It’s going to be a lot more difficult now for Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to shirk his “Techno Ted” nickname (and techno-dunce reputation), what with the single weirdest message we’ve ever seen appearing on his campaign Web site.

Almost as freaky as his infamously disjointed “series-of-tubes” speech last year about the Internet (which briefly earned him the Most Lampooned Politician on the Web award), Stevens’s reelection site asks visitors to enter a username and password and then — as they unsuccessfully fumble for a password — condemns them with a warning that begins:

“Through a series of highly sophisticated and complex algorithms, this system has determined that you are not presently authorized to use this system function. It could be that you simply mistyped a password, or, it could be that you are some sort of interplanetary alien-being that has no hands and, thus, cannot type.” (See screenshot on 2nd page of this post.)

But wait, it gets even weirder:

“If I were a gambler, I would bet that a cat (an orange tabby named Sierra or Harley) somehow jumped onto your keyboard and forgot some of the more important pointers from those typing lessons you paid for. Based on the actual error encountered, I would guess that the feline in question simply forgot to place one or both paws on the appropriate home keys before starting. Then again, I suppose it could have been a keyboard error caused by some form of cosmic radiation; this would fit nicely with my interplanetary alien-being theory.”

Read on.

Fresh off his Oscar victory last night for Best Documentary, Al Gore has been stripped of his title by the U.S. Supreme Court. George W. Bush was declared the new winner despite the fact that he had not received a single vote or even watched a movie in the last decade except for Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.

In the Court’s opinion, new Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that he was proud to follow in the steps of his old boss and predecessor, the late William Rehnquist, who helped decide Bush v. Gore in 2000. “You’ve gotta love lifetime appointments,” Roberts said. “We aren’t even trying anymore!”

Read on.

(via YesButNoButYes)

Senator John McCain (R-Az.), a leading contender for the Republican nomination for President, said on August 19, “Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade,” the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand.

After NRLC and others voiced sharp objections, McCain shifted his ground somewhat, saying that if elected President, he would “work toward” the overturning of Roe. But McCain’s “clarifying” statements have been murky, and have raised more questions than they answered.

Read on.

(via Metafilter)

Say what you will about Reason magazine, this one by David Weigel is terrific:

The following list doesn’t compile every question that should be posed to the 2008 candidates. It probably doesn’t compile all the best questions, the Roger Mudd-Ted Kennedy stumpers that could sink some of these already-seasick candidacies. It’s just a list of nags that the candidates might not have talking points for. And those are the sorts of queries they should be getting every day.

1) Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani
“When you were mayor of New York, you made two attempts to extend your term in office. You opposed a term limits bill that voters passed; you publicly speculated over staying in office after September 11, and only reluctantly stopped a third party from nominating you for a third term after the state legislature made it clear they wouldn’t allow it. Given that the last six years have seen a vast expansion of presidential power, how can Americans trust you not to abuse the office and seek more and more personal authority?”

2) Arizona Sen. John McCain
“You’ve backed off on some campaign finance reforms, and you yourself are opting out of public financing for 2008. Could you explain why the other candidates should abide by the old campaign finance reforms, and by McCain-Feingold?”

3) Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
“When Sen. Hillary Clinton gave a mildly hawkish speech about Iran but opened the possibility of engaging with their leaders, you blasted her. ‘Advocating engagement displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat. The right strategy is not engagement, but economic and diplomatic isolation.’ Please enumerate which other countries you want to threaten instead of engage.”

Oh, he takes on the Democrats, too.

Rolling Stone : THE LOW POST: Between Barack and a Hard Place

The whole article is, as usual, well worth reading. But here’s a fun paragraph.

[...]

Here’s the thing about Obama, the reason they call him a “natural” and a “rare talent.” When Hillary Clinton spouts a cliche, it’s four words long, she’s reading it off a teleprompter, and it hits the ear like the fat part of a wooden oar. Even when Hillary announced she was running for president, she sounded like she was ordering coffee. Obama, on the other hand, can close his eyes and the cliches just pour out of his mouth in huge polysyllabic paragraphs, like Rachmaninoff improvisations. In this sense he’s exactly like Bill Clinton, who had the same gift. He is exactly what is meant by the term bullshit artist. My usual instinct when presented with this type of Zelig-esque, Eddie Haskell, non-stick personality is to violently reject it. But over the course of the last few weeks I’ve found myself increasingly amused by the Obama phenomenon. For one thing, he clearly pisses off Hillary to no end. Same with Biden and all of those other windbag jerk-off assholes in that revolting “national security Democrats” clan in the Senate. There is something subtly racist (in Biden’s case, not so subtle) in the way these more entrenched Democrats are riding Obama’s lack of credentials and acting like the ’08 nomination is their birthright, like he hasn’t “waited his turn” or something, paid his dues. As if any of these clowns would wait ten seconds to declare for the White House if they had the same odds that Obama has now.

[...]

Been wondering exactly how unfunny Fox News’ “right-wing Daily Show” is?

Unbelievably, this thing actually airs on a network.

Thanks to Lynn for the link.

US immigration officials insisted the sufferer of an anal infection remove a small piece of medical thread which was being used by doctors to treat the condition. The man required treatment under general anaesthetic as a result.

Read on, if you want to.

In the aptly-named “Unproductive factionalism” section of grumpybumpers.com, you’ll find this little gem:

Also available as shirts.

(thanks to regis for the link)

The folks at McSweeney’s present: The Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush Wish To Return Their Television.

AMERICA: Yeah, hi. I bought this TV here about two years ago and I’d like to return it.

BEST BUY CLERK: Oh, yeah. I remember you. You loved this TV. What happened? Is it broken?

AMERICA: Broken? Well, I’m not sure. It’s just that … hmm. How do I explain?

BEST BUY CLERK: Well, what’s the problem?

AMERICA: Well, I’ve heard there are other TVs? Like a smart TV that knows when your shows are on and can record them for you? One that can be programmed with parental controls and specifications.

BEST BUY CLERK: Yeah, sure, but you said you didn’t want a smart TV. I remember. I tried to sell you that. But you said it was “haughty.” That it gave you too much information—like it couldn’t make up its mind. You wanted a “simple” TV that you could relate to.

Read on.

Having just spent some time in Europe, Randy Newman has a defense of our country. Watch him perform it, or read the lyrics. (Though the video contains some lyrics not on that last page.)

The State of Washington has accepted ballot Initiative 957, which would:

* require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
* require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
* establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
* make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

“What?!” I hear you ask. Well, there’s a reason:

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation,” said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “The Washington Supreme Court echoed that claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage. And this is what the Defense of Marriage Initiative will do.”

Dan Savage comes out swinging at Mary Cheney:

Nice try, Mary.

Yes, it’s a baby, not a prop. My kid isn’t a prop either, but that never stopped right-wingers from attacking me and my boyfriend over our decision to become parents. The fitness of same-sex couples to parent is very much part of the political debate thanks to the GOP and the Christian bigots that make up its lunatic “base.” You’re a Republican, Mary, you worked on both of your father’s campaigns, and you kept your mouth clamped shut while Karl Rove and George Bush ran around the country attacking gay people, gay parents, and our children in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. It’s a little late to declare the private choices of gays and lesbians unfit for public debate, Mary.

Comedian and radio talk show host Al Franken has begun calling Democratic members of Congress and prominent DFLers to tell them he will definitely challenge [Minnesota] Republican Sen. Norm Coleman in 2008, the Star Tribune learned Wednesday.

Read on.