"Intense Discovery"

Does the image to the left bring you to tears? No? What if I told you those little black blotches were nanodiamonds, and they provided evidence for theories that a comet might have helped bring the age of the sabretooth and mammoth to an end 12,900 years ago?

Imagine sitting in front of a computer screen and electron microscope, waiting for the moment that would make or break your theory. You're sampling glacial deposits from three time periods: the Younger Dryas Boundary, and the layers immediately above and below. You think a comet broke into fragments (think Shoemaker-Levy) and hit the Earth, leaving no discernible impact crater but doing a serious disservice to the gigantic mammals running about. You're at the make-or-break moment: if nanodiamonds, which would help confirm your theory, are found sprinkled liberally in the layers above and below the Younger Dryas Boundary, your theory is good as dead. Have you made a true discovery? Were you on the wrong track?

The moment of truth comes. You see those glorious black speck scattered throughout the Younger Dryas Boundary - and only the Younger Dryas Boundary.

I'll let geologist James Kennett describe that moment when a breakthrough is made:

Moments of intense discovery are very emotional for scientists. when scientists make discoveries that they think are really important - breakthroughs, if you like, eureka moments - there's an elation - there's an elation, an emotion. These are emotional moments.

-from Nova, "Last Extinction"

So much for scientists being emotionless drones, and science itself being boring ol' number-crunching, eh?

The story of their search for evidence for their impact theory was interesting enough, but I loved that Nova episode more for what it showed about science. It's hard work, sometimes dull work, and there are no guarantees. But when it all comes together, it's glorious. And it can move you to tears.



Pretty amazing. There's interviews with the discoverers and other info at this link, if you're interested.

Catching Up with Ecstathy

The problem with not subscribing to blogs is that you miss a blogger's return from an absence. Which means you miss some awesome stuff. And if you haven't been over to Ecstathy lately, you've really missed some awesome stuff.

Like infinite cake.

And a quote that should shut down any "you can't be moral without God" arguments, at least as long as it take the religious blatherer to pick his/her jaw up off the floor:

In a comment by Ian Spedding at John Wilkins blog, he said: "Ask them if they believe their chosen deity is a capricious being or one of reason and order. If the former, why follow a moral code that was thought up on a whim, if the latter, what is to prevent us from reasoning to the same conclusions all by ourselves."

You missed a delightful Ida LOL:



And a link to a thought-provoking opinion piece by The Age columnist Michael Coulter:

It's a puzzling thing about religion that its words, which generally urge us to bolster our better natures and remedy our faults, so rarely match its actions. It seems to me that while an individual's faith can be a profound personal journey that might even make them a better person, a society's faith is akin to mass psychosis.

It's good to have you back, Efrique.

Classy

Laughing too hard right now to come up with a suitably snarky intro:

I'm actually sympathetic to the wingnuts who are angry about the national GOP "clearing the field" for Charlie Crist for the senate seat from Florida. I think people have a right to run in primaries and the political establishment should be more respectful of democracy. The grassroots of both parties are growing increasingly resistant to their party establishmenst steamrolling them into accepting politicians who don't reflect their values and philosophy and it's going to be a challenge for some time to come.

Having said that, I have to admit that the way the movement conservatives are going about this is so puerile and stupid that you can't really blame the establishment for stepping in. Ed Kilgore reports:

The "Not One Red Cent" webpage is quite a piece of work. It features a sort of manifesto with the shouting headline: NOT ONE RED CENT FOR RINO SELLOUTS! (the exclamation point is a bit redundant, but I guess that's a stylistic decision).

Yesterday the site included a post by Richard McEnroe, entitled "A Florida Parable!" and with a subtitle that I cannot reprint in a family-friendly blog, that played off a bizarre news story about two Russian tourists who got caught in Florida having sex with a porcupiine. McEnroe "revealed" the identity of the tourists by displaying photos of Michael Steele and Charlie Crist.

Nice, eh?

But remember, we liberals are the ones who're poisoning the national discourse with our dirty, disgusting diatribes.

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

It's a holiday weekend, but stupid never sleeps. And there are few things more stupid in today's political landscape than the birthers:

If the left were drawing up a script for the right to follow, which would make conservatives look hopelessly ridiculous, they might come up with something like this. (via John Cole)

The electoral system has failed to satisfy lingering questions about Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president.
The press has failed to satisfy those questions. The courts have failed to satisfy those questions. The Congress has failed to satisfy those questions.

But the people are still asking.

That's how Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, explains the petition he initiated several months ago that has collected nearly 400,000 names of Americans demanding answers as to Obama's elidibility [sic] as well as the outpouring of financial support for his new campaign to erect billboards around the country asking the simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

In just five days, the billboard campaign has been backed by about $45,000 in donations.

Obviously, the Birthers' argument is nuts. But the fact that they're still at it, seven months after the election, is extraordinary.

The birth certificate, for their information, is in Hawaii, where it's always been. But if they want to tilt at windmills, that's fine. Maybe it'll keep them out of other kinds of trouble.

Meanwhile, remedial math classes are in order for certain wingnuts:

On Thursday, Vets for Freedom Chairman Pete Hegseth went onto the Corner to criticize President Obama for his speech on national security. Not surprisingly, he praised Vice President Cheney’s address, calling it a “gutsy, straightforward, and yet sophisticated approach.” To underscore his point, he wrote, “Laying aside the debate over what is and what isn’t ‘torture,’ it’s hard to argue with 8+ years of safety since 9/11.” The problem, as the site Best of Both Worlds points out, is that it hasn’t been eight years since 9/11:

9/11 happened on 9/11/2001. We’re in 5/22/2009. That’s less than 8 years. In his mind, George Bush kept the country safe for 2 presidential terms. Some other dude was President right up till 9/11.

Atrios adds, “NRO contributor attempts to count to 8, fails.”

Indeed.

In case you were wondering if the age-old question "Would Jesus torture?" has been answered, it has:

Here's a Red State comment, via John Cole:

It’s likely even Jesus would have OK’d water boarding if it would have saved his Mom. He would’ve done the same to save his Dad, or any one of His disciples. For that matter, He even died to save all humans.

[snip]

I wonder where Jesus stood on crucifixion? Was he for it in the case of a ticking time bomb?

We breathlessly anticipate the answer.

I do believe it's time for Ben Nelson to make it official. He's Con through and through:

This morning, Fox News Sunday hosted a debate on national security between Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), but it turned out that the two senators agreed on most issues. Nelson declared that trials of Guantanamo detainees should not take place in the United States and detainees should not be imprisoned here. He distinguished between terrorists like the Blind Sheikh — who “committed violations of American law” — and those at Guantanamo to say the latter should be kept out of the U.S.:

NELSON: I think the tribunals can occur anywhere, and I prefer not to see them occur in America, within the continental United States. Once they’re convicted, I’m assuming they will be, then I think we need to work out with their countries an arrangement where they’re incarcerated there. [...]

But for those detainees who have violated the rules of war, we don’t have to worry about bringing them here. I think they need to be kept elsewhere, wherever that is. I don’t want to see them come on American soil.

Nelson also seemed to suggest that torture — or “enhanced techniques,” as he called it — could be used in the future:

NELSON: What we need to do is make sure that the intelligence information that’s gathered is accurate, that we do everything within our power to get good intelligence, and it may or may not consist of coming from enhanced techniques.

Maybe we could trade him for Colin Powell.

And, finally, if you want to get an understanding of what's behind the gun frenzy, this Daily Kos post has a pretty good idea. Here's a teaser:

There is no impending bill before Congress that would increase taxes on ammunition or guns. There's been no suggestion from the President of such a move. So why would people believe it?

This weekend, NRA leaders were keen to lay out in stark terms the threat they see in the Obama administration. Gun owners face "the slickest, most aggressive anti-gun White House in history," said CEO Wayne Lapierre.

Other NRA brass predict that the Second Amendment could be repealed within the next five years.

Starting well before the election, the NRA has waged a campaign designed to instill fear in the heart of any gun owner. Throughout the campaign, President Obama made it clear that he was a supporter of individual gun rights. There has been no move to restrict access to guns. In fact, the passage of the new rule allowing loaded weapons into National Parks -- reversing a rule signed by Ronald Reagan -- demonstrates that the gun lobby has the power in Washington not just to hold the line, but extend gun rights in nearly any way they can imagine. Not only that, recent Supreme Court rulings have put gun ownership on more solid Constitutional ground than, well, ever.

The NRA should be celebrating. Instead...

Despite these successes, Mr. Lapierre, the NRA CEO, spoke almost in doomsday terms this weekend about opponents of the Second Amendment. "The bomb is armed and the fuse is lit," he said. "They are going to come at us with everything they've got, and we are going to be ready for them. If they want to fight, we will fight."

As gun rights are victorious in court, as gun ownership clears every hurdle in Congress, and with no prospect of restrictions on the horizon, the NRA is still screaming that the end is nigh.

As the post title says, "You have the right to be played for a fool." And, alas, there are plenty of fools to be played.

Sunday Sensational Science

Overselling Ida: A Cautionary Tale

Brian Switek's Brilliant Discovery

If you haven't heard of Ida, the perfectly preserved Darwinius masillae, you've been living in a box. Plenty of information about this remarkable but not utterly revolutionary fossil shall follow. But first, I want to share an illustrative personal anecdote.

A couple of day ago, my coworker, whom I shall call C, asked me if I'd seen the doodle on Google. Indeed I had. And I'd had a brief moment of the warm fuzzies, because it was nice to see that cute little sketch of Ida there in place of the usual logo. Those warm fuzzies turned to the cold ohforfucksakes when C started babbling about her being a "missing link."

This is a normally intelligent man. I rolled my eyes. "No, she's not."

"Yes, she is!"

I was in the midst of Brian Switek's wonderful post on the hype, which will be highlighted below. I'd read several ScienceBlogs posts by then, dissecting the discovery, and I attempted to explain to C that while Ida was awesome, she wasn't the missing link. Indeed, "missing link" is complete bullshit. His response was to inform me that he'd take the word of scientists published in a peer-reviewed journal over what bloggers said any day, and oh yes there are missing links! It didn't matter to him that the peer-reviewed paper had major, major problems, that the whole process had been tainted by publicity stunts, or that the bloggers in question were scientists who know the peer-review process intimately. To him, that process is infallible. Therefore, Ida is the missing link.

So this edition of Sunday Sensational Science is dedicated to C, who reminds me that scientists must resist overhyping their finds in order to score History Channel documentaries, not all peer-reviewed science journals are created equal (although the public doesn't know that), and that having a stable of scientists manning the blogs is a sovereign remedy against sensationalism. Now if we could just get the general public to realize that...

Let's begin with missing links. As in, there are no "missing links":

Again, the press are talking about "the missing link". Let's get one thing clear. There is no missing link. Rather, there are an indefinite number of missing branches. To have a missing link, you need to visualise evolution as a chain. If there's a gap in the chain, then you have a missing link. But evolution, at least at the scale of animals and plants, is mostly a tree.

Keep that in mind as the History Channel, other press outlets, and hysterical creationists endlessly repeat the "missing link" crap. THERE IS NO MISSING LINK. Tattoo it on your hand if you have to.

Now. On to Ida.

Ida has been presented as a near-miraculous superfossil. Our first clue that there was something rotten in the state of Denmark probably should've been the email Brian Switek received:

Late last week I received a rather curious e-mail. It read;

WORLD RENOWNED SCIENTISTS REVEAL A REVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC FIND THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING

Ground-Breaking Global Announcement

What: An international press conference to unveil a major historic scientific find. After two years of research a team of world-renowned scientists will announce their findings, which address a long-standing scientific puzzle.

The find is lauded as the most significant scientific discovery of recent times. History brings this momentous find to America and will follow with the premiere of a major television special on Monday, May 25 at 9 pm ET/PT chronicling the discovery and investigation.

Who: Mayor Michael Bloomberg; International team of scientists who researched the find; Abbe Raven, President and CEO, A&E Television Networks; Nancy Dubuc, Executive Vice President and General Manager, History; Ellen Futter, President, American Museum of Natural History

"The most significant scientific discovery of recent times", eh? What could it be? Life on Mars? Time-travel? Teleportation? The Higgs Boson? A diet cola that doesn't taste absolutely awful? Well, no. It's all about a little primate from Germany.

When a paper is released in conjunction with a documentary, everybody should put their skeptic's hats on and brace for the worst.

Brian engaged in a bit of prediction:

Consider, for example, the grand claims made about finds like Darwinius. It is being heavily promoted but scientists have not yet had a chance to see the fossil or read the paper describing it. When they get a call from a journalist or are asked their opinion on it, then, it can be difficult to discuss the find because they do not know the details. This can be harmful as it can not only lead to the spread of overblown assertions but it can also make us look foolish if these finds do not turn out to be all they were cracked up to be. This could especially be the case with Darwinius. Though heralded in documentaries and in the news as one of our direct ancestors, it is probably a very interesting lemur-like primate on a different evolutionary branch. I can only imagine the field day creationists are going to have if this is the case, and I am frustrated by the way mass media outlets manage to bungle genuinely interesting scientific discoveries.

He was so right.

The paper was published to a media frenzy. The drama got so bad that some science bloggers were forced to resort to emergency satire:

Yesterday, the entire world changed noticeably as the media, accompanied by some scientists, unveiled a stunning fossilised primate. The creature has been named Darwinius masillae, but also goes by Ida, the Link, the Chosen One and She Who Will Save Us All.

The new fossil is remarkably complete and well-preserved, although the media glossed over these facts in favour of the creature's ability to cure swine flu. Ida was hailed as a "missing link" in human evolution, beautifully illustrating our transition from leaping about in trees to rampant mass-media sensationalism.

No one's disputing that Ida's a remarkable find. PZ sang her praises thusly:

What's so cool about it?

Age. It's 47 million years old. That's interestingly old…it puts us deep into the primate family tree.

Preservation. This is an awesome fossil: it's almost perfectly complete, with all the bones in place, preserved in its death posture. There is a halo of darkly stained material around it; this is a remnant of the flesh and fur that rotted in place, and allows us to see a rough outline of the body and make estimates of muscle size. Furthermore, the guts and stomach contents are preserved. Ida's last meal was fruit and leaves, in case you wanted to know.

Life stage. Ida is a young juvenile, estimate to be right on the transition from requiring parental care to independent living. That means she has a mix of baby teeth and adult teeth — she's a two-fer, giving us information about both.

Finds like Ida are extremely rare, and she's justly being celebrated as an important find. But the overselling is, ironically, selling her short. It's like promising someone a Ferrari and delivering them an Altima. That's where buyer beware comes in handy, and Brian Switek's done an excellent job kicking tires on this one:

Some researchers have long maintained that adapids are better candidates for the ancestors of anthropoids, with Philip Gingerich (one of the authors of the Darwinius paper) being a vocal proponent of this view. It is not terribly surprising, then, that the authors of the Darwinius paper posit that adapids are more closely related to anthropoids than tarsiers and omomyids, and they rely on two tactics to make their case.

The authors of the paper try to frame their hypothesis in a historical manner. They claim that adapids have been barred from a close anthropoid relationship on the basis of soft-tissue characteristics that do not fossilize. This would mean that the association between omomyids, tarsiers, and anthropoids would hang by a nose, but this is not true. As reviewed in popular books like Chris Beard's The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey and technical volumes like Anthropoid Origins, the relationship between omomyids, tarsiers, and anthropoids is based upon a wide array of fossil and neontological data. I can't imagine why the authors of the new paper would suggest otherwise unless they were trying to construct a false historiography in order to show their fossil in a better light.

This shoddy scholarship is matched by a weak attempt to show that Darwinius has more anthropoid-like traits than tarsiers or omomyids do. In order for the authors of the paper to make a convincing case they would have to undertake a careful, systematic analysis of the anatomy of Darwinius in comparison to other primates, yet they did not do this. Instead they combed the literature for 30 traits that might help ascertain the placement of Darwinius in the primate family tree and filled in whether each trait was present or absent in Ida's skeleton.

That's the post I was reading when C started spouting off about peer-review vs. bloggers. I sent him the link. Really, when you think about it, science bloggers engaging in research blogging are peer-reviewers. And then you have Carl Zimmer, one of our best science journalists, engaging in a little peer review of his own:

It finally got to the point where I found myself dispatching emails to two prominent primatologists–John Fleagle of SUNY Stony Brook and Chris Beard of the Carnegie Museum–to see what they thought.

Both researchers agreed that it was a lovely fossil, in terms of its exquisite preservation. “It’s really wonderful,” Fleagle said. It’s got bones, fur, and even its last meal in its stomach. Fleagle observed that it will be possible to learn many details about the biology of early primates from Darwinius, down to the stages by which it teeth erupted.

[snip]

...I asked what Fleagle and Beard thought about the actual argument in the paper, which has to do with where humans, apes, and monkeys (known as anthropoids) fit in the primate family tree. Some of the co-authors on the new paper have argued in the past that an extinct group of primates called adapiforms gave rise to anthropoids. Others have favored a common ancestry with small primates known as tarsiers. (Laelaps has a nice history of the debate.) The authors of the new paper argue that Darwinius is an adapiform, but it also has traits that link it with anthropoids. So, according to them, it’s an early relative of our own anthropoid lineage.

Both Fleagle and Beard were not impressed with this argument. Fleagle observed that, ironically, most of the evidence presented in the paper is old news. Except for the ankle and a few other traits, most of the traits offered to link adapiforms to anthropoids “have been known for decades,” said Fleagle. It’s nice to have those traits all in one primate fossil, but they don’t advance the debate. Fleagle is intrigued by the anthropoid-like ankle of the fossil, but he also notes that it’s “roadkill,” flattened down to a 2-millimeter pancake. He wonders whether their interpretation of the ankle will hold up to scrutiny.

Beard has similar things to say via email.

I’ve been deluged today by journalists regarding this. It is a marketing campaign for the ages. The fossil is nice because it is so complete, but it is a rather vanilla-flavored adapiform that does not differ appreciably from other members of that well-known group of Eocene primates…

Beard was also puzzled that the authors did not compare Darwinius to an important early anthropoid fossil Beard found, known as Eosimias. In fact, he was underwhelmed by the entire comparison of Darwinius to other primates (a phylogenetic analysis):

The phylogenetic analysis is not very complete, and I would certainly interpret many of the characters they do cite very differently than they do. But one of the most shocking things of all about the technical paper is that they found room to cite 89 references, but there is not one mention of Eosimias to be found there. This is bizarre indeed. In a paper that purports to tell us something about anthropoid origins, the authors have conveniently ignored the single most significant fossil that has been published to date. Incomprehensible.

From all available evidence, it seems the authors of the paper were more interested in trimming facts to fit their theories than in good science, and a lot of that motivation probably came from their chance at fame and fortune. It's a shame. Carl's right: science is being held hostage:

So, to recap: it appears that both PLOS and Atlantic Productions did not give journalists any time to consult with outside experts before launching a major press conference with a huge blitz of media attention. In other words, science writers who were trying to do their job well and responsibly were actively hindered. Those who declared ridiculous things, such as claiming that human origins were now solved once and for all, were not.

This, my friends, is not the way to do science. PZ points out some of the many issues:

This is not helping. It is inflating a good discovery beyond all reason, and when the public hears the creationists declare that it's one fossil of a monkey-like creature, and they're right, it's going to damage the credibility of science.

Seed Media has a bit of a scoop: they've got an interview with a PLoS One editor, a History Channel executive, and Jørn Hurum, the scientist behind all the promotion. It's appalling. They're bragging about how a "production company got in on the ground floor". Shall we anticipate the brave new world when paleontologists have to beg for McDonald's happy meal tie-ins to get funding?

Ida deserved better than this. She's an amazing little creature, and she's getting lost in hype. Thankfully, Brian Switek's rescuing her from the frenzy, and helping her demonstrate what she has to teach us:

First, how do we know that Ida was a female? It all comes down to a missing penis bone, or baculum. Many, if not most, mammals have a penis bone, and in fact our species is one of the "oddballs" in that males of our species do not. Take a look at the restoration of the transitional pinniped, Puijila, that was announced a few weeks ago. See that long bone sticking out from in front of its pelvis? That's a baculum, and the presence of such a bone indicates that this specimen of Puijila was a male.

While our species might not have a baculum, other primates do, including fossil ones. Darwinius lived alongside another kind of lemur-like adapid primate called Europolemur, and fossils from the same Messel shales show that male Europolemur had large baculums. Given their close evolutionary relationship between Europolemur and Darwinius it can be reasonably assumed that male Darwinius had baculums, too, but Ida's skeleton does not have a penis bone. Is it possible that this specimen of Darwinius could have been, pardon the expression, dis-membered sometime after death and before fossilization? It is possible, but given the exceptional preservation of the fossil, including gut contents and a body outline created by bacteria, it is doubtful. The lack of a baculum attached to this fossil makes it highly probable that Ida was indeed a female.

[snip]

Even though I have been critical of the way this entire "primate roll-out" has been handled, I have tried to stress how amazing a fossil Darwinius is. The sex and age of a fossil might seem like unimportant matters, but how often do we get such a clear window into the biology of an extinct species? Right now the public is still being deluged with the message that Ida is the "missing link", but I hope that what Ida's skeleton can actually tell us about how she lived and died receive greater attention as we continue to discuss her bones.

Scientists like Brian will ensure that Ida doesn't get lost in the hubub. And maybe, just maybe, this is a precious teachable moment. Wouldn't it be lovely Ida not only taught us about the evolution of primates, but helped the general public understand good science versus bad or biased science? She might even save us from PZ's nightmare of McDonalds-sponsered paleontology.

That would make her a miracle indeed.

Olbermann to Hannity: "You Are Now Unnecessary"

Keith Olbermann has pronounced Sean Hannity a superfluous piece of shit:

Last night on Countdown, Olbermann announced that he was rescinding the offer to Hannity, and instead giving $10,000 to charity following radio host Erich “Mancow” Muller’s waterboarding attempt. Olbermann promised to donate to the charity Veterans of Valor, founded by Sgt. Klay South, who administered the waterboarding to Muller. Olbermann revealed that Mancow’s publicist had contacted Olbermann’s show yesterday to see whether Olbermann would make a similar offer to Mancow as he did for Hannity:

OLBERMANN: Mancow Muller had the guts to put his mouth where his mouth was, and the guts to admit he was dead wrong. As you saw, he not only said it is torture, but that he had nearly drowned as a boy, and it is drowning, and that he would have admitted to anything to make it stop.

So the offer to the coward Hannity — a thousand dollars a second he lasted on the waterboard — is withdrawn.

And to Mr. Muller, whose station’s publicity person contacted us yesterday saying she’d heard I’d offered ten thousand dollars to anybody who would do what he did –

You got it. Ten thousand dollars to the military-families charity of the man who did the waterboarding, Veterans Of Valor. [...]

As to Hannity, you are now unnecessary.

Not that he was necessary to begin with, o' course.

And so ends this chapter of the Waterboard Hannity chronicles. Skeptic Kitteh was right:



Bookie Kitteh's now taking bets on how long it is before Hannity feels brave enough to spout off about waterboarding again.

Frank PWNS Beck

Poor Glenn Beck. He's had an awful week. First, the ladies on the View spanked his ass, which led to a bad case of the View Flu (which he tried to pass off, and I'm not kidding, as "the 24-hour swine flu"). Now he's having another health crisis, because his little roving producer Griff Jenkins ended up with his ass in a sling:

The Glenn Beck show tried to sandbag Barney Frank with one of their roving reporters or producers or whatever they are, but they messed with the wrong guy. ACORN is Beck's villain of the hour and Biff Jenkins asked Frank if he'd hold hearings on ACORN because the right hates them. He got an answer he didn't expect.

Frank: As you know, the Bush administration, every year of the eight years of the Bush administration gave them well over a million dollars for housing counseling, and nobody has shown me any sign that any of that federal money was misspent. You know, I think people are being somewhat unfair to President Bush and his secretaries of HUD who consistently funded ACORN for, as I said, for a total of about 14 million dollars during the Bush years. If someone has evidence that the money that President Bush made available was misspent -- that's what I have jurisdiction over, I don't have jurisdiction over election activities by another ACORN organization -- but if anyone has any evidence, and no one has sent it to me yet, that the Bush administration ignored the misspending of that $14 million, I'll look into it.

Biff: Yes, sir, but would you hold hearings or an investigation ...?

Frank: I think you're being very unfair to President Bush.

OK, his name is not Biff, it's Griff. Frank used this against Michelle Bachmann and when you hit them with facts like this, they really have no response other than to ignore what Barney Frank said and continue with their smears.

Have I told you lately how much I love Barney Frank?

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

We're late today because, well, it's a holiday weekend. Pretty slim pickings, alas. But you'll be glad to know there's a reason why you've seen so much Dick on your teevee:

So, why has Dick Cheney been so desperate to hit the airwaves as part of his crusade against the White House? Explanations differ, but his desire to sell a memoir to publishers might have at least something to do with his efforts.

With his sustained blitz of television appearances and speeches, former Vice President Dick Cheney has established himself as perhaps the leading Republican voice against President Obama.

Not a bad time, then, to be in the market for a multimillion-dollar book contract.... A person familiar with discussions Mr. Cheney has had with publishers said he was seeking more than $2 million for his advance. That sum may prove hard to get in this economic climate, especially given his generally low approval ratings, which publishers view as a potential -- but not certain -- harbinger for sales.

Reports indicate Cheney may end up with a deal with Simon & Schuster, because it's home to an imprint run by Mary Matalin, who is also publishing Karl Rove's book.

This might offer at least some hints about Cheney's recent motivations. A book written by a failed former vice president may not compel publishers to pay the big bucks, but a book written by one of the leaders of the modern Republican Party, and the GOP's leading attack dog of the nation's elected leadership, might generate a more sizable advance.

What I don't quite understand is why anyone would expect Cheney's book to be successful. After all, the former vice president has a well-deserved reputation for almost comical dishonesty. Who's going to pony up $29.95 for a book written by someone who routinely blurs the line between fact and fiction?

The only market likely to pay $29.95 for the privilege, after all, doesn't really read big, thick, serious books. Unless this one's co-written by Rush Limbaugh, I'm afraid Dick'll be out of luck.

Angling for a bigger advance may only be a part of Dick's motives. His daughter seems to be implying her daddy's trying to stay out of prison:

Last night on CNN, however, Cheney’s daughter Liz revealed that fear of prosecution is indeed a motivating factor in the former vice president’s current media campaign:

L. CHENEY: I don’t think he planned to be doing this, you know, when they left office in January. But I think, as it became clear that President Obama was not only going to be stopping some of these policies, that he was going to be doing things like releasing the — the techniques themselves, so that the terrorists could now train to them, that he was suggesting that perhaps we would even be prosecuting former members of the Bush administration.

And that would be such a terrible tragedy. But it might also help with the advance amount problem. After all, a book of lies by a convicted war criminal would be so much more interesting than a book of lies by a despised former VP.

Speaking of lies, Arizona's enduring shame (no, not McCain - the other one) is fully aware of the fact that if people heard the truth about the Cons' plans for health care, they'd laugh them out of the debate:

In an interview posted online by the National Review, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) candidly explained how his party would try to deceive the public during the coming health care debate. Kyl said that although Republicans believe in a “free market” approach to health care, to describe it honestly to the “people we have to convince” would not be “persuasive.” Instead, Kyl boasts that he and his colleagues will use the “hollow buzzwords” prescribed by GOP language consultant Frank Luntz:

KYL: We of course believe the free market can provide the incentives for everyone to be covered with good insurance but to talk about it in terms of the free market is not to be persuasive with the people we have to convince.

Shorter Jon Kyl: We know that the electorate knows we're full of shit on this, so we'd best lie about it.

The Cons' problem is that Americans have already been fooled twice, and they may not be inclined to strike out:

Bill Moyers and Michael Winship write at Salon.com:

Way, way back in the 1970's Americans were riled up over the rising costs of health care. As a presidential candidate, Jimmy Carter started talking about the government clamping down. When he got to the White House, drug makers, insurance companies, hospitals and doctors -- the very people who only a decade earlier had done everything they could to strangle Medicare in the cradle -- seemed uncharacteristically humble and cooperative. "You don't have to make us cut costs," they promised. "We'll do it voluntarily."

So Uncle Sam backed down, and you guessed it. Pretty soon medical costs were soaring higher than ever.

By the early '90s, the public was once again hurting in the pocketbook. Feeling our pain, Bill and Hillary Clinton tried again, coming up with a plan only slightly more complicated than the schematics for an F-18 fighter jet.

This time the health industry acted more like Tony Soprano than Mother Teresa. It bludgeoned the Clinton reforms with one of the most expensive and deceitful public relations and advertising campaigns ever conceived -- paid for, of course, from the industry's swollen profits.

As the drug and insurance companies, hospitals and doctors dumped the mangled carcass of reform into the Potomac, securely encased in concrete, once again they said don't worry; they would cut costs voluntarily.

If you believed that, we've got a toll-free bridge to the Mayo Clinic we'd like to sell you.

So anyone with any memory left could be excused for raising their eyebrows at the healthcare industry's latest promises. As if on cue, hardly had their pledge of volunteerism rung out across the land than Jay Gellert, chief executive of Health Net Inc. and chair of the lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans, assured his pals not to worry about the voluntary reductions.

You can see why Jon Kyl and his buddies might be worried about the results if they start yawping about the "free market" again.

Meanwhile, Steve Benen and Publius take up the eternal question: are Cons playing cynical partisan games, or are they really that fucking stupid? The context this time is the pants-pissing fear campaign they're waging against Gitmo. Steve's conclusion:

It's hard to say with any certainty, and there's no doubt some variety within the group -- some liars and some fools -- but for what it's worth, there's ample evidence to support the "blatant dishonesty for partisan gain" theory. The Wall Street Journal reports today that Republicans see the debate over Gitmo as "the culmination of a carefully developed GOP strategy," which they hope to use as "the beginning of a political comeback."

The goal, apparently, was to identify a "favorable issue" on which the party could go on the offensive; "tarnish" Democratic leaders; and attack until the criticisms "begin to seem counterproductive."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) concluded more than a year ago that Mr. Obama might be vulnerable on Guantanamo -- and the unease voters would have over the prospect of transferring suspected terrorists to U.S. soil. Since April 20 he has delivered 17 floor speeches on the issue. Mr. McConnell beat back party dissent over his strategy, as some argued it was a losing battle when the president enjoyed such high poll numbers.

The attacks, in other words, are largely a cynical ploy, predicated on Republican hopes that public fear will outweigh public reason, and that most Americans won't realize how spectacularly dishonest the whole argument is.

That beats widespread stupidity, I suppose.

I say it's a photo finish, possibly a dead heat. Either way, we're dealing with a bunch of inane fucktards some of my fellow citizens are sadly stupid enough to vote for.

Of course, if the GOP keeps up their dumbfuckery, especially with antics like equating Nancy Pelosi with Pussy Galore, at least one set of citizens won't be stupid enough to keep voting for them:

Yeah, I know. The GOP stereotype of a bunch of sniggering frat boys pointing their fingers and screaming "boobies" is rarely unfair. The fact that the Republican party leadership (such as it is) has no better strategy than provoking feminist outrage to delight its drooling extremist base puts its limitations on full display.

A Drudge headline this week indicates the method to their madness:

Blue collar males lose more ground; unemployment rate surges past national average...

Blame the betties for the lost jobs, we're the new Mexicans. Nancy Pelosi is a stand in for us all. It's reliable lizard brain trope.

But are they burning the brand with women in the process? From the latest Daily Kos poll:

	Favorable	Unfavorable	No Opinion
Barack Obama	70	24	6
Nancy Pelosi	39	44	17
Mitch McConnell	16	65	19
John Boehner	9	71	20
Congressional Democrats	46	45	9
Congressional Republicans	5	80	15
Democratic Party	54	37	9
Republican Party	14	78	8

I'm not a statistics expert by any means but in the last election, women cast 53% of the Presidential vote. Obama got 56% of the female vote, while McCain drew 49%.

Lessee... they've lost the vast majority of minorites, women, and other miscellaneous sane people. Not much left, now, is there?

Finally, we'll end with a game Suzie at Crooks and Liars came up with. Click here for the answer:

The Congressional GOPers (Party of Corporate Pork) are so, so upset when the wrong people are on the losing end in government bailouts. See if you can spot the delicious irony!

Dozens of lawmakers are challenging the authority of President Obama's auto task force, saying its swift restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler is unjust to investors, dealers and others.

In a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner yesterday, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) said the auto task force is waging a "war on capital" by favoring the United Auto Workers, who are being offered a 39 percent equity stake in the new GM, over bondholders, many of them small investors and retirees, who are being offered 10 percent.

"Choosing sides between equal classes of creditors sets a terrible precedent -- one that could cause serious long term challenges to the financing marketplace by eroding investor confidence at the worst time in our recessionary period," Hensarling wrote in a letter signed by 20 other House members.

They're so precious when they pound their little fists into the carpet like that...

Torture Apologists on Parade: Flying Cow Edition

Unlike Sean Hannity, Mancow isn't afraid to put his water where his mouth is. Alas, as he discovered, empirical evidence trumps ideology:

On his radio show this morning, “conservative libertarian” talker Eric “Mancow” Muller set out to prove that waterboarding isn’t torture by having himself waterboarded. But instead, after enduring “6 or 7 seconds” of the interrogation technique, Mancow admitted that it was “absolutely torture”:

Turns out the stunt wasn’t so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.

“It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that’s no joke,”Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. “It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back…It was instantaneous…and I don’t want to say this: absolutely torture.”

“I wanted to prove it wasn’t torture,” Mancow said. “They cut off our heads, we put water on their face…I got voted to do this but I really thought ‘I’m going to laugh this off.’”

He stated that the sensation brought on by waterboarding was exactly the same as drowning. He should know - he drowned as a child. No wonder the cow went flying the second the water hit him.

Jury's out on whether he goes back to trying to wish the truth away, but still, I respect him. He actually tested his beliefs. He admitted he was dead fucking wrong. And he didn't use weasel words. He may not be able to make it thirty seconds under the waterboard, but he's already kicked the collective asses of Hannity et al. Good on him.

Now we'll see how long it takes before the Cons and their media darlings start scoffing at the whole thing. If you watch the video, it doesn't look that bad - guy gets some water on the face, freaks out, turns pasty white and starts babbling "It's torture! It's torture!" The lack of screaming, blood and breaking bones deceive. That's why people without the imagination to realize just what suffocating under a stream of water does to your mind and body need to undergo this themselves.

I'd like to request Lou Dobbs volunteer next:

Lou Dobbs calls out Chuck Schumer for his waffling on whether Americans would accept torture being used in the phony ticking time bomb scenario. He then asks his audience to participate in an on line poll and asks whether they would "personally employ torture to save American lives and prevent an attack on this country?" And surprise, surprise...the overwhelming answer is...YES! Looks like all that fear mongering is paying off well for you. What's next Lou? You going to ask them if they'd like to shoot Mexicans to put an end to illegal immigration?

I'm tempted to head out to the streets with a board, a bucket of water, and a towel, and see just how many of my torture-loving fellow Americans are willing to enjoy some torture themselves. Even in Seattle, I'm likely to find a few fuckwits who are still under the illusion that 24 is a documentary and they're so tough they could outlast Mancow.

Fuck. Let's turn it into a reality show. And let's take our buckets to Congress, where I'm sure we'll find plenty of volunteers in the minority party, along with a select few in the majority.

What's that? They all ran away? Gee, I'm shocked. After all, it's just a little splash of water. Don't they want to keep America safe?

(Tip o' the shotglass to the folks I filched the images from. Please forgive my lack of Photoshop-fu - I did the best I could.)

Perhaps It'll Ask WolframAlpha Instead

A couple of years ago, I wrote a scene wherein Dusty, my FBI agent character, is given a Miraldian "PDA" - a semi-sentient little alien device that makes the iPhone look like an actual big dumb brick, and is only called a PDA by my Earthling characters because, well, people use old names for new things. It provided an opportunity for a moment of levity:

"Go on," August said. "Ask it a question. Any question."

She cupped the PDA in her hands and looked down at it. Ultra-advanced alien technology was roughly the size and shape of a cosmetic compact, and shiny metalic pastel peach in color. She would have preferred black, with a lot of LED buttons and flashing lights and something, anything, to say this wasn't just a little hollow lump of metal. The whole situation was surreal. DVDs traded for technology that might as well have been magic? She couldn't help herself. "What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?"

"Forty-two," an androgynous little voice promptly said.

She nearly dropped the PDA. And then she shot an accusing stare at August. "You're winding me up."

"No, it Googled it." August bent over her computer and typed the question in. "That's what it's trained to do when it's not sure what the answer is. If you ask for detail, it'll tell you how it got the result."

He showed her the search results on her screen. He was right. If you asked Google, it came up with Douglas Adams's answer.

And, indeed, if you Google that question, the top results refer to Douglas Adams.

With this background, you'll understand why this tidbit from Kevin Drum caught my attention:

...I tried out the WolframAlpha search engine today for the first time. It's been getting generally panned, but it sure did an impressively good job on my test drive query. Check it out:

You'll also understand why I promptly scampered over and asked the self-same question Dusty had asked. And why I burst out in such peals of delighted laughter that the cat nearly suffered cardiac arrest:



It's too bad "It WolframAlphaed it" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as easily as Googled, eh?

The search engine isn't perfect, o' course. I stumped it with "Does Dana Hunter drink tequila?" which should've been a cakewalk (yes, Dana Hunter drinks tequila. Duh). But it's an awesome concept, I'm sure it'll improve with age, and I think it'll quickly become my boon companion on the research front.

Go forth and have fun with it.

LOLZ Travel Tips

Happy Memorial Day weekend! For those of you with travel plans, have a fabulously fun and safe trip.

O' course, the journey of a thousand miles always begins with a complication or two:


Remember to treat your car with the respect it deserves:


And don't forget to photograph the interesting sights at roadside attractions:



Above all, enjoy yourselves, my darlings.

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Sorry we're late, my darlings. Was out running errands, getting my hair cut, and fitting the cat with a harness. Hilarious pictures of a pissed-off feline on a bungee leash will no doubt follow in the next few days. You should have seen her dear little face when I took her to PetSmart. (For those of you whose cats tend to self-destruct when they're on a leash, I recommend the Come with Me Kitty Harness & Bungee Leash Set, available online and at Target. Most kitties will fit into a medium, but if your cat is fat, plump for the large. Take it from someone who just learned that her cat is, indeed, fat. Aside from that, the design is perfect for preventing your pet from strangling itself.)

Anyway. I've only now gotten home and digested the ginormous pile of stupid awaiting me upon my return. Ye fucking gods. It being a holiday weekend, I guess everybody was packing the dumbfuckery into their Friday.

First up is a potential new segment we can call "Don't Wanna Know Dick:"

With Dick Cheney positioning himself as one of the de facto leaders of the nation in the post-Bush/Cheney era, it's not unreasonable to ask Republican incumbents a straightforward question: do you want to campaign alongside the former vice president?

A few GOP leaders are willing to put on a brave face, but those who may face competitive races next year are a little cagey on the subject.

Asked whether he'd like Cheney to campaign with him, Utah Sen. Robert Bennett -- who faces a primary challenge in 2010 -- said: "The most powerful national politician in Utah is Mitt Romney, and he's already come to Utah to campaign for me. And I think I'll leave it at that."

Asked if he'd want Cheney on the campaign trail for him, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr said: "I'm not going to go there yet." Pressed on the matter, Burr -- a top target for Democrats -- said Cheney is "trying to set the record straight on his administration." But Burr said he didn't want to discuss "what's going to happen in my campaign. I don't even have an opponent."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told reporters yesterday that he'd be "proud to appear with the vice president anywhere, anytime." When pressed on whether they share that view, Florida's Charlie Crist, Ohio's Rob Portman, and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski said they didn't want to talk about it. Arizona John McCain, who's also seeking another term next year, responded, "I don't have the time or energy to discuss that -- or the inclination."

I don't think I need to expand on that. Some things are perfectly amusing exactly as they are.

On the misnomer front, Liberty University might want to consider changing its name:

Liberty University has announced that it will no longer recognize its student-run Democratic club. The university, founded by televangelist Rev. Jerry Falwell, states that officials “are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by” the university. Liberty’s College Democrats have been barred from using the university’s name, holding campus meetings, or advertising events. Liberty’s Vice President of Student Affairs claims “we are in no way attempting to stifle free speech.”

[ed. note: go on, pull the other. it's got bells on.]

[snip]

Brian Diaz, President of Liberty’s College Democrats, notes that the Liberty College Republicans continue to operate on campus.

Liberty, my arse.

On the "didn't think that one through" front, we have this spiffy new ad from the RNC:

No doubt somebody at the RNC thought it would be a clever idea, since Nancy Pelosi is feuding with the CIA, to run an ad comparing Pelosi to a James Bond villainess up against the superspy -- as in Bond's many screen-credit sequences wherein he blasts away at various villains.

You would think, somewhere, someone would have suggested that maybe having a sequence where we look at Pelosi down the barrel of a gun, hear shots fired, and then watch blood drip down our screens wasn't exactly the smartest or most responsible way to

Alas, the completion of that sentence is left to our imaginations. I think the supreme fucktardednes left poor David Neiwart momentarily speechless. Mind you, this ad was created by the same alleged grown-ups who are currently whining about how mean and uncivilized those librul bloggers are.

They just scored a -10,242,111 on the Self Awareness Scale.

Next up, we have a special section devoted to Governors Who Can't Fucking Govern. First up, Rick "Secession" Perry, who just wants the feds to stay the hell away from Texas - except when he needs cash for a remodel:

So what do you do when you're an anti-spending, pro-secession conservative governor whose publicly-owned mansion needs $21 million in repairs to recover from fire damage?

Apparently, you do something like this (via diarist gsadamb [update: and also Velvet Revolution]):

AUSTIN, Texas – While Gov. Rick Perry is criticizing Washington bailouts, state lawmakers are planning to use $11 million in federal stimulus money to help rebuild the badly burned Texas Governor's Mansion.

Approximately $10 million in state tax money will also be spent on a renovation, which is expected to cost about $20 million, officials said Thursday.

This, of course, is the same Rick Perry who, along with a handful of other Republican extremists, rejected stimulus money for jobless Texans, and recently said that Texas would consider seceding if the federal government didn't dramatically cut spending.

Speaking of governors who rejected stimulus funds...

And then there's South Carolina:

Gov. Mark Sanford is taking the General Assembly to court after lawmakers required him to accept $350 million in disputed federal money by overriding his budget vetoes.

Sanford quickly announced the federal suit after the Senate voted 34-11 on a state budget that forces him to accept the money.

"We know a suit will be filed against us on this issue, and as such we've filed a suit tonight in response," Sanford said in a prepared statement. "We believe the Legislature's end-around move won't pass constitutional muster."

Yes, the governor would rather sue his legislature than accept federal funding that would go to bolster schools and public safety.

Something tells me that might come back to bite him come Election Day. By then, there'll only be about 27 faithful Cons left in the country. Everybody else will have figured out that it's best to vote for the people who want to make sure you have a job, healthcare and food.

And finally, another fine example of democracy in action:

It didn't get much play, but earlier in the week, the Connecticut state senate voted to ban the death penalty earlier in the week. Now,

Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell vowed Friday to veto a newly approved bill banning the death penalty as soon as she receives it, saying capital punishment is appropriate for certain heinous crimes.

The measure, approved early Friday by the state Senate and last week by the state House of Representatives, would replace capital punishment with life in prison without the possibility of parole.

At least two-thirds of the members of each chambers would have to vote to override a veto. But achieving that margin is in doubt, given the tight 19-17 vote in the Democrat-led Senate. The bill passed 90-56 in the House, which also led by Democrats.

At the Orange Satan, they've got contact info. for Rell.

Interesting that we haven't heard a peep from "pro-life" Catholic trolls like Gingrich, Bennett, Steele, K-Lo, Keyes, etc. demanding Rell "accept the will of the people" isn't it?

To these fuckwits, it appears a "natural" death includes death by lethal injection. Interesting, that. And it's ever so heartwarming to see a governor use her veto power to ensure the state gets to keep killing people.

And, finally, after all that stupidity, let's have a little fun. First, I'm going to rip off Steve Benen's title of a couple of days ago, because I want you all chanting "Go, Speed Reader, Go!"

Ready? In 3...2...1...

Go, Speed Reader, Go!

Faced with the possibility that the GOP minority might require the committee's clerks to read aloud the 900-page Waxman-Markey climate change bill, or many of its 400-plus proposed amendments, the committee's chairman, Henry Waxman (D-CA), hired a speed reader. A quick tongued, acting-clerk, if you will.

His services may ultimately not be necessary, but earlier today, to break the tension between battling factions, the committee's ranking member Joe Barton (R-TX) asked the "speed reader clerk" to read part of one measly little amendment. Watch:

Sheer awesome. As you can see from the video, Rep. Joe Barton did not, in fact, have committee chair Henry Waxman by the nuts. Quite the opposite, in fact. Click that last link if you need a stiff chaser of silly Con tough-guy posturing followed by the inevitable silly Con whining about getting his arse kicked. And then celebrate a victory for a cleaner, cooler Earth.

Nice way to start a holiday weekend, isn't it just?

Something to Keep in Mind

The next time someone yawps at you about the extraordinary accomplishments of the Bush regime, you might want to drop this little tidbit on them (h/t):

Former Congresswoman and prosecutor Liz Holtzman makes a good point:

The criminal justice system identified and convicted some of those involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. By contrast, not one person has been prosecuted for the 9/11 attacks, although seven and a half years have gone by. Even Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the masterminds of 9/11, is unlikely ever to be convicted in US courts because he was repeatedly subjected to torture. Significantly, the cruel and torturous methods used on detainees never yielded enough information to capture Osama Bin Laden or his chief deputy. So much for the claims of torture's efficacy.

So what the fuck have we done for the last nearly 8 years? Oh. That's right. Invaded the wrong fucking country so that a bunch of pathetic losers could play out their War President fantasies.

Anyone who still thinks the Bush regime was good for this country after clicking these three links is so terminally stupid that further conversation is useless.

They, Too, Bravely Ran Away

David Broder's latest atrocity column included this little gem:

...Democrats really are isolated from the military. Harry Truman had been an artillery captain; John Kennedy and Carter, Navy officers. But Bill Clinton did everything possible to avoid the draft, and Obama, motivated as he was to public service, never gave a thought to volunteering for the military.

I do so love it when Cons try to paint Dems as lily-livered military-hating cowards. It gives Steve Benen the opportunity to point out a few salient facts:

Consider a slightly different take. George W. Bush avoided Vietnam and failed to complete his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard, while Dick Cheney sought and received five deferments. In the House, neither the Minority Leader nor the Minority Whip served in the military. In the Senate, neither the Minority Leader nor the Minority Whip served in the military. Prominent Republican governors eyeing the 2012 presidential race -- Jindal, Sanford, Palin, Romney, Crist -- have no military background. Leading Republican voices outside government -- Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck -- chose to never wear the uniform.

That, my darlings, is why we call them Yellow Elephants. They like to talk the tough talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, they pull a Sir Robin instead.

This is why I believe the Dems should vote on a resolution asking the Cons to rename their party the Pathetic Hypocrite Party. After all, labels matter. And there's nothing more important than bringing the truth to bear on the craven cowardice behind the Cons' tough talk.

What Does Torchwood Have To Do With DADT?

So glad you asked. Cujo's got your answer.

I love it when pop culture and political news can be combined into teachable moments, don't you?