Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Happy New Year's Eve, my darlings. If I wasn't at work, we'd do something a little special for the last Happy Hour of 2008, but as it is, we'll just have to content ourselves with the usual parade of idiocy.

For a change, let's start out with a little Dem fucktardedness. And what could be more fucktarded than the replacement for Obama's Senate seat playing the race card?

One can make a reasonable case that Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate should go through, Rod Blagojevich's scandal notwithstanding. But this is the wrong way to make the argument.

In an interview this morning on the CBS "Early Show," Rep. Bobby Rush compared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's refusal to seat Roland Burris with the actions of leading segregationists from decades past, including George Wallace and Bull Connor.

Seriously, he did. Rush specifically said, "[T]he recent history of our nation has shown us that sometimes there could be individuals and there could be situations where school children -- where you have officials standing in the doorway of school children. You know, I'm talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas. I'm talking about George Wallace, Bull Connors and I'm sure that the U.S. Senate don't want to see themselves placed in the same position."

Burris himself appeared on NBC's "Today" this morning, and raised the same point, though in a more passive way: "Is it racism that is taking place? That's a question that someone may raise."

This strategy is a mistake. Blagojevich almost certainly considered Burris' race before making his announcement, but there's no evidence at all that Senate Democrats or Barack Obama are basing their opposition on anything but the governor's corruption allegations. The comparison of modern-day Senate Democrats to George Wallace and Bull Connor is baseless and irresponsible. For Burris to even raise the possibility that racism is a factor here isn't much better.

You know, when Senate Dems said they weren't going to seat anyone appointed by Blagojevich, they didn't say, "Unless, of course, we're accused of being racists." And running around screaming racism doesn't really fly when Obama himself is backing the Senate Dems. This is just spectacularly pathetic.

Burris may be qualified. But anyone who accepted a seat from a man who was trying to sell that seat calls his own integrity and motivations into question. And it really looks bad when the appointee has created a monument to himself. Seriously. Go look at it. Can anyone say "self-absorbed"?

For fuck's sake.

Of course, that drumbeat of inanity is rather drowned out by the thunder of Con dumbassitude. As always. Where to begin? How about with the Bush appointee who was literally asleep at the helm at OSHA:

From The Rachel Maddow Show Dec. 29, 2008. Sadly as someone who has read Molly Ivins' book Bushwhacked and after watching the debacle during Hurricane Katrina, nothing any Bush appointee does surprises me very much.

But first, it‘s time for a few underreported “holy mackerel” stories in today‘s news. The “Washington Post” front-pages a story today on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, the part of the federal government that deals with workplace safety. They provide information about workplace hazards. They regulate workplace conditions so that they are safer.

Of course, in the Bush administration, OSHA does a lot less of that. They do 86 percent less of that, if you want to be precise here. OSHA under President Bush issued 86 percent fewer significant workplace safety rules and regulations than OSHA under Bill Clinton. Now, that‘s not necessarily a big political surprise. Republicans are the pro-corporation, anti-regulation party even when they can‘t really agree on anything else.

But what is a surprise about OSHA under President Bush which we learned in today‘s “Washington Post” is—I‘m not actually sure that I can improve on the facts as they are presented in today‘s “Washington Post” article by the reporter, R. Jeffrey Smith.

Quote, “In 2006, Bush‘s first OSHA director, a former Monsanto employee was replaced by Edwin G. Foulke Jr., a South Carolina lawyer and former Bush fundraiser who spent years defending companies cited by OSHA for safety and health violations. Foulke quickly acquired a reputation inside the Labor Department as a man who literally fell asleep on the job.

Eyewitnesses said they saw him suddenly doze off at staff meetings, during teleconferences, in one-on-one briefings, at retreats involving senior deputies, on the dais at the conference, at an awards ceremony for a corporation, and during an interview with candidate for deputy regional administrator.

His top aides said they rustled papers, wore attention-getting garb, they pounded the table for emphasis or gently kicked his leg, all to keep him awake. But if these tactics failed, sometimes they just continued talking as if he were awake - ‘We‘ll be sitting there and things will fall out of his hands; people will go on talking like nothing ever happened,‘ said a career official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to a reporter.

In an interview, Foulke denied falling asleep at work, although he said he was often tired and sometimes listened with his eyes closed,” end quote.

Dear. Fucking. Gods. And people wonder why this country got so fucked up.

As for insight coming from these clowns, fuggedaboutit. Here's Gonzo, feeling all sorry for hisself because people hate him and he just can't understand why:

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left office in disgrace 16 months ago, and has kept a low profile since. His reputation has not improved in the interim -- Gonzales has struggled to find a law firm willing to hire him -- but at least he hasn't said or done anything ridiculous since his departure from public life.

Gonzales, however, is apparently interested in some kind of comeback. The former A.G. is writing a book about his tenure in the Bush administration and chatted with the Wall Street Journal about how mean everyone has been to him.

"What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?" he said during an interview Tuesday, offering his most extensive comments since leaving government.

During a lunch meeting two blocks from the White House, where he served under his longtime friend, President George W. Bush, Mr. Gonzales said that "for some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror."

Is Gonzales really that confused about what he did that was "so fundamentally wrong"? I suppose he proved during multiple congressional hearings that his memory is similar to that of someone who's suffered serious head trauma, but Gonzales' list of scandals is hard to forget.

Just off the top of my head, there was the U.S. Attorney purge scandal, Gonzales signing torture memos, his conduct in John Ashcroft's hospital room, his oversight of a Justice Department that was engaged in widespread employment discrimination, and his gutting of the DoJ's Civil Rights Division. Gonzales was even investigated by the department's Inspector General on allegations of perjury and obstruction.

Ah, well. At least the blogs are having fun reminding him just why he's so universally despised. That's something.

And here's the WSJ, ending their year as they began, spewing conservative talking points and doing their best to convince everyone that the world will end in mayhem and ruin if the Dems do what Americans want them to do, like ensure people have proper health care:

The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal took another shot at President elect Barack Obama’s health care proposal yesterday, warning readers that Obama’s appointed health care leaders — incoming Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Daschle and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council Melody Barnes — “will ration your health care“:

People are policy. And now that President-elect Barack Obama has fielded his team of Tom Daschle as secretary of Health and Human Services and Melody Barnes as director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, we can predict both the strategy and substance of the new administration’s health-care reform.

The prognosis is not good for patients, physicians or taxpayers…. Americans can expect a quick, hard push to build more federal bureaucracy, impose price controls, restrict medicines and technology, boost taxes, mandate the purchase of health insurance, and expand government health care.

The Journal’s ‘predictions’ are as predictable as they are erroneous. Conservatives have spouted the same-old tired arguments against reform since President Clinton’s failed 1994 effort, and the Wonk Room, along with some other progressive blogs, has been actively disputing their assertions.

And Norm Coleman ends the year firmly in denial:

Norm Coleman has done it again: He's filed a lawsuit at the state Supreme Court.

This newest lawsuit is an attempt to force the inclusion of the 650 rejected absentee ballots that his campaign wants put into the count, which the local election officials from around Minnesota have not included in the lists of ballots that they say were thrown out because of clerical errors. In short, Coleman is suing to include ballots that the county officials say were thrown out properly -- and which local media analyses say are from areas that Coleman swept in the election.

On a conference call with reporters just now, lead Franken lawyer Marc Elias ridiculed the Coleman campaign for having throughout this whole recount dismissed the idea that there were any significant number of wrongly-rejected ballots, only to have a very sharp change of position now that they're behind in the latest count by 49 votes.

"This is a campaign - the Coleman campaign, that is - is a campaign that is remarkably fond of do-overs," Elias said. "Their strategy seems to be to first object to something, then when that something happens to fight it. Then when it's clear that they're not going to prevail, to start over again."

Sounds like a typical Con. And I'm sure we'll have plenty more to look forward to in the coming year. Some things never change.

I've Gots 'Splaining To Do

Regulars to the cantina have probably noticed a rather abrupt falling off in volume lately. There's a reason for that. I've just been too busy to 'splain.

Writing fiction again, you see.

My Christmas tradition for these many years has been to shut out the rest of the world and put the extra day or two off to good advantage. I haven't written fiction in months, didn't even have scenes running through my mind, but that was no reason not to write. I've missed fiction. So, instead of world-building, instead of research, instead of those one-billion-and-one things I should be doing, I just started writing scenes for the sheer delight of wordsmithing. I skipped around here, there and everywhere within my universe, playing with a description here, a metaphor there, savoring each sentence. And it felt fantastic.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped writing and started reading instead. Last year, I wrote several chapters in a book I wasn't even supposed to be working on because it comes so late in the sequence. But the scenes were there, demanding to be written. Total compulsion. I justified it by telling myself that I needed to get this stuff down while it was fresh in my mind, and the practice wouldn't hurt. After all, the first book in the series needs to be outstanding. It's going to take tremendous skill to pull off what I want to do. Skill is developed by practice. Ergo, use these scenes to practice.

As I was writing, it seemed as if things were inspired. Seemed like I could actually do a fair job of capturing this stuff.

Reading it now, I do not think I was wrong. I found plenty of rough edges - a writer worth their shit will always find flaws with their work. But I also found a lot to be excited about. I used to suck at the mushy-gushy stuff, for instance, which was unfortunate because so much hangs on the unique connections between certain of my characters, deeply emotional relationships beyond mere love and romantic entanglement. Those scenes are now starting to take on the transcendent quality they needed.

I've also had an enormously difficult time capturing grief, which was also vital to the story I wanted to tell. That's getting far easier. And I think I'm avoiding the wanker trap - I've never wanted my grieving characters to turn into o-woe-is-me sniveling weenies. They're stronger than that, despite crushing pain. And those scenes seem to be working too.

There's an enormous amount of work to be done. As I've mentioned before, certain assumptions have to be rethought. There's a vast amount of worldbuilding still unfinished. I have to go over everything from the beginning, decide what must stay and what can be safely discarded, strengthen the weak areas and figure out the science behind the fantasy. None of it will be easy, but it's going to be worth doing.

That being so, this blog is likely to see a bit less posting than usual. Apologies in advance, my darlings. I'll do my best.

(BTW, If anyone wins an insane amount of money in the lottery and wants to free me from my day job with a modest stipend, thus allowing me a full blogging schedule on top of my storytelling duties, I could be persuaded to accept such a thing. Just so's you know.)

Pardon Me - Your Logical Fallacy is Flapping in the Wind

I don't usually filch from PZ because I figure most of you have already been over to Pharyngula, but this little gem of a logical fallacy needs to be set like a solitaire. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Rep. Mark Souder:

I personally believe that there is no issue more important to our society than intelligent design. I believe that if there wasn't a purpose in designing you — regardless of who you view the designer as being — then, from my perspective, you can't be fallen from that design. If you can't be fallen from that design, there's no point to evangelism.

You know what? He's absolutely right. Spot-on. I agree with his last two sentences without reservation.

Never mind that it's a big ol' logical fallacy (looks like the ol' appeal to consequences to me). Let's just take him at his word: if there's no design, you can't be fallen from that design, ergo evangelism has no point.

Hmm. Evolution has rather put paid to the whole design idea....

Huzzah! Fundamentalist religion is dead. No point in evangelism anymore - let's drink to it's demise!



I love it when someone's own logical fallacy works to our advantage. What a perfect way to start the New Year.

The Law of Unintended Consequences: Biting Israel's Butt

You'd think that Bush's Global War on Terror having turned in to the greatest single recruiting tool for al Qaeda would've given other world leaders a bit of a clue. Alas, stupidity knows no borders:

Benjamin Netanyahu was on CNN today saying "We'll have to bring down the Hamas regime."

And how's that going, Ben?

The disproportionate and heavy-handed Israeli attacks on Gaza have been a bonanza for Hamas. The movement has renewed its standing in the Arab world, secured international favor further afield and succeeded in scuttling indirect Israeli-Syrian talks and direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. It has also greatly embarrassed Israel's strongest Arab neighbors, Egypt and Jordan.

While it is not apparent how this violent confrontation will end, it is abundantly clear that the Islamic Hamas movement has been brought back from near political defeat while moderate Arab leaders have been forced to back away from their support for any reconciliation with Israel.

Epic fucking fail.

Carnival of the Elitist Bastards VIII: To Boldly Go

The HMS Elitist Bastard leaves the high seas for deep space over at Submitted to a Candid World. Captain Ames helms the ship as we explore strange new worlds, seek out ignorance, and then blast it into oblivion with phasers set to "vaporize." The only question remaining unanswered: how good is Ames at the Picard Maneuver?

Set a course for wisdom. Warp factor 9. Engage.

Postdated so as to leave no crew member behind.

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

If there wasn't so much Con stupidity happening today, I'd highlight Blagojevich's supreme fucknuttery. As it is, should you want to have fun laughing at his expense, see here and here. I have some Con bottoms to spank.

Allow me to start with John Bolton, who is one of the most ridiculous chickenhawks on the face of the earth. It's not enough for him that we're already stuck in two useless wars - he wants us to go for a triple:

Yesterday, on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes, Iran war hawk John Bolton said that Israel’s recent bombing campaign in Gaza is all the more reason for the United States to bomb Iran now. “So while our focus obviously is on Gaza right now, this could turn out to be a much larger conflict,” he said, adding that “we’re looking at potentially a multi-front war here.”

“You would strike Iran right now?” asked host Alan Colmes. “I would have done it before this,” Bolton responded. Colmes asked whether tensions and war across Middle East would escalate if the U.S. or Israel were to bomb Iran. Bolton said that the many Arab countries would secretly be cheering if Iran were attacked...

[snip]

It’s hard to believe that the Arab world would be pulling out the party hats if Iran were attacked. Thanks to the policies of President Bush, the U.S is immensely unpopular across the Middle East. Iran, on the other hand, enjoys unprecedented support in Iraq, which is supposed to be America’s greatest ally in the region.

The stupidity here is overwhelming in its scope. I have no idea what sort of fantasy world this man is living in, but apparently it involves hallucinogens. Lots and lots of hallucinogens.

Speaking of overwhelming stupidity, some Cons apparently think that sending out a CD with "Barack the Magic Negro" on it is a fine joke and not worth worrying over:

Indeed, taking this to the next logical step, some RNC members are saying that Duncan and Anuzis may have hurt themselves by criticizing Saltsman's judgment. One RNC member told the Politico, "Those are two guys who just eliminated themselves from this race for jumping all over Chip on this. Mike Duncan is a nice guy, but he screwed up big time by pandering to the national press on this." Several more have "expressed anger toward Duncan and Anuzis 'for throwing a good Republican under the bus.'"

So, to summarize, a leading candidate to lead the Republican National Committee promoted a song calling the next president a "magic negro." This has improved his chances of getting the job.

Only Cons could think that extraordinary racial insensitivity is a feature, not a bug, in a political leader.

And forget about Congress working quickly to rescue the economy from the catastrophe they let it become:

President-elect Obama has made it clear that one of his first priorities when he takes office will be an economic stimulus package that could reach around $800 billion. Top economists have said that such investment — in areas such as infrastructure, health care, energy, and education — is essential for boosting the economy. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman has stated, the “risks of being too small are much bigger than the risks of being too big.”

Despite the urgency after eight years of the Bush administration doing nothing, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is now saying that he and his fellow conservatives are in no rush to provide this important economic relief and plan to put the brakes to attempts to quickly pass a package. From a statement he issued yesterday:

As of right now, Americans are left with more questions than answers about this unprecedented government spending, and I believe the taxpayers deserve to know a lot more about where it will be spent before we consider passing it.

According to the Washington Post, McConnell has also “called for a weeklong cooling off period between when the bill is drafted and when it is voted on, allowing time to dissect it for signs of ‘fraud and waste.’” Conservatives have the power to filibuster the legislation if they oppose it.

Funny how they only worry about "fraud and waste" when they're not the ones stuffing both hands in the cookie jar. After the last eight years of fraud, waste and fuckery, I really don't think these assclowns have any credibility when it comes to watching out for taxpayers' money.

And if I ever hear them howling over campaign finance improprieties again, I shall pee myself laughing:

For Republicans opposed to campaign finance regulations, it appears that enforcing the law is just so last year.

Bloomberg reports that the Federal Election Commission's three GOP members all voted against fining the Chamber of Commerce for illegally spending money in 2004 on attacks against John Edwards, that year's Democratic vice-presidential nominee. The 3-3 final vote tally meant the commission took the rare step of rejecting an FEC counsel recommendation to impose the fine.

The November Fund, a 527 group run by the Chamber, had been found to have broken campaign spending laws by using $3 million it received from the chamber to attack Edwards over his trial lawyer background. Bloomberg notes that 11 other 527s were accused of violating campaign spending laws, and all but the Chamber paid a fine.

I don't even know what to say. Apparently, the Cons in the FEC believe that finance fuckery is perfectly acceptable as long as it's Cons engaging in the fraud. Charming.

And, finally, reports of Bush's passion for reading have been greatly exaggerated:

As part of its end-of-presidency wrap-up, Vanity Fair notes this interesting tidbit from Richard Clarke, the former chief White House counterterrorism adviser.

[snip]

"The contrast with having briefed his father and Clinton and Gore was so marked. And to be told, frankly, early in the administration, by Condi Rice and [her deputy] Steve Hadley, you know, Don't give the president a lot of long memos, he's not a big reader -- well, shit. I mean, the president of the United States is not a big reader?"

Funny, just last week Karl Rove told us the president is a voracious reader, who reads dense texts "to relax and because he's curious," and for 35 years, George W. Bush has "always had a book nearby."

I'm so sick of these lying morons I could scream. In fact, I think I'll go outside and do that right now.

A Bloody, Horrible Mess

I've wanted to blog on Gaza, but it's impossible to know where to begin. I have sympathies on both sides: I don't expect Israel to just absorb missiles without responding, but I don't expect Palestinians to blithely accept being starved, either. It's one of those tragedies with no clear right or wrong, no spotless heroes, no irredeemable villains.

I'm going to let Phoenix Woman take over from here:

As we hear that the IDF is bombing universities and killing United Nations personnel in addition to the hundreds of Gazans already dead in the three days of the Israeli attack on Gaza, we will hear the inevitable cry "but Hamas has been lobbing rockets at Israelis for years from Gaza!"

Juan Cole tells us about these rockets, and provides some perspective:

Israel blames Hamas for primitive homemade rocket attacks on the nearby Israeli city of Sederot. In 2001-2008, these rockets killed about 15 Israelis and injured 433, and they have damaged property. In the same period, Gazan mortar attacks on Israel have killed 8 Israelis.

Since the Second Intifada broke out in 2000, Israelis have killed nearly 5000 Palestinians, nearly a thousand of them minors. Since fall of 2007, Israel has kept the 1.5 million Gazans under a blockade, interdicting food, fuel and medical supplies to one degree or another. Wreaking collective punishment on civilian populations such as hospital patients denied needed electricity is a crime of war.

The Israelis on Saturday killed 5% of all the Palestinians they have killed since the beginning of 2001! 230 people were slaughtered in a day, over 70 of them innocent civilians. In contrast, from the ceasefire Hamas announced in June, 2008 until Saturday, no Israelis had been killed by Hamas. The infliction of this sort of death toll is known in the law of war as a disproportionate response, and it is a war crime.

But of course you won't see this on your evening news, not unless you live outside of the US. You're more likely to know about this if you live in Tel Aviv than if you live in Milwaukee.

There's more in that article that might be helpful in conversations with those who love to proclaim that Israel can do no wrong.

It's hard to find good in so many people dead. But it seems that Israel has taken things just one step too far. The carte blanche is being written on a rapidly-emptying bank account. And we can finally talk about Israel in more than simple black-and-white terms.

This was never that simple. It's a good thing we're no longer pretending it is.

J-Street has a petition ready to go (h/t):

At this moment of extreme crisis, J Street wants to demonstrate that, among those who care about Israel and its security, there is a constituency for sanity and moderation. There are many who recognize elements of truth on both sides of this gaping divide and who know that closing it requires strong American engagement and leadership. Click Here

I support immediate and strong U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to urgently reinstate a meaningful ceasefire that ends all military operations, stops the rockets aimed at Israel and lifts the blockade of Gaza. This is in the best interests of Israel, the Palestinian people and the United States.

I'm going to leave you with what Hilzoy said yesterday, because she sums up my feelings on this rather better than I can:

One of the many things that makes the Israeli/Palestinian conflict so utterly dispiriting is that it's impossible to think of anything good coming of any of this. Worse than that, it's hard to imagine that even the people involved think anything good will come of it.

What, exactly, do the Palestinians lobbing rockets into Sderot think they will accomplish? That the Israelis will look about them and say: Holy Moly, I had no idea this place was so dangerous!, and leave? Do the Israelis think: even though we've bombed the Palestinians a whole lot, and it's never done much good before, maybe this time it will be different! Maybe Hamas will say: heavens, this is a pretty serious round of attacks; maybe we should just sue for peace -- ? Or what?

I imagine what people on both sides are thinking is something more like: do you expect us to just sit here and take it? Do you expect us to do nothing? To which my answer is: no, I expect you to try to figure out what has some prospect of actually making things better. Killing people out of anger, frustration, and the sense that you have to do something is just wrong. For both sides.

Exactly.

Playing Into Terrorists' Hands

I've had Thoughts over the past several years. I'd see some group do something outrageously evil, I'd watch leaders get all vengeance-minded on their asses, and I'd think, "That's exactly what the terrorists wanted you to do, dumbshit."

It appears I'm not the only person who's been having such thoughts:

As Stirling pointed out earlier today, Terrorism works. The Mumbai attacks, targeted deliberately at both foreigners, and more importantly, India's own elites, led to an entirely predictable response: India started seriously threatening Pakistan and demanding Pakistani leaders do things (like turn over Pakistanis to the Indian legal system) which no Pakistani politician could do and stay in power. Indeed, it's unlikely they could do such a thing and stay alive.

So Pakistan moved its forces from the tribal areas to the border with India, in response to India's threats, and the terrorists no longer have to deal with the Pakistani military. This is, clearly, what they wanted. Terrorism worked.

[snip]

Remember that 9/11 was also a great success, not just operationally, but strategically. It accomplished what bin Laden wanted—it got American troops in on the ground where they could be killed and the cost of the war put the American economy under great strain. It continues to pay dividends, as the US army, smarting from what it privately knows was a loss in Iraq (you don't pay people to stop attacking you if you won the war) wants a do-over in Afghanistan, not because it makes sense strategically (it's destabilizing Pakistan, a far more important place than Afghanistan) but becase their pride has been hurt.

Terrorism works. It works not because it can succeed operationally, but because elites play into the hands of terrorists and do strategically stupid and counterproductive things when terrorists prod them hard enough. Both the Mumbai attacks and 9/11 were aimed at people who mattered—wealthy and important people in both countries.

It's incredibly hard not to go screaming for vengeance when a group of evil fucktards with bombs blow apart your citizenry, but governments are going to have to start learning to respond a little less predictably. The solution to terrorism isn't more bombs, more invasions, and more vengeance. As hard as it is to put vengeance on the back burner, we need to do it. Send law enforcement after the fuckers, and work on creating a world where it's harder for them to find desperate, disaffected people to recruit.

Some of our more bloodthirsty chickenhawks see a devastating military response as "education," which is right up there among the dumbest things I've ever heard:

Commenting on Israel’s attack on Gaza, NRO’s Andy McCarthy wonders whether the strikes will “demonstrate that terrorism is a loser for those who vote for it.”

The question is whether the Palestinian people are educable. Which brings me back to the first point: the Palestinians voted to put in power — i.e., vest with the power of a quasi-sovereign government — a terrorist organization which thinks legitimate governing consists of bringing about the annihilation of its sovereign neighbor and, meantime, targeting the said neighbor’s civilian population with bombing attacks. When you do that, you make yourself a target.

It’s one thing to defend Israel’s disproportionate attacks as a legitimate attempt to destroy Hamas’ capacity to launch rockets into Israel, but it’s quite another to defend them as an attempt to “educate” the Palestinian people. The former is debatable, the latter is a forthright embrace of terrorism, the use of force against civilians to achieve a political goal.

McCarthy’s advocacy of violence against people who vote the wrong way raises an obvious question. Granting, for the moment, McCarthy’s simplistic interpretation of Hamas’ election, (which was more a vote against Fatah’s incompetence and corruption than it was for Israel’s destruction) if Palestinian civilians have made themselves targets by voting into power a party that advocates the destruction of Israel, have Israeli civilians made themselves targets by voting into power successive governments that have continued a military occupation while expropriating Palestinian land? Have Americans made themselves targets by voting in governments that support that occupation? According to McCarthy’s reasoning, the answer to both questions is yes.

Matt Duss points out that McCarthy's reasoning is precisely the same as Osama bin Laden's. The fact that one person is an American and the other a terrorist doesn't change the equation one fucking bit.

Our desire to "teach terrorists a lesson" isn't teaching them a damned thing other than how to manipulate our passions more adeptly. We teach them that their actions are justified, because we employ the same reasoning to justify attacking them. It gets us absolutely fucking nowhere, and more innocent people suffer and die.

At some point, we're going to have to break the cycle. That's going to take more self-control and insight than we've been capable of thus far, but it's the only way to even come close to reducing terrorism to managable levels.

The Long View Myth Gets Smacked Down

I love Digby. She's got a special gift for absolutely eviscerating stupid wingnut fantasies:

Condi Rice and Laura Bush are insisting that the administration will be vindicated by history for all the wonderful work it has done around the world. Rice, especially, is intent upon making the case that if the world gets better some time in the future, Bush will be given the credit for it. (This isn't the first time she and Bush have made this stupid comment.)

This definition of success would mean that you have to reevaluate Tojo since Japan has since become a prosperous, first world country. After all, if it weren't for him, the world wouldn't be where it is today. Hell, where would Western Europe be if it weren't for that bad man in the mustache -- or Eastern Europe if it hadn't been for Stalin? Hey, even Caligula can be seen to be a hero if you believe that the world is better off today than it was during Roman times.

It's not that Bush is necessarily as bad as those examples, but the logic behind Rice's view inexorably leads you to evaluate everyone in history through the lens of human progress --- which means that none of the great villains can be held responsible for their deeds and nothing can ever be learned from bad decisions of the past. As long as the world goes on you can always make the case that things will probably turn out ok in the long run. And that's hardly any comfort ---as the old saying goes, in the long run we'll all be dead.

That should rather put paid to the "Bush will be redeemed by history" myth. Not that it will, because these fuckwits are incapable of dealing with reality. But at least it's a nice, succinct reply to those unthinking idiots who still love their bullshit straight up. It could help a few of them wake up and smell what they've been drinking.

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Bush's priorities:

In an effort to “prevent Palestinians from attacking towns in southern Israel” with rockets, Israel today undertook its third day of offensive military airstrikes in the Palestinian territory of Gaza, raising the death toll to more than 300. The Palestinian casualty numbers have been described as the highest over such a brief period since the 1967 Six-Day war. Scores of Israelis have been wounded — and at least one killed — by rocket attacks fired by Palestinians. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the situation “all out war.”

While Bush has been briefed on the situation by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, he has opted not to interrupt his final vacation as president to make a public statement on the crisis. For someone who has enjoyed the most vacation days as sitting president — including days spent relaxing in comfort during Hurricane Katrina and in the lead-up to 9/11 — it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that Bush prioritizes vacationing over crisis management. ABC News reports:

Even an emerging crisis in the Middle East, one he pledged to resolve just 13 months ago, has not drawn President George W. Bush from his final vacation before leaving office. Despite his personal pledge at Annapolis last year to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians before 2009, this weekend Bush sent his spokesmen to comment in his stead. […]

Since departing Washington for Crawford on Friday, President Bush has made no attempt to be seen in public. In fact, he has yet to leave his ranch.

Today, in a press briefing delivered from the “Western White House” in Crawford, TX, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe was asked what is on Bush’s schedule today. In addition to receiving “updates on the ongoing situation,” Johndroe said, “I expect he’ll probably ride his bicycle today and spend time with Mrs. Bush.”

Because that's exactly what the president of a superpower should do while the Middle East descends into chaos. And this is a man who thinks that history will be kind to him. I rather think not.

I suppose it won't surprise any of you to discover that the Bush regime has made a complete hash of OSHA:

The Bush gang? Ignoring the public's interests, politicizing a key federal agency, and advancing corporate interests above all else? You don't say.

In early 2001, an epidemiologist at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration sought to publish a special bulletin warning dental technicians that they could be exposed to dangerous beryllium alloys while grinding fillings. Health studies showed that even a single day's exposure at the agency's permitted level could lead to incurable lung disease.

After the bulletin was drafted, political appointees at the agency gave a copy to a lobbying firm hired by the country's principal beryllium manufacturer, according to internal OSHA documents. The epidemiologist, Peter Infante, incorporated what he considered reasonable changes requested by the company and won approval from key directorates, but he bristled when the private firm complained again.

[snip]

Current and former career officials at OSHA say that such sagas were a recurrent feature during the Bush administration, as political appointees ordered the withdrawal of dozens of workplace health regulations, slow-rolled others, and altered the reach of its warnings and rules in response to industry pressure.

[snip]

By all appearances, this administration barely wants OSHA to even exist, so I suppose it stands to reason that Bush political appointees would gut the agency and turn to lobbyists to help guide OSHA's decision making. Indeed, it's hard to count just how many regulatory agencies have, under this president, effectively been run by the business interests it was supposed to be regulating.

This administration will go down in history as one of the most inane, insane, and generally incompetent misadventures in American government since the Revolution. They're banking on 9/11 to save them:

With President Bush’s time in office rapidly coming to an end, his loyal supporters are working overtime to spin his legacy positively. In an interview with the Telegraph, Bush’s former UN ambassador, John Bolton, claims that “in 100 years,” people won’t remember two of the biggest stains on Bush’s record, Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib:

“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he was strong and decisive and that was critical for both the country and for the Western world,” believes John Bolton. “In 100 years people aren’t going to remember Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib, they’re going to remember 9/11 and Bush’s reaction to it.”

Yes, they'll remember his reaction to it. They'll remember that he started two wars, one with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. They'll remember that he authorized torture, thus ensuring terrorists had something to spice up their recruiting posters with. They'll remember that al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until Bush created the conditions that allowed them to flourish there.

People will remember plenty in 100 years. I doubt even the veils of history can put a shine on this pile of shit.

At least it seems there will be plenty of people to remember:

I don't want to alarm anyone, but it appears that teenagers sometimes have sex, even if they "pledge" not to.

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."

Got that? The difference between teens who make abstinence "pledges" and teens who don't isn't sexual conduct, it's that those who make the "pledges" engage in more dangerous sexual conduct.

After a while, this just gets repetitious -- the right insists that abstinence programs work, objective research shows they don't. Conservatives, not satisfied, demand more objective research, which further proves abstinence programs don't work. No evidence, no matter how overwhelming, seems to be enough.

But reality just won't budge. The nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that abstinence programs do not affect teenager sexual behavior. A congressionally-mandated study, which was not only comprehensive but also included long-term follow-up, found the exact same thing. Researchers keep conducting studies, and the results are always the same.

I've been alive for over 30 years. I cannot remember another time in this country when our leaders were so overwhelmingly, relentlessly stupid.

Can we just let Bush stay in hiding on his pretend ranch and install the grownup in the White House now, please?

What Fucking Bipartisanship?

We're hearing a lot about "bipartisanship" and "post-partisanship" and "working together despite disagreements" (like, oh, say, the little tiff we're having over whether gays are nasty incestuous pedophiles or decent people who should be allowed to suffer marriage just like heteros). We're hearing it mostly from Republicons who think they can get their way with the new administration and, of course, Obama. The "Kumbaya" singing is notably lacking when it comes to folks like Rep. Jon Kyl and other leading Con lights whose raison d'etre is to fuck up a Democrat's day whilst raiding a blue collar worker's pension fund.

Digby's take on the situation refreshed me like a pleasant morning breeze:

Those of you who read this blog regularly know that I think Americans are probably not destined to all come together in comity and good will to work toward the common good any time soon. And you also know that I don't think there's anything especially wrong with that. If politics is war by other means then that's the way things are supposed to work.

[snip]

As Ezra says, it's not enough that everyone has their views "respected" in any case. I don't even know what that means when it comes to fundamental issues of freedom, liberty, faith, duty etc. Of course I respect everyone's right to their beliefs and I will fight the proverbial fight for them to be allowed to express them. But I don't have to respect every view that comes down the pike and I certainly don't have to willingly make room in my political coalition for people to enact their agenda if it goes against what I believe in. Why would anyone think I should?

The truth is that it's disrespectful to sincere people on all sides to suggest their disagreements are so shallow that they can be dealt with by pretending that all we need to do is proclaim that we respect one another. Even if you respect someone, sometimes there's no avoiding a fight.

Exactly so. That's precisely the problem, and why this reaching out to homophobic fucknuggets like Rick Warren is so damned odious to me.

Believe it or not, economist Paul Krugman has a little something to say on the subject as well:

Guest host Chip Reid asks Krugman if the recession is actually a blessing in disguise, because it opens the door for a 21st Century New Deal. Krugman agrees, but only if we let go of the myth of "bipartisan agreement":

He’s [..] not going to get bipartisan consensus. He may be able to get some moderate Republicans votes. He may be able to get the moderate Republicans in the Senate – both of them -- to go…vote with the Democrats. The point is, you look at what John Boehner is doing in the House right now, the House Republican Leader. He’s dead set against doing anything constructive right now. He’s actually soliciting on his website, saying if there are any credentialed economists who are willing to you know, say negative things about stimulus plans, please contact me. So no, it’s not going to be bipartisan, in the sense that leaders of both parties are going to get together. Reaching out across the aisle, trying to find some sensible people on the Republican side is not the same thing.

I find it hilarious that after all of the petty partisanship of the last eight years that somehow it's incumbent upon the Democrats to be the grown-ups in Washington and reach across the aisle. Where was all the talk in the media circles of bipartisanship for the last eight years? Is it that the media knows that Republicans aren't mature enough to do so? And where, in all their history, have the Republicans shown themselves to be able to do anything for the good of the country instead of their party, as Krugman so aptly describes?

Krugman is dead on right. There will be no bipartisan consensus. The Republicans' agenda will be to obstruct and hobble as much of the Obama plans as possible to regain the majority in 2010 with the argument that the Democrats couldn't do anything. Boehner has all but admitted it. So let's let go of the notion of "bipartisanship" and get the majorities necessary to get things done.

All too true. And I love how despairing Krugman sounds when he talks of "trying to find some sensible people" among the Cons.

The truth is that the sensible Republicans have pretty much been booted out. What we've got left to work with is a bunch of posturing, histrionic, fucktarded loons.

That doesn't exactly make for ideal bipartisan efforts, now, does it? It's good to see folks who realize that. I think Obama does, too, but he's going to try to force the other side to break the "truce," and if he's more skilled than previous Dems, he'll be able to make that blow up in the Cons' faces for once. Which would be delightful.

Prop 8: Bet You Didn't Realize There's a Lesson to be Learned from the Romans

EmperorHadrian at Daily Kos has a wicked cool diary up exploring how the tyranny of the majority ends up affecting democracy:

We might be prone to be sympathetic to the Roman assemblies, and certainly its members were not nearly as powerful as the senators. The problem, however, is that democracies then as now can be manipulated by demagogues, sometimes even those with dictatorial ambitions (as we saw in the 2004 election). This was what helped Julius Caesar rise and overthrow the republic. The constitutional balance between the democracy and the aristocracy was what prevented a tyrannical leader, with no one's interest in mind other than his own, from seizing power. The point of any constitutional system is to place checks and balances so that no source of authority (executive, aristocratic, or democratic) can achieve unchecked power. For this, look no further than our constitution. Our constitution is designed so that, say, some 52% majority can't just invalidate the equal protection clauses in the constitution and thus deny rights, say marriage rights, to some unpopular minority group.

[snip]

In effect, Tiberius used the same theory of popular sovereignty that Julius Caesar would later use, and that the supporters of Prop 8 in California used. The theory, that laws and constitutional mandates can simply be ignored when popular majorities disagree with them, was (is) repugnant to the genius' of both the Roman and American constitutional systems, and if carried to their logical ends, would put the state under the absolute control of any temporary popular majority. Replace "popular majority" with "president", and you get Nixon's famous decree that "if the president does it, that means it is not illegal".

Deary, deary me.

He makes a good case that following the popular will without respecting minority rights can weaken and eventually topple a democracy. Go have a read. It's another good arrow to have in the quiver.

Prop H8ers Eating Their Own

I am amused.

It's a fact of human nature that you shouldn't mistake haters uniting against a common hatred for friendship. Once the object of their mutual hatred is vanquished, they go right back to despising each other.

Observe:

After the success of the Evangelical-Mormon lovefest otherwise known as Prop 8, I was really looking forward to reading what Glenn Beck might write over at James Dobson's place. Would Glenn use the opportunity to ask Dr. Dobson about that time back in 2004 when Dobson's wife, Shirley, excluded Mormons from the National Day of Prayer? And would Glenn suggest that maybe, in the afterglow of Prop 8, now was a good time for Dr. Dobson to offer an apology to Mormons for not letting them use the word "Christian" to describe themselves? And would it be an apology as heartfelt as the one that Beck delivered to Dobson on-air in 2007? And, considering how successful the Mormons were at helping the Evangelicals keep the word "marriage" all to themselves out in California, would Dr. Dobson perhaps finally be moved to graciously begin sharing the "C" word with the Mormons? I mean, Beck and Dobson are both good "Christians" right?

The potential was there for an absolutely riveting read.

So, what happened?

Well, it turns out that apparently Dr. Dobson has agreed that the "C" word does apply to Mormons. The problem now is that it's that other "C" word. See if you can spot it while I try to sort out the story behind this gripping tale of a dead link.

December 19: A story goes up on Focus on the Family's CitizenLink website promoting Mormon TV host Glenn Beck's latest book, "The Christmas Sweater."

Later that same day, a Christian blogger pens a brief diary under the title Focus on the Family Embraces Mormonism.

[snip]

December 22: A press release goes out over the ChristianNewsWire announcing that Focus on the Family Promotes Mormon Glenn Beck at CitizenLink and that:

Clearly, Mormonism is a cult. The CitizenLink story does not mention Beck's Mormon faith, however, the story makes it look as if Beck is a Christian who believes in the essential doctrines of the faith ... to promote a Mormon as a Christian is not helpful to the cause of Jesus Christ. For Christians to influence society, Christians should be promoting the central issues of the faith properly without opening the door to false religions.

And by December 24th, Beck had been booted. Merry Christmas, Glenn!

I think this sordid little tale illuminates our path. If we want to eliminate the threat posed our liberties and our civil rights from fundamentalist bullshit religious groups, all we have to do is stir things up again. Whisper in some ears. "Did you know the Mormon cult has a plan to take over the US government and sell all evangelical Christians into slavery?" "Focus on the Family axed Glenn Beck - you're next!"

Then sit back and watch them tear each other apart. Brilliant!

There's one disturbing coda to this happy tale. You see, Glenn Beck was up on the FotF site to promote his new book. Here's what he said about it whilst responding to Dobson's snubbing:

Beck bites back:

The Christmas Sweater is a story about the idea of Christmas as a time for redemption and atonement. Whatever your beliefs about my religion, the concept of religious tolerance is too important to be sacrificed in response to pressure from special interest groups, especially when it means bowing to censorship. I'm humbled and grateful that hundreds of thousands of people from different faiths have read the book and have appreciated its uplifting message for themselves. At a time when the world is so full of fear, despair, and divisions, it is my hope that all of those who believe in a loving and peaceful God would stand together on the universal message of hope and forgiveness.
-glenn

Glenn Beck thinks he can preach a "universal message of hope and forgiveness?" Is he insane?

I think his book provides clear evidence in the affirmative.

(Tip o' the shot glass to Ed Brayton)

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Celebrity Death Match time! And what better way to play than to pit two dead presidents against each other?

What an odd poll from Rasmussen.

It's a showdown between the two most influential presidents of the 20th Century. Franklin D. Roosevelt versus Ronald W. Reagan.

Forty-five percent (45%) of U.S. voters say FDR, the Democratic father of the big government New Deal who led the country to victory in World War II, was the better president of the two.

But 40% say Reagan, the Republican champion of small-government conservatism and the winner of the Cold War, was a better president. Fifteen percent (15%) aren't sure which of the two they like better in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

As befits the times, there's a gender gap -- men narrowly preferred Reagan, while women overwhelmingly preferred FDR. Whites were split, while African-American voters backed FDR by more than a two-to-one margin. Dems, liberals, the unmarried, and those who attend worship services less often went with Roosevelt, while Republicans, conservatives, married voters, and evangelicals supported Reagan.

I can appreciate the fact that fawning, sycophantic, and generally embarrassing conservative cheerleading has helped bolster Reagan's image in the wake of his presidency. I also realize that Reagan, more than any modern leader, is the only GOP figure who's claimed by every wing of the Republican Party as their own -- from New England moderates to Deep South far-right conservatives.

But up against FDR, how is this even a contest?

How, indeed. Steve mentions a variety of embarrassments from the Reagan presidency, and Crooks and Liars details some of the "benefits" of Reaganomics:

I, too, have fond memories of Reaganomics. Why, until Reagan waved his magic wand, our unemployment checks weren't even taxed! I was absolutely thrilled to be able to make that sacrifice to fund tax cuts for the wealthy:

Another Reagan proposal that came in for criticism was the plan to tax all unemployment compensation.

[...] "What he's doing is taxing something to a person who is under a rough time to begin with," noted Herbert Paul, a New York tax lawyer. "But you don't seem to have a strong lobby group to push to eliminate that, so I think it may well stick."

And stick it did. Why, thanks to Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986, I only recently finished paying the taxes (and interest) due on unemployment income from 2001 - and here I am, unemployed again, thanks to yet another Republican-sponsored economic crash.

But I digress. The fact is, facts simply aren't relevant to Republicans, since their economic views and objects of veneration are more appropriate to a religious cult than intellectual rigor. (You might want to get Will Bunch's new book for a look at this phenomena - and why it's so important.)

Cute how the Cons can snow authoritarian types into believing that the man who raped them economically was actually a great president. Sadly for them, their influence is on the wane:

David Broder highlights an increasingly obvious political reality about the regional power of the Republican Party.

[snip]

The Southern domination of the congressional Republican Party has become more complete with each and every election. This year, Republicans suffered a net loss of two Senate and three House seats in the South, but they lost five Senate seats and 18 House seats in other sections. No Republican House members are left in New England, and they have become ever scarcer in New York and Pennsylvania and across the Midwest.

Kinda hard to be a national party when most of the nation wants nothing to do with you, innit?

And poor Dick Cheney has no idea why he and his party are reviled:

Only 29 percent of Americans approve of the job Dick Cheney is doing as Vice President. In an interview with his hometown Wyoming newspaper, The Caspar Star-Tribune, Cheney expressed his bewilderment over his low approval numbers:

QUESTION: How do you explain your low approval rating?

CHENEY: I don’t have any idea. I don’t follow the polls.

Perhaps we can clue him in:

In addition to his well-documented abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law, Cheney’s public disapproval ratings might be explained in part by his own personal disregard for the public. When told that two-thirds of Americans disapproved of the Iraq war, Cheney responded “so?,” adding that he didn’t care what the American people thought.

That might have a little something to do with it, yes.

Condi's just as clueless:

This morning on CBS, Sunday Morning’s Rita Braver interviewed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In a portion of the interview that does not appear to have aired, Braver noted the results of the recent Pew Global Attitudes survey which found that “the U.S. image abroad is suffering almost everywhere.” Braver prompted Rice saying, “It has to be more than just a perception problem.” Rice dismissed the poll’s results, claiming that the Bush administration has “left a lot of good foundations”:

Q: Looking at the big picture of what’s the whole foreign policy of this Administration – you come out of the academic tradition so I think it’s fair to ask, what kind of grade do you give yourself and this Administration on foreign policy?

RICE: Oh, I don’t know. It depends on the subject. I’m sure that there are some that deserve an A-plus and some that deserve a lot less. … We’ve left a lot of good foundations.

Q: You know, you say that, but the Pew Global Attitudes Project released a new report very recently. On the very first page it says, “The U.S. image abroad is suffering almost everywhere.” … It has to be more than just a perception problem.

RICE: No. Rita, first of all, it depends on where you’re talking about. In two of the most populous countries, China and India, the United States is not just well regarded for its policies, but well regarded.

When pressed further, Rice responded by saying, “It’s not a popularity contest.”

There's this thing about governing, Condi. It's not a popularity contest, no, but a) in a democracy, there's this little "will of the people" thing to contend with because, well, it's government "of the people, for the people, by the people," and b) if the world hates you, good fucking luck getting anything done in it. Just sayin'.

Funny how Cons never seem to learn that.

Sunday Sensational Science

Unsung Women of Science



The history of science, you may have noticed, is dominated by men. When we're pulling names of famous scientists from the tops of our heads, the vast majority are male: Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein. If women come up at all, it's a paltry few: Madame Curie, of course. Perhaps Vera Rubin, Dian Fossey, Mary Leakey or Rosalind Franklin, if you know your science well. But you'd be forgiven for thinking that women were vanishing rare in science before the mid-to-late 20th Century.

But delve deeper, and you find women there from the very beginning. Their work went unnoticed, unappreciated, or usurped by a male-dominated world, yet they worked on, performing experiments, making discoveries, fleshing out theories. You never realize how much women have contributed to science until you look.

While I was reading E = mc²: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation, I stumbled across three extraordinary women who contributed to Einstein's revolutionary physics. They prove beyond a reasonable doubt that science isn't just for the men.

Emilie du Chatelet

History knows her as Voltaire's mistress, conveniently forgetting that she more than any other person was responsible for bringing the gospel of Newton to passionately Cartesian France.

Born in 1706, she lived in a time when women were expected to become nothing much more than wives, mothers and mistresses. Education for women was limited, but her father, seeing her intelligence, had her privately tutored. He also gave her fencing lessons to help her develop graceful movement - lessons which she later put to good use fending off annoying suitors. Not many men were willing to pursue an unwanted relationship with a woman who could best them with the foil.

She married the Marquis Florent-Claude du Chastellet, whom she knew would be away on military campaigns much of the time and thus leave her to her own devices, which consisted of a series of liasons that not only fed her need for male companionship, but furthered her scientific education. One lover, the Duc de Richelieu, encouraged her to learn higher mathematics. She became fascinated by Newton in her 20s, and spent the rest of her life bringing his elegant theories of gravity to France.

She met and fell in love with Voltaire after he returned from exile in England. They set about turning her husband's disused country chateau into their own laboratory, stocking it with over 21,000 books - far more than some universities contained. She tested Newton's theories in the great hall, swinging wooden balls from the rafters. Together, in 1738, she and Voltaire wrote Elements of Newton's Philosophy, although "together" may be the wrong word. Voltaire said of their collaboration, "She dictated and I wrote." His name appears as the sole author, but the book was illustrated with an image of Emilie shining Newton's knowledge on Voltaire's hand. The book brought Newton to France, explaining his discoveries in light, optics, and astronomy for a wide audience. It was the beginning of the end for Descartes as France's premier scientific theorist.

Emilie wrote her own book, The Foundations of Physics, which combined the theories of Descartes, Leibniz, and Newton into an elegant whole. The book, published anonymously, resolved previously intractable problems in describing force and movement.

Her most prestigious work was undertaken at the end of her life. She translated Newton's Principia into French from the original Latin. Her translation, which is not merely a rendition of Newton's text but also translated Newton's geometry into the new algebra then current on the Continent, converted the complex mathematics into prose, and summarized recent research and experimental confirmations of Newton's work. Her translation is still the standard translation of Principia into French.

As she was writing the book, she discovered she was pregnant - a virtual death sentence for a forty-two year-old woman in that age. She pushed herself to work eighteen-hour days, and finished the book on September 1st, 1749. Three days later, she went into labor; less than a week later, she died from either infection or embolism, leaving Voltaire distraught.

Aside from her books, her most astounding contribution to physics was the realization that Newton was wrong. She discovered the experimental results of William s'Gravesande, who had discovered by dropping brass balls into a clay floor that something moving twice as fast will bury itself twice as deep - energy doesn't merely equal mass times velocity, but mass times velocity squared. With those results in hand, she was able to prove that Leibniz had been right: E ∝ mv². Scientists now started thinking in squares.

I think you know where that led.

Further reading:

Wikipedia entry
Physicsworld: "The Genius Without a Beard"


Lise Meitner

Born in 1878, Lise Meitner cracked a lot of glass ceilings and should have won a Nobel Prize. She discovered nuclear fission, which earned her the unwanted title of "Mother of the Atomic Bomb."

She studied physics at the University of Berlin. At that time, women in science, especially the hard sciences, was nearly unheard of - she had to get permission to attend classes. Max Planck didn't believe it was right or natural for women to do more than become housewives and mothers, but he let Lise in - and she did so well she ended up becoming his research assistant.

After university, she and her research partner Otto Hahn moved to the new radiation research unit at the Kaiser-Willhelm Institute. Lise came as his "unpaid guest" - women could not be official employees of the Institute. She did the lion's share of the work, while Hahn's name ended up as senior author on all of their papers, and she ended up with only a copy of the award their work won.

Her fortunes changed after WWI, when she became Germany's first woman professor. She became a full professor of physics at the University of Berlin, where she continued her studies of radiation, atomic theory, and quantum mechanics. But her Jewish heritage caught up with her: she was forced to flee Berlin, leaving Hahn and all of her work behind. She ended up in Stockholm, Sweden, where she discovered that mass is lost when a nucleus splits, released as energy. Einstein's E = mc² told her how much energy would be released: using his theory, she was able to predict that a chain reaction could result. She wrote to Hahn to share her theory: he did the experiments and published the results - without mentioning her name. Later, he convinced himself that his work alone had resulted in the discover of nuclear fission, for which he won the Nobel Prize.

Franklin Roosevelt invited Lise to work at Los Alamos, where the first atomic bomb was being developed. Lise refused. She would have no hand in using her discovery to kill.

Later in life, she finally received the honors she deserved. Appropriately enough, she received the Max Planck Medal. She also won the Enrico Fermi Award and was elected to the Swedish Academy of Science. Only two other women had ever earned a position at the Academy before her. Long after her death, the 109th element, meitnerium, was named for her.

The inscription on her headstone was written by her nephew, Otto Frisch. It sums her up perfectly: "Lise Meitner: a physicist who never lost her humanity."

Further reading:

Wikipedia entry

Neatorama, "Lise Meitner: Mother of the Atomic Bomb"

Lise Meitner Online

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin

Born in 1900, Cecilia ended up coming to America from England for the freedom to be a woman and a scientist.

She completed her early education at Cambridge, but earned no degree - degrees weren't awarded to women at that time. Fortunately, she met Harlow Shapley, director of the Harvard College Observatory, and realized that Harvard was far more open to women. She crossed the pond and, with Shapley's encouragement, wrote her doctoral dissertation on "Stellar Atmospheres, A Contribution to the Observational Study of High Temperature in the Reversing Layers of Stars." It marked a huge turning point for women in science: before then, women didn't do PhD's, but more than that, her dissertation was very nearly a bombshell:

Astronomer Otto Struve characterized it as "undoubtedly the most brilliant Ph.D. thesis ever written in astronomy". By applying the ionization theory developed by Indian physicist Megh Nad Saha she was able to accurately relate the spectral classes of stars to their actual temperatures. She showed that the great variation in stellar absorption lines was due to differing amounts of ionization that occurred at different temperatures, and not due to the different abundances of elements. She correctly suggested that silicon, carbon, and other common metals seen in the sun were found in about the same relative amounts as on earth but the helium and particularly hydrogen were vastly more abundant (by about a factor of one million in the case of hydrogen). The thesis thus established that hydrogen was the overwhelming constituent of the stars. When her thesis was reviewed, she was dissuaded by Henry Norris Russell from concluding that the composition of the sun is different from the earth, which was the accepted wisdom at the time. However Russell changed his mind four years later when other evidence emerged.

Until Cecilia's work, no one had considered that the sun might be mostly hydrogen and helium. The realization to the contrary revolutionized the way we think of stars - after folks started accepting the evidence.

She spent the rest of her life studying stars and teaching astronomy students. Her work on high-luminosity stars, along with the surveys she and her husband did on stars brighter than the tenth magnitude - a staggering 3,250,000 or so observations - helped astrophysicists understand stellar evolution.

Further reading:

Wikipedia entry

Notable American Unitarians, Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin: Astronomer and Astrophysicist

Many women have now followed the trails these extraordinary females blazed. Science is indebted to their discoveries. It's never been just a man's world, as these three women and countless others prove. Science wouldn't be the same without them. That being so, it's time to start singing their praises.

"The reward of the young scientist is the emotional thrill of being the first person in the history of the world to see something or to understand something. Nothing can compare with that experience... The reward of the old scientist is the sense of having seen a vague sketch grow into a masterly landscape."

—Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin (accepting the Henry Norris Russell Prize from the American Astronomical Society)

Elitist Bastardry: The Reprise

Anyone need a chaser after our latest COTEB sailing? I have just the thing:

One of my hopes for the New Year would be for a substantial decline of the anti-intellectual fervor that has been dominant in our public discourse since the early 1980's.

I am defining anti-intellectualism as blatant hostility toward intellectuals, along with the incessant attacks on science, education, and the arts. The anti intellectual critiques suggest that highly educated people are an isolated social group removed from the realities of Main Street.

[snip]

Intellectualism should not mean that one must possesses a graduate degree in order to embrace it. It means we cannot allow oversimplification to trump responses to complex issues that require more than a sound bite.

It also means that our civic duty did not end on November 4, 2008. Our elected officials will treat us however we dictate. If rote, simplistic responses will suffice that is what we will get. But we should demand more because we deserve it.

And at least with Obama, if we demand more, we might just get it. He has, after all, not been afraid to surround himself with elitist bastards. Let the intellectuals rule and the fundies drool!

Hilzoy Schools the Pope

Excuse me a moment while I curse out a "holy" man. I can't stand Pope Beenadick XVI, who used to be Cardinal Ratfucker, and likely has always been an insufferable ass. It seems like every few days, we're treated to a new bit of wankery, whether it be bawling people out for buying stuff, or saying that Native Americans were "silently longing"for Christianity, or saying that only the Roman Catholic Church brings hope, or yawping about how Catholics must put a stop to child abuse (without, of course, mentioning that they might best begin by, y'know, not fucking sheltering child raping priests). The man is a complete prick.

Which is why I'm so delighted that Hilzoy once again borrowed the Smack-o-Matic and schooled the Pope with it:

I see that while I was away celebrating Christmas, Pope Benedict decided, as Time put it, to take "a subtle swipe at those who might undergo sex-change operations or otherwise attempt to alter their God-given gender." Here's what he said:

"What is necessary is a kind of ecology of man, understood in the correct sense. When the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman and asks that this order of creation be respected, it is not the result of an outdated metaphysic. It is a question here of faith in the Creator and of listening to the language of creation, the devaluation of which leads to the self-destruction of man and therefore to the destruction of the same work of God. That which is often expressed and understood by the term "gender", results finally in the self-emancipation of man from creation and from the Creator. Man wishes to act alone and to dispose ever and exclusively of that alone which concerns him. But in this way he is living contrary to the truth, he is living contrary to the Spirit Creator. The tropical forests are deserving, yes, of our protection, but man merits no less than the creature, in which there is written a message which does not mean a contradiction of our liberty, but its condition.

[snip]

It is not true that the natural world teaches us that marriage is between a man and a woman -- it doesn't have teachings on the subject of either human or divine institutions, and it surely does not teach us that homosexuality is unknown in nature. (The Pope is reputedly very smart and intellectually curious; did he somehow miss the stories about gay penguins, fruit flies, bonobos, and even, topically enough, black swans?) Lots of fish change sex, as did this ex-hen. There are male animals who act like females, and vice versa.

More to the point: so what? Lots of things that we find immoral are widespread in nature. Spiders eat their mates, for instance, but that doesn't imply that it's OK for us. Lots of things we think are just fine are unknown in animals -- number theory, for instance, or blogging. If you want to argue about what we learn when we "listen to the language of creation", you need to explain how we distinguish it from, say, the language of prejudice. Does the fact that the purpose of eating seems to be nourishment imply that it is immoral to drink diet soda? Does the fact that we 'naturally' get around using our legs imply that we were wrong to invent the bicycle, or, for that matter, the wheelchair? Does the fact that we are born vulnerable to a whole host of diseases mean that we should not develop vaccines and cures?

Personally, I think that the idea of defining what's "natural" for human beings is generally confused. What's natural is often contrasted to what's cultural, but human beings are social animals. If anything is natural for human beings, it is being raised by other human beings, and learning things from them: if we tried to find out what's 'natural' for human beings by dropping an infant into an unpopulated wilderness, we'd have to conclude that what comes naturally to us is starvation.

I stand in awe.

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Thank you, George W. Bush, for bringing peace to Israel:

Israeli fighter-bombers and combat helicopters strike dozens of targets inside Gaza starting shortly after local dawn. Guardian UK reporting 120 dead. Other accounts as high as 180, with over 300 wounded. Video shows that large high explosive bombs were used by the Israelis, and witness report massive explosions. Witnesses say that Gaza's police chief is among the dead.

Most were Hamas security and police forces, but many were also civilians, including children. Gaza hospitals are overwhelmed with the casualties. Israel has announced that it's intent is to destroy Hamas, and called for Arab Palestinians to reject Hamas. Inside Gaza the belief is that Israel, Egypt, and the US are trying to destroy Hamas, which is the de facto government of Gaza. Peres stated that there would be no "invasion" of Gaza, , but left open military incursions.

The strikes were expected for Sunday, but were done a day earlier to increase casualties, in what is now clearly the first step to escalation of the conflict. The bulk of the casualties occurred when Israeli jets struck a graduation at the Hamas headquarters.

Remember how everybody was going to be singing "Kumbaya" by now? Good times:

In January, George W. Bush famously predicted he would broker a Middle East peace by the end of his presidency. Now with Israel's launch this morning of airstrikes in Gaza -- which so far have left 155 dead -- Bush's pledge of a two-state solution is just the latest failure of his disastrous tenure in the White House.

[snip]

After years of malign neglect regarding the simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, President Bush launched his renewed peace effort at the November 2007 Annapolis conference. During a subsequent meeting on January 11, 2008 with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Bush made his pledge of a signed agreement during his presidency:

"I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office...I'm on a timetable. I've got 12 months."

[snip]

For her part, Secretary of State Rice finally put an end to Bush's wishful thinking on December 15. After a meeting of the diplomatic Quartet of Mideast peacemakers - the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and Russia – held at the United Nations, Rice announced:

"They won't achieve agreement by the end of the year, but they have achieved a good deal of progress in their negotiations, a good deal of progress in the work that is being done on the ground."

Right. Progress. So what does progress look like, anyway?

One target was the Gaza City police station where a graduation ceremony was taking place (this is raw footage from the aftermath of the attack and is graphic):

Ian Welsh has a good analysis (okay, two) of what Israel can hope to gain from this, which is jack diddly shit. Israel and America both are currently run by men who think the answer to every argument is a bomb. The fact that bombs have failed so often and so dramatically doesn't deter them in the slightest.

Israel didn't used to fight so many stupid wars. The fact that they are now might possibly have something to do with the fact that America, their staunchest ally, has been run for eight years by batshit insane neocon fucktards. Thank you, George W. Bush, for fucking up the world even further than it was already fucked up.

And what's America's response to this development been? What it always is when a Bushie's in charge. They're lying about it:

N.S.A. Spokesman Gordon Johndroe condemed Hamas for breaking the 4 month de-facto truce by firing rockets into Israel.

It was "completely unacceptable" for Hamas, which controls Gaza, to launch attacks on Israel after a truce lasting several months, said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

AP

The only trouble is it was Israel who breached the de-facto truce on November 4th with an IDF raid into Gaza killed 6 Palestinians. Hamas reacted immidately to The IDF´s breach of the truce by lanching rockets into Israel later on the 4th.

Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen

A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.

Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured.

I can hardly wait to see what other lies they spin around this. And just think, my darlings, he has over 20 days left. That's plenty of time for him to fuck things up even more spectacularly.

We're not likely to see more effective Republicon leadership come down the pike, either. Remember yesterday, when we discovered that Chip Saltzman, one of the contenders for RNC chairman, was handing out racist CDs as part of his campaign and responding to the backlash by saying it's all just good, clean political fun? Remember how there was nothing but silence from the current leadership?

That changed this afternoon, nearly 24 hours after the news broke.

Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan issued a statement Saturday distancing the party's leadership from one of the GOP's best-known operatives, Chip Saltsman, who distributed a CD containing "Barack the Magic Negro" as part of his campaign to be elected chairman of the Republican National Committee next month.

Duncan, who has served the campaigns of five presidents dating back to Richard Nixon, is seeking reelection as the party's 60th chairman in a hotly contested race that includes Saltsman and several other viable candidates.

Duncan's statement, in its entirety, read: "The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party. I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction."

Um...

That's it?

That's the best he could come up with? Not "this was wrong because racism is wrong." Not "I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate" period? Notice that it's all about consequences, not remorse. Duncan is upset because this debacle makes it harder to sucker people into becoming Republicons. He's acting just like a serial killer. Serial killers who cry when they get caught aren't crying for their victims, but themselves.

So are the Cons. Which demonstrates as clearly as anything that the only thing they find wrong about racist bullshit is that people won't let them get away with it. They see nothing intrinsically wrong with making racist jokes, treating minorities like inferior beings, and discarding them once they've outlived their usefulness.

We allowed these fucktards to be elected. The majority of our fellow citizens trusted them to govern well, govern fairly, and keep the world from falling to bits.

If we'd been paying more attention to their idea of a joke, we would've easily been able to predict how all this would turn out.

Perspective

Captain Future has an absolutely gorgeous diary up at Daily Kos telling the story of how this photo was taken:

The Apollo 8 mission was to just orbit the Moon, not land. The astronauts had been concentrating on the lunar surface, when Frank Borman caught a glimpse of color on the gray horizon, a conspicuous glow of blue and white against the black sky. It was the Earth. While he excitedly snapped photos in black and white, Bill Anders loaded his camera with color film, and got the shot that became historic. We know it as "Earthrise."

And it almost never happened. But you'll have to head over there for the full story, and the full-size photo. I invite you to read the story, and then just spend a few moments gazing at that cloud-swirled blue marble. That's home, rising in a lunar sky.

There's another photo, not quite as famous, but just as awe-inspiring:


Carl Sagan named it "The Pale Blue Dot." It was Voyager's Valentine's Day gift to Earth, a portrait. The distance was so vast - nearly 4 billion miles - that Earth filled less than a pixel, bathed in a ray from the sun.

Seeing Earth like this places everything in a different perspective:

In a commencement address delivered May 11, 1996, Sagan related his thoughts on the deeper meaning of the photograph:

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

Exactly so.

Bugger This. I Want A Better World.

Just past the winter solstice, on the cusp of a New Year, my thoughts inevitably begin to play the retrospection game. I hate it. All of those end-of-year "Best of/Worst of" lists drive me crazy, my New Year's resolutions are always the same, and it's not like things magically change on January 1st. Every year I am firm in my determination not to indulge in the sillyness.

This year, the failure doesn't sting. Gazing backward leaves my jaw agape. Just a few highlights: we found water ice on Mars. We learned that America's government approved torture at the very highest levels. The world's economy imploded with horrific speed. Barack Obama became America's first African American president, and gave us all something to look forward to in 2009: a future.

And I became a blogger, joined forces with other brilliant bloggers, and started Carnival of the Elitist Bastards. This is of a piece with voting for Obama. I did all three things for one simple reason: I want a better world.

We can make that happen.

Several years ago, I read a graphic novel series called The Authority. You all know about Spiderman's schtick - "with great power comes great responsibility." Well, Jenny Sparks, leader of The Authority, takes that to its logical conclusion. If you have the power to change the world for the better, that's what you do. No whining, no excuses. Do the job. Fix the world.

Together, we can do that.

We all have our special talents, areas of interest and expertise. We've put them to good use in these last many sailings, battling ignorance, expanding knowledge. We're taking back the word "elitist" and making it respectable again. And it's working. Have you seen the Elitist Bastards Obama's stocked his Cabinet with? There's a Nobel Laureate in there, for the first time ever.

Okay, so maybe we can't quite claim responsibility for that. Not completely. But every one of us who voted for him has played a part in bringing wisdom back to Washington. I claim this year in the name of Elitist Bastard.

We have a chance now to make this a better world. Time we seize it with both hands.

This year, we shall make it our business to spread the love of learning. We shall ensure that the word "elitist" is once again a mark of distinction rather than a cry of derision. We will continue to beat down ignorance wherever it raises its dribbling head.

But we can go further.

Are you fed up with poverty? Act. Support the politicians who are working to eradicate it, volunteer, donate, train people for new and better jobs.

Fed up with ignorance? Act. Watch what your school board does. Push for better education standards in your country. Promote childhood literacy. Educate.

Fed up with war? Act. Push politicians to reach for diplomacy before they turn to armies. Get involved with programs that attempt to bring enemies together. Make people all too aware of the cost of war.

Fed up with global warming? Act. Get the facts out there. Support environmental groups. Plant a tree, green up your house, protest pollution. Roll up your sleeves and clean up a neighborhood.

We can do much more than we think, just by taking action. Signing a petition may not seem like much, but it adds one more voice, turning a murmur into a shout. Donating a few dollars may not seem like enough, but as we saw with Obama's campaign, enough small donations add up to plenty of money for change. A few hours of your time may not seem like much, but a few hours may be all that's needed to change someone's life. Don't hold back just because you can't do much. Become a snowflake, as my character Ishaarda Telsuun recommends:

“The answer is leverage. Place a thousand snowflakes in precisely the right places, and you cause a thousand avalanches.... A thousand snowflakes can reach half the world.”

Ghandi said we must be the change we wish to see in the world. We don't even have to become fabulously rich or powerful or prestigious to do it. All we have to do is add our snowflake's worth of weight to the scales: enough of us together will make them tilt.

And then we change the world for the better.

"Please Don't Divorce Us" - Show of Solidarity

The Courage Campaign is putting together a heart-tugging slideshow filled with same-sex couples, family and friends, all making one simple request: "Please Don't Divorce Us:"

Infamous prosecutor Ken Starr has filed a legal brief -- on behalf of the "Yes on 8" campaign -- to nullify the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California between May and November of 2008.

Yes, they really did go there after promising repeatedly not to do this.

It's time to put a face to Ken Starr's shameful legal proceedings. To put a face to the 18,000 couples facing forcible divorce. To put a face to marriage equality. Because, gay or straight, YOU are the face of the Marriage Equality Movement.

The Courage Campaign just launched "Please Don't Divorce" a community photo project. They will break your heart and have made me cry on more than one occasion.

Please click through the photos in the slideshow below and then submit your own photo, as an individual, a couple or in a group (perhaps with your family over the holidays). Take a picture holding a piece of paper that says "Please don't divorce us," "Please don't divorce my moms,""Please don't divorce my friends, Dawn and Audrey," "Please don't divorce Californians" or whatever you want after "Please don't divorce..." and send it to: pleasedontdivorce@couragecampaign.org.

As soon as I've gotten myself put into somewhat photogenic shape, I shall be sending in a photo. I'll post it here for you all to peruse as well.

Time for a show of solidarity. The bigots who want to destroy thousands of marriages and deny marriage to thousands more need to see exactly who they're harming, and that these couples aren't alone.

(Tip o' the shot glass to Crooks and Liars, first among others I've found this on.)

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

At least one of us is enjoying the snow:


You can't see it in this pic, but Misha's watching snowflakes falling while her mommy gnashes her teeth. Our parking lot looks a lot like the Arctic Sea. It's full of water, chunks of ice, and huge ruts of churned snow. I was tempted to venture out today until I walked down to check the road and saw a pickup truck nearly wreck on its way through. It heaved like a mechanical bull and then wedged itself to a stop in the deeper snow along the side. This is why I'm home cruising the intertoobz rather than out having dinner with a friend.

Grr. Argh.

Welcome to the paradox of global warming. As the seas warm, more moisture gets sucked up into the atmosphere, skedaddles south, and dumps itself all over normally snow-free parts of the country. And guess what? Things are only likely to get much, much worse very quickly indeed:

According to a new report led by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. “faces the possibility of much more rapid climate change by the end of the century than previous studies have suggested.” The report, commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, found that global sea levels could rise higher than a 2007 U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study had concluded:

In one of the report’s most worrisome findings, the agency estimates that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea levels could rise as much as 4 feet by 2100. The intergovernment panel had projected a rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the last two years show the world’s major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are losing an average of 48 cubic miles of ice a year, equivalent to twice the amount of ice in the Alps.

Thank you, George W. Bush, for eight years of inaction. It sure is nice that pollution, environmental degradation, and foreign wars over dwindling oil supplies could rage unchecked so that your buddies in the oil and coal industries could get rich.

Apparently, they weren't reinvesting that money in containment walls:

By now anybody paying attention is aware of the massive spill of coal-ash sludge that took place in Roane County, Tennessee earlier this week, dumping a reported 1.7 million cubic yards of toxic sludge into the Emory River, a spill many cited as larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

Except that it wasn't 1.7 million cubic yards [link moved]:

Authority officials initially said that about 1.7 million cubic yards of wet coal ash had spilled when the earthen retaining wall of an ash pond breached, but on Thursday they released the results of an aerial survey that showed the actual amount was 5.4 million cubic yards, or enough to flood more than 3,000 acres one foot deep. The amount now said to have been spilled is larger than the amount the Authority initially said was in the pond, 2.6 million cubic yards.

As with everything that happens under Bush's watch, the initial reports drastically underestimated the scope of the disaster. What a fucking shock.

Here's a description of the disaster's aftermath from United Mountain Defense. Please contain your surprise upon discovering that the Tennessee Valley Authority has done bugger-all to prevent or respond to said disaster:

TVA says the area is not toxic but you can see coal sludge in the water and dead fish on the banks. The members of this community are without clean water and many without electricity or gas heat. We met people who were given motel rooms by TVA and others on the same street that have been without heat for days in 27° weather and others who have been vomiting for more than 12 hours after drinking the water.

We visited approximately 40 households and many people were frustrated they had not received any information other than what they could figure out from the minute long television segments or an isolated phone call from the water or gas utility. Residents say that they are not surprised by the flood because TVA has been fixing leaks in the retention wall for years and one person said this wall had been leaking for months before it broke.

And, for good measure, an email from one of the United Mountain Defense folks that puts paid to the idea that the response to this disaster has been anything like advertised:

After our chat we set out to find the silt screens, Coast Guard, gravel berm, and live fish that TVA has been advertising as truths in the Emory River adjacent to the spill site. We launched a boat after witnessing three kayakers yesterday. To our surprise we were not chased down by the Coast Guard. We did not have to paddle over any silt fences. We did not have to portage over any gravel berms. We did not have to look hard to miss the fisherman or fish.

And yes, if you're wondering, the TVA is a federal agency, not state. Bush's traditions of lying, obfuscating, and denying disasters flourish from top to bottom. This is what happens when we let Cons play at governing for eight years.

And what are the Cons doing while Tennessee chokes? Proving they have a tin-ear when it comes to racist overtones:

Last month, we learned that Katon Dawson, a leading candidate for the chairmanship of the RNC, has been a longtime member of a whites-only country club in South Carolina. This month, Chip Saltsman, the former campaign manager for Mike Huckabee, embarrassed himself in a far more obvious way.

RNC candidate Chip Saltsman's Christmas greeting to committee members includes a music CD with lyrics from a song called "Barack the Magic Negro," first played on Rush Limbaugh's popular radio show. [...]

The CD, called "We Hate the USA," lampoons liberals with such songs as "John Edwards' Poverty Tour," "Wright place, wrong pastor," "Love Client #9," "Ivory and Ebony" and "The Star Spanglish banner." Several of the track titles, including "Barack the Magic Negro," are written in bold font.

[snip]

Saltsman defended his gift to RNC members, noting that he's a longtime friend of Shanklin and his songs for Limbaugh's program are meant to be "light-hearted political parodies."

Ta-Nehisi Coates added, "There's also a tune called 'The Star Spanglish Banner.' Get it? Negroes!! Spanglish!! No?? Clearly your too PC. Seriously, where do people get this idea that the GOP is racist? It really is one of the great mysteries of our time..."

Sometimes, just sometimes, I wish the Smack-o-Matic wasn't virtual, that I had a license to employ it as frequently as needed, and that it had the power to knock some sense into these raving fucktards. Of course, I'd have to ramp up on the protein and start working out five hours a day in order to develop the upper-body strength that would be needed. Even though the Smack-o-Matic is semi-automated, the sheer volume of rampant stupidity is too much for my muscles to keep pace with.

But what about those Cons who luurves Obama? Aren't they the voice of reason that could lead the Republicon party to harmony? No. Digby reminds us what song they're really singing:

It seems that everywhere I turn professional Republicans are falling all over themselves about how much the love our president elect. While I don't doubt that many GOP members of the public are enthusiastic, let's just say I'm a little bit skeptical that all these beltway insiders are being altogether sincere in their praise.

Newtie started the trend with his little scold to the RNC about the Blogjevich controversy, which I explained here. It's a ploy, don't believe it. When you see snakes like Alex Castellanos saying this, watch your back...

[snip]

He's the guy who said that calling Hillary Clinton a bitch was just a descriptive term. If anyone thinks this guy (or Pat Robertson) has been converted, think again. They are doing this for political purposes. They want to make sure that he owns the next couple of years, which are likely to be very tough. They will obstruct, of course, but all this happy talk is a pretense designed to appease the masses who are hoping against hope that Obama can turn this ship around.

Watch for the knife in the back. The smarter Cons are singing Kumbaya right now because of numbers like these and these, while humming under their breath "Just you wait." When Obama doesn't right the ship instantly upon taking office, you can bet they'll start clucking over how disappointing it all is and how much the stimulus is costing and how much better things would be if only the Cons were in charge. And quite a few people in America will be stupid enough to chime in.

The groundwork is busily being laid. Fortunately, most of it looks about as stable as the sludge in Tennessee:

The last time Democrats won the White House, Senate, and House, it was 1992, and their majority status was short-lived -- 1994 didn't go well for the party. The National Review's Peter Kirsanow believes there's a similar opportunity awaiting the Republican Party in two years from now.

Rod Blagojevich, $1 trillion "fiscal stimulus", Harry Reid, expiring tax cuts, Nancy Pelosi, socialized health care, Charlie Rangel, reinstitution of the oil drilling ban, Joe Biden, liberal judicial nominees, Al Franken (maybe), nuclear Iran, John Murtha, car czars, Dennis Kucinich, PC culture, Chris Dodd, entitlement explosion, Barney Frank, entitlement implosion, Barbara Boxer, card check, the Clintons, Russian adventurism.

If Republicans can't come back in 2010 they should be sued for political malpractice.

Anything's possible, I suppose, but this doesn't strike me as much of a gameplan. Indeed, if these are the variables that are supposed to lead to a GOP "comeback," it's no wonder Republicans are depressed.

It's not that I don't think they'll eventually be able to con the public - they always do. It's just that I think they're going to have to find better arguments than this to win over more than the 23% who say they'll miss Bush.

Hopefully by the time they come up with something, Americans will be too addicted to responsive government, affordable healthcare, clean air and water, green technology, and the absence of toxic sludge in their yards to pay much attention.

Friday Favorite Winter Wonders

I'm trying very hard right now to think good things about winter. Considering my road and parking lot are buried under nearly six inches of icy slush that's nigh-impossible to navigate, this is difficult. But there are redeeming qualities to winter. I even have a few favorite things about snow.

For one thing, it makes shriveled berries look rather artistic and lovely:


Everything looks prettier with a coat of new snow. And it's a lot of fun to go tramping through. Long rambles going nowhere in particular, watching rays of sunlight set the snow aglow, is tremendous fun. I like watching how the light varies: now bright and sparkling, then muted and soft-focus. Then there's the running: when you come across a long flat stretch, it's almost impossible not to indulge in a good gallop, just for the sheer wacky fun of it.

Just ask this guy:



So yes, snow can be fun. And what better tribute to it than Loreena McKennitt's song "Snow"? I found this video montage of figure skater Kristi Yamaguchi set to it, and thus combined two of my great loves: beautiful music and art on ice.




I used to be an enormous figure skating fan. One of my best memories is the Alberville Olympics. My friend JT and I spent weeks watching the figure skating competitions together. You have not experienced a truly surreal figure skating viewing experience until you've sat there getting all ooey and aahy with a 6'4, heavy-metal listening, cowboy boot wearing, red-blooded male. After several weeks of exposure, we both decided that we absolutely had to drive to Flagstaff and indulge in some skating ourselves. So no shit, there we were, filled with visions of triple axels, inching our way across the ice like ancient grannies. The reality definitely did not match the fantasy. And then there was the speed-skater-in-training who snookered us into holding hands with her. We didn't expect her to take off like a rocket and drag us along.

We discovered we were not speed skaters, but we were certainly speed fallers.

That was the year I fell utterly in love with Sergei Ponomarenko and Marina Klimova. They are the epitome of art on ice. They aren't just phenomenal ice dancers, they are superb storytellers. Not to mention Marina is a drop-dead gorgeous redhead, which adds a whole new dimension of beauty.

Here they are doing Dracula:





Even if you don't like figure skating, you have to admit that was something outstanding.

Here's another something outstanding. If you want to see courage defined as endurance for one moment more, go watch Elvis Stojko win the Olympic silver in 1998. Most viewers had no clue he was suffering from a groin pull until he nearly collapsed after finishing his long program. It's a moment I'll never forget.

So those are a few of my favorite winter wonders. Turns out it's not such a bad season after all...

Open Question

I spent a goodly part of Christmas Day on the phone with a friend, discussing various and sundry. What interests us here is the bit where we talked about writers and detail.

Detail is one of those bêtes noires of fiction writing. No one seems quite sure how much or how little should be included. Styles range from the stupefying onslaught of minutae during the age of Deathless Prose to the Spartan anorexia of Hemingway. Compare Les Miserables to For Whom the Bell Tolls, for instance: two gargantuan stories, very different styles. Victor Hugo spends a good part of his 1,463 pages plunging off the main path into the thickets of whatever captured his fancy, breaking into the story to write essays on things only tangenitally related to the novel; Hemingway gets the job done in a mere 471 pages, without side trips. You don't learn quite as much about life, the universe and everything, but at the same time, at least you don't get so bogged down in detail that you forget what the characters were doing before the author stopped the story in its tracks to describe every aspect of an incidental something.

There are fans of both types of literature. I happen to be one of those who can't stand Hemingway. I've read a few of his stories and attempted a novel once or twice, and I just can't get involved. It's so sparsely written that it feels like an outline, especially his dialogue. I need flesh with the bones of a story, or I'm just not able to immerse myself. But I drowned in Hugo's magnum opus. Only the musical saved me.

I've read with close attention for decades now, and I still can't figure out why some authors manage to detail very nearly every thread in someone's coat without stopping the story dead, and others get in trouble merely mentioning that someone's wearing jeans. My friend and I think it has a lot to do with relevance: if the detail tells us something about the character, if it's in service to the story and not just there from some misguided attempt to make the world feel "real," then it works. But he and I part ways when it comes to how much detail is necessary or desirable. He likes more left to the imagination: I like enough to form a thorough mental image. I can't connect to a story unless I can see the people I'm dealing with, the landscapes they're moving through, and the objects they're interacting with. As long as the story moves, I don't mind if the author's detail is as rich as Belgian chocolate - I prefer it that way.

Detail's very much on my mind right now because I'll be writing fiction again soon. I want to avoid worldbuilder's disease, but at the same time, I want to ensure that the world I'm creating is detailed enough that readers experience it fully. And so, I'm curious: how do you lot like your detail? How much is too much, and how little is too little? Any particularly egregious examples of Authors Gone Wrong? Any prose passages whose detail captivated you so fully that you remember them to this day?

Have at. I'm off to try to wrestle with ye olde basics of rebuilding a world with cracked foundations.

Sheriff Joe Jumps the Shark

Apparently, being treated as some sort of redneck hero for dying jail underwear pink and creating tent cities has rather gone to Sheriff Joe Arpaio's head. He was always an authoritarian bully, but he's been getting crazier and crazier over the years. This year, it appears, he's finally tipped himself right over into fascism:

I'm spending my Christmas vacation in lovely Maricopa County, AZ, this week with my in-laws. And I have to tell you that, thanks to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his gang of thugs deputies, I'll be somewhat relieved when I leave.

After all, how would you like to live in a place where law enforcement actually arrests you for applauding briefly at a public county council meeting? Where they threaten and intimidate you just for showing up in the first place?

That's what's been happening here.

It all has to do with an anti-Arpaio group called Maricopa Citizens for Safety Accountability, which formed last spring in response to investigative reports and studies demonstrating that Arpaio's insane obsession with illegal immigrants was destroying his office's ability to actually deal with real law enforcement work.

MCSA's members have been turning up at meetings of the county Board of Supervisors and trying to speak, but the board refuses to let MCSA do so except for brief comment periods at the end of its meetings. Moreover, the board meetings are now patrolled by a huge contingent of deputies who treat the citizens who attend like criminals.

Last week, they went even further:

[snip]

And, of course, deputies and security agents at the Board of Supervisors meetings have begun to arrest spectators. That development came Wednesday.

During the meeting, Board of Supervisors chairman Andy Kunasek warned spectators that they were being disruptive by applauding speakers, but deputies neither dismissed nor arrested spectators who applauded an animal advocate or a public transportation advocate who sang a birthday song for Kunasek.

The scene was different when about 15 spectators stood and clapped for 20 seconds after a Maricopa Citizens group member spoke critically of Arpaio during her turn at the lectern.

Deputies arrested Joel Nelson, Jason Odhner, Monica Sandschafer and Kristy Theilen on allegations of disorderly conduct and trespassing.

[snip]

Deputies made the arrests in a clear attempt to intimidate people associated with Maricopa Citizens, said Carlos Calindo, who attended the meeting.

"It is incredible the way they behaved," said Calindo, who is not a member of the citizens organization. "You come in there and the atmosphere is incredibly oppressive. They yell at you. They scold you. They try to intimidate you. It is improper."

Must be because Faux gave him a teevee show. He thinks he's acceptable.

It's time for me old home state to wake up and smell the reality. Joe must go.

Horror of Horrors: Socialized Medicine

To hear the Cons tell it, universal healthcare will be the End of Everything. Of course, for them, it seems that anything which benefits a broad swath of humanity is a Terrible Evil that Must Be Fought. So a story like this must truly strike terror into their shriveled little hearts:

[Our son] was first diagnosed by our pediatrician, a private sector doctor, who sent us to the (public) specialised pediatric hospital in Paris for additional exams. We did a scan and a MRI the same day, and that brought the diagnosis we know. He was hospitalised the same day, with surgery immediately scheduled for two days later. At that point, we only had to provide our social security number.

Surgery - an act that the doctor that performed it (one of the world's top specialists in his field) told us he would not have done it five years before - actually took place the next week, because emergency cases came up in the meantime. After a few days at the hospital, we went home. At that point, we had spent no money, and done little more than filling up a simple form with name and social security number.

Meetings with the doctor in charge of his long term treatment, and with a specialised re-education hospital, were immediately set up, and chemiotherapy and physical therapy were scheduled for the next full year.

Physical therapy included a few hours each day in a specialised hospital, with a varied team of specialists (kinesitherapy, ergotherapy, psychologist, orthophonist) and, had we needed it, schooling. As we lived not too far away, we tried to keep our son at his pre-school for half the day, and at the hospital the other half. Again, apart from filling up a few forms, we had nothing to do.

My wife pretty much stopped working to take my son to the hospital every day (either for reeducation or treatment) - and was allocated a stipend by the government as caregiver, for a full year (equal to just under the minimum wage). Had we needed it, transport by ambulance would have been taken care of, free of charge for us (as it were, car commutes to the hospital could also be reimbursed).

During the chemiotherapy, if he had any side effects (his immune system being weakened, any normal children's disease basically required him to be hospitalised to be given full anti-biotic treatment), we'd call up the hospital and just come around. Either of us could spend the night with him as needed. We never spent a dime when we did so.

Sounds absolutely awful, doesn't it? I mean, who in their right mind would want to have state-of-the-art healthcare ready and available should a catastrophic illness strike? How can anyone expect to get better if they don't have the invigorating fight with insurance companies (if you even have insurance), your employer (if you don't get fired for missing too much work), and impending bankruptcy to look forward to?

Reading this diary made me realize exactly why the French sometimes look down on us as barbarians.

All Quiet on the Northwestern Front

With the onset of peace, art has returned to the world.

We're doing our best to stay warm and take advantages of the benefits peace brings.


Turns out dogs have unexpected uses. Whodathunkit?

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Yes, even though it's Christmas, there's still a wee bit o' news. Sorta.

There's been quite the dustup over Bush's attempted pardon:

Yesterday President Bush abruptly revoked a pardon he gave New York real estate developer Isaac Toussie after reports disclosed that Toussie’s immediate family contributed nearly $40,000 to Republicans. The White House said the Justice Department did not review Toussi’s clemency application because it “was filed less than five years after Toussie completed his sentence,” thus making him ineligible for a pardon according to the department’s guidelines. Instead, the White House counsel’s office considered Toussie’s application as a special case. But not only has press secretary Dana Perino repeatedly stated that the White House would follow DoJ’s pardon guidelines, but so has President Bush himself, in a Jan. 2007 interview...

Which, for most politicians, would be controversy enough. But this is Bush we're talking about. You know there's got to be a little something more:

Perhaps the most intriguing matter is the process by which the White House decided to issue the pardon. Toussie had hired Bradford Berenson, a former top lawyer in the White House counsel’s office from 2001-2003, to handle the case.

Berenson may have been responsible for persuading his former White House colleagues to bypass the normal procedures. It wouldn’t be the first time Berenson has acted in that manner. In Angler — an introspective book on Dick Cheney’s vice presidency — author Barton Gellman documents an earlier attempt by Berenson to pull a fast one.

In Nov. 2001, with Berenson’s assistance, Vice President Cheney hastily pushed a legal memo through the White House which ordered that all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody could be detained indefinitely without charge. Berenson skirted normal vetting procedures:

After leaving Bush’s private dining room, the vice president took no chances on a last-minute objection. He sent the order on a swift path to execution that left no sign of his role. After Addington and Flanigan, the text passed to Berenson, the associate White House counsel. Cheney’s link to the document broke there: Berenson was not told of its provenance.

Berenson rushed the order to deputy staff secretary Stuart W. Bowen Jr., bearing instructions to prepare it for signature immediately — without advance distribution to the president’s top advisers. Bowen objected, he told colleagues later, saying he had handled thousands of presidential documents without ever bypassing strict procedures of coordination and review. He relented, one White House official said, only after “rapid, urgent persuasion” that Bush was standing by to sign and that the order was too sensitive to delay.

In an interview, Berenson said it was his understanding that “someone had briefed” the president “and gone over it” already. He added: “I don’t know who that was.”

[snip]

The Toussie case isn’t over yet. “The president believes that the pardon attorney should have an opportunity to review this case before a decision on clemency is made,” Perino said. And that means Berenson will have an opportunity to continue to bill Toussie for another few weeks in an effort to secure an illegitimate pardon, again.

That's more like the corruption we've come to expect from our Clown in Chief.

The Bush bandits may try to tell us that they've changed their minds based on new facts, etc. etc., all in an attempt to sound less like self-interested fucktards and more like Responsible Adults, but Digby's here to remind us that self-interest is still their primary motive:

In case anyone's wondering why Bush retracted the pardon of his contributor's son, it's not because he had an attack of conscience or even because it looks bad politically to pardon a mortgage scammer.

It's sadly because the pardon would have made it harder for the Republicans to tank Eric Holder's nomination on the basis of the Marc Rich pardon. One of their most substantial hissy fits was that that Holder signed off on it when it hadn't gone through proper channels (something that was not unprecedented then either.) It turns out that this Bush pardon was granted under similar circumstances.

Kinda hard to call the kettle black when you're standing neck-deep in the same muck. Not that they wouldn't have tried. It's just that someone finally got hit with a particle of sanity and realized that after eight years of straight bullshit, it's getting harder to get the public to swallow.

Speaking of straight bullshit, Faux News is busy spending the holiday trying to blow smoke up the nation's arse:

I appeared on Fox News yesterday to discuss both the Blagojevich flap and the imminent economic recovery package from the Obama administration. You can watch the clip here. As you'll see, on that latter issue, Fox News is starting its campaign to stop Obama's big spending plan by stating - as assumed fact - that "historians pretty much agree" that Franklin Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression, and that therefore, Obama shouldn't try another New Deal.

When I say Fox News' assertion about historians is patently false, they literally laugh at me as if I've said something so clearly untrue, something Americans supposedly assume is so obviously stupid, that it's worthy of ridicule.

I hope they enjoyed that chuckle, because it's their ridiculed guest who gets the last laugh:

Now, it's true - back in 2004, two UCLA professors published a little-noticed report claiming the New Deal's government intervention prolonged the Great Depression. But that assertion has been subsequently eviscerated by, ya know, actual data.

Here's University of California historian Eric Rauchway:

For a start, New Deal intervention saved the banks. During Hoover's presidency, around 20 percent of American banks failed, and, without deposit insurance, one collapse prompted another as savers pulled their money out of the shaky system. When Roosevelt came into office, he ordered the banks closed and audited. A week later, authorities began reopening banks, and deposits returned to vaults.

Congress also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which, as economists Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz wrote, was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War." After the creation of the FDIC, bank failures almost entirely disappeared. New Dealers also recapitalized banks by buying about a billion dollars of preferred stock...

The most important thing to know about Roosevelt's economics is that, despite claims to the contrary, the economy recovered during the New Deal. During Roosevelt's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent, with the exception of the recession year of 1937-1938...

Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms. In part, the jobs came from Washington, which directly employed as many as 3.6 million people to build roads, bridges, ports, airports, stadiums, and schools -- as well as, of course, to paint murals and stage plays. But new jobs also came from the private sector, where manufacturing work increased apace.

This basic fact is clear -- unless you quote only the unemployment rate for the recession year 1938 and count government employees hired under the New Deal as unemployed, which conservative commenters have taken to doing.

So, as Rauchway says, the hard data about bank closures, job creation and overall economic growth rates proves the regulations and spending of the New Deal helped end the Great Depression. In fact, Rauchway notes that the data actually suggests that the major, data-driven criticism of the New Deal is that it didn't spend enough money fast enough.

But, OK - let's say you want to cherry pick the unemployment numbers like a right-wing pundit. Let's say that, as Rauchway notes, you are a conservative dittohead totally comfortable dishonestly "quot[ing] only the unemployment rate for the recession year 1938 and count[ing] government employees hired under the New Deal as unemployed." Shouldn't you be blaming conservative ideology, and not New Deal-ism, for those numbers? After all, as Paul Krugman recently explained to a stunningly ignorant George Will on ABC News, 1937-1938 was the period Roosevelt dialed back the New Deal in the name of conservative demands that he stop spending...

I hope they keep attacking like this. It's really just too fun using their own stupidity against them. I'm going to thoroughly enjoy trotting out the above factoid the next time some neocon dumbshit tries to argue using Faux News talking points.

Not that they're likely to notice the blow - the sort of people who take Faux News as the gospel truth have already kicked Mr. Reason out of their house, and they never were on speaking terms with Mr. Reality or Ms. Evidence. Still, there's a certain satisfaction to be gained by simply watching them sputter.

Lest you think outrageous political stupidity is only Made in the USA these days, have a look at Israel's Prime Minister:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is appealing to Palestinians in Gaza to stop the Islamic militant group Hamas from launching rocket attacks.

Olmert, speaking directly to Gaza residents during an interview Thursday on the Arab satellite station al-Arabiya, told viewers, "I say to you in a last minute call, stop it," The Jerusalem Post reported.

Ian Welsh gives Olmert's heartfelt plea the proper context:

What Olmert doesn't note is that there was a long cease-fire, during which Israel kept blockading Gaza, so that they don't have enough food or water. He's been starving them because he doesn't like their democratically elected government. Not launching missiles hasn't worked for citizens of Gaza. From their point of view there's little reason not to fire missiles at Israel. Being shot by Israeli soldiers probably doesn't seem like a much worse way to go than starving... or watching their children starve.

Can I just add, if a majority of American citizens couldn't get their president to get the fuck out of Iraq, much less stop breaking the damned law, how much clout do you think Palestinian citizens have with the people holding the rocket launchers?

Sadly, Olmert's peace plea rhetoric seems like so much window dressing. He's posing himself as trying to stop what he actually wants to do:

Pencil in another appointment with chaos in the Levant. Reports are now solid that Israel, which has blockaded Gaza since November, is set to invade Gaza. Thursday they canceled an aid truck amidst increasing mortar and rocket fire, even though a ship ignored the Israeli blockade to deliver supplies, its crew knowing they would be arrested as a result. Israel also struck at a rocket launcher, while Hamas backed militants continued to fire into Israel.

This is in the wake of the Egyptian brokered cease fire ending, and a growing perception that if Israel's governing party wishes to win elections against rightist Bibi Netanyahu's Likud Party, scheduled for February, that it must prove that it can strike with force. For its part Hezbollah seems unwilling to continue a cease fire without tangible benefits for its cooperation. According to Hamas this meant re-opening the Gaza, which was exactly what Turkey pressed for earlier this week.

Hezbollah has begun deploying rockets in Southern Lebanon. This means that Israel will likely face a two front war, and on one of those fronts, against an enemy that was able to inflict severe losses in their last military encounter.

So much for peace on Earth, then.

But stupidity on Earth is alive and well:

When a reporter asked him about the recent Supreme Court decision not to hear a similar case [challenging Obama's citizenship] from New Jersey, Wiley Drake speculated the justices were fearful of riots and as evidence he cited the fact that they didn't post their decision until Monday:

"I’ve been pretty keenly aware of what’s going on in the Supreme Court. You’ll notice the date when they decided the case would go to conference was on a Friday. Typically, if you go to conference, you take a vote, thumbs up and down, whether to schedule for a hearing. They knew that a lot of people would be discouraged if they made an announcement Friday that they would not take the case. Washington, D.C., is a powder keg. They knew they’d already be at happy hour Friday afternoon and be drunk. Even if a ballgame goes one way or another, they start burning stuff because they are drunk. I think the Supreme Court put the case off until Monday because they knew people would have hangovers and not be drunk."

I'd like to know where Pastor Wiley goes on Friday afternoons (I'll bet it isn't church).

I'll bet it is. If this loon had ever actually ventured out into the real world on a Friday night, he'd have to confront the fact that he's living a paranoid little fantasy. "Pretty keenly aware" my arse.

Sod this for a game of larks. It's time for me to be off making me Christmas fajitas.

I'll Be Goofing Off for Christmas

Substantial political snark will return to this blog after I'm done playing around the intertoobz. For now, I'm playing Santarina and bringing you the gift of awesomely silly Christmas weirdness.

This shall take its place among the most politically incorrect Christmas stories ever: A Joe Camel Christmas.

Have you ever wondered how monks under a vow of silence could put on a Christmas concert? Firedoglake has the side-splitting answer:



Did you know there's a War on Solstice? Man your battlestations!

And finally, a Public Service Announcement from Santa Claus:


Whatever holiday you celebrate, have a wonderful one!

A Winter's Tale

Can't... do... more... stupid ... *thump*

I can't do it. Not tonight. I found myself merely skimming my usual haunts, passing over the outrage for the silly stuff. And then I gave up and played on YouTube for a couple of hours. You'll see the fruit of that labor tomorrow.

One day, just one single freaking day, I want to leave the Mayberry Machiavellis to their own devices. I want them out of my house, off of my mind, and I want to play.

This does not, alas, lead to fruitful blogging.

I offer you instead a fragment from the first book in my series, which I shall be plunging back in to after some thorny backstory issues have been worked out. I know excerpts can be maddeningly confusing, plucked from context as they are, but I like the point Baa'raaman makes and so hopefully it won't get lost in the sea of the unknown.

Philosophy, Winter's Gate

"Give over, Jorvaa. You Southlanders never do find warmth here."

Silahnova gathered his cloak in tighter and tucked his hands under his armpits. He thought that he would not be so cold, and give Baa'raaman less chance to laugh, if he turned away from the windows, but he managed less than a quarter-pivot before the view arrested him.

Baa'raaman Kiinsheo stepped up beside him as he stared and stood without speech for a moment. The windows stretched ceiling-to-floor, with no ledge beyond, giving the uneasy sensation that the room had no fourth wall, and that one misstep would send them plunging into the chasm below. The depths of that chasm were lost in mist today. Opposite, sheets of ice cascaded down the sheer mountainside, so deep and cold against the gray rock that it looked now blue, now clear green, more than white. Ages of trickling water had created thick ropes and undulations in the sheet. It looked as if billions of candles had melted, spilling their drippings down from the peak.

Silahnova wished he had another cloak. And wings, just in case.

Baa'raaman tilted his head. In a moment, the stone walls creaked under a sudden influx of heat, and the floor made Silahnova's feet sweat in their boots. He started shivering in earnest now. Baa'raaman threw back his head and laughed, the sound bounding off the thick glass windows that seemed to radiate winter into the room despite the soraan's efforts. "I could dip you by your ankles in a magma chamber right now and you would still shiver. Why you insisted on coming up here, I will never know."

He clapped Silahnova on the shoulder, hard enough to make his torso lurch forward and put the panic of a thousand-foot fall into his spine. Once, a thousand feet of sheer mountainside would not have concerned him, but he had no hooves now, and regardless, he had never tested those against such implacable ice. "I wanted to see Winter's Gate," he mumbled through jaws clenched tight against queasiness.

"From what I hear of you, you want to see everything." Baa'raaman patted him more gently this time and swung away. His stride was flat, fast, the walk of a man with too much to do and not enough time to do it, or perhaps the stride of a man used to having to move swiftly so as not to freeze in place. Silahnova turned in increments and watched him swoop on the drinks tray on the one clear space on his bleakwood desk. "You should have become a professional Traveller instead of a military man."

Traveller. He was that, at least. In many ways. "Xtalea needs defenders more than rhapsodizers," he said.

Baa'raaman shook his head over the decanter and cups he was filling. Frosted glass, of course. Everything was frosty about the Winter's Gate but her people. "Most people can be taught to kill. Fewer can be taught to really see the world they walk through, and show others what it is. I think you may be one of those last, but maybe not." He turned, cups in hand, one sending off more steam than the other. "I see a part of you wanting to throw yourself over that edge and take all of it into yourself, and another part of you dragging that one back. That is what tragedy is, my thin-blooded friend."

Silahnova took the extended cup. It was hot enough he had to wrap it in his cloak to keep from burning himself, but still too cold. "Is doing what you must do such a tragedy, then?"

"Oh, yes." Baa'raaman chuckled, and shot a look at his chaotic desk. The shelves behind it were little better, with books jumbled and papers spilling over, barely held from a fall to the floor by chunks of odd rock and other idiosyncratic treasures. "Especially when you know you must clean and organize, but doing so would take so much precious time away from better things."

Silahnova's lips resisted his efforts to keep them straight. Impossible not to smile, with that chuckle filling the room, and he wanted to grin. "How much of that precious time do you waste looking for things you need? You could gain more time with a little organization."

"Yes, you military types like it all neat." Baa'raaman snorted, nose buried in his cup for a moment. That cup was sweating, Silahnova noticed: the man's steam had been from cold, not heat. But he would suffer a hot room for a guest. "I waste no time. If I had all of this just so, do you think I could lose myself for hours rediscovering things I had forgotten? Order is the enemy of discovery, my dear silly soldier: never forget that." He pointed a stern finger alongside the cup. "Lose yourself just once, Jorvaa. Get away from everything, release all ties, and just be. Immerse yourself in the world instead of merely looking at it." The finger rapped against the cup. "Obligation will be the death of you."

Silahnova burst out laughing. Obligation had been the death of him, would be thousands of times over, and Baa'raaman would see that joke someday. "Obligations are too hard to set aside, but I appreciate the advice."

"Stiff, stiff, stiff." Baa'raaman shook his head. "All of you Southland soldiers, stiff as the blades you carry, but remember that soraani can bend those blades like meadow grass. If I had no kaataan, I would bend you myself."

Silahnova nodded somberly as he could manage. "Then it is a very good thing you have a kaataan."

"Such a loss for you." Baa'raaman closed his eyes for a moment in mock sorrow. "You need bending, Jorvaa. I should find you the one who will do it."

"Best not." Silahnova shifted his grip on his cup.

"Oh, that upsets you." Baa'raaman searched him. "Even soldiers get married. Even they are allowed such gifts, and I think for them it is more important than for anyone else. Fighting for someone you love gives back meaning. Even Ticaal believes that, for all he has no one. He fills himself with Xtalea herself. You, on the other hand, fill yourself with duty, and that is not so lasting."

Silahnova shook his head, then had to shake the hair out of his eyes. "You are an insightful man, but you missed your strike."

"What do you love, then, Jorvaa? Who?"

He shrugged, shifting one foot beneath him and dipping his chin down in a twisting motion. The Drusav gesture tensed his neck uncomfortably. "I am full," he said. "Leave it at that."

"If you are full, why are you walking the world searching?" Baa'raaman waited a moment. "Full men hardly drink as frantically as you do, Jorvaa."

This ground was far more dangerous than that sheer, slick drop one breath outside the windows. Silahnova shifted back. "The curious do. You have your kaataan, but you still drink philosophy as deep as you can. We can have more than one thirst."

"And so you bury your blade to the hilt." Baa'raaman laugh bounded through the room again. "All right, then, we should drink. You drink from that cup, and then I will take you to have a draught from mine."

A Fragile Peace

The dogs have sued for peace, and as this allows us to concentrate our efforts on the war with Greater Mausistan, we magnanimously agreed. We have even allowed them to claim their "superior" technology as a factor. Why quibble when we know we are worshiped as gods?


The cessation of hostilities has allowed us to focus our attentions on more deserving enemies:


Needless to say, we were not fooled by such pathetic tactics. Our war with Greater Mausistan ended abruptly. Our soldiers are home just in time for the holidays, and peace reigns.

Some of our troops are finding it hard to adjust.


And the dogs are finding that holiday cheer can be humiliating.




While we are discovering that holiday cheer can be hazardous.


If we survive this truce, it will be nothing short of miraculous.

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

It may be Christmas Eve, but stupid never takes a holiday. And Ann Coulter, the diva of Greater Wingnuttia, is attempting to take the crown:

The other day, my friend Ron Chusid had an item arguing that Ann Coulter's piece on Sarah Palin was clear evidence of "the wrong direction the conservative movement is moving in" and the dominance of "anti-intellectualism" on the right.

I finally read Coulter's piece, and I have to admit, it's even more inane than I expected. Coulter, heralded Palin's selection as "Conservative of the Year" and applauded the Alaska governor's role in politics. To hear Coulter tell it, Palin is a hero because she sent "the left into a tailspin of wanton despair."

Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency. In fact, I can't think of a better place to put someone you wanted to keep away from the White House than on a ticket with McCain.

Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode.

Got that? Palin is necessarily wonderful because liberals didn't like her. (That plenty of independents and Republicans found the thought of her vice presidency horrifying is irrelevant.)

Now, I realize that Coulter is a circus clown, and quite possibly a liberal plant meant to make conservatives look ridiculous as part of some kind of satirical performance art, but over the course of nearly 2,000 words, Coulter couldn't actually point to any of Palin's genuine strengths. Coulter blasted the media, Democrats, women she finds insufficiently attractive, and John McCain, but in applauding the greatness of Sarah Palin, she neglected to mention anything that makes Sarah Palin great, outside of Coulter's disdain for Palin's detractors.

I hope she is a liberal plant, because the idea of someone this fucking ridiculous actually being taken seriously, even by the Limbaugh lobotomites, is just depressing.

Karl Rove tries to be a close runner-up:

Yesterday, a water main break in Maryland trapped a dozen commuters in their cars and sent rescuers scrambling to pull motorists from frigid floodwaters. Despite the fact that officials had been warning for years of the dangers of the crumbling pipe system, Maryland did not have the money to make the necessary repairs. As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, the water main break is a wake-up call for the need for massive infrastructure spending by the federal government.

Just hours after the water main break, however, Karl Rove belittled the idea of infrastructure spending on Fox News, calling it “goofy, pie-in-the-sky spending ideas,” and agreed with host Rich Lowry that infrastructure spending doesn’t “make[] any economic sense”:

ROVE: What we’ve got to worry about some of these sort of goofy, pie-in-the-sky spending ideas in which this wisdom of the government is substituted for the wisdom of private individuals in the market, and there we have every right to question. For example, look, I’m in favor of infrastructure spending, but let’s be honest about it. It’s not stimulative. […]

Think Progress really has things too easy. Their blog is dedicated to refuting silly right-wing statements, and when people like Rove say that things like desperately-needed infrastructure spending is a "goofy, pie-in-the-sky" idea, it's altogether too simple for even a pressed-for-time unpaid blogger such as myself to shoot them down. Three words: Works Projects Administration.

Bush isn't a good enough dancer for the fancy footwork this little backtrack requires:

Only a day after issuing a presidential pardon to Isaac Robert Toussie, a real estate scammer from Brooklyn, President Bush decided to reverse the pardon, after it emerged that Toussie's father had contributed almost $30,000 to the Republican party.

Pardons are absolute. They can't be reviewed or reconsidered or overturned, even by the president who issued them. According to the White House press release, President Bush had sent a "Master Warrant of Clemency" with 19 names to the Pardon Attorney at DOJ to execute. But he hadn't executed it yet. In other words, the White House is claiming none of these folks had actually been pardoned yet. So the president can just send word now not to 'execute' that one pardon.

If you want to know who Toussie is, Steve Benen has a blistering rundown. Basically, the reason why Bush is trying to walk back this pardon is because it stinks even to those who think that pardons for cash are ordinary business.

Now, all of these folks have displayed stunning stupidity, but for sheer tone-deaf, misogynistic, idiotic, must-be-missing-a-brain fuckuppedness, you really can't beat Dennis Prager:

As Paul Krugman pointed out, if you're a right winger --no matter what crazy, f*&ked up thought you utter, it's A-OK.
Case in point is wingnut extraordinare Dennis Prager. Here's a sample:

The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is not in the mood and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.

It gets more preposterous from there. In right-wing culture, it's always the ladies that are at fault.

This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.

I think James Dobson has it wrong. It's right-wing freaks like Prager who want to destroy the institution of marriage. Yet this nut is a frequent guest on CNN. Why does he get the megaphone that he does?

Because our mainstream media is simultaneously dazzled by the brazen batshit insanity of the right, and terrified of getting hit in the face by them.

There's plenty more, but alas, I am out of time. A very merry Squidmas Eve to you all, my darlings.

Christopher Hitchens Snowman Sez: Happy Midwinter!

Well, sorta Christopher Hitchens. Look, it's smoking. I didn't have any mini bottles of liquor to round out the festive image, but I did me best.




Whatever winter solstice festivities you partake in, enjoy them muchly. Love to you all!

RIP Universe?

Criminy. It really has been a long time since I've read up on cosmology. No one told me there was another theory about the end of the universe:

A rather harrowing new theory about the death of the universe paints a picture of "phantom energy" ripping apart galaxies, stars, planets and eventually every speck of matter in a fantastical end to time.

Scientifically it is just about the most repulsive notion ever conceived.

The speculative but serious cosmology is described as a "pretty fantastic possibility" even by its lead author, Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth University. It explains one possible outcome for solid astronomical observations made in the late 1990s -- that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing pace, and that something unknown is vacuuming everything outward.

The question Caldwell and his colleagues posed is, what would happen if the rate of acceleration increased?

Their answer is that the eventual, phenomenal pace would overwhelm the normal, trusted effects of gravity right down to the local level. Even the nuclear forces that bind things in the subatomic world will cease to be effective.

"The expansion becomes so fast that it literally rips apart all bound objects," Caldwell explained in a telephone interview. "It rips apart clusters of galaxies. It rips apart stars. It rips apart planets and solar systems. And it eventually rips apart all matter."

He calls it, as you might guess, the Big Rip.

Tip o' the shot glass to my dear local friend, who has not only patiently listened to me bitch about the snow, but came through with a quick link when I emailed to say WTF? I'd stumbled across news of the Big Rip at work, whilst trying to hunt down the source of a rather gorgeous picture posted on a Daily Kos blog. I flipped through about ten thousand NASA Images of the Day, and ran across this:


I've had to come to a sobering realization. Most of my books on cosmology are severely outdated. Science has passed me by. I've been nibbling at cosmology by following a few science blogs, most notably Bad Astronomy, but the stuff on my shelf is from the Clinton era. Methinks it is time to get something a little more recent. Suggestions very welcome.

As for the image that led me to discover just how paltry my current knowledge is, I found it. It's the Bug Nebula. Isn't it spectacular?


I can't wait until the snow has melted and I can go raid the bookstore. I loves me some cosmology, and it looks like there's been some excitement while I've been slacking.

In the meantime, I'm spending Christmas with chaos theory. What's on your holiday reading list?

Hilzoy Has Some Thoughts

Hilzoy borrows the Smack-o-Matic and gets to work on the banks:

From the AP:

"Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals.

The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay packages.

Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found.

[snip]

The super-rich seem to me, during the past few decades, to have wafted off into their own alternate universe, in which of course they are entitled to have their employers pay them not just large salaries, not just multi-million dollar bonuses every year, but the bills for everything that ordinary people pay for; in which flying on public airlines seems to them the way taking the public buses seems to much of the middle class; in which any possible contact with what the rest of us take to be reality has been airbrushed away by vast quantities of money.

Under normal circumstances, I'd think: nice work if you can get it, and worry about the effects of massive inequality on public life. But these are not normal times. The very people who are getting these bonuses and chauffeurs and private jets and financial planners have just sent the entire global economy into a nosedive. They have caused massive amounts of money to disappear. They are getting bailed out for their mistakes by the rest of us -- the people who, if we're lucky, get to fly coach, and if we're not, drive across the country or take a bus.

If they had any shame at all, they would stop. More than that: if they had any sense at all of how angry a lot of us are getting, sheer prudence would do the trick. This is our money. We are giving it to them to get all of us out of a problem that they caused. They should bear that in mind, not treat us as if we were one great big cookie jar.

Amen, sister.

I think all of us who have been watching the disparity between how the financial industry and the auto industry have been treated respectively, and come to pretty much the same conclusions Hilzoy has:

I've been wondering why such different standards are applied to financial executives and Detroit's auto workers. Consider:

* The financial executives helped cause the present meltdown. Auto workers did not.

* The financial executives run their firms, and are responsible for their troubles. Auto workers and their union, by contrast, just got themselves a good deal by bargaining with management. That's their prerogative. I don't see that they're any more to blame for the problems of the Big Three than people who accept unduly large cash back bonuses on their new cars would be, had the Big Three miscalculated and given away more in cash-back bonuses than they could afford.

* Financial executives have just destroyed a tremendous amount of value and ruined the global economy. Auto workers have been busy creating useful things.

* In exchange for destroying value, financial executives get paid a whole lot more than auto workers. Orders of magnitude more. They even get multi-million dollar performance bonuses when their firms lose money! And their benefits are a lot more cushy: not just good health care but private jets and chauffeurs!

* Punishing financial executives helps reduce moral hazard. Punishing auto workers does not.

Honestly: what sense does it make to stick it to a bunch of auto workers while letting the financial executives off scot-free?

Answer: none whatsoever. But, you see, UAW donates to Dems and the financial industry largely lines Con pockets, henceforth the disparity.

But there's an opportunity here to play political aikido. Hilzoy quotes rok for dean, who shows us the way:

...By way of comparison, in Europe, an average CEO only makes 22 times as much as an average worker, and in Japan, only 17 times as much.

If America wants to be competitive again, we need to reduce CEO pay to a level comparable to CEO pay in Europe and Japan. I know exactly how to accomplish this feat. The UAW should agree to immediately lower U.S. union worker pay to a level equal to the level paid by their non-union, non-American competitors. In return, auto CEO's must agree to permanently lower their compensation to only 20 times that of an average union worker.

Once this has been accomplished, Congress must move to apply the same pay standards to AIG and all of the financial institutions that took one penny of taxpayer money from the TARP fund."

Isn't that a beautiful idea? Quid pro fucking quo, baby. If the Cons want us to be so much like foreign competitors, if they think pay disparities between American and foreign workers are such an issue, the solution is elegantly simple: everybody gets to play follow-the-leader with Japan. Including our hugely overcompensated CEOs.

Fair, after all, is fair.

A Second Front

While the dog and his minions cast aspersions on our science while channeling their energies into weapons systems we'd discarded long ago, we discover that a second front has opened:



We suffered losses in a sneak attack from Greater Mausistan, but are happy to report that the situation is being handled:


Good intelligence wins wars. We will soon bring Greater Mausistan to its knees. Our kung fu is better than their kung fu - as the dogs will soon discover:


As the old song says, "Those cats were fast as lightning." Oh, but we are!

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Weather update: this fucking sucks. I made it to work past all the wonderful accidents, the roads are freezing, and more snow is on the way. Isn't it Christmas yet?

Argh.

But at least there's good news:

By now, the list of problems -- structural, practical, ideological, historical -- facing the Republican Party is pretty familiar. Time's Michael Scherer makes the compelling case today that the economic crisis, in addition to contributing to the GOP's electoral defeats, presents the party with a perilous future and threatens the Republicans' fundamental identity.

Liquidity traps are fought with government interventions. They are fought successfully with big ones. Republicans now face the real possibility of a generation of American voters who will see government not as the problem, but as the solution.

The last time America faced such a major economic retrenchment, Franklin Delano Roosevelt responded with a massive expansion of government spending and regulation, new programs like Social Security and new protections for unions and workers, which were controversial at the time, but which proved to be popular over the long haul. It took leaders like Goldwater more than two decades to gain some significant popular traction in opposition to Roosevelt's vision. Conservative economic ideas did not really impose themselves on the White House until 1981, more than 40 years after the bulk of the New Deal era had been established.

In the face of this peril, conservatives find themselves without leadership, direction, or even a cogent ideological response to the crisis. Conservative lodestars, like Dick Cheney, are warning of Herbert Hoover times if Republicans don't open up the federal pocketbooks. Even President Bush has admitted that he "abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." And he did not succeed, clearing the way for much more abandoning to come.

[snip]

So, what's going to happen? Scherer predicts Republicans will "retrench to a guerrilla war," and use EFCA to characterize Democrats as the "party of big labor." (Look out, Democrats are on the side of working Americans! Eek!) It hardly sounds like a recipe for success.

Not really, no. And that's all to the good, considering that the Cons's ideas, frankly, suck leper donkey dick.

And in even better news, it looks like KBR's chickens may finally come home to roost:

Controversial military contractor KBR has racked up quite a record of endangering the lives of U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq. Over the years, the former Halliburton subsidiary has been accused of everything from giving troops ice tainted with “traces of body fluids and putrefied remains” to ignoring warnings of unsafe wiring that led to troop deaths.

Earlier this month, attorneys for 16 members of the Indiana National Guard filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that they “knowingly exposed the soldiers to a cancer-causing toxic chemical.” In a special report last night, CBS News revealed that KBR knew of the toxic exposure to hexavalent chromium long before it informed the guardsmen...

I hope these lawsuits succeed. This is one company that needs to cease to exist.

In ever more excellent news, we have less than a month of Bush stupidity to deal with. In slightly less good news, that means he and his minions are working overtime to try to convince us that he was actually a wonderful president who did all kinds of spiffy stuff, like destroy our civil liberties to keep us "safe:"

As part of the apparent Bush Legacy Project, we've been hearing quite a bit -- from the president on down -- about Bush's record of keeping America safe from terrorist attacks since 2002.

The latest comes by way of Ed Gillespie, a White House aide and former RNC chairman, who wants Americans to remember a key "fact":

Our homeland has not suffered another terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. That, too, is part of the real Bush record.

First, this is plainly false. In the fall of 2001, someone (presumably scientist Bruce Ivins) launched an anthrax attack on the country using the U.S. postal system. Five people were killed, 17 were injured, and millions had the bejesus scared out of them. Why so many like to pretend this didn't happen is a mystery to me.

Second, Gillespie focuses on "our homeland," but it's worth noting that U.S. troops have been subjected to terrorist attacks overseas, as have our allies.

And third, this notion that evaluating Bush's legacy on counter-terrorism should start on Sept. 12, 2001, is just odd. Gillespie and others seem to be arguing, "Just so long as one overlooks the terrorism that killed 3,000 people in 2001, Bush's record on domestic security is excellent."

They'll try to revise all of their insanity out of existence. They've been doing it for eight years - why stop now?

There are signs that the endless swallowing of bullshit spewing from the right is starting to taper off. There are even hints that the MSM is starting to get a wee bit skeptical when it comes to wild right-wing claims. I nominate this one for Question of the Month:

Earlier this month, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) released a report citing “more than 650 international scientists” who back up his claims that manmade global warming is a hoax. This list was a revision of his original compilation of 400 names earlier in the year. That list fell apart, however, when experts pointed out that many of those people 1) had no background in climate science, or 2) “demanded to be taken off, since they didn’t disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all.”

Inhofe’s new report with 650 “experts” doesn’t seem to be much better. Anja Eichler, one of the scientists cited by Inhofe as believing that half of the earth’s warming is caused by the sun, said that her work was “misinterpreted”; in fact, she believes that “Earth’s temperature does not change randomly — it changes when it is driven to do so by an external forcing.” TNR’s Bradford Plumer also found others on this list new who appear to support the theory of manmade global warming.

Yesterday on MSNBC, David Shuster grilled Inhofe on his report, bringing up the case of Eichler. After pointing out all the problems with the report, Shuster asked, “Senator, if there is a hoax, isn’t it this report of yours?” [emphasis added]

Beauty. More reporting like this, please.

Sorry to keep this short, but I have to slog through snow and ice to go fetch a soda before returning to glumly staring at traffic cams and wondering how I'll get home tonight. Snowy weather sucks.

Black Bart the Pirate Cat Sez: Submit!

I know it be the Solstice, and ye're quaffing the eggnog, but remember, me hearties: stupid never takes a holiday. We Elitist Bastards must be there to fight it!

Get your submissions in to elitistbastardscarnival@gmail.com before the end of Friday, or risk the terrible fate of bein' left on the docks with nothing but a hangover and a halibut.

Spreading the Wealth

Methinks the Cons might want to dial back on the hysterical cries of "socialism" just a bit:

Seems an awfully lot of red states are enjoying the largess of other people's wealth, there.

For Those Who Fail To Understand Why There's Such an Uproar

A lot of people get why Rick Warren is such a rancid choice for giving the invocation at Obama's inauguration. I wish Obama would get it instead of babbling about "inclusiveness." Perhaps he just needs a short, sharp lesson in why this has been such a cruel slap in the face to the LGBT community.

Remember that Warren was one of the big-name supporters of Prop 8. Here is one of the newlyweds he's victimizing with his hate (h/t):

I often wonder if the people fighting to strip away our marriage really stop to think of the individuals involved, to really put a face on the news story and the nameless numbers. They are great about putting out press releases, commercials, and emails talking about the dangerous homosexual agenda, but I wonder if they think about the people they are working so hard to take things from.

I wonder how they would feel waking up one day to read a headline in a newspaper that their marriage is not valid and is over. Talk about being breaking news- the two people who are directly affected, whose marriage is being dissolved, have no real say in it.

Think about it. Think about being told your marriage is a sin, that you're no better than a pedophile. Imagine how much that must hurt.

And if you still have trouble understanding their pain, try reading this succinct summation:

But when I heard Warren had been invited to pray at Obama's inauguration, I felt sick to my stomach. I cried. It wasn't a judgment; it wasn't an intellectual assessment; it wasn't a political strategy. It was just genuine pain.

But it was nothing -- NOTHING -- compared to what I felt when I started reading diaries here on Daily Kos, full of smug, ignorant pontification on how we need to not be SO ANGRY or SO HURT, and lumping us in with the "What Obama is doing wrong" crowd, and ignoring that our response to the Warren invitation is a completely separate phenomenon.

Let me explain something very carefully, for those who don't know: none of what's going on in the fight for LGBT rights is part of a strategy, as should be apparent by our lack of a cohesive movement and any viable leaders. It's a true grassroots uprising among people who got a taste of freedom and decided we wanted more. We were no longer willing to settle for a long, slow, state by state battle, for death by a thousand cuts, for an extended period of second class citizenship.

[snip]

You keep telling us we need to reach out and build bridges to the religious right. Do you really think there is any point at all in telling us we need to reach out to homophobes and bigots, to the people who run the churches that abuse our youth and shove us out the doors, that have brainwashed our parents into rejecting us, that tell us they "love" us while they knife us in the hearts with their laws?

Why don't you tell them to reach out to us? We're the ones who have been wronged and harmed, disenfranchised, electro-shocked, had our kids taken away in ugly custody battles, lost our homes when our partner died, been thrown out of the hospital rooms of our lovers, had wills overturned and benefits denied. We're the ones who had our equality thrown up for a popular vote, and whose rights are denied us in the constitutions of 29 states. Telling us to reach out to them is like saying battered women need to reach out to their abusers, or children to the priest who molested them.

Read this diary explaining the impact anti-gay bigotry has on loving families. A seven year-old child watches as his mother tries to show her parents that the family she was creating with her partner was one worthy of love:

Its funny, my first experience with hatred and bigotry was not from some outside source, but from within the people who I thought loved me the most. I still feel that bitter feeling I felt all those years ago still bubbling up inside me. I have never told anyone about this moment, not even my fiancee because it is still to painful for me to talk about. I cannot physically speak about this without crying, and it is entirely too complicated to try to speak about.

We got to my grandparents house and I remember having a feeling of pure tension. That is not a feeling that I had ever felt before that point. We stood on the doorstep together, all of us wrapped up in our own worry. Finally, after what felt like a lifetime, the door opened and we were let inside. There were chairs in the sitting room, two on one side, two on the other and us kids were told to go play in the TV room. I went to the toy chest that had been there for all of my life and pulled out the legos that I had gotten last christmas from my grandma and grandpa. About fifteen minutes went by before the yelling started.

Once again, I don't remember what was said, I just remember the emotions behind the words. I remember my mom's absolute frustration with my grandparents lack of open-mindedness. I remember the hatred that dripped in my grandma's speech. I had never heard her talk like that. Her voice was usually a sweet old lady's voice, but in that moment, I decided that was the voice of hatred. I remember a huge clatter and my mom screaming to us that it was time to leave, and I remember Rosanne's black eye.

My grandma had hurled a chair at Rosanne's face. Yes, one of those aluminum fold up chairs. She got hit in the face and ended up with a black eye.

If the anger spilling from the LGBT community right now perplexes you, keep this in mind:

Yes, we've come a long way. But we suffered, struggled and crawled our way here... sometimes LITERALLY crawled to get here.

We endured hate, beatings, death, torture, shunning, excommunications and discrimination to get even just this small part of equality. (and when I say "we" I mean I.. I have endured EVERY thing on that list, as have many gay and lesbians here).

So, give us a bit of slack when we get angry and hurt when someone who represents, and is an integral part of, all of that hate and torture and death is giving the prayer that will bring in what we hoped will be a new and hopeful presidency.

We've endured a hell of a lot to get even here. There is my story, in a nutshell. So, please, don't presume to tell us when we should be 'calm'. I've spent nearly four decades being 'calm.'

It strikes me that asking people to build bridges and reach out to embrace those who are fighting to take away their rights is awfully ridiculous, considering that battle is still raging. There will come a time for outreach and understanding. It hasn't arrived just yet.

And how, exactly, do you reach out to hypocrites? Maybe we can start with a little lesson in what's contained within the Bible:

The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.

[snip]

Now the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same exact book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution. So, who will execute the first adulterer? Please step on up. May the one without any Biblical sin cast the first stone.

Here is a question no one can answer -- and lucky for the right wing, the media never bothers to ask -- why do you only focus on the part of the Bible against homosexuality but not on the part against adultery? It's one thing to say you're against adultery; it's another to take away their rights. How come no religious figure in this country has mounted a campaign to take away the rights of adulterers? Let alone execute them.

I think this is a question we should be asking a lot more often, myself. It could shake at least a few bigots into realizing that they're just one literal reading away from finding themselves in the same boat with gays.

Of course, the likelihood of them having an epiphany is minimal. There's a surer way to win this battle for equality:

A September poll showed that two-thirds of those under 35 support same-sex marriage. The most active opponents to same-sex marriage largely have been those who have received the dreaded letter from the AARP. I believe that the solution to marriage equality sprouts from these statistics.

To win marriage equality, you must live them to death.

(Consider this your pallette cleanser - it's wonderful and whimsical and funny as hell. Enjoy, then join me back here for the wrap.)

To put everything in perspective for those perplexed by the outpouring of anger and anguish, this diary by a man who is able to understand by analogy is exactly right. He explains that he and his brother were abused by fundamentalist adoptive parents who "thought of my brother and I as their ministry instead of as their children." They beat them, tried to cast the devil out of them, and kept one brother in their home with lies and threats because they were getting state money for him. His brother remembers the aftermath:

When he turned 30 I couldn't take it anymore. I didn't care if I went to jail for it... I got him out of their house. I remember the day he came to live with my wife and I(six months after we got married). He was so broken, but so alive too. He had spent those years doing research on his own and writing books. Down there in the basement.

He was so happy to be out. He called that day his independance day.

We found out that my parents had been lying all along. They had never had control.

My brother was so angry. He wished they would burn in hell forever. He wished they would go to jail for the rest of their lives.

At first I tried to argue with him saying that they are still our parents, but then I saw his look... the look where he retreated... where he accepted that nobody cared about what he felt... and then I couldn't disagree with him.

I remember that. And I realize that gay people are experiencing that same thing right now. And even though I want to say that they should try not to be so extreme and how these people are still people...

I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I was wrong. Be angry. Tell everyone how angry you are. Fuck them if they can't take it. Fuck me if I can't take it.

You deserve to be free.

Do you understand now? Good.

The LGBT community, once more, has been kicked in the face. This time, it's no good telling them to calm down and be patient and inclusive and reach out to those who think they're evil - these things won't help them. All they do is allow bigots to feel better about themselves.

I know Rick Warren's starting to feel a little less certain about his stand. You can see evidence that the outcry is reaching even his religion-plugged ears:

So Rick Warren pulled the anti-gay language from his church Web site. The site used to explicitly ban gays from membership in the church.

We're getting through. The din may even be loud enough for Obama to hear, and eventually shows he understands.

Keep shouting.

Bulldozing Kindergartens

Israel is getting well beyond ridiculous. Now they've got plans to demolish a Palestinian kindergarten. It is, of course, being done in the interests of "national security."

From here, it looks like they're intent on creating more terrorists. Demolishing a village and ensuring kids don't get an education is a pretty good way of proving you're a right bunch of bastards.

It's not the first time they've done something outrageous in this village:

In 1983 the IDF declared Al Aqabah a "training area" and even engaged in live fire training in the village, killing 8 villagers, wounding dozens more and driving many residents to leave until an Israeli court several years ago ordered an end to training inside the village.

That's just so far beyond the pale of decency it's not even describable.

If you care to sign a petition against this bullshit, there's one all ready for you.

Battle Magic

Our spies tell us the enemy's allies are experiencing difficulties with motivation and organization:



Meanwhile, with a break in the weather, a major offensive has been launched. At first, motivating our own troops proved tricky, but after a rousing speech made by our general, we were able to march:


Careful studies of hypnosis, combined with information culled from ancient grimoires, allowed us to wreak havoc among enemy soldiers:

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

I is happy.



That's mah valley. I got to go play in the snow in it. When I called our hotline this afternoon, they informed me the call center was closed. I actually called three times to make sure I was hearing them right. They hadn't closed the place while the snow was coming down in truckloads, so I was having a hard time believing my ears. Apparently, the roads this morning were really that bad. Yippee! No fighting with myself over whether I should be insanely stupid brave or not.

I'm staring out my window at a clear sky, with a beautiful blush of sunset, and most of the major roads are nearly clear. Our road is going to be a hellacious pain in the arse tomorrow, seeing as how it's still solid-packed snow, but they'll have sanded it, so it should be passable. I dug the car out with a wok this afternoon. I am ready.

Of course, if things melt off too much too soon, the streets around work will probably flood, which might just mean another closure. The important thing is, though, the forecast assures me this will all be over soon. And I got to go play in the snow.

With the weather update out of the way, let's get to kerfluffle updates. Yglesias solves the mystery of how Jennifer Palmieri got her hot little hands on his blog to begin with:

I wish the guest post from Jennifer Palmieri that I put up Sunday evening had been handled differently in a variety of ways since just sticking it on the blog and then going to bed seems to have given people a lot of misleading notions about the site being somehow “hijacked.”

Anticipating the obvious: Epic Fail. For fuck's sake, the man could've spared us all a lot of angst by saying, "Jennifer asked me if I'd mind posting her contrasting viewpoint, and I said sure," right at the beginning of that ridiculous post. After the last eight years, we're quick on the trigger when it comes to suspecting authoritarian influence from on high.

I wonder why that could be?

In an interview with Fox News’s Chris Wallace yesterday morning, Vice President Cheney defended the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, and claimed that the congressional leaders briefed on the program wholeheartedly approved. In fact, Cheney claimed, when the White House asked if it needed congressional approval for the program, they unanimously agreed it did not:

CHENEY: We briefed them on the program and what we’d achieved and how it worked and asked them should we continue the program. They were unanimous, Republican and Democrat alike. All agreed: Absolutely essential to continue the program. I then said, Do we need to come to the Congress and get additional legislating authorization to continue what we’re doing? They said absolutely not. Don’t do it.

[snip]

Cheney claims to have suggested seeking congressional approval right away. However, the White House put up a stiff fight just a few years later, when Congress finally sought to impose oversight of the wiretapping program. The Vice President has already presented misleading infomration about the dates and frequency of these supposed briefings; now he appears to be offering misleading descriptions of them.

Yeah. Darth Cheney and Bush's Buttkissers running around trying to redefine the truth and change history would probably be a big part of the reason.

Then there's our vaunted liberal media:

Deborah Howell, the ombudsman of the Washington Post, is writing an endless series of valedictory columns to mark her departure after three contentious years on the job. What's her takeaway? Amazingly, exactly what she thought she knew coming in: the news coverage in the Washington Post just isn't slanted enough towards conservatives

[the WaPo should] Make a serious effort to cover political and social conservatives and their issues; the paper tends to shy away from those stories, leaving conservatives feeling excluded and alienated from the paper. I'd like those who have canceled their subscriptions to be readers again. Too many Post staff members think alike; more diversity of opinion should be welcomed.

[snip]

I don't recall the Post having much, if anything, negative to say about George Bush or his war until after he was safely reinstalled in the White House. Even buried a few stories for him. She has evidence, though, she says. She found 26 more negative stories on the OpEd page about McCain up to election day.

What she understandably does not mention is who wrote them. By my count, just from the front page of their columnist archives (which in some cases only goes back as far as mid-September) before Nov. 3 there were 22 unkind reflections on Senator McCain from centrist and conservative Post opinion writers Anne Applebaum, David Broder, Bush presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson, George Will (who declines with some heat the suggestion that McCain, and for that matter, Bush represent conservatism at all), that nice apolitical Mr. Hiatt, Sebastian Mallaby, Robert Novak and, of course, (there have been many more since) conservative Post-syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker.

Diversity, in Ms. Howell's world, apparently means writing nothing but nice things about Cons, even when your conservative editorial staff is pissed off at Cons.

We also get to put up with an outrageous amount of baseless spin. Nearly everyone in the MSM, it seems, has a bucket of tar, a brush, and the irresistable desire to apply it to anyone who so much as looks liberal:

Last week, the Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman suggested Barack Obama and his transition team should ignore Patrick Fitzgerald and federal prosecutors, and release a list of contacts with Rod Blagojevich's office immediately. As Weisman put it, Obama could have "easily" ignored the wishes of law enforcement officials in the middle of an investigation, and "reassured" the public last week, instead of this week. For support, Weisman quoted Karl Rove's lawyer.

In the latest effort to connect Obama to the Blagojevich controversy, the WSJ's Weisman tries a new trick today.

[Obama] promised to account for any and all contacts between his staff and the governor's, setting a release within days. Finally, he said the account was complete, but he wouldn't release it until Christmas week.

The slow dribble "hurt him slightly," because it made him look like an ordinary politician in scandal mode, not the antipolitician people believed they voted for, said Ron Bonjean, a Republican consultant who dealt with scandals affecting then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

[snip]

Weisman added, "Regardless of how clean the Obama camp is, the release of the report isn't likely to be clean." I don't kow what this means. Even if the report shows no wrongdoing whatsoever, it will be scandal fodder anyway?

Yup. In fact, if God hisownself came down from on high and declared Obama to be pure as the driven snow, the Cons and their loyal propagandists (who for some unfathomable reason wish to be known as journalists) would say, "B-bu-but he's an evil librul!" and continue regardless. The only thing they're liberal about is their smears.

For fuck's sake, they can't even read plain polling data:

In an interview with the New York Times, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) gave the sort of language we should expect to hear from Republicans over the next four to eight years, denying that Barack Obama has a mandate for genuine policy changes.

"The change that people voted for was a change in management," said Alexander. "If they think the change the country elected them to provide was a lurch to the left, they're in for a big surprise."

The thing is...this just isn't true. There is a mountain of poll data showing that people favor Barack Obama on policy...

And we're in for a lot more of this sort of bullshit. These fuckwits wouldn't know reality if it bit them in the balls.

At least it will allow us to continue honing the art of snark:

John Tierney, a libertarian columnist whose work graces the New York Times science pages, slammed President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of John Holdren as chief science adviser this weekend. Tierney attacks Holdren for being “spectacularly wrong about a major issue in [his] field of expertise,” for having “resistance to dissenting views,” and for “his tendency to conflate the science of climate change with prescriptions to cut greenhouse emissions.” Tierney quotes at length from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Reason Foundation, both right-wing libertarian think tanks.

Tierney takes special umbrage at Holdren’s critique of Bjorn Lomborg’s 2001 book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, even though it’s a hodge-podge of ideological pseudo-science and dishonest rhetorical fallacies. Actually, Tierney’s defense makes sense, because John Tierney’s own stock in trade is a hodge-podge of ideological pseudo-science and dishonest rhetorical fallacies.

Tierney insists there are "other ways to cope" with global warming. After a masterful takedown, Think Progress's Brad Johnson continues his brilliant run of snark by enumerating Tierney's "other ways:"

1. Magic technology to suck up emissions
2. Magic technology to block out the sun
3. A medium-scale nuclear war

Read the whole piece. It's glorious. And Jennifer Palmieri hasn't yet butted in to tell us that it in no way reflects the views of CAP, which is even nicer.

If you need one last good laugh at a stupid pol today, I suggest you trot over to the Washington Monthly, where Steve Benen points out once more with feeling that Sarah Palin is a clueless git.

Priceless.

I Beat Up Rick Warren Because He Begs Me To

Are you ready for your (near) daily dose of Fundie Christian Hypocrisy Exposed? Stirling Newberry's got us covered. Here ye go:

Many people praise his social engagement, in for example, AIDs intervention. The people who I know in NGOs are considerably less impressed. It turns out that Warren's social gospel is a great deal like his theological gospel: a fraud, used to beat down opposition by declarations of love and submission, and then a demand for money to be used for the multiplication of his, rather than His, servants. Let me take two examples from his PEACE project.

The arguement of PEPFAR, Bush's AIDs plan, is that churches, already being present and having authority, can be used for service delivery. However, the "P" in "PEACE" stands for... "plant churches." If Churches are already present, then there is no need to plant them, now is there? If they are not already present, it means that funding for PEACE is really government funding for missionary conversion work. In fact, the second letter is to create missionaries. One has to get to "A" before doing anything for actual people. Warren pays himself first.

Let's take two examples: one is the PEACE, "Hispanics for Christ" project. It's sole objective? Create churches among American Hispanics and convert them. That's the whole project. One can say many things about the American hispanic population, but an absence of Christianity isn't any of them. As a group Hispanics attend church more than whites. Saturation planting of churches is its aim, with no other objective. PEACE means sectarian conflict first. There is one for Mexico too. Note that the "ACE" is dispensed with, and only the "PE" is funded. Help the poor? First get their donations and devotion. Rick Warren Pays himself first.

The whole piece is a devastating salvo. I suggest you make up a nice tub of popcorn before you go enjoy the whole thing.

And you know what? I didn't believe Rick Warren's PEACE propaganda was that bad. I didn't believe that the stupid homophobic fuckwit could possibly be so stupid as to put something like "plant churches" right in the P for PEACE. And hadn't I read somewhere that it stood for "Promote Reconciliation"? Why, indeed I had. But check this out:


Interesting how he has "plant churches" right under the "promote reconciliation," innit?

And you and I are paying for this bullshit, as Digby points out:

The difference, of course, is that a large amount of the funding for the Warren project comes from taxpayers who don't know that they are paying to convert the third world to evangelical Christianity as part of the plan. Not that they have a choice in the matter. Their tax dollars a spent on this religious project whether they like it or not.

Well, I like it not. And I don't like the fact that this lying, self-aggrandizing, homophobic, homicidal, hypocritical douchebag is going to be giving the invocation at Obama's inauguration. But at least we can take the opportunity to drag his rat bastard ass down. He won't be able to hide his fundie self under moderate's clothing for much longer.

With Progressives Like This, Who Needs Republicons?

Kos had this cryptic little entry on Daily Kos tonight:

The Center for American Progress should not make a habit of doing this.

And for the record, the editors on the site can say whatever they want about whoever and I won't get all creepy and Big Brother on them.

p.s. And yes, the Third Way is a bunch of assholes who make the DLC look downright palatable.

Fascinating. Of course I had to follow the link to see what the hell was going on, and I found this ham-fisted editorial interference:

This is Jennifer Palmieri, acting CEO of the Center for American Progess Action Fund.

Most readers know that the views expressed on Matt’s blog are his own and don’t always reflect the views of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Such is the case with regard to Matt’s comments about Third Way. Our institution has partnered with Third Way on a number of important projects - including a homeland security transition project - and have a great deal of respect for their critical thinking and excellent work product. They are key leaders in the progressive movement and we look forward to working with them in the future.

You would think that someone acting as CEO of a group that documents so much Republicon PR stupidity and the resulting disasters would know better than to shit all over one of her own bloggers like this. You would especially think that someone acting as CEO of a progressive organization who is being considered for assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, would know better than to shove her foot so far in her mouth she's tickling her colon with her piggies. And yet, she has gone and done so. In the process, she managed to sully the reputation of the Center for American Progress (a group which I have a great deal of respect for, sans Jennifer), alienate Matt Yglesias's readership, draw attention to the very post she was disputing, caused people who had no interest in Third Way to rumage around in their dirty underwear and come away believing their policies are not only - how did Matt put it? - "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit," but that the whole organization is very likely committing tax fraud to boot, and she's probably just shot her job prospects in both feet.

I know enough about Third Way now to know that a) they're the sort of mealy-mouthed, show-your-belly-to-the-Cons-and-maybe-they'll-stop-ripping-out-our-jugular, wishy-washy fucktards who have made it so damned difficult to present a strong Democratic party and robust progressive agenda to the country, and b) that they supported that fucking FISA bill. The fact that I also know c), that they're more concerned about their image than getting things accomplished, is just one extra reason to despise them. Before Jennifer's announcement, I didn't even know Third Way existed. What a public relations coup, eh?

Note to Jennifer and her BFF Third Way: this kind of asshattery is best practiced by Cons. They're the ones with the authoritarian followers who swallow this high-handed bullshit to the last drop and then ask for more. As you've no doubt gathered from the nearly 400 comments on your Big Brother message, Dems are rather less impressed.

I believe she would serve her country best by withdrawing her name from consideration for Obama's administration and turning CAP's reins over to a more savvy progressive. I'm sure she'll be able to find gainful employment with the DLC or Third Way. She's certainly proven she's not cut out for public relations. Since they aren't either, they should be perfect for each other.

Winter Base Camp

The dogs have started a PR campaign, hoping to turn public opinion in their favor. We, of course, one-up them with cuter babies:


We know the power of cute. We intend to employ it to our decided advantage.

Snowed in at our winter camp, we take the opportunity to train our bodies to withstand the punishment to come:


The dogs have found human allies. We, of course, had humans on our side all along, and they are making every sacrifice possible to ensure our triumph:



Why fight harder when you can fight smarter?

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Not. Happy.
















When I got up and checked the weather, and saw they were predicting up to six inches more of fresh snow, and noted that the road out of our valley hadn't been sanded, and then got a load of the images on the traffic cams (but not the ones in my neighborhood or near ye olde workplace, because they froze solid and aren't functioning), I said not no but fuck no. Staying home. Not that I'm happy about it - every day away from work is less money and more anxiety. But you know what? I value my life more than my job, and I can eat ramen if I have to.

I almost got t-boned yesterday venturing out to the grocery store by a dumbass in a wanna-be monster truck who thought he could stop on ice, and that was before the snow started coming down again.

So I've had plenty of time to spelunk around the intertoobz (in between obsessively reading weather updates, watching traffic cams, and venturing out to eyeball the roadway). I can't say that's made me any happier.

It appears our military command has the same plans about leaving Iraq as I do about venturing from the house tonight:

There's a lot of fluff about bi-partisan agreement, withdrawing to leave a democratic Iraq and the "successes" of the last two years in an op-ed by John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham in the Washington Post today. But there's only one important bit.

Gen. Odierno was the operational architect of the surge in 2007, when he served as deputy to Gen. Petraeus, as well as of the tribal engagement strategy that persuaded Sunnis to abandon the insurgency and join our side. Gen. Odierno -- as the current commander on the ground -- is the person whose judgment should matter most in determining how fast and how deep a drawdown can be ordered responsibly.

This is the same General Odierno who recently forgot his place in the chain of command, saying that he had no intention of sticking to the U.S. agreement with Iraq which says all U.S. troops must be withdrawn from Iraqi cities by the summer. He also hinted that the 2011 final withdrawal date might be ignorable, saying "Three years is a very long time."

The Maliki government was quick to respond that it expected the letter of the status of forces agreement to be adhered to. But Bush administration loyalist Odierno, by indicating that the U.S. would continue to try to bend treaties and deals all out of shape instead of sticking to its word, has badly damaged Obama's political capital abroad before the President Elect has even taken office.

Yes, he has.

Gates isn't helping:

But on Charlie Rose midweek, Bob Gates was clear that withdrawal doesn't mean withdrawal, not by a long chalk.

ROSE: As far as you understand it, how many residual forces will be left [in Iraq] after 2011?

GATES: Well, I think that remains to be seen, and first of all, because any forces remaining there after the end of 2011 will have to be there as a result of a new agreement negotiated with the Iraqis. So they will clearly have a voice in how many are there as well.

ROSE: If they say none, it’s none or not?

GATES: That’s absolutely right.

ROSE: Yeah.

GATES: That’s absolutely right. They are a sovereign country, and if they tell us after the end of 2011, we want you all out, I think we have no choice but to do that. I think that just in a ball park figure when I think of the support that they likely are going to need for their air force, for their navy, for counterterrorism, for continued training, for intelligence, for logistics and so on, my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops, but clearly, in a very different role than we have played for the last five years.

Gates went on to say that these "several tens of thousands" of troops - the equivalent of at least ten brigades - wouldn't have a combat role, but this is still clearly parsing "complete withdrawal" as required by the SOFA beyond the boundaries of the language.

It's nice that he's nodded toward Iraqi sovereignty, but I do believe he's having a hard time understanding that no means no.

Just how much of a fight is Obama likely to have on his hands if he tries to stick to the 16-month withdrawl timeline? Oh, mercy:

Here’s the more complete story thanks to Gareth Porter’s important analysis at IPS: He begins by discussing how Gates, Mullen, Petraeus and Odierno are taking this further: (emph. added)

U.S. military leaders and Pentagon officials have made it clear through public statements and deliberately leaked stories in recent weeks that they plan to violate a central provision of the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement requiring the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities by mid-2009 by reclassifying combat troops as support troops.

The scheme to engage in chicanery in labeling U.S. troops represents both open defiance of an agreement which the U.S. military has never accepted and a way of blocking President-elect Barack Obama's proposed plan for withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office.

Apparently, these fucktards don't understand that both the Iraqis and the American public want our troops out. Gone. Vamanos. No mas. And reclassifying them pulls no wool over any eyes, aside from the willfully-blind neocon chickenhawks.

Lube up your vocal chords and work on your lung capacity, my darlings. It seems we're going to have to start screaming here quite soon.

We can practice on Darth Cheney:

On Fox News Sunday today, host Chris Wallace asked Vice President Cheney, “if the President, during war, decides to do something to protect the country, is it legal?” “I think as a general proposition, I’d say yes,” replied Cheney.

Cheney went on to defend the administration’s actions over the past eight years:

CHENEY: There are bound to be debates and arguments from time to time and wrestling back and forth about what kinds of authority is appropriate in any specific circumstances, but I think that what we’ve done has been totally consistent with what the Constitution provides for.

No, Dick, it fucking well has not:

Though Cheney thinks the administration’s actions have been “totally consistent with what the Constitution provides for,” numerous courts have ruled that the Bush administration has overstepped the bounds of the Constitution...

Examples abound at the original link. I'm sure you can come up with a few dozen on your own as well. It's not like we're starved for choice - if Bush & Co. touched it, they probably violated the Constitution, spirit and letter.

That's only one among many outrageous statements by Cheney lately. It's getting hard to keep up with his prolific bullshit. And if you want to know how much class he hasn't got, check out his excuse for telling Sen. Patrick Leahy to fuck himself. I think he does it just so he can feel the tingle of Bill Kristol's lips on his ass.

In less than a month, now, Cheney will be on his way having his ass kissed in a new undisclosed location, and the Dems will take over. You know what this means. Every right-wing "think" tank and organization in the country is gearing up to attempt to scare us shitless. Here's a charming example from the Heritage Foundation:

In February 2009, the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, is coming out with a high-definition film called "33 Minutes". As Jeffrey Lewis at Arms Control Wonk points out, it's basically an infomercial for Star Wars Episode II, the latest missile defense shield proposal.

[snip] It's absolutely classic, slick, right wing fearmongering, with a sizeable dose of Cold War revivalism. It includes clips from Reagan speeches, images of Soviet tanks, and even features Margaret Thatcher.

The trailer is both hilarious and depressing; it's hard to believe that they think anyone would actually fall for the hyperbole.

Lt. General Robert Gard (USA, ret.), chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, launches a fabulous attack on the ad and the Heritage Foundation.

First, Heritage commits the ultimate faux pas in national security analysis: It proposes a solution that doesn't achieve their primary objective. Robert Joseph, a committed arms racer and intellectual heir to John Bolton, says early on in the video that "my number one concern today is a terrorist with a nuclear weapon." A legitimate fear, to be sure, especially when you consider that the final report of the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism predicted that such an attack will "more likely than not" occur somewhere in the world by 2013.

The problem, of course, is that missile defense won't stop nuclear terrorism. How exactly will missile defense interceptors in Europe stop a terrorist with a small nuclear explosive device from entering the United States through Canada? Or prevent a shielded nuclear device, invisible to cargo detectors, from being smuggled into a U.S. port aboard a ship? Missile defense, obviously, is useless against these kinds of terrorist attacks.

Second, Heritage is guilty of fear-mongering without supplying the appropriate facts and context. That is the height of irresponsibility.

In other words: GOPSOP. GOP standard operating procedure. And you know they're only going to get worse.

The NRA's already launched into full-blown panic mode:

Estimates vary, but the National Rifle Association reportedly spent about $15 million in 2008 on attacks against Barack Obama. The group is no doubt frustrated, not only with the election's outcome, but with its inability to have a serious impact on the campaign.

What's more embarrassing for the NRA is that it's still doing robocalls, seven weeks after Election Day. The Hartford Courant's Colin McEnroe received Wayne LaPierre's latest message yesterday.

So my phone rings today; and after that 1.5-second delay that tells you it's not a beloved friend, a guy comes on the line and says his name is Chris White from the NRA. Do I want to listen to a message from Wayne LaPierre about "Obama's scheme to ban guns?" You bet I do.

So Chris presses play and suddenly Wayne's voice is blasting in my ear at three times the decibel level of the human being who spoke first.

Wayne says that Obama's assurances that he will respect gun rights are "an outright lie."

Obama has been "stacking his administration with the most notorious gun-banners in America."

Wayne says he wants to "send a message loud and clear that the fight for our freedom is not coming. It is here and now."

When Wayne's automated message ended, a person comes back onto the line to explain that Obama has appointed "a cabinet full of gun haters." When pressed to name one, the NRA representative pointed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, of course, is not part of the Obama cabinet. Pressed further for an actual cabinet gun-hater, the NRA rep offers nothing but silence.

I can't believe people take this bunch of lackwits seriously.

Then again, I couldn't believe that people took Bush & the Mayberry Machiavellis seriously, either. We've got an overabundance of stupid in this country. Possibly even more abundant than Seattle's solstice snow.

You know what? I'm going to go back to watching the roads ice up. It's a lot less depressing than watching assclowns on parade.

Sunday Sensational Science

Digging in the past.

Archaeology is one of the most fascinating branches of science. Uncovering our buried history helps us make sense of who we are, how we thought, and can help us understand why civilizations rise and fall. Ancient cultures were beautiful, brutal, and just plain interesting.

There have been several recent discoveries that reveal origins more ancient than we expected, potentially solve some longstanding mysteries, and give us unanticipated glimpses into our ancestors' physiology. Let's dig, shall we?


New Pyramid Found in Egypt

The 4,300-year-old monument is believed to be the tomb of Queen Sesheshet, the mother of Pharaoh Teti, the founder ancient Egypt's 6th dynasty.

Once nearly five stories tall, the pyramid—or at least what remains of it—lay beneath 23 feet (7 meters) of sand.

The discovery is the third known subsidiary, or satellite, pyramid to the tomb of Teti. It's also the second pyramid found this year in Saqqara, an ancient royal burial complex near current-day Cairo.

[snip]

Starting from the 4th dynasty (2616 to 2494 B.C.), pharaohs often built pyramids for their wives and mothers.

"Mothers were revered in ancient Egypt," said Salima Ikram, a professor of Egyptology at the American University in Cairo, who was not involved in the discovery.

"Building pyramids for one's mother in her dead state … was fairly emphasized in the whole vision of kingship that the ancient Egyptians had," Ikram said.

"That was something that was instituted during [a pharaoh's] lifetime and was a very public way of expressing his debt to her, his connection to her, and her importance in Egypt politically and as a symbol for kingship."

Stonehenge: an Ancient Lourdes?

The first excavation of Stonehenge in more than 40 years has uncovered evidence that the stone circle drew ailing pilgrims from around Europe for what they believed to be its healing properties, archaeologists said Monday.

Archaeologists Geoffrey Wainwright and Timothy Darvill said the content of graves scattered around the monument and the ancient chipping of its rocks to produce amulets indicated that Stonehenge was the primeval equivalent of Lourdes, the French shrine venerated for its supposed ability to cure the sick.

An unusual number of skeletons recovered from the area showed signs of serious disease or injury. Analysis of their teeth showed that about half were from outside the Stonehenge area.

"People were in a state of distress, if I can put it as politely as that, when they came to the Stonehenge monument," Darvill told journalists assembled at London's Society of Antiquaries.

He pointed out that experts near Stonehenge have found two skulls that showed evidence of primitive surgery, some of just a few known cases of operations in prehistoric Britain.

"Even today, that's the pretty serious end of medicine," he said.

DNA Identifies Copernicus's Remains

Researchers said Thursday they have identified the remains of Nicolaus Copernicus by comparing DNA from a skeleton and hair retrieved from one of the 16th-century astronomer's books. The findings could put an end to centuries of speculation about the exact resting spot of Copernicus, a priest and astronomer whose theories identified the Sun, not the Earth, as the center of the universe.

Polish archaeologist Jerzy Gassowski told a news conference that forensic facial reconstruction of the skull, missing the lower jaw, his team found in 2005 buried in a Roman Catholic Cathedral in Frombork, Poland, bears striking resemblance to existing portraits of Copernicus.

The reconstruction shows a broken nose and other features that resemble a self-portrait of Copernicus, and the skull bears a cut mark above the left eye that corresponds with a scar shown in the painting.

Moreover, the skull belonged to a man aged around 70 — Copernicus's age when he died in 1543.

Interactive Dig: Sagalassos

In 1706, Paul Lucas, traveling in southwest Turkey on a mission for the court of Louis XIV, came upon the mountaintop ruins of Sagalassos. The first Westerner to see the site, Lucas wrote that he seemed to be confronted with remains of several cities inhabited by fairies. Later, during the mid-nineteenth century, William Hamilton described it as the best preserved ancient city he had ever seen. Toward the end of that century, Sagalassos and its theater became famous among students of classical antiquity. Yet large scale excavations along the west coast at sites like Ephesos and Pergamon, attracted all the attention. Gradually Sagalassos was forgotten...until a British-Belgian team led by Stephen Mitchell started surveying the site in 1985.

Since 1990, Sagalassos has become a large-scale, interdisciplinary excavation of the Catholic University of Leuven, directed by Marc Waelkens. We are now exposing the monumental city center and have completed, or nearly completed, four major restoration projects there. We've also undertaken an intensive urban and geophysical survey, excavations in the domestic and industrial areas, and an intensive survey of its vast territory. Whereas the former document a thousand years of occupation, from Alexander the Great to the seventh century, the latter has established the changing settlement patterns, the vegetation history and farming practices, the landscape formation and climatic changes during the last 10,000 years.

Tomb of the Real Gladiator

The tomb of the real-life gladiator who inspired Russell Crowe's Hollywood version has been discovered, the Scotsman reported.

The tomb of Marcus Nonius Macrinus is "the most important Ancient Roman monument to come to light for 20 or 30 years," senior archeologist Daniela Rossi told the Scotsman. "This is without doubt an extraordinary find." The demolition of a warehouse to make room for a housing complex turned up the tomb.

[snip]

Macrinas, from Brescia in northern Italy, served Emperor Marcus Arelius as a confidant. Macrinas was the pro-consul of Asia, and the emperor wanted him to lead Roman troops in battle against Germanic tribes to the north, the BBC reported.

2,000 Year-Old Brain Discovered

British archaeologists have unearthed an ancient skull carrying a startling surprise _ an unusually well-preserved brain. Scientists said Friday that the mass of gray matter was more than 2,000 years old _ the oldest ever discovered in Britain. One expert unconnected with the find called it "a real freak of preservation."

The skull was severed from its owner sometime before the Roman invasion of Britain and found in a muddy pit during a dig at the University of York in northern England this fall, according to Richard Hall, a director of York Archaeological Trust.

Finds officer Rachel Cubbitt realized the skull might contain a brain when she felt something move inside the cranium as she was cleaning it, Hall said. She looked through the skull's base and spotted an unusual yellow substance inside. Scans at York Hospital confirmed the presence of brain tissue.

First Day o' Winter

I've been watching snow accumulate all night. The traffic cameras show that there are only strips of packed snow where the roads used to be. And it warmed up enough to start drizzling, which means everything's formed a crust of ice. Snow should not break, but ours is.

Even the buses have forsaken the valley I live in. Apparently, they've decided that even with chains, it's too much of a gamble.

And I'm supposed to go to work tomorrow. I don't want to call out due to weather again, but if this shit keeps up, I won't have much choice unless I plan to hoof it the ten miles or so. I don't.

I'm afraid that if I hear anyone burbling about the joy and wonder of a white Christmas, I shall strangle them with my bare hands.

I fucking hate winter.

Torture Apologists and the Need for a Special Prosecutor

The neocons are working the refs overtime in an attempt to convince us that when it comes to al Qaeda, all torture is good torture. Check out Michael Smerconish on Hardball, claiming that if the US is doing it, it's gotta be right:

MATTHEWS: KSM is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. [Cheney] approved the waterboarding. He said it's fine. Michael Smerconish, you agree?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I agree. And I think the fact that the vice president now acknowledges that he was involved in the decision-making process tells us how sparingly this technique has been used. Most published accounts say less than six members of al Qaeda have been subjected to waterboarding, and yet it's so dominant a headline.

I'll tell you something else, Chris. You've got to believe in the efficacy of water boarding because one has to suspect that the best of our interrogators would be assigned to KSM. And if that man or that women believed that these means were necessary, then obviously, they believe in the efficacy of waterboarding.

And frankly, there are no measures that I would be unwilling to say-or I would be willing to say are inappropriate for the likes of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Mine is a blanket endorsement...

MATTHEWS: So shoot his toes off one at a time.

SMERCONISH: ... of whatever is necessary.

MATTHEWS: No, no, no. Michael, shoot his toes off one at a time is fine with you. You just said that, right? Anything is OK with you?

SMERCONISH: Chris, listen, you can play whatever sound bite you'd like, I'll go along with it tonight.

MATTHEWS: No, I'm asking. I don't know...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Do you think it's OK to just do...

SMERCONISH: If you're talking...

MATTHEWS: ... any kind of torture?

SMERCONISH: Yes, Chris, I believe that if you're dealing with the operations planner of September 11 and if this individual has actionable intelligence, that there are no means that should not be employed. We're talking about individuals who fly airplanes into buildings to kill Americans, who will decapitate-remember, KSM talks with bravado about decapitating Mr. Pearl from "The Wall Street Journal." So keep in mind who you're dealing with. There's no tit for tat here. In other words, they're not going to tone it down if we tone it down. So do whatever is necessary...

MATTHEWS: OK. You're clear.

SMERCONISH: ... to protect American lives.

MATTHEWS: I just wanted to make sure-I wanted to be graphic about shooting the toes off because we've all seen that in movies and in film, where you see all kinds of torture used by the bad guys. I just wanted to know if you thought we could do the same. That's all.

SMERCONISH: Indeed. I do.

These fuckers are all living in a fantasy world. Read the transcript or watch the clip - it's incredible, especially toward the end:

MATTHEWS: In other words, your moral system is based on, if you're an American, anything goes. If you're in the other country, we try you for war crimes. You lose the war, we cut your head off, or whatever it takes, we execute you. In other words, your morality is entirely nationally based. I'm just asking.

SMERCONISH: And I'm going to answer, if you'll give me the chance. Yes, my moral code is dictated by the fact that I want our leaders to be guided to protect American lives first.

He outright says we can torture people wearing the uniform of another country. Later, he tries to walk it back and say that for now, he's only talking about al Qaeda, but he demonstrates he would have no problem wiping out the Geneva Conventions. He thinks we're justified in perpetrating any horror as long as the other side is doing it, too.

Christopher Hitchens takes him apart. He is, of course, too stupid to realize it. And you can expect a lot more of this sort of bullshit to spew forth from the mouths of Cons like a cow with dysentary. I somehow doubt the Hague will be impressed with the resulting pile of noxious excuses. But the right certainly seems to be. And Duncan Hunter speaks for them all when he says that all the talk about detainee abuse is "left-wing rubbish."

Amazing how they like to portray themselves as the "moral" ones.

That makes the proposal to fire U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald very attractive indeed:

Mr. President, one of the first things you'll get upon your swearing in is a stack of resignation letters from all the U.S. Attorneys, standard procedure when changing Administrations. The very first one you should act on is that of Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

[snip]

There is abundant reason to believe that gross violations of our Law have taken place at the highest levels of our Government including authorizing or ordering torture, unlawful detention of U.S. citizens, unlawful surveillance and wiretapping of U.S. citizens and other serious offenses, committed and/or authorized by Cabinet Secretaries and Executive Branch officials.

From the moment you take the Oath of Office it becomes your sworn Duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", which must include investigating and, if appropriate, prosecuting, possible criminal actions at high levels in the Administration preceeding yours. That's where Patrick Fitzgerald comes in.

Accept Fitzgerald's resignation as U.S. Attorney, and immediately appoint him Special Counsel with authority to investigate ANY credible allegation of lawbreaking by ANY official with the rank of Undersecretary or above, give him full Presidential backing and turn him loose. His brief should extend to any such official, or Member of Congress, who had knowledge of such lawbreaking but did nothing to stop it, as is their responsibility.

Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

Our nation's highest officials redefined torture and threw the Geneva Conventions out the window. They engaged in war crimes, and now they're sending an army of apologists to try to convince the American public that they were doing the right thing all along. The world knows better: what we did was wrong. There is no justification for torture. "They're doing it, too!" is not an excuse. "But we got our lawyers to say it was okay!" is not an excuse. "Ticking time bombs" are a myth. Torture doesn't keep America safe. All it does is lowers us to the same level as dictators, terrorists, and criminals.

We need to show the world that our laws matter, and that we will take responsibility and decisive action when our leaders lead us astray. Commissions aren't going to be enough. Handwringing is useless. What we need is prosecutions. If we don't hold our own war criminals to account, we run a very real risk that future administrations will descend into further lawlessness. We lose our moral authority. And we fail as a democracy.

We need to rise above the depravity of the last eight years and get ourselves back on track. It may be politically easier to let bygones be bygones, but we need to inform Obama that turning our back on the past does nothing to heal this country and prevent us from ever falling so far again.

Time to make our voices heard (h/t):





That's a message the torture apologists will find hard to spin. It's the clearest way to show them we're not swallowing their bullshit.

Fighting in a Winter Wonderland

We have won our first winter battle. The dogs apparently forgot Rule #1:



Despite this victory, we have not won the war. The winter campaign will be a long and bitter one, with many setbacks. However, we do have a secret weapon:



Hmm. We may have to wait until next winter to unleash our secret weapon...

At least after raids on enemy supply lines, we have plenty of provisions:

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

I knew the Republicons were getting desperate, but this is just utterly pathetic:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made clear he's against the idea of a government rescue package in response to the financial crisis, but he's apparently having trouble finding economists who agree.

So, as Matt Stoller discovered, Boehner has gone online looking for help. This plea was published this week on Boehner's website.

Attention Economists: Are You A Stimulus Spending Skeptic?

A recent Associated Press article quoted transition officials for President-elect Obama as saying "[o]nly one outside economist" contacted by the President-elect's advisors had "voiced skepticism" about the President-elect's emerging plans for an economic "stimulus" spending bill with a price tag as large as $1 trillion, with the vast majority of that number going to new spending on government programs and projects.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is compiling a list of credentialed American economists who would like to add their voices to the list of stimulus spending skeptics. If you are an economist who would like to be added to this list, you can join the list here and provide your comments.

[snip]

Let's put aside the fact that Boehner knows that the future of our economy is on the line, and he wants to stand in the way of the one thing the nation desperately needs. Even looking past this, Boehner putting up an "economists needed" plea on his website is kind of humiliating.

It really kind of is. Anyone wanna take bets on how long it'll be before he just starts putting the names of computer programmers, engineers, and people who used to do the books for Joe the Plumber on a list, DIsco style?

Trying to pump up their economic cred, the Cons are going batshit insane over the auto bailout:

Republican leaders across the board have let loose on President Bush’s auto industry bailout in what may be some of the toughest GOP criticism of the Bush presidency.

John McCain is leading the way, saying it is “unacceptable that we would leave the American taxpayer with a tab of tens of billions of dollars while failing to receive any serious concessions from the industry.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House GOP leader John Boehner and a cast of other angry fiscal conservatives have also rained criticism on the president. Bush may only have a month left in office, but Republican leaders who went along with the Wall Street bailout are finally making a clean break with their president on economic policy.

“I’m very disappointed,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). “The president justified his action with a false choice: it’s either this plan or abrupt liquidation of the companies. The White House seems to think that the industry didn’t have time to deal with the problem or prepare for an orderly bankruptcy, which is false.”

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), one of the architects of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, thinks Bush may be skirting the Troubled Asset Relief Program rules.

ZOMG, who could have ever guessed Bush would ignore the rules, etc. etc.?

Apparently, these stupid fuckwits don't realize that when you cheer someone on for breaking the rules when you want them to, they might be inclined to break rules you don't want them to. Watching Cons learn this sad truth is going to be entertaining as shit.

It will also be amusing to watch them learn that Americans realize that, as obnoxious as it might be to have to dig companies out of a deep, black pit, the digging had to be done. I don't think anyone's interested in seeing what losing the entire auto industry on top of this year's job losses would've done to the economy.

I'm sure they'll be turning their attention from economic matters to teh eviil gays any moment now anyway. After all, that antichrist UN just put out a call for decriminalizing homosexuality. Cons, I'm sure, will take this as more proof that the end of civilization is just around the corner, even though the United States was too fucking bigoted to sign the damned declaration:

With all the talk about the symbolic value, symbolistry and pragmatism associated with Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation, I consider the following measure to be of greater symbolic import, and hope that Obama addresses it appropriately and promptly:

Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

The legal concerns voiced are mostly illusory. As stated, the declaration is non-binding, so approving its passage would not require any action on the part of the federal government vis-a-vis the states, or with respect to its own practices. Further, the declaration deals with "decriminalizing" homosexuality which is different than outlawing discrimination in any and all forms (though the latter should be an important goal for the United States regardless).

The problem is, the fuckwits currently running this country think that we don't do enough to criminalize homosexuality (and nearly all forms of sexuality, comes to that). And so they have, once again, placed us firmly among the unenlightened, the ignorant, the intolerant and the totalitarian countries of the world.

How's it feel to be unique in the West when it comes to intolerance, USA?

And the moral midgets are firmly on the march:

Because nothing says "pro-family" like tearing apart thousands of legally married couples.

Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.

The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.

"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.

This was bound to happen, but it doesn't make it any less jarring. It's not enough for these activists to prevent people from getting married, they also believe the state has to nullify existing marriages that are already on the books and which were legal at the time. It reflects a painful degree of callousness.

[snip]

By the way, the lawyer who'll argue against gay marriage at the state Supreme Court? None other than Ken Starr. Yes, that Ken Starr.

And so we come full circle, with Ken Starr once again leading a witchhunt against those who offend the sexual mores of the terminally repressed.

This is what they do after they've finished destroying the country and the Dems have stepped up to clean up after them: push their harebrained trickle-down schemes, grandstand, and try to nose their way into everyone's bedrooms. We're in for a long, long stretch of outrageous behavior on the part of the rabid right.

Too bad for them it ain't the Nineties anymore. I have a sneaking suspicion that Americans are starting to lose their fascination for such antics. It is, after all, rather hard to care who you're neighbors are sleeping with when you're not sure where you'll be sleeping after the plant's closed and the house is foreclosed.

Why Bush's Bailout of the Auto Industry Fucks Up Some Cunning Con Plans

Bush flashes Cons the middle finger, bails out the auto industry:

Senate Republicans can block congressional action, but they can't, oddly enough, prevent their friend at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue from bailing out U.S. auto manufacturers.

President Bush on Friday announced $13.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, and another $4 billion available for the hobbled automakers in February with the entire bailout conditioned on the companies undertaking sweeping reorganization plans to show that they can return to profitability.

Mr. Bush made his announcement a week after Senate Republicans blocked legislation to aid the automakers that had been negotiated by the White House and Congressional Democrats, and the loan package announced by the president includes roughly the identical requirements in that bill, which had been approved by the House.

[snip]

The rescue package comes in the form of government loans, but the money comes with all kinds of strings attached, including a March 31 deadline for company restructuring. Among the conditions are requirements that the companies cut their debt obligations by two-thirds and, in a move that will make the GOP happy, renegotiate the contract with the United Auto Workers to make compensation packages more competitive with foreign manufacturers with plants in the U.S.

So, are Corker, Shelby, and DeMint getting what they wanted, by forcing American workers to get paid less? That depends on how this shakes out -- the NYT explained that Bush's plan makes the requirements "non-binding, allowing the automakers to reach different arrangements with the union, provided that they explain how those alternative plans will keep them on a path toward financial viability."

Considering how well Bush does with even binding agreements, I think the automakers can consider this pretty much free money. Corker et all tried to hold out for the entire pot and ended up walking out clutching nothing but their underpants.

Now, you may wonder why Corker and his ilk are so dead-set on union busting. It's not just the normal anti-union pathology so many Cons and their conned followers display. No, there's a larger strategy here, and it has a lot to do with the way unions force other companies to pay decent wages:

The foreign nonunion auto companies located in the South have a plan to reduce wages and benefits at their factories in the United States. And to do it, they need to destroy the United Auto Workers.

[snip]

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger realized that the existence of the union was under attack, which is why he refused to give in to the Senate Republicans' demands that the UAW make further concessions. I say "further" because the union has already conceded a lot. Its 2007 contract introduced a two-tier contract to pay new hires $15 an hour (instead of $28) with no defined pension plan and dramatic cuts to their health insurance. In addition, the UAW agreed that healthcare benefits for existing retirees would be transferred from the auto companies to an independent trust. With the transferring of the healthcare costs, the labor cost gap between the Big Three and the foreign transplants will be almost eliminated by the end of the current contracts.

These concessions go some distance toward leveling the playing field (retiree costs are still a factor for the Big Three). But what the foreign car companies want is to level -- which is to say, wipe out -- the union. They currently discourage their workforce from organizing by paying wages comparable to the Big Three's UAW contracts. In fact, Toyota's per-hour wages are actually above UAW wages.

However, an internal Toyota report, leaked to the Detroit Free Press last year, reveals that the company wants to slash $300 million out of its rising labor costs by 2011. The report indicated that Toyota no longer wants to "tie [itself] so closely to the U.S. auto industry." Instead, the company intends to benchmark the prevailing manufacturing wage in the state in which a plant is located. The Free Press reported that in Kentucky, where the company is headquartered, this wage is $12.64 an hour, according to federal labor statistics, less than half Toyota's $30-an-hour wage.

If the companies, with the support of their senators, can wipe out or greatly weaken the UAW, they will be free to implement their plan.

Did that make your eyes pop? It certainly did mine. We've been hearing so much about this supposed wage disparity between the foreign car companies and our own Big Three that I hadn't thought to look at the wages. It's interesting, to say the least, that the disparity actually turns out to be on the foreign side.

(And if you really want your eyes to explode, go have a gander at the rest of that article and see where wages for the auto industry are in relation to the financial industry.)

All of it boils down to the typical contempt Cons seem to have when it comes to blue collar workers. They want to break the unions so that the fat cats on top can pay (even more) miserable wages to their workers, and so that other companies can join in the gang rape. They tried to win it all, and lost big - Obama's going to be the one handling any restructuring after the loan money runs out, which, after his appointment of Solis as Secretary of Labor, has got to have the anti-union brigade wetting themselves in terror. You can tell they're terrified just based on the anti-union screeching going on in the WSJ's pages.

I love it when Con plans gang aft agley.

Reports of Rick Warren's Dining with Gays Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

Pastor Rick Warren, defending his homophobia:

"I have many gay friends. I’ve eaten dinner in gay homes."

And:

Q: Are you homophobic?

WARREN: Of course not. I have always treated them with respect. When they come and wanna talk to me, I talk to ‘em. When the protesters came, we served them water and donuts.

A former homophobe says horseshit to the first. And here's an interesting little example of Rick Warren "talking to" and "dining with" gays:

In December of the previous year, I wrote a letter to Warren outlining my plan to bring a group of gay and lesbian couples, and their children, to visit his Saddleback Church over Father's Day weekend. I expressed our intent to attend worship on Sunday, and my hope that he and some families in his congregation would share a meal with us in an effort to reach beyond our differences and focus instead on the commonalities we share as parents and people of faith. In due course, I began a series of phone conversations with Warren's chief of staff. Over the next several weeks, we agreed that eight of our families would eat lunch on June 16 with Warren, his wife Kay, and six of their staff members. After the family meal, eight people from our group would then convene for a 90 minute conversation with Warren, his wife, and the six other church leaders. Here's where it gets interesting.

The week before our visit, Newsweek senior editor Lisa Miller published an article that contained a single sentence about Warren's upcoming get-together with a bunch of gay dads. Suddenly, the tone and demeanor from those paid to protect Warren's public image began to deteriorate.

First, we were told that things had changed and Warren and his wife "might" attend the meal and forum. A few days later, Warren posted a message on a religious blog saying that he never intended to meet with our families. Once we arrived in California, I called his chief of staff to discuss final details. Implausibly, I was told that Saddleback had now decided to only feed the eight people from our group who were going to be in the meeting, but not our children or spouses.

I pushed back by expressing my opinion that it was not very Christ-like to renege on our covenant after we had already traveled thousands of miles from Texas. "We'll discuss your visit again and call you back," they said. An hour later they telephoned - this time with a much more serious tone. I felt like I was negotiating a nuclear arms deal rather than the breaking of bread and some fellowship among families. With seeming reluctance, they finally settled on feeding everyone but announced that now only four Saddleback staff members would attend and that Warren and his wife would not be among them.

They made a new offer. Warren had decided to preach from one of Saddleback's satellite facilities, 45 minutes away from the main campus. He would sit down with my family for ten to fifteen minutes after the early service, if we agreed to attend. I accepted that offer and on Sunday morning we waited near our seats at the conclusion of church.

Eventually, I heard Warren call out my name. As I turned to greet him, he hugged me, my partner, and our three children . . . and then walked away. No conversation. Minimal eye contact. Just an awkward hug and he was gone.

The following day we tried to initiate heartfelt conversation with the four Saddleback staff members who managed to show up. From the opening moments it was clear that this was a meeting to save face without any real interest in hearing our stories or getting to know us.

It appears Rick Warren only wants to speak with gays who are "repentant." Not the icky kind who are married with kids and don't feel they have to repent for basic biology.

But then, Rick Warren doesn't understand biology. The Bible doesn't mention evolution, you see:

WARREN: If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.

Oh, and in answer to Mike, liberals are most vocal about their disgust when it comes to Rick Warren's appalling views on gays, but there's plenty of other reasons we can't stand him. Let me count the ways:

1. His penchant for believing that God gives us the right to assassinate foreign leaders is spectacularly outrageous.

2. It's rather incredible that he could find the time to grill Obama on abortion, but "never got the chance" to bring up torture with George W. Bush.

3. And, in fact, thought Bush was deserving of his "PEACE" prize.

4. He equates abortion with the Holocaust.

5. And stands in the way of stem cell research.

6. Not to mention, he himself has confessed that the only thing that separates him from James Dobson is "tone."

7. Have I mentioned he's a snotty little shit when he talks to atheists?

8. And thinks Jews are going to hell.

9. Not to mention the enemy of science shit mentioned above.

Do I need to go on, or are we good here?

Rick Warren may have done a few decent things in regards to poor people, but overall he's the same kind of festering fundie fucktard that's led this country to believe it can shit on science, human beings, and other countries all in the name of God. And he's a bald-faced fucking liar, as proved above in reference to his "I talk to gays" and "I dine with gays" remarks.

The more I see, the more I loathe. Obama needs to rethink this one.

How I Feel Today

Aunty Flow's here. Everything's frozen. I forgot that yesterday was Friday Favorite day. We've got a full month to put up with the current gaggle of assclowns before Obama boots them out.

Yup.

Hostilities Continue to Escalate

It seems we are now in a state of open war. It's a good thing our intelligence services foresaw the possibility long before the first salvo was fired. They bought us time in which to perfect some of our most important weapons:


The dogs have made a paltry effort at psychological warfare, forgetting that cats purrfected such tactics back when they were Egyptian royalty. We now put our skills to excellent use:


We will not be bested on this field of battle.

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Sometimes, I wonder if there's a world championship for stupid, which a gaggle of folks on the right are trying desperately hard to win. America First!

We've certainly got Lou Dobbs in the running:

This stopped being funny several years ago. Every winter, most of the country gets cold, and lots of snow falls. And every winter, conservatives point to the winter weather as evidence that global warming isn't real. And every winter, people who know what they're talking about smack their heads in frustration.

Yesterday, CNN's Lou Dobbs helped demonstrate just how inane this tedious practice has become. (thanks to reader D.K. for the heads-up)

Dobbs told viewers that the weather has been "unbelievable," because there are "unusual storms and a deep freeze across much of the country tonight." Dobbs was particularly animated about snowfall in Las Vegas, Malibu, and Payson, Arizona. "So what are those folks talking about global warming?" Dobbs asked incredulously.

The rest of Steve's piece is a rather succinct takedown, dripping with derision, but I think we'll turn to Daily Kos blogger Darksyde for the short, sharp snark:

When ice melts, the surrounding air or water cools down, basic thermodynamics. It would be ironic if that cooler air and water from excess northern melt were to work their way south a little farther and a little earlier in the season than they otherwise would have, and maybe even help fuel an occasional localized snow or ice storm, which right-wing climate change skeptics, especially those bearing a borderline pathological obsession with Al Gore, would then seize on as evidence that global warming is ... well not sure exactly. Somewhere vaguely between massive inexcusable scientific error and fraud, to an infinitely scalable global conspiracy between a tightly woven cabal of nations who can't agree on something as scientifically basic as what units of measurement to use for a common lug nut. And the wingers will do it, apparently, without a care or thought in the world of the difference between the NASA GISS 125 year global average temperature trend and related volumes of empirical data Vs. cherry picking poor comparisons or the sprinkling of snow they had on their drive way last Tuesday morning.

You know what? That deserves a standing ovation. We can provide:



(And, if you've got a moment, check out who they were originally applauding for.)

Right, then. Lou Dobbs is a global-warming denying fucktard - so what else is new?

Well, there's Dana Perino putting herself firmly among the frontrunners for World Champion Dumbshit 2008. Here she is blathering about the sale of public lands adjacent to national parks to oil and gas producers:

Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, guest host Juan Williams asked White House Press Secretary to respond to Redford’s comments. After saying she would not “attack him personally,” Perino accused Redford of “blind hatred” of the president and said, “If somebody actually got him the facts, he would know that it’s illegal to drill in national parks.”

Perino, it seems, is the one who needs to get “the facts.” No one is claiming that the Bush administration wants to extract resources from National Parks. The Bush administration is, however, attempting to extract resources from areas located just outside such parks and historic landmarks without properly considering the detrimental effects drilling would have.

Hearing her call for somebody to "get the facts" is roughly equivalent to an elementary-school dropout who's virulently anti-education telling somebody to "get educated."

But still, that's just typical Perino. Someone in the Con firmament has to be outshining her... could it be Duncan?

Last night on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) ardently defended the Bush administration’s torture policy, echoing Vice President Cheney’s claim that torture yielded life-saving results. He pointed to waterboarding Abu Zubayda and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was remarkably successful. “After this procedure,” Duncan said, “we got enormously valuable information that saved American lives.”

Despite Hunter’s claims, the torture of Abu Zubayda and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed provided next to zero useful intelligence, as a recent Vanity Fair article revealed:

But according to a former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M., “90 percent of it was total f*cking bullsh*t.” A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”

In fact, the article explained that the “intelligence” gleaned from Zubayda was false information about non-existent links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein — information the Bush administration seized on as a major part of its argument for the Iraq war, as a former Pentagon analyst explained:

“The intelligence community was lapping this up, and so was the administration, obviously. Abu Zubaydah was saying Iraq and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship. It was everything the administration hoped it would be.” […]

When a torture victim tells you exactly what you want to hear, it's probably because they know what you already believe and will tell you any damned thing you want to make you stop. How large a clue-by-four is it going to take for these torture-loving fucktards to finally understand that?

Ah. I see. One roughly the size of the galaxy... crap in a hat.

Still and all, this is just ordinary, garden variety, plain Con stupid. Egregious, yes, outstanding, no. We need someone who's gone above and beyond, someone with real chutzpah, someone like... Henry Paulson!

It was hard not to see this one coming.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Friday that Congress will need to release the last half of the $700 billion rescue fund because the first $350 billion has been committed.

Paulson said the use of the rescue fund to provide loans to the auto industry along with all the other rescue efforts for the financial system meant that the administration has now basically allocated the first half of the largest government bailout program in history.

He said he was confident that the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. had the resources to address a significant market event if one should occur before Congress approves the use of the second half of the rescue fund.

But it's important for Congress to release the second half of the rescue fund "to support financial market stability," Paulson said in a statement.

A report in Bloomberg added that Paulson's informal request is likely to "set off a debate in Congress, where some members have criticized the Treasury chief's management of TARP."

Mr. Paulson. Everyone on all sides of the aisle hates what you've done with the first $350 bil. They think you're a wretched idiot just throwing money down a deep black hole, nothing's changed, you've pissed away billions without improving one single fucking thing, you're using a good amount of that money to allow financial firms to pay outlandish bonuses to the execs who ran them off the cliff, and now you want more?

That's really fucking stupid. We may just have a winner.

Except... look who's coming up from behind:

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson issued a memo yesterday declaring that “[o]fficials weighing federal applications by utilities to build new coal-fired power plants cannot consider their greenhouse gas output.” “The current concerns over global climate change should not drive E.P.A. into adopting an unworkable policy of requiring emission controls” in these cases, Johnson said.

At this point, I declare the race officially too close to call.

Despite Warren, Obama's Still On Track

All right. So his taste in pastors* is teh suck, but you have to admit, his taste in Secretaries of Labor is fantastic:

President-elect Barack Obama has reportedly completed his Cabinet with the selection of Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) as Secretary of Labor. Solis, a five-term representative from East Los Angeles, is a progressive leader in the fight for green jobs, as both a “stalwart friend of the unions” and the author of the first environmental justice law in the nation. At this summer’s National Clean Energy Summit, convened by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Solis spoke about her commitment to solving global warming through a clean energy economy for all:

Our nation is at a crossroads right now. We can choose to transition to a clean energy economy that secures our energy supply and combats climate change or we can continue down the same old path of uncertainty and insecurity that we’re currently in. Current economic conditions, particularly for under-served, under-represented minority communities underscore the need to transition to clean energy technology.

The liberal blogosphere, I have to tell you, is in a swoon. Sounds like she's an excellent choice.

There's also this music to my ears:

It's unclear exactly what will take immediate priority on Barack Obama's to-do list after his inauguration, but it seems clear that Americans won't have to wait too long before seeing progress on issues relating to science, health, and reproductive rights.

This includes undoing Bush's "right of conscience" regulation, which has not yet been finalized, but it goes further. The Wall Street Journal reports that Obama is closely reviewing reproductive-health issues, identifying Bush measures in need of reversals.

On abortion and related matters, action is expected early on executive, regulatory, budgetary and legislative fronts.

Decisions that the new administration will weigh include: whether to cut funding for sexual abstinence programs; whether to increase funding for comprehensive sex education programs that include discussion of birth control; whether to allow federal health plans to pay for abortions; and whether to overturn regulations such as one that makes fetuses eligible for health-care coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Women's health advocates are also pushing for a change in rules that would lower the cost of birth control at college health clinics.

The reversal on research using embryonic stem cells should come fairly quickly in the new administration, and expect early action on dropping the "global gag rule" and restoring federal funding for family planning to the United Nations Population Fund (which is way overdue).

You betcha.

It's good to see Obama's still pretty much viewing things in terms of, "Was it Bush's idea? Well, then, we already know it's bad - how do we reverse it?" I love that.

Even more delightful, he chose an actual scientist as his science advisor:

Strong indications are that President-elect Barack Obama has picked physicist John Holdren to be the president's science adviser.

[snip]

Holdren is well known for his work on energy, climate change, and nuclear proliferation. Trained in fluid dynamics and plasma physics, Holdren branched out into policy early in his career. He has led the Woods Hole Research Center for the past 3 years and served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes ScienceInsider) in 2006.

And, holy shit, an actual marine biologist to head up NOAA:

President-elect Barack Obama has tapped Oregon State University professor Jane Lubchenco, one of the nation's most prominent marine biologists, to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Lubchenco, a conservationist who has devoted much of her career to encouraging scientists to become more engaged in public policy debates, is also a vocal proponent of curbing greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

[snip]

Andrew Rosenberg, who served as deputy director of NOAA's Fisheries Service under Clinton and is now University of New Hampshire professor of natural resources and the environment, praised Lubchenco as an "absolutely world class scientist."

"When has NOAA been headed by a member of the National Academy and a fellow of the Royal Society?" he said, referring to America and Britain's most prestigious scientific societies. "That's exactly the right signal. It establishes NOAA as one of those key scientific agencies."

I have to keep rubbing my eyes and pinching myself. After eight years of Bush bumbling, it's hard to believe we have a President-Elect who's so intent on getting brilliant scientists into the government. Oh, and if you've noticed a definite global warming theme to Obama's picks, you're not wrong. That sends a pretty clear signal he intends to solve the problem.

Amazing.

And Robert Gates, despite the worries of some on the left, seems to be leaping in the air, clicking his heels together, shouting "Yippee!" while scrambling to do great things:

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who will continue to serve under Obama, disputed Cheney’s skepticism. While Gates admitted that shutting down Guantanamo would be difficult, he said that all the potential problems are “solvable.” “I would like to see it closed,” said Gates. “And I think it will be a high priority for the new administration.”

He thinks because mayhap it's a high priority for him, too?

In his first weeks as Bush’s defense secretary, Gates also argued that Guantanamo needed to be shut down. According to the New York Times, Gates “urged that trials of terrorism suspects be moved to the United States, both to make them more credible and because Guantánamo’s continued existence hampered the broader war effort, administration officials said.” However, he was overruled by Cheney and then-attorney general Alberto Gonzales. (CAP’s Ken Gude has put together a plan on how to safely close Guantanamo and transfer the detainees.)

[snip]

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that Gates has already ordered aides to put in place a plan for closing Guantanamo.

Is it me, or does Gates seem a little giddy?

On the whole, Obama's picks have been superb, he hasn't backed down from his most important campaign promises in the slightest, and even when he annoys me with some boneheaded stunt (like picking Rick Warren to flap his yap at important ceremonies), he still doesn't leave me shaking with outrage and revulsion, unlike a certain assclown still parading around the Oval Office.

I'll take petty irritations served with a heaping helping of good news over never-ending bullshit any day.

*No, that wasn't a dig at Reverend Wright. I actually liked Wright before he made an utter arse of himself prancing around in front of cameras. No, I was merely getting in one last good swat about Warren.

Pastor Warren Earns Obama a Trip to the Woodshed

By now, you've probably all heard, ad nauseum, about Obama picking homophobic, anti-choice, pro-assassination, science dissing, neocon-in-moderate's-clothing total fucking dickweed Pastor Rick Warren to give his inaugural invocation. No one's happy about it, not even the religious right zealots:

In an interesting twist, plenty of conservatives are mad, not at Obama for inviting Warren, but at Warren for accepting the invitation.

David Brody, a correspondent for TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, reported today that he's been "flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this."

Brody doesn't seem to share their concerns -- he asks, "Why can't a pro-life pastor pray for a pro-choice candidate?" -- but he republished a variety of the angry emails.

[snip]

"I have had about all I can stand of Rick Warren's double standards. WHOSE side is he really on anyway? I'm beginning to think all he cares about are his questionable political connections. When I saw your article announcing his participation in "that one's" so called inauguration ceremony it absolutely sickened me. It isn't enough Obama is so full of himself that he "thinks" he's God. - Apparently now Rick Warren believes he is too. This is a complete mockery of all things sacred."

We can now expect the inevitable onslaught of reports indicating that "extremists on both sides" have expressed concerns about Warren's role at the inauguration.

Obama tried to calm the waters with noises about opposing viewpoints and suchlike, but Steve Benen doesn't find that argument persuasive:

Consider it this way: imagine the Obama White House were to host an inter-faith dialog on the great moral issues of the day. President Obama and his team want a lively discussion with a variety of competing ideas, and invite a wide variety of pastors, including Warren, to participate. There may be some who would say this is wrong -- that Warren's conservative believes should necessarily disqualify him from being invited to the White House. If, under those circumstances, Obama responded by saying, "There are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented -- and that how it should be, because that's what America's about," I would agree without hesitation.

But that's not what we're talking about here. There's only going to be one invocation at Obama's inauguration, and it will be delivered be a conservative who strongly disagrees with Obama on gay rights, reproductive rights, foreign policy, and modern science. I'm a huge fan of diversity of thought, and if Obama and Warren want to have a spirited dialog, I'd no doubt find it fascinating. But this is obviously different.

Steve also points out the great many pitfalls inherent in such a move. I'd just like to add that, while Obama tried to bookend Warren with a more liberal pastor, but that doesn't change the fact that's it's a supremely bad idea in the first fucking place.

And Obama supporters aren't being shy about expressing their displeasure:

At the Huffington Post, Peter Daou noticed that Obama supporters are expressing their anger at the Change.gov website.

So I dropped in at Change.gov. It's getting ugly.

Here's a recent post from somebody named Jacinto Hernandez:

Mr Obama,

I am writing to ask that you return the campaign donations made by myself, Jacinto Hernandez, and my husband, Charles Callahan, to your campaign. Chet and I were passionate supporters-- Chet volunteered for weeks at a local phone bank. We attended numerous rallies and fundraisers-- including one with your wife, Michelle (see attached picture) That fund raiser was ostensibly held to court support with the gay community. At that fundraiser, Michelle held my my baby and promised to "not forget us." Yet you have. We worked tirelessly for your campaign-- replacing our yard sign when it was vandalized. So why would you betray the gay community- that stood by you-- and ask Rick Warren to lead your inauguration, when his anti gay rhetoric is dangerous to our family. He also was a huge proponent of proposition 8, that has endangered our family and has eliminated the civil rights of thousands of Californians.

[snip]

Please remove us from your mailing lists and never ask us for your support again, unless you stand with us and reject homophobia once and for all.

Way to alienate your base, there, Barack. Of course, you may not have realized just how anti-gay Warren is - he did, after all, serve teh gays some water and donuts once.

I'm not as outraged as some - I see this as a spectacular advertisement for the necessity of keeping religion out of politics, and keeping church and state separate, which is all to the good. But I'm definitely miffed. Warren was a despicable choice. Here's hoping that he discovers a previously unrealized scheduling conflict, or, ahem, decides to spend more time with his family very, very soon.

Update: I ran across this on Daily Kos, and it very nearly cracked me up. The diarist emailed his deeply conservative auntie, and this delightful little exchange ensued:

What do you think of people who are mad that Obama asked Warren to speak?

Interestingly, she didn't understand that I was asking what she thought about progressives' anger:

I'm sure there will be plenty of people at my church who are mad, and I will bring this up at Bible Study on Friday and let you know what they say (and I am sure it won't be good). Like I said, people were mad when Warren had Obama speak at his church. But this just shows me we are wrong to be that way. How can we solve anything if we can't listen to each other?

My favorite line was her last:

Anyway, it's just a prayer. It's not like he's agreeing with everything Obama says. We'll get over it.

Heh.

Joyous. The Fucking Crusades.

Our military's turning Iraq and Afghanistan into a holy war. And we all remember how well it went the last time when Christian armies swept into the Middle East and employed a kill-or-convert policy.

How bad is it? Oh, you know - they're only embedding fucking evangelists with the troops:

When I interviewed Mikey Weinstein the other day, he mentioned video that they had found that showed Christian missionaries actually embedded with American troops in Afghanistan. The missionaries actually traveled with American troops, handing out Bibles in the local language to Afghanis. This was done for a show on JCTV called Travel the Road. You can see the MRFF page about this here.... Here's what MRFF writes about this situation:

Season 2 of this series ended with three episodes filmed in Afghanistan -- Journey to the Line: Afghanistan: Part 1, Terrors of the Night: Afghanistan: Part 2, and Fog of War: Afghanistan: Part 3. For these episodes, the missionaries were completely embedded and, thus, actually permitted to stay on U.S. military bases, travel with a public affairs unit, and accompany and film troops on patrols, all for the purpose of evangelizing Afghanis and producing a television show promoting the Christian religion. The number of DoD Public Affairs regulations violated in the military's participation and assistance in producing a religious program alone is staggering, not to mention other violations (including constitutional) documented in the content of the program, which include the outrageous violation of the United States Central Command's General Order 1-A, which absolutely prohibits any proselytization whatsoever in the Middle Eastern theater of operations. In complete disregard of this bedrock standing order, the U.S. Army facilitated these evangelizing Christian missionaries in their distribution of New Testaments in the Arabic native language ("Darri" dialect) to the Afghani people.

This shit is not fucking legal. It is not fucking helpful. And it's even worse when the fucking Christian soldiers get in on the proselytizing:

Jason Leopold has more on the situation I reported last week where the military allowed Christian missionaries to be embedded with them, travel with them to meet Afghan villagers and then hand out Bibles to them and proselytize them to convert to Christianity. One of the things I didn't mention was that an active duty military chaplain said in one of the videos that he tries to convert Afghani Muslims himself:

In one scene, an Army Chaplain named Capt. Brad Hanna of the Oklahoma National Guard, talks about the possibility of a "revival" in Afghanistan and says he frequently speaks to Afghans about converting to Christianity. Hanna was made a full-time support chaplain for the Oklahoma National Guard after he returned from Afghanistan.

And he wasn't the only soldier helping the missionaries:

Additionally, Decker and Scott prominently cite SSgt. Sheldon Hoyt, who was stationed in Afghanistan with the Oklahoma National Guard's 45th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Battalion, 179th Infantry Regiment, as playing a hands-on role in helping the missionaries facilitate their proselytizing as opposed to simply being a tour guide of sorts.

These fuckers are now planning to step up their efforts in Afghanistan. Obama, as Commander in Chief, needs to put a swift end to this fuckery. It was bad enough when we thought we were spreading democracy at the point of a gun. The fact that we're handing people Bibles while training guns on them, and that this is done by American fucking soldiers in fucking uniform on official fucking duty, is so far beyond outrageous it's unbelievable.

Things like this make me ashamed to be an American.

War Footing

It appears the dogs think they have a chance of winning this thing. Alas for them, we anticipated the outbreak of hostilities long ago, and took steps to mold their psychology more to our liking:



Funny how those childhood traumas can flare up at the worst possible time, innit?

We have also been working on our Secret Weapon. Alas, there was a tragic accident in the weapons development lab, leaving one worker horribly mutated:



This is, however, merely a setback.

We will fight. And we will win. Every dog will have his day, 'tis true, but they're limited to one life, whereas we... are not. Mwah ha ha!

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Right now, I kinda miss living in a city with snowplows, just like I miss living in a country with a sane government. Although, come to think of it, I've never really lived in a country with a sane government. It's just that they used to be a tad less insane.

Let's lead off with Dick "I've Shot Friends in the Face, Why Not My Country?" Cheney, shooting his mouth off on the torture he happily admits authorizing:

In an interview earlier this week, Vice President Cheney admitted to personally approving the torture of high-profile detainees. In a new interview with the Washington Times, Cheney stridently defended the Bush administration’s torture policies, saying, “I feel very good about what we did. I think it was the right thing to do.” He added emphatically that he would “do exactly the same thing again.”

Most audaciously, Cheney specifically defended the morality of torture, suggesting that it would have been immoral for the United States to not torture:

“In my mind, the foremost obligation we had from a moral or an ethical standpoint was to the oath of office we took when we were sworn in, on January 20 of 2001, to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. And that’s what we’ve done,” he said. […]

“I think it would have been unethical or immoral for us not to do everything we could in order to protect the nation against further attacks like what happened on 9/11,” Mr. Cheney said.

[snip]

Rather than keeping us safe, former FBI special agent Jack Cloonan warned that Cheney’s torture policies will lead directly to another domestic terrorist attack:

Based on my experience in talking to Al Qaida members, I am persuaded that revenge in the form of a catastrophic attack on the homeland is coming; that a new generation of jihadist martyrs, motivated in part by the images from Abu Ghraib, is, as we speak, planning to kill Americans; and that nothing gleaned from the use of coercive interrogation techniques will be of any significant use in forestalling this calamitous eventuality.

I think, in the neocon lexicon, "keeping us safe" actually means "making sure the pissed-off terrorists attack the country while a Democrat's in charge." It's the only way any of Cheney's bullshit makes sense.

You'll be glad to know, however, that other countries have longer memories, and that if Obama doesn't throw these fuckheads in prison, there'll be a long line of Europeans waiting for our torture-loving ruling class to take a little trip abroad:

At the recent Harper's-NYU forum on how to deal with Bush-era war crimes, TPMtv caught up with Center for Constitutional Rights president Michael Ratner, who has worked on torture prosecutions of Donald Rumsfeld in Europe. Ratner gives the rundown of future travel options for the Cheneys, Yoos, and Addingtons of the Bush Administration: France, maybe. Germany, harder to say. Italy and Spain? Not so much ...

There's an interview at that link you really should watch. It'll warm your hearts.

Condi Rice is going for the insanity gold this week. Now she's just oh so proud of the liberatin' we did in Iraq:

This morning, CNN aired an exit interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. During the interview, reporter Zain Verjee asked Rice if she “regretted her role in the Iraq war.” Rice responded by saying that she had no regrets about the war and is “absolutely so proud” of invading Iraq:

QUESTION: Do you regret your role in the Iraq war?

SECRETARY RICE: I absolutely am so proud that we liberated Iraq.

QUESTION: Really?

SECRETARY RICE: Absolutely. And I’m especially, as a political scientist, not as Secretary of State, not as National Security Advisor, but as somebody who knows that structurally it matters that a geostrategically important country like Iraq is not Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Um... excuse me, Ms. Rice, but I do believe you're totally frothing batshit fucking insane.

Rice’s pride is misplaced. Indeed, leaving aside the fact that the war was predicated on false intelligence, Rice cannot credibly argue as a “political scientist” that invading Iraq was in the interest of the U.S. “geostrategically.”

Indeed, Iraq posed no military threat to the United States in 2003. As Rice herself explained in July of 2001, Saddam Hussein had been unable to reconstitute himself militarily following the 1991 Gulf War. More importantly, the invasion of Iraq destabilized the region and empowered Iran politically and militarily. And contrary to neo-conservative predictions, Iran accelerated its nuclear weapons program in the wake of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

That sounds like fucking our own interests up the ass without the benefit of lubricant, actually. But, of course, in the Bizarro world our nation's soon-to-be-ex leaders inhabit, this counts as an unqualified success.

Next they'll be wondering why so many Americans say "incompetent" when someone asks them to describe Bush in a word. Oddly enough, while a few delusional fucknuggets described Bush as "honorable" or "honest," not a single one described him as "Christian."

Here's another word for ye: firesale:

On Friday December 19, the Interior Department will hold an auction of pristine Utah wilderness to oil and gas companies for exploration and drilling. Robert Redford joined members of Congress--lead by Congressmen Baird (D-WA), Hinchey (D-NY), and Holt (D-NJ)--and a coalition of environmental, preservation and business groups to stop the auctions.

Friday’s sale would include lands that were recently made available to industry through hastily approved resource management plans that will have serious ramifications for public lands. Affected are 3 million acres of land which include the nation’s greatest density of ancient rock art and other cultural resources, which are also the habitat for many native species.

Redford commented about the