02/06/2006
Gonzales stonewalls Feinstein questions on illegal wiretapping.
Halliburton building U.S. 'concentration camps'? L.A. Times: "Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants."
Karl Lagerfeld does not lack opinions about the wives of Prince Charles: "[Diana] was pretty and she was sweet, but she was stupid. The public does not know who Camilla is. She is the life of the party! She's sparkling, she's witty, she's ready for everything, and not pretentious, not one bit. If you had to make a choice to live with somebody, this is the one."
No Cruci-fixins for you! Britney Spears Christian characterization nixed from Will & Grace.
Posted 3:25 PM EST by Andy Towle in Elsewhere | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Lagerfeld is a slimy freak. Nuff said.
Posted by: Tagg | Feb 6, 2006 3:58:50 PM
Oh please if they did spy on journalists - don't you think they would find the journalist who leaked this information and put him into one of these so called Halli-camps? I usually agree with the Senator from our great state but I think she has been listening to the conspiracy wing of her party. We already have one dingbat senator form California we don’t need another one!
Posted by: Matthew Schooler | Feb 6, 2006 4:37:46 PM
Damn, they should have still filmed the Britney Christian segment but held it as an extended scene for the dvd release of the final season. Damn it [shaking fist in the air].
Posted by: Mr. GuyTVBlog | Feb 6, 2006 4:59:19 PM
Hey Matthew --
Wouldn't that pretty much give it away that they were spying in journalist?!?!
bad logic. Neither of your senators is a dingbat.
Posted by: PHDinNYC4Dems | Feb 6, 2006 5:03:40 PM
What was slimy about what old Karl said?
Posted by: Donald | Feb 6, 2006 5:22:09 PM
To quote Greg Gutfeld:
"People who believe in conspiracies are generally unstable and athiestic - obvious truth scares them, and they find comfort in the idea of plotting, secret societies, since they find no joy in religion (or life in general). This way of thinking also feeds the ego: YOU ALONE can see the conspiracy, while others cannot. The left is like a pig in shit when in comes to conspiracies - for it gives them the pleasure of thinking the rest of America is asleep, while only they know the truth. They employ this thinking on all fronts - from the New Orleans hurricane (they can see it's all about race - but we cannot) to Iraq (it's a Bush/Halliburton cabal)."
The rest of America is asleep.
Hostility to religion.
Everything is Bush/Halliburton.
See a pattern. It's like lots of yarn and thumb tacks.
Posted by: Mitch | Feb 6, 2006 5:44:45 PM
While Mr. Lagerfeld might be deadly accurate in his assessment about Di and Camilla, I think it is beyond rich that he talks of pretentions. Could there be a more pretentious person in the world than him?
And here's the kicker, Mr. Schooler: The hearings were about the government's spying on Americans, not just journalists. And frankly, it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to reach that conclusion since the administration has already admitted that they did it. What the hearings were about, not to trouble you too much with the facts, was whether they broke the law in doing so.
There's nothing more fun than pointing out how others folks don't even realize how stupid they are. Is there, Mr. Schooler?
Posted by: Kyle Childress | Feb 6, 2006 6:18:48 PM
How would anyone prove they found the journalist by wire tapping? That is why this thing is so silly...you can’t prove it. A terrorist is going to come forward and say it is true I committed a crime but you violated my rights by spying on me! Who is going to come to their defense? I guess we can always count on the ACLU. However they have to prove it was the wire tapping that caught the criminal and not any other means.
Posted by: Matthew Schooler | Feb 6, 2006 6:26:58 PM
How could someone as incredibly eccentric as Karl Lagerfeld be so judgemental???
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 6, 2006 7:54:51 PM
I don't get you Schooler, but knowing that you donated $2000 to Bush in 2004 tells me just what kind of blinders you have on. And since you seem to be associated with Petry Television, a company that deals in spot television political ads, you are obviously part of the machine that makes these very blinders.
Posted by: Google | Feb 6, 2006 9:38:58 PM
Matthew?
Is that true? Did you give all that money to Bush?
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 6, 2006 10:10:02 PM
I want to be protected from terrorist attacks. I want anyone with any connection to terrorists monitored. All phone calls, internet messages, mail and cargo coming from, or going to any place where terrorists are known to gather, needs to be monitored and investigated.
I don't care if the government finds out that your Aunt Sue has herpes. I don't care if some NSA agent reads your love letters before you get them. Your privacy is soooo much less important than my safety, and the lives of my friends and neighbors.
I hope you understand.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 6, 2006 10:45:17 PM
Jay, Give me liberty or give me death. If you don't want the Consitutional freedoms of America, you are always free to go get security in some other country that won't be attacked. I'd prefer the Constitution.
Posted by: sean | Feb 6, 2006 11:02:57 PM
Sorry, Jay, but you don't seem to understand that the people who are objecting to this most agree with you that they want to be protected from terrorists, and that that is less important than protecting privacy per se. It is that a legal process for such invasion of privacy exists and the Bushazis are—rather than even claiming that its broken [which would require cooperation in fixing it]—simply saying THEY are above the law. That is not democracy. That is not representative government. It is, at best, marshall law. Has he not the balls to simply declare that, rather than unilaterally dismantling our civil liberties one by one? Guess my answer. American history is oozing with examples of subjective interpretation of who's a threat to the government and who isn't. And recent reminders of FBI FAG Chief J. Edgar Hoover's rabid belief that Martin Luther King and others working for equal rights for Blacks were ipso facto a threat to the nation are echoed by current reports that the Pentagon labeled university student groups opposed to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members as “suspicious” and “credible threats” of terrorism. Nota bene: not just anti a specific Pentagon policy [and the Administration's support for it] abd probably not likely donors to his Presidential library in Butt Fuck, Texas, but, in effect, TERRORISTS! Now, if they've already made that absurd leap, do NOT ask me to trust them. Forget my herpesitic Aunt Sue and my love letters—how about YOURS? How about finding out some day that YOU were denied a job, a promotion, a credit card, a car loan, a mortgage because someone in the government reported that YOU had terrorist ties simply because YOUR time on the Net was tracked to Feb 6, 2006 10:45:17 PM on towleroad where there are articles and commentary opposing Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Iraq War and any number of other things. Due process would, theoretically, result in such microscopic guilt by association never affecting your life, whereas the carte blanche Herr George wants virtually guarantees abuse. It is not "Stop Terrorism" OR "Do everything possible to minimize State-sponsored domestic spying abuse." It can be both.
Posted by: Leland | Feb 6, 2006 11:18:54 PM
Oops, should read "...agree with you that they want to be protected from terrorists, and that that is MORE important than protecting privacy per se."
Posted by: Leland | Feb 6, 2006 11:21:40 PM
>>How about finding out some day that YOU were denied a job, a promotion, a credit card, a car loan, a mortgage because someone in the government reported that YOU had terrorist ties
Sorry Leland, but I won't die from being denied a job. I might die if a terrorist blows up my office building, or the train I ride to work.
I'll agree with you on this point. What the government does with the data it collects is definitely an issue. However, their duty to collect that data, is not.
We must do everything possible to minimize the abuse of data gathered by State-sponsored domestic spying, without hindering the investigative action of those agencies.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 7, 2006 12:08:59 AM
Well, Jay's comments are the living proof that instillating fear is the best asset Bush has, and that it works. The mere fact that Jay's reading this blog virtually guarantees that the Bush administration would abuse their power against him (countless examples of that abound as to date), and YET the *remote* idea that a terrorist attack might kill him still justifies the dismantling of due process.
I'll tell you: it IS due process that is more efficient against terrorism. Because it IS due process that insures that terrorist investigations DO apply to potential terrorists, and are not diverted to lawful political opponents of the current administration...
Posted by: Nick | Feb 7, 2006 2:40:58 AM
>>The mere fact that Jay's reading this blog virtually guarantees that the Bush administration would abuse their power against him
FYI, Nick, I passed a Treasury Dept. background check in order to work with a previous Republican presidential candidate. Before they approached me, they knew my friends, where we hung out, that I had a Gay brother and that my cousins were active in the Communist party, and that I helped found a local Gay rights organization. I still passed.
Knowing facts about you is part of the government's job. That doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 7, 2006 3:10:03 AM
I was reading Lagerfeld's remarks, trying to get just who it was I was actually 'hearing'. Then it hit me: Edna Mold, from 'The Incredibles'.
Posted by: Jacko | Feb 7, 2006 6:01:38 AM
Thanks, Jay. If you'd only told us that you were one of the GOP's annointed "Porch Niggers" we would have immediately understood. Please forgive us for distracting you from your shucking and jiving.
Posted by: Jim | Feb 7, 2006 10:36:37 AM
Well, it's taken me what, four years of war, but for now, I can't see much difference these days between the Bush administration and Hussein's except for the fact that there haven't been any mass murderings of "enemies of the state" - yet.
Scary.
Posted by: samguy | Feb 7, 2006 10:46:47 AM
Jay: A policeman's job is only easy in a police state.
Posted by: John C | Feb 7, 2006 11:58:54 AM
Google did you go on the other sites to find out more information? I use my real name because I have no secrets. I guess the rest of you do and that is why you are so scared of the spying. They are monitoring this website even as we speak. I would be very careful what you say from this point on....It is a vast government conspiracy to capture all the gay and colored people in America to lock them in the Halli-camps with the rest of the terrorists!!! Run as fast as you can!! GET OUT QUICKLY!! Gotta go someone is at the door. No NO NOOOOOOOOOOO
Posted by: Matthew Schooler | Feb 7, 2006 12:50:29 PM
Jim,
"Porch Nigger" "shucking" and "jiving" ???
Do you always use "ethnic" terms to get your points across???????
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 7, 2006 2:10:49 PM
I use historically factual terms, carefully placing those that might be offensive in quotation marks, when they apply. Can no discussion involve neutral references to racial or ethnic groups that involve terms that, in other contexts, e.g., an intentional epithet or characterization of the group itself, every reasonable person would agree is inappropriate? The term "Coon Art" still stings my ears even though there are many African-American collectors who use that term themselves. My comments hardly rise to the level of Mark Twain, but are you of the school that thinks "Nigger Jim" should be erased from all printings of "Huckleberry Finn"? The phenomena of "House Niggers" and "Porch Niggers" are often referenced by scholars and serious, nonracist laypeople when speaking of any group, regardless of their race, whose behavior/attitude toward their oppressors is often softened because they get special treatment. That is the issue, not their race. Some also speak of the Kapos in WWII concentration camps—most, but not all, Jewish—who traded cooperation with those who ran the camps for better treatment and hopefully longer lives. Again, the point is not that some of them were Jewish [or gay of various ethnicities] but that they collaborated. I hope that answers your question.
Posted by: Jim | Feb 7, 2006 2:55:50 PM