This may also be in the “lighten up” category, but I have to admit that Eric Boehlert makes a point about Colbert’s fake candidacy, and the enormous media coverage it’s received. The joke is indeed on the press here, and as typical for the Stewart and Colbert crew, there’s serious news behind it.
I have enough personal interest in the process and the candidates that I’ve spent the time to read all about their stances, voting records and personal stories — so the ongoing campaign coverage doesn’t really do much for me. As such I find Colbert’s run pretty hilarious, but it could be argued that it’s not so funny when the media probably should be spending their time on more complete coverage of the real candidates in this the most important part of our representative governmental process.
Why is the media seemingly ignoring Ron Paul (who, while I wouldn’t pick him, is probably the candidate who America as a whole really wants) while continuing to cover a joke? Why is it that when I mention Obama to my coworkers, they still wonder aloud “isn’t he a Muslim or something?”
It’s just a quick funny, but very much in keeping with the lies.com spirit: Stephen Colbert writes Maureen Dowd’s column, unleashing his double-ironic conservative fury on the NY Times Op-ed. My favorite bit, explaining the confusing nature of 2008 presidential candidates:
For instance, Hillary Clinton. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to be scared of her so Democrats will think they should nominate her when she’s actually easy to beat, or if I’m supposed to be scared of her because she’s legitimately scary.
Or Rudy Giuliani. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to support him because he’s the one who can beat Hillary if she gets nominated, or if I’m supposed to support him because he’s legitimately scary.
I found this piece in GQ on Barack Obama, following and interviewing him on the campaign trail, to be an interesting look at the presidential election grinder. As the author describes it, Obama’s dogged determination to keep his ideals and speak substantively, even when it alienates some constituency, runs directly against the currents of campaign vote-winning and the media soundbite machine. Obama says:
“The danger … is that you start becoming so risk-averse that you become canned and scripted, and I’m resisting that, which means there’s still gonna be some times when I want to push the boundaries a little bit, try to make a point…”
Certainly reading this does nothing but increase my desperate desire to see this man become our President, but no matter your opinion of Obama, it’s interesting reading about the difficulties of any candidate balancing his/her principles against the conflicting practicalities of getting elected. Even though there are issues on which I disagree with Obama, it’s his judgment that I increasingly feel is his real strength — but that’s a difficult message played against Edwards’ populist bombast and Clinton’s stern-faced “readiness to be President”.
Hm. My fixation on Plamegate and Bush’s resulting facial tics has definitely left my coverage severely imbalanced. How else to explain my having missed this story? Model Tyra Banks gets nasty rumor off chest on TV.
[Plastic surgeon Garth] Fischer said, “I’ve performed approximately 8,000 breast implant surgeries, I’ve examined you, I’ve reviewed your sonogram… and Tyra Banks has natural breasts.”
Not really news, since Jack and Meg White’s (of the White Stripes’) marriage certificate was posted on the Internet years ago, and they had never publicly responded to the allegation that they weren’t actually brother and sister, as their publicity bios claimed. But now it’s official: In a recent interview Jack admits that the pair (now divorced) started off as a husband-and-wife team: Jack White admits relationship lie.
White told Rolling Stone magazine that the pair came up with the lie to deflect interest away from their personal lives and to make people concentrate on the music.
He said: “It’s funny that people think me and Meg sit up late at night, in front of a gas lamp, and come up with these intricate lies to trick people.
“If we had presented ourselves in another fashion… how would we have been perceived, right off the bat? When you see a band that is two pieces, husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, you think, ‘Oh, I see…”
“When they’re brother and sister, you go, ‘Oh, that’s interesting.’ You care more about the music, not the relationship.”
Cindy Sheehan offered some additional detail about the alleged email to Nightline in her DailyKos diary entry today: Vigils.
Another thing is that the Israel thing has not died. I did not say that my son died for Israel. I have never said it, I don?t think it, I don?t believe it. It is just another lie, smear tactic from the right. It needs to die right now. It?s not the truth. I stand by everything that I have said. But I will not stand by things that I haven?t said. I am not anti-Semitic. I am just anti-killing. George Bush is responsible for killing so many people, but nobody scrutinizes anything he says, especially leading up to the war. Since there is nothing to smear me about with the truth, they have to tell lies. A former friend who is anti-Israel and wants to use the spotlight on me to push his anti-Semitism is telling everyone who is listening that I believe that Casey died for Israel and has gone so far as to apparently doctor an email from me. People have to know that he doesn?t speak for me. ABC Nightline can?t confirm his email is real and therefore any reporting on it is irresponsible. That is not my issue. That is not my message and anyone who knows me knows it doesn?t sound like me.
I’m focused on my mission in Crawford: to meet with the President and demand answers. That?s it. I have spent enough time on that. Enough is enough.
Later in the same entry she includes a letter allegedly from Rabbi Arthur Waskow, vouching for her and bolstering her version of events.
As I was saying to Janus/Onan in Ishar earlier today, I feel like I’m perfectly poised between skepticism and credulity on this one. Both explanations (that she’s telling the truth, and the person who forwarded her email to Nightline doctored it to inject an anti-Israel screed; or that she’s spinning about a statement she actually made, but now realizes could undercut her efectiveness) seem pretty much equally plausible to me.
Which means, of course, that both the pro- and anti-Cindy people will be confident that the facts support their position, with at least one of those groups being wrong.
I’m really curious which one it is.
Update: Stephen Spruiell on National Review Online (which it must be said is only a step or two above places like FreeRepublic.com in my personal trustworthiness scale) says he has some information that would tend to undercut Cindy’s “my ex-friend doctored it” explanation: Sheehan herself sent “Israel” letter to friend.
Of course, this is the beauty of the right-wing echo chamber: Even if Cindy’s version of events is perfectly true, this kind of stuff will predictably succeed in changing the subject and distracting people from her actual message. Whereas if she is trying to spin away earlier statements she actually made, they just get to push it that much harder.
It’s the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth all over again.
Later update: MSNBC: Antiwar mom leaving camp to aid ailing mother. Cindy’s mother is in the emergency room in Los Angeles after a stroke, apparently, and she’s left the camp to be with her. Ymatt’s instantaneous comment:
Sometimes I link to things that you wouldn’t think I would, and sometimes I don’t link to things that seem like they’re right up my alley. I don’t know why that is. It’s a complex equation.
For example, I saw everyone linking to that walken2008.com site a week or two ago, and I took a look at it, but said, meh, not interested. It’s not that I necessarily believed it to be a hoax, but there really just didn’t seem to be any there there. I guess I figured if it was real, there’d be time to talk about it later, and if it wasn’t, I didn’t want to waste my time.
I enjoyed this article in the LA Times the other day, and feel like I’d be remiss if I didn’t link to it from Lies.com, the weblog-of-record for shameless deception: Fred’s storied career (login required, cypherpunk98/cypherpunk works).
Brito, 49, has spent his adult life using aliases and phony credentials to pull off one elaborate deception after another. He has lied his way into jobs as a Catholic priest, a youth counselor for a foster care agency and executive director of the National Kidney Foundation of Southern California, among many others. He once convinced a judge he was a psychiatrist in order to testify in a friend’s criminal trial.
With the Times’ web-hostile archive policy, the story won’t be there for long, but it’s available for now.
So, I guess there was some sort of trial up the road in Santa Maria that ended yesterday? At least, I noticed that at one point in the afternoon the same dumb program, in which a swarm of helicopters follwed a line of black SUVs, was on every channel.
Sigh.
It’s a little late, but Triumph is always good for a laugh. Courtesy of anti-copyright superhero Norm of One Good Move (I think he has a spandex suit in the closet that says “Fair Use Man!” in bold letters across the chest): Triumph The Insult Comic Dog and MJ Fans.
The CSI episode in which former Starfleet Ensign Crusher played a deranged killer aired the other day, though I didn’t watch it (I’ve seen about half of one CSI episode, ever; I have a high threshold for allowing new addictions into my life). Anyway, here’s his description of watching the episode, including his 22 seconds of I-am-not-just-a-child-actor validation: tall buildings shake voices escape. You can also read this recent New York Times piece about the former Wesley: A computer is also a screen, Wil Wheaton discovers.
(Oh, and courtesy of the newfound lack of topic icons, I easily create a new lies.com category for ‘television’. Yee ha.)
The writer himself, Hoag said, will be missed. “There’s no one in the world these days who writes the truth … as he seems to, to me,” he said. “He spoke to the world and said what people were afraid to say.”
CNN CEO Jonathon Klein didn’t go so far as to publicly call Tucker Carlson a dick, but he did describe himself as “coming down more firmly in the Jon Stewart camp” in announcing the firing of his bow-tied Crossfire shouting head: CNN dumps Tucker Carlson. Klein characterized the dismissal as part of a larger effort to treat the audience with more “respect.”
Props to my buddy Wess for pointing me to this AZCentral story about Phoenix Arizona having no pictures whatsoever of C.J. Dyer — the city’s 15th mayor (for 5 months in 1899). So, doing what few cities in the country would do, they hung a picture of Seinfeld’s Michael Richards in it’s place.
From Sequential Tart comes this really cool interview with Wil Wheaton, late of Star Trek: The Next Generation: Not Just a Geek, part II. Even if you don’t care about Star Trek, and his recent writing activities, you should still read it. Just invert his advice, and skip to the political commentary toward the end. Heh. (Wil’s own commentary on his commentary available on his weblog: is this not what you expected to see?)
I’m a big fan of Jon Stewart’s work on The Daily Show, so when someone mentioned at a BBQ this weekend that he was the commencement speaker at William and Mary this year, I went hunting to see if i could find a transcript. It wasn’t all that hard to find, theres quite a bit of buzz about it, becuase it’s both extremely funny, and extremely astute “Lets talk about the real world for a moment: … I’ll be blunt. We broke it.”
I mean seriously, when was the last time you laughed while reading a speech that used the word “ennui” ?
I saw this the other day, but the significance of the claim didn’t really register in my mind untill today. Rick Soloman has filed a lawsuit against “Marvad Corp”, for displaying still shots taken from the well known video of he and Paris Hilton having sex on their web site. The basis of his suit is copyright infringement — which is key to keep in mind, because Marvad’s lawyers have responded by claiming that as “The Producer”, he is commiting fraud by claiming copyright without the consent of Paris Hilton, “The Director”.
From their petition: “Ms Hilton offered directorial comments and physically controlled and directed the camera. Solomon’s failure to identify Ms Hilton as a co-author on the application for copyright registration renders the certificate of registration invalid and fraudulent.”
As metioned previously, Babs has been acting like a spoiled little child, complaining that the California Coastal Records Project had violated the sanctity of her home, and was aiding stalkers. I didn’t notice untill today, but last week the judge dismissed her case.
The CCRP web site has more info about the dismissal, and tons of press links.
In an interview with CNN following up on her notorious open-mouthed kiss with Madonna at the MTV Video Music Awards, Britney Spears had some interesting commentary when asked about her position regarding the war in Iraq: “Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that.”
For those of you who aren’t members of the MTV generation, you may not have heard about “The Kiss” (or more appropriately: “The Kisses”) from Thursday nights MTV Video Music Awards. Being the 20th anniversary, Britney Spears & Christina Aguilera got together on stage to do a tribute rendition of Madona’s legendary “Like A Virgin” stage performace from the very first VMA ceremony. They were then joined by the orriginal material girl, who launched into her latest single “Hollywood”, taking breaks between versuses to plant big juicy open mouthed kisses on each of the two pop-princesses.
For those of you who like looking at hot chicks kissing, there are plenty of pictures all over the web, and even some video clips.
There are plenty of people pointing out how contrived the whole thing was, but what I find most ammusing is how much all the coverage has been about “Madona kissing Britney” — with very little mention of the fact that she planted big wet ones on both of them. The clip I saw acctually cut away when Madona turned towards Christina …. which brings me to the second most ammusing part of all this, the way they cut to Justin Timberlake just for a reaction shot. (I have to admit, it was a hilarious reaction shot).
Sports Illustrated has not one, but two stories about the current conditions of Ted Williams’s cryogenically frozen remains. The New York TImes seems to have followed up the story, and has some more details.
What a wild, wacky, and sad sad state of affairs.
It’s kind of hard to categorize this one. It’s an interview with actor James Woods by Salon writer Amy Reiter, and it’s definitely worth watching the MCI commercial (or whatever) to get the one-day pass for it: Woods on fire. He’s promoting his new movie, Northfork, so it should probably go in the “Movies” category, but the interview actually ends up being about lots of other things, like whether or not George Bush is a moron and why people on the left-wing can’t admit that it was a bad thing for Bill Clinton to put a cigar in Monica Lewinsky’s vagina and whether it’s important that WMD have not been found in Iraq and so on. On balance, I think the thing the interview is “about,” more than anything else, is the nature of celebrity and the larger context of people like Woods doing interviews like this, so that’s the category I chose for it.
I certainly don’t agree with all the conclusions Woods comes to. But I certainly do agree with some of them. And his comments about the frustration of dealing with people whose minds are already made up on every political issue struck a chord with me, given the kind of ranting I’ve been doing on this site lately.
It was more than a year ago, in May of 2002, that Justin Timberlake rocked our world with the news that Britney was not, in fact, a virgin. Well, she has now confirmed it. From CNN: Britney acknowledges she’s not a virgin.
She lied to the SEC. She lied to the FBI. And this isn’t about her hiding her secret recipe for chicken tartar. The question remains on whether or not she is going to go to jail for misleading investigators over a paltry $229,000.00. But at least its going to be entertaining to watch her squirm in the courtroom!
Hey, maybe we can talk jbc into giving us a daily update on her wardrobe throughout the trial.
Barbra Steisand is really annoying sometimes. At the moment, because she’s suing the California Coastal Records Project. It seems she resents the fact that multimillionaire Kenneth Adelman included her Malibu estate in his exhaustive, and extemely cool, catalog of coastal images, intended as a tool for anti-development forces that need to be able to document illegal coastal development.
Anyway, read about it in this LA Times article: Streisand sues over photograph of her coast home on web site. And be sure to go to the page that displays her estate, so her obnoxious legal effort will be guaranteed to have the exact opposite effect of what the privacy-obsessed diva intended.
Update:More detail from californiacoastline.org on the history of their interaction with Babs.
slate.msn.com has a few choice ditties by Donald Rumsfeld from the past few years. It’s the kind of list you could compile for just about anybody if enough source material is available … but it’s a humorous read none the less.
Speaking to television reporters in Finland during a break in his Finnish tour, singer Harry Belafonte said the U.S. is currently being run by “men who are possessed of evil” (among some other choice quotes). I’m not sure why it makes me so happy to read that, but damn, it really does. You tell ‘em, Harry.
Someone who taught me, and a lot of other boys and girls, about the values of caring and openness and honesty passed away this morning. Fred Rogers, rest in peace.
Prosecutors are doing their best to paint Paul Reubens as a menace to society, based on the 50-year-old images in his vintage gay porn collection, as we continue through the process of pre-trial motions. Fucking Ashcrofts. Don’t you think there might be some children actually being abused out there somewhere who could benefit from some of the time and energy you’re currently devoting to railroading this guy?
Apparently the new Madonna video for her song “American Dream” will feature a violently depicted anti-war message. You go, girl. (Always nice when I can run a story that is actually about the person whose image I stole for the category image.)
Winona Ryder apparently will appear in Marc Jacobs’ spring advertising campaign, reprising her role as criminal clothes horse from last fall’s trial. You go, girl.
From the Village Voice’s Richard Goldstein comes this excellent write up of the railroading currently being inflicted on one of my personal heroes: Paul Reubens, aka Pee Wee Herman. This pisses me off bigtime.
Deputy D.A. Ann Rundle has filed the prosecution’s brief in advance of Friday’s sentencing of Winona Ryder. Rundle calls for community service, a $26,000 fine, and drug counseling, which, except for that intervening trial and conviction part, is pretty much what I was predicting back in the day. The most interesting part of the brief is where Rundle details all the drugs Winona had on her at the time of the arrest. I don’t think there can be any real question but that the girl, for all her clothes sense, has a serious substance-abuse problem.
The gloves (well, glove, and surgical mask, too) are off, apparently, as the world media goes nuts over Michael Jackson’s face. As in this story from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, titled But can Michael Jackson recall the details of his nose? I realize I did the very same thing here on lies.com the instant I saw that first day’s photo, but I thought real-life news outlets would have a touch more decorum. Silly me. Update: Here’s another story, from Reuters, with expert analysis from a panel of plastic surgeons. Eesh.
Appearing in a packed courtroom to testify about his failure to perform a 1999 concert, Michael Jackson must have elicited audible gasps from the gallery when he removed a surgical mask to reveal the latest incarnation of his face. And no, I will not be devoting a wiki page to subsequent appearances.
We’re back to the dark jacket look (or perhaps it’s a dark dress that just looks like a jacket) at the Winona Ryder trial. See the wiki’s WinonaRyderOnTrial page for the latest images and commentary. Today is jury-deliberation day, with the possibility of a verdict before the day is over. My prediction: a guilty verdict, followed by a sentence involving probation, fine, and counseling, but no jail time. But I think an actual stay behind bars is still a possibility, if the judge decides to try to set the little lady straight and scare her away from future acts of self-destruction. Update:No verdict today (Tuesday); jury to return tomorrow for more deliberations.
Winona returns to an outfit reminiscent of the white-dress stunner of October 16. Photos and commentary in the wiki’s WinonaRyderOnTrial page. Update:The defense rests, with no calling of Winona to testify on her own behalf. The prosecution has given its closing statement; the defense’s closing statement is expected later today. Later: Some interesting bits about the closing statements are in this Associated Press article. Judge’s instructions and jury deliberation tomorrow.
Just when you thought it was safe, with the trial on hold for the weekend, here comes even more Winona coverage. Specifically, check out this nice article from the New York Times: For the Ryder Trial, a Hollywood Script. It gives a good summary of where things stand currently, along with some speculation about why someone like Winona would have shoplifted.
Today’s look from Winona (see the bottom of the wiki’s WinonaRyderOnTrial page) is nearly indistinguishable from yesterday’s, at least based on the two photos that have come out so far. It’s a different dark coat over the top, and looks like a dark sweater, rather than a dark jacket, in the middle layer, but the shirt could be the same one as yesterday’s, and the purse is the same, too. Haven’t seen the pants yet. I wonder if this reflects a growing recognition on Winona’s part of the seriousness of what she’s involved in here. When defending yourself against charges that you’re clothes-crazy enough to go shoplifting stuff you could easily have just purchased, maybe the wearing of wackily different outfits each day of the trial hurts more than helps.
Today’s outfit: Jeans, a long black coat, a dark jacket underneath, a white blouse, and a tourquoise pendant. Photos (and later, once I get a chance, commentary) available in the wiki’s WinonaRyderOnTrial page.
Today’s outfit is a fairly intense black dress with jaunty pastel accents. My first reaction was “femme fatale,” but Madison (who, like Lucy, has actually been paying attention to clothes significantly longer than the last few days during which I’ve been paying attention to them) responded, “Actually, I think that’s the ‘I’m a harmless little girl in a sailor dress’ look.” The shoes don’t exactly say either “little girl” or “sailor” to me, but I think I see her point. Anyway, in the interest of keeping the Winona entries under some semblance of control, I’m going to try to confine my further raving to the wiki’s WinonaRyderOnTrial page.
Things took a turn for the worse in the second full day of the Winona Ryder trial, as the actress arrived in a really yucky-looking green thing (dress? coat? hard to tell, or care, honestly). Photo coverage is pretty sparse so far (for which I guess we should actually be grateful), though it does look like she’s sporting yet another jarringly mismatched purse, if the strap and possibly-associated white and brown fringed thing visible in this photo mean what I think they do. Excuse me; I think I’m going to have to go lie down. Update: Speculation runs wild on the question of whether the first image above shows a worn collar edge (the hint of white along the right collar). And now, a newly released photo seems to show the same thing on the left collar. Lies.com fashion correspondent Lucy, in looking at the second photo, says, “I’m more inclined to think it’s some decorative edging that’s reflecting the flash, instead of a worn edge.” I really hope she’s right. If not, I have serious doubts about whether Winona’s legal team will be able to recover. Later: We’ve got good news and bad news, people. The good news is that I was wrong about that white and brown fringed thing under Attorney Mark Geragos’ arm; whatever it was, it wasn’t Winona’s purse. The bad news is that the purse she actually brought today is even worse than I imagined. Is there still time for a plea bargain? Still later: She looks better after the lunch break, with her coat unbuttoned to reveal a dark blouse underneath. And is that even the same purse? Last update, I promise: In my shock at today’s outfit, I totally forgot to mention that it’s Winona’s birthday today. Happy 31st from lies.com! And in terms of the actual trial, about all that happened today, apparently, was that the Saks security supervisor narrated a video showing her walking around the store picking out clothes.
Day III of the Winona Ryder trial opened with a bang, as the defendant arrived in a dramatic black dress (I think; these through-the-glass shots they’re limiting the paparazzi to leave something to be desired). The see-through factor was unfortunate; she may have received inadequate legal advice on the effect of high-powered flash photography in combination with a white bra. She’s still got a big, ugly purse, but it’s a different big ugly purse, thankfully. The headband was a nice touch, I think. No word yet on the less-important details, like opening statements. Update:Opening statements are done; the prosecution makes it out as theft, plain and simple. The defense paints a more interesting picture, in which security guards overstep the bounds of their authority because they were (naturally) gaga at being in Winona’s celebrity presence. Later: In late testimony Monday, Saks security manager Kenneth Evans said Winona claimed to have been preparing for a role when she was confronted about her shoplifting. The defense objected, saying the allegation hadn’t surfaced in any previous statements by the prosecution, but they were overruled.
The jury for Winona Ryder’s shoplifting trial was sworn in yesterday. Confirming the adage that you can’t throw a rock in L.A. without hitting a film producer, the Beverly Hills jury will include Peter Guber, former chairman of Sony Entertainment Pictures. The 8-woman, 4-man jury also includes a woman who is a legal secretary with Sony Pictures and a man who works in TV program development. Winona wore a blue full-length jacket, red pumps, and carried the same god-awful purse she had on Day I. I wonder if the purse is meant to work in her favor with the jury: See? Winona always carries a big, ugly handbag. It doesn’t mean she’s planning to shoplift. If that’s the angle the defense is working, I guess I have to accept it, but it will really be a shame if they feel they have to continue it for the entire trial. Accessories matter, dammit.
It’s jury-selection day in the Winona Ryder trial, though I haven’t been able to find out what she’s wearing yet. With the F.B.I. reporting that they believe they have the D.C. sniper in custody, though, hopefully we’ll be able to get more detail soon. (I did come across this story about Christina Aguilera piercing her private parts, at least. Thank God the media are getting back to covering real news.) Update: Looks like a fairly restrained floral-print dress with pink sweater. Later: From Lucy, a better photo. Check out the shoes. But that shoulder bag? I dunno; I realize she needs to appeal to jurors by dressing down a bit, but it seems like a little much to me.