The Spectacle Blog

Re: Nominating Kofi’s Successor

By on 6.5.06 | 11:45AM

Dear Lady G: Who could possibly forget Little Billy? And I have to add to the rules: anyone who nominates any suitable nitwit has to give the best reasons for the nom. And I hereby disqualify Harriett Miers. We don't need another round of reasons why she shouldn't get an elevated post.

RE: Nominating Kofi’s Successor

By on 6.5.06 | 11:10AM

Jed: You forgot about our dear, dear friend, Mr. Bill Clinton, former president of the United States, and all-around friend to the world. He'll be done with his latest book by then, and should be looking for something to do, sans any further global warming crises.

Nominating Kofi’s Successor

By on 6.5.06 | 10:58AM

The UN is inviting its members to submit nominations of candidates to succeed Kofi Annan as Secretary General. So why should they have all the fun?

Please post your nominations in the comments section. To give you a head start, how about some of these folks for the next Sec Gen?

Alec Baldwin

Noam Chomsky

Michael Moore

Kojo Annan

Cindy Sheehan

Howard Dean

You get the idea. Fire away. I'll pick a winner at week's end.

T is for Todd Seavey

By on 6.5.06 | 10:20AM

So apparently a bunch of anarchists in Guy Fawkes masks gathered recently in front of the offices of DC Comics to protest the comic giant's lack of due diligence in allowing "a multi-billion corporation like Time Warner" to "in the presentation of a film version of V for Vendetta to a mass audience, strike the notion of anarchy as a solution to state control." Todd Seavey, editor of the always fascinating Health Facts and Fears website, decided to engage in a bit of patriotic dissent (this is, after all, the Age of the Dixie Chicks), colorfully captured in this blog post by Valerie D'Orazio (A.K.A. Kamikaze Girl).

Here's a bite before the whole delicious meal:

Marriage Pandering

By on 6.5.06 | 9:26AM

The latest push for a federal marriage amendment is being met with increasing skepticism on the right.

I cannot escape the sense that the President and the Senate are pandering on this issue. The base is upset -- albeit over other, larger issues -- but this is, as the critics say, good old "red meat." The federal marriage amendment may be fine legislation, but ignoring the big stuff for a small, politically easy bone is not impressive.

The Senate’s Unconstitutional Immigration Bill

By on 6.5.06 | 2:15AM

I missed this on Friday, but it seems kind of important. Here's the deal: The Senate immigration bill has a provision that requires illegal immigrants to pay back-taxes before applying for citizenship. But Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution says that bills for raising revenue must originate in the House. Bill Frist has an easy fix for this: attach the immigration bill to a tax bill that started in the House, and send that to the conference committee. Harry Reid, however, won't agree to this, saying that the problem is no big deal -- "technical in nature" are his words. (Apparently, Reid meant his oath to uphold the Constitution to apply only to the general spirit of the document, not the actual specifics.) Refusing to allow the Frist fix almost guarantees that a member of the House will introduce and pass a blue-slip resolution to send the bill back to the Senate before it makes it into conference. Reid's goal seems to be to block any immigration bill from passing before November.