of deception can often be in the best interests of our national security. I'm a liberal pragmatist and I realize that important shit happens that we're probably better off never knowing about. That said, the current approach the GOP is taking to these recent revelations is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

It's completely understandable that House Minority Leader John Boehner would not want to take his foot off of Nancy Pelosi's throat. It was a winning issue for him and it has basically kept her silent for 6-8 weeks. This is a good thing for both Democrats and Republicans alike! But in an interview yesterday he said the issue being raised by House Democrats was like "trying to mix apples and oranges." The Pelosi issue, "has nothing to do with this issue that’s being discussed by my colleagues across the aisle." Nothing? Really? No chance? Not at all? Boehner had previously said that if the CIA lied to Pelosi than it would be a crime and those who lied should be prosecuted. Let's keep that in mind, shall we? In the same interview he also spoke glowingly about the CIA when he said, "I’ve worked closely with our intelligence professionals, and they are that -- professionals. And I do not believe that the CIA lied to Congress." You know what? I agree the CIA is a professional organization, and I believe the CIA is both necessary and vital to our nation's security. But I also believe that any agency---both on an organizational level and certainly on an individual basis---has the ability to act in a corrupt manner. It's not the responsibility of our leadership to give them an unqualified "atta boy" pat on the back. It's the responsibility of our leadership to make sure that they continue to do their job professionally, efficiently, and ethically. Boehner's skepticism, even in the face of seemingly incontrovertible proof, suggests a person willing to give a blank check to the most powerful agency in the WORLD. That's dangerous.

Look, I don't have a problem with Bohener wanting to bifurcate the Pelosi issue from the CIA issue being raised by the House Democrats. He's not entirely wrong to do so. What I have a problem with, and what I would hope any person of a reasonable mind would also have a problem with, is the complete and utter disinterest in the GOP's part to investigate these very credible allegations that have come to light in recent days. It sure seems as though the GOP's number one priority is toppling Pelosi, not holding the CIA accountable for systematic deception. Last I checked, you can do both. Perhaps Bohener will change his tune in the days ahead. I hope so. If not, it'll be just another shining example of where the GOP has gone off the rails. Sometimes being a leader means knowing when to follow. The GOP, it seems, can do neither.