In Which The Maddow Demonstrates Her Sitcom Potential

Rachel was bringing the funny tonight, so I don't have to. I love Fridays on TRMS. Her first sitcom take is after the "smoking lettuce" Holy Mackerel story:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

But her finest moment comes in her remarks about House Minority Leader Boehner:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And to top it all off, a DorkFactor moment with props!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

DorkFactor of 8.8. 1.6 level of difficulty for managing two props simultaneously.

In Which, Really Norm Coleman?

I started off seriously tonight, searching for some independent ratings on judges. I'm sure they exist, but once I found this quote in The Minnesota Independent, I was done:

Not to be outdone, former Sen. Norm Coleman sent out a confident-sounding statement of his own on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. Just as Democratic Party rival Al Franken said he looks “forward to joining my colleagues as we examine Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications,” Coleman assumed an air of inevitability, stating that “when” he’s re-elected, he’ll apply the same standard for a “Democrat” nominee as he would’ve under a Republican president.

If it weren't so pathetic it would be awesomely funny. Oh, wait a minute, it IS awesomely funny. In a desperate, needy, schadenfreude-ian way.

And so is this: (awesomely funny, that is)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

DorkFactor of 7.5.

And more props:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

No DorkFactor here, more of a "coolness quotient."

Also, how much does Rachel love saying, "Sotomayor?"

In Which I Have A Feeling Of Dread

I have gone longer between posts than I usually do. The events of this week, with Obama advocating "preventive detention," and the Senate voting against the amendment to the war funding bill designed to procure funds to close Guantanamo, have pained me to the point that I didn't want to write about them. The Democrats jumped aboard the fear-mongering train, continuing the "not in my backyard" bullshit regarding accepting Gitmo transfers. Now, that pisses me off, and it's stupid, but it doesn't disturb me as much as "preventive detention" does.

I spent a lot of hours campaigning for Obama. I admire and respect him, so should I trust him on this? Is it Constitutionally sound? If it's as wrong as I think it is, am I complicit?

I'm no lawyer, so I sought the opinion of people who know these sorts of things. Frequent Maddow guest Jonathan Turley writes in his blog:

He promised “[w]e are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people.” Of course, this would mean holding people in violation of domestic and international law — precisely what George Bush did. It is part of the Administration’s effort to appear principled by doing an unprincipled thing. The reason that we cannot try these individuals is because they would win. The solution, according to both Bush and Obama, is not to give them a trial.

Salon has a very informative article by Glenn Greenwald.

(2) Are defenders of Obama's proposals being consistent?

During the Bush years, it was common for Democrats to try to convince conservatives to oppose Bush's executive power expansions by asking them: "Do you really want these powers to be exercised by Hillary Clinton or some liberal President?"

Following that logic, for any Democrat/progressive/liberal/Obama supporter who wants to defend Obama's proposal of "preventive detention," shouldn't you first ask yourself three simple questions:

(a) what would I have said if George Bush and Dick Cheney advocated a law vesting them with the power to preventively imprison people indefinitely and with no charges?;

(b) when Bush and Cheney did preventively imprison large numbers of people, was I in favor of that or did I oppose it, and when right-wing groups such as Heritage Foundation were alone in urging a preventive detention law in 2004, did I support them?; and

(c) even if I'm comfortable with Obama having this new power because I trust him not to abuse it, am I comfortable with future Presidents -- including Republicans -- having the power of indefinite "preventive detention"?

It's "(c)" above that makes my head explode. My answer is, "No."

So, not a good week for those of the liberal persuasion.

My much needed "Moment of Dork:"

DorkFactor of 7.7. Deduction for absence of props.

In Which...Yay! Dorkiness!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It's not really until the last three aaaghs! that you get the full DorkFactor. Until then, it's just funny. The judges give the last six seconds a DorkFactor of 5.8.

Only three guests tonight. Here comes a Rachel rant! I sure miss the 20-30 minute Maddow rants on AAR.

In Which The Dork Train Pulls Into The Station

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The hat trick-DorkFactor of 7.3

The super cute sheepish look after-Adorkable factor of 8.7

(tm "adorkable" to...? Sorry. If you can remind who it was was who came up with that perfect Maddow moniker, I will gratefully give a h/t. I'm thinking someone at AfterEllen)

I love the Friday silliness at TRMS.

No mention of Rachel attending the WH Correspondents Nerd Ball, but the thought of her in a tux...'nuff said.

In Which We Circle The Watercooler

In other words, screw the tough stuff, let's dish. First, Lars Ulrich AND Rachel Maddow? My joy was nearly transcendent. I would have completely left my body had it been Magnolia Electric Co. But that is neither here nor there. However, did it not look like someone had photoshopped Lars' head onto someone half his size? If he hadn't moved, proving my hypothesis incorrect, I would have bet the farm on it. Well, my iPod anyway.

And speaking of size, please tell me this is just an illusion of perspective. I know Rachel's tall, but no one ever mentioned that Lars Ulrich was only 4'10".

So hypothesis number two on the night: Rachel's NYC hair and make-up person/s do not travel with her. Even at the best of times, there is a great variability in her appearance. Day 1-dark brown hair, distinctive-ish part in hair, medium colored and very glossy lip stuff. Day 2-auburnish hair, big cowlick visible in front of hair, and barely visible lip stuff. But when TRMS airs from afar, she kinda looks like somebody else. Like tonight. Who was that woman with the mauvish lip gunk and "almost Maddowish" hair. Maddow, yet not Maddow. Weird.

I am no expert in these things. When Little Conch wanted to learn about make-up, her other mom and I looked at each other, shrugged, and recommended she call her aunt. My only run in with make-up (see? i don't even know if it's hyphenated!) was way back in my drummer days, when other members of the band would slather some shit on my face before we went on stage. I suspect this is not unlike Rachel's experience, although she's probably mature enough to sit still. "Just, quick, get it on me, get it over with." "Ok, now, get it off. I said get it off!" I am projecting my own panicky tone onto the Maddow, but in my world, that's how she rolls. And, I do know what's it like to have, quoting Rachel, "unruly hair." So I can imagine it can be difficult to wrangle her hair each night into something that looks similar to the night before. But look! Devil horns!

DorkFactor of above: 3.4. Without grimace? 2.6

In Which The DorkFactor Is Squared

DorkFactor of 2.7:

DorkFactor of 7.3:

"Oooh! I got bubble stuff all over me."

In Which I Ignore the Important News of the Day

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I know, I know. There are so many important stories tonight: Spanish Inquisition (Big Movie Man Voice - (tm TRMS AAR) "This time, it's on the right side of justice".), the two journalists being held in North Korea, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, and that really cool lawyer dude from Gore v. Bush. But I am gonna write about "OCO." Because I am a word nerd.

So, assuming the WH sticks with Overseas Contingency Operation, we will be able to enjoy Rachel's "OCO" for months to come. However, according to Talking Points Memo, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell resists the new terminology.

"Q What's your preferred nomenclature?

MR. MORRELL: I don't really have one....

Q (Off mike) -- GWOT, global war on terror, lumps together an entire -- you know, the entire Muslim faith and an entire region. Do you see that as a concern?

MR. MORRELL: Well, I don't think there's anything in that term that identifies any particular faith or ethnicity. I mean, there are terrorists of all faiths, of all colors, of all races and ethnicities. And so perhaps a better -- another way to refer to it would be, you know, a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm."

So. CAEWWTDUH. Mr. Morrell's previous post was at the Office of Catch Phrases and Memorable Acronyms.

Below: DorkFactor of 5.7

In Which Rachel Helps Me Get a Date

Oh dear God! The table of contents alone of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 is five pages long! Title I, Sec. 114 is titled "Prudential Safeguards." Yeah. So much for that. So, it turns out, the GLBA repealed part of the The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Hmmm...1933...that rings a bell...what was going on in 1933? Oh, wait a minute, I remember! The fucking total collapse of our economy! We don't need no stinkin' regulations. In May 2008, economist Paul Krugman called Phil Gramm (R-TX) the "father of the financial crisis".

Ok, so we can add the GSA of 1933 to the GLBA in our "make them swoon" arsenal. Next, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Progress! The table of contents is only three pages long. Ok, now this is getting interesting: The aforementioned Phil Gramm was a co-sponsor of the bill. According to a NYT article in 2008, Gramm is accountable for "The Enron Loophole," section of the CFMA, basically co-written by...wait for it...Enron lobbyists!

The more I dig into this shit, the more pissed off I become. However, I have many multi-syllabic lines for the bar. "As I'm sure you realize, Sen. Gramm was responsible for both the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which contains the "Enron Loophole" that allowed Enron executives to set that shit on fire. Can I buy you a drink?"

In a lighter mode, DorkFactor on this is 9.6 out of 10.