Is There a Word for a First World Nation Becoming a Third World Country?

Even when I was a kid, I knew I was lucky. I had a middle-class family in a prosperous country. Sally Fields used to come on the teevee soliciting funds for all those poor, starving kids in other countries where families were lucky if they had a bit of cloth to throw over a stick for a house, and I'd be quite grateful my country wasn't like that. Poorest kids I knew still had roofs over their heads and got a few good meals a week. And we knew America was the greatest country on earth. Almost everybody wanted to be like us.

I used to feel sorry for those folks who lived in countries that weren't number one in everything.

Rome used to be great, too, the greatest on earth, and it fell. When I learned about it, I couldn't imagine it. What would it have been like, to live in a nation that was sliding down to oblivion? Weren't the people sad, maybe even despairing? Did they know? Did they realize what was happening to them? I didn't think it would happen to America, not very soon anyway, but I knew it could happen, and I just hoped it wouldn't happen in my lifetime. I loved my country. I wanted the best for it. Selfish reasons, too: I'd never wanted to live in a decayed civilization, amongst the ruins of greatness, without a chance to become anything amazing. It's really hard to write works of enduring literature when you haven't got any paper and everybody in your country's so poor they couldn't afford to buy your book even if you managed to write it.

Those were my silly childish thoughts. Then I grew up, and for a little while, in the heyday of the '90s, it looked like America, despite some occasional stumbles, didn't really have to worry about falling from its perch. We were great, and we'd continue being great. We could certainly be greater. I'd learned about homelessness and grinding poverty, and some of our cities were falling apart, and the Republicans were getting awfully weird, and we spent a fuck of a lot of money on the military while screwing the poor and the public schools, but still. We weren't doing all that badly.

Then it got worse. And worse. We voted a jackass into office (never mind Florida, it never should've been so close anyway). Terrorists slipped through our defenses, and the jackass and his merry band of fuckwits used that as carte blanche to invade the wrong damned country and basically bomb all the brown people they could. They turned this from a nation of laws that didn't always live up to its rhetoric but at least acted ashamed when it didn't into a nation that proudly tortured people. And the middle class melted away, and the infrastructure crumbled, and even crazier fuckwits started getting bold enough to dazzle a bunch of flaming morons into voting for them, and here we are today, rubbing shoulders with third-world nationhood.

Seriously. We are.

Take air travel: The United States, the report notes, now has the worst air-traffic congestion on the planet, with one-quarter of flights arriving more than 15 minutes late. One reason is that U.S. air-traffic control still relies on 1950s-era ground radar technology, even as the rest of the world has been shifting to satellite tracking (the FAA has begun the transition to a satellite-based system, though it’s moving slowly and future funding is a big question). According to recent World Economic Forum rankings, even Malaysia and Panama now boast better air infrastructure.

For fuck's sake.

And check out what came across my Twitter feed only yesterday: we are the only industrialized nation to have a World Heritage Site we can't be bothered to preserve. Every other country on the list has probably got a plausible excuse: tiny and poor, tiny and war-torn, tiny and trying too hard to deal with extreme natural disasters and religious fuckery and trying to build themselves up to a reasonable standard of living to be much fussed with things like World Heritage Sites. What's our excuse? We have Republicans who think preserving things like the Everglades takes too much money out of super-rich pockets. We still have gobs and oodles of money, more than enough to pay for things like preserving priceless treasures and repairing that aged infrastructure and ensuring people get an education and health care and have decent jobs, but we've elected absolute idiots and let them give all the money to a disgustingly bloated military and greedy asshats who sit on millions and billions of dollars and scream like two year-olds denied a toy when someone tries to extract so much as a penny from their tight fists for the common good.

We're 37th in the world in health care, or at least we were in 2000 - I shudder to think where we are now, after eight years of Bush and before our inadequate but good-as-we're-gonna-get-at-this-point new health care law fully kicks in. Square between Costa Rica and Slovenia, we are. Best in the world? Which world? Certainly not the second world - maybe best in the third world, I think we can comfortably claim that, but we'd best not get too comfortable with that idea, because Cuba's only two rungs below us on that particular ladder.

Oh, and here's a nifty little fact: the United States of America gets its ass kicked in income equality by the likes of Iran and Nigeria. Oh, yes, we are so great and glorious, we are kicking Haiti's ass! Eat it, the exactly two developed nations who do worse than we do! USA! USA!

And while we slide down into the scrap-heap of has-been empires, we've got Republicans running around beating their chests and screaming we're the absolute best at everything there ever was. Best at what, exactly? Burning ignorance? Failed leadership? Shitting on science after sending men to the moon? Yeah. Sure. I'll grant you that. We're certainly top contenders in those categories.

What pisses me off is that I know we're better than this. Yes, this country is full of willfully ignorant fucktards intent on launching us back into the dark ages, but we used to keep them on the hopeless fringes of our political system. We didn't give them the power and authority they needed to run this country into the ground. We made a mistake. And we're going to have to rectify that, remove the dangerous halfwits from office and never ever let them have power again, if we don't want to end up on the bottom of the heap.

I don't want to live in a former first world country, people. Neither do you. And neither does that greedy little shithead on Wall Street, but he could give a rat's ass considering he's got the money to move. So it's up to us.

America deserves better. We're gonna have to vote smarter and work harder to ensure she climbs back towards the top. And then, once we've stopped falling down, we've got to help the rest of the world up.

We were a beacon once. We can be that again.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Bard?

It may seem bizarre that in the land infamous for a dry sense of humor, satire is banned. But politicians in both Great Britain and Ireland, it appears, are terrified of people like Jon Stewart. So terrified, in fact, that they've come up with inane rules meant to prevent the carpets in their halls of power from being trampled upon by the muddy boots of comedians.

In Britain, you've got Rule Four:

Guidelines on the use of the pictures are less prescriptive. They do specify that no extracts from Parliamentary proceedings may be used in comedy shows or other light entertainment such as political satire. But broadcasters are allowed to include Parliamentary items in magazine programmes containing musical or humourous features, provided the reports are kept separate.

And in Ireland, ye olde fine print in the Rules of Coverage:

Please note that use of Webcasts and broadcasts of the Houses and Parliamentary Committees must be in accordance with the Standing Orders of both Houses and the Rules of Coverage of the Joint Committee on Broadcasting and Parliamentary Information, in particular: "... that recordings or extracts of the proceedings shall not be used in programmes of light entertainment, political satire, party political broadcasts or in any form of advertising or publicity, other than in the form of news and current affairs programme trailers...".

And these are the rules that kept the Daily Show off the air, for fear that a wee bit o' satire could bring the whole House down. You can read the whole sad saga via Graham Linehan. And then you can watch the dread content right here.

Why yes, yes, I am laughing my arse off. Whyever do you ask?

Thing is, it makes a certain sort of sense, based on history. The whole thing reminded me of a bit I'd read on Irish bards many years ago. It set me galloping through my books looking for the relevant bit, and I found it in The Celts by Gerhard Herm:

When they [the filids and the bairds] rose to tell the old stories, to report on heroes still living, the warriors would hang on to their every word, like actors waiting to learn whether they had performed well or not. Adverse or favourable criticism from such a source could alone set the seal on, or ruin, a reputation; woe betide the prince who failed to reward a singer properly. One who did prove to be tight-fisted had a poisonous quatrain directed at him: "I know him/He'll give no horse for a poem;/He'll give you what his kind allows,/Cows." This kind of thing struck home, and noblemen tried to be generous, to reward good singers, with at least a horse.

I should say so.

So it appears that instead of buying the bards off, these days politicians are attempting to outlaw their more dangerous practices. Knowing that those whom the bards would destroy, they first make ridiculous, they're trying to legislate dignity. The problem with this is, America has freedom of the press, and the world has the internet. This means that the bard's tale can cross oceans at the speed of light. And when these pathetic little rules cause Great Britain's weekly dose of satire to go missing, curiosity gets piqued, and then you end up with articles in the New Statesman. Nothing a comedian could do to politicians is quite as bad as what they do to themselves.

We are quite amused.

[And yes, I know, this week's been rather light on the geology. I assure you, that unhappy state of affairs shall not obtain for long. For one thing, I've been doing research to ensure that my next post on the Skykomish is not merely a gallery of rocks with captions saying, "Ooo, pretty!" Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but I like giving you added value. Additionally, I've been working on the research for a series of posts on various consequences of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet that I believe will meet with your approval (with especial thanks to Evelyn Mervine, who slipped me a copy of a very delicious paper on drumlins). And, last (but only because I've saved the best for), my intrepid companion and I are headed up to Deception Pass this weekend. Three days of wandering about amidst some extremely delicious geology. You will have such pictures, my darlings. So do not despair: the drought will end, and geology shall be thine. Possibly sans cats, but I'll see what I can do about gratuitous felid insertion.]

Call to Action

My darlings, please take one minute and go sign Bernie Sanders's letter to President Obama:

So, today, I am asking the American people that, if you believe deficit reduction should be about shared sacrifice; if you believe the wealthiest people in our country and the largest corporations should be asked to pay their fair share as part of deficit reduction; if you believe that, at a time when military spending has almost tripled since 1997, that we begin to take a hard look at our defense budget; and if you believe the middle-class and working families have already sacrificed enough, I urge you to make sure that the President hears your voice--and he needs to hear it now.

I would urge the American people to go to my Web site, sanders.senate.gov, and sign a letter to the President letting him know that enough is enough…

It's important.

Here's the full text:

Dear Mr. President,

This is a pivotal moment in the history of our country. Decisions are being made about the national budget that will impact the lives of virtually every American for decades to come. As we address the issue of deficit reduction we must not ignore the painful economic reality of today - which is that the wealthiest people in our country and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well while the middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing.  In fact, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth.

Everyone understands that over the long-term we have got to reduce the deficit - a deficit that was caused mainly by Wall Street greed, tax breaks for the rich, two wars, and a prescription drug program written by the drug and insurance companies. It is absolutely imperative, however, that as we go forward with deficit reduction we completely reject the Republican approach that demands savage cuts in desperately-needed programs for working families, the elderly, the sick, our children and the poor, while not asking the wealthiest among us to contribute one penny.  

Mr. President, please listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who believe that deficit reduction must be about shared sacrifice. The wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations in this country must pay their fair share.  At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction package must come from revenue raised by ending tax breaks for the wealthy and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit large, profitable corporations and Wall Street financial institutions.  A sensible deficit reduction package must also include significant cuts to unnecessary and wasteful Pentagon spending.

Please do not yield to outrageous Republican demands that would greatly increase suffering for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.  Now is the time to stand with the tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to survive economically, not with the millionaires and billionaires who have never had it so good.    

Respectfully,

Sen. Bernie Sanders;
and Co-signers

Let's ensure his co-signers number in the millions.  Be heard.

(via Pharyngula)

Taking it Personally

The party of "life" strikes again:

House File 1467, which ought to be called "Shoot First," will be heard in the House Public Safety Committee this Thursday. It would allow the killing of anyone who enters another's yard, even when the person is unarmed and posing no threat; and it would allow the killing of anyone in a public place who seems threatening -- again, even if the person is unarmed, and even if walking or driving away is a safe option. 

This is how cheap the Republicans in Minnesota think life is.  This is how little they value it.  What this bill would mean is that no one, anywhere, is safe at any time.

Think about what kind of society that is.

Back when I worked at a bookstore in the Phoenix metro area, a woman came into the store.  She needed a book on grief.  Could I recommend any?

I was too young to know what grief is, not even twenty.  I'd only suffered a few losses: my grandmother died of breast cancer when I was seven, my grandfather of complications from diabetes a few years later, my uncle the same way when I was fourteen.  But they lived half a continent away.  I'd felt pain, briefly, but their loss hadn't been a constant hole.  What did I know about grief and mourning?  Nothing.  I took her over to the proper section, tried to make a few recommendations based on what other people had bought, rang up her purchases.

That's when she told me why.

She'd had a son.  A little younger than me, just a teenager, on his way home one evening.  He took a shortcut through a neighbor's yard.  He knew the neighbor, didn't think it would be a big deal, nothing he hadn't done before.  But that night, the neighbor picked up a gun.  Went to the door.  Didn't bother with a warning, didn't bother to identify, just shot.

Her son died.  The neighbor faced no consequences.  The kid had been on someone else's property, after all, and it didn't matter to the fine people of Arizona that he was a kid who hadn't done a single threatening thing.  I believe there was a trial, but the jury wouldn't convict.

And if the Republicans in Minnesota had their way, there wouldn't even be that much.

What do you say to a woman whose son had been murdered, shot down by someone they knew, and who had been denied justice by a jury of their peers?  What will you say to the people who will lose loved ones, because their "crime" was stepping on the wrong bit of property or maybe looking too closely at some trigger-happy shit at the local park?  What will you say when the person who pulled the trigger walks away without facing a single instant of jail time for taking a human life?

But that's not all:

Also buried in this bill is a loosening of concealed-carry permit laws to recognize all other state's pistol permits in Minnesota, even states with lax background checks that issue permits valid for life. It also makes it harder for local law enforcement to prevent prohibited purchasers from getting permits to buy guns, and limits law enforcement's ability to confiscate weapons in domestic violence situations. 

So that means guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.  And guns in the hands of abusers.

Basically, what the Republicans are saying is, if the police get called out on a domestic, they can't take the guns away from the very upset, demonstrably violent person who might then decide to reassert his (or, less probably, her) dominance by taking one of those non-confiscated weapons and putting a bullet or few through the head of the person they've been busy abusing.  According to the Republicans, this is right and good and how things are supposed to be.

Am I taking it personally, despite the fact I don't live in Minnesota?  You betcha.  Not only are there people in Minnesota I quite like and would prefer to see survive, but Republican insanity has a distressing tendency to spread to other states.  It's like measles, or smallpox, and there appears to be no vaccine.  There are plenty of people in the great state of Washington who think living in the Wild West is an ideal, not a problem.

So, Minnesotans, make sure your reps know you don't agree that life is so fucking cheap.  And as for the rest of us, we'd best be on our guard.

We'd better be taking it personally.

Watch This. It's Terrifying and Important

This is how easy it is to steal an election:

Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections.

(h/t via Suzanne)

World Coming Down

I'd meant to get the next Oregon Geology post up, but instead have spent the past several days watching in bemusement, sometimes in horror, as the world changes.

In Wisconsin, the Cons in control have rather overplayed their hand.  I'm proud of the Dems there who left the state to deny a quorum, and incredibly proud of the tens of thousands of citizens who continue to protest.  It's not just about the unions, either - if you read that noxious budget, you'll find plenty of gems like Walker & the Cons' plans to sell off the state one piece at a time to corporations.  Keep this in mind as you watch Cons in other states rush to follow suit.  If you were one of those who fell for the "where are the jobs?" schtick, I hope you feel a proper fool just now.  The Cons are never about the jobs.  They're about theocracy and oligarchy, and they're about breaking the backs of the common folk.

Unfortunately for them, they've chosen this moment in time to step on ordinary people.  It might have gone more smoothly for them if, at this very moment, the entire Middle East hadn't flared up, with citizens pouring into the streets to topple dictator after dictator, no matter the personal cost.  After Egypt, ordinary folk aren't quite as willing to abide quietly under the heels of their masters.  I hate to tell the Cons this, but as complacent and submissive, as easily distracted by shiny things, as Americans can be, I don't think this is a good time to be trampling all over women, workers, science, and - well, everybody except for their corporate masters and religious right ringleaders.  Libyans are still out there demanding regime change after getting slaughtered.  Something tells me Americans might be a little more willing to risk a bit of inconvenience to prevent the GOP from decimating the country, considering nothing they do to us could be quite as bad.  We'd be fools just to meekly accept their shit.

What I'm saying is: have your sleeping bags ready and sign-making materials to hand, my fellow Americans, because the time is coming soon when we, like our mates in Wisconsin, may find it necessary to camp out at capitols in order to make our wishes clear.  Surely we can manage that much. 

What's happening in Libya is horrific.  The government there has turned its weapons of war on its own people.  I'm hoping the UN and the US government will get off their asses and put a stop to it, because there are people getting blown to bits out there.  I clicked on a link to a photo today and saw the results of a despot desperate to stay in power: bodies cut in half.  Do not click this link if you can't stand the sight of blood, because the people in this photo were butchered.  I almost wish I hadn't seen it.  But you know what?  I needed to.  It gave me perspective on many things.  It showed me the violence our country hasn't even attempted to stop, and it told me just how fantastically brave these people are, that they'd risk this to demonstrate for their freedom.  It showed me how much freedom is worth.  And it showed me that we've got a ways to go before it gets this bad here, but more importantly, that we need to ensure it never does.

Those folks in the Middle East going out right now to put an end to too many years of autocrats and dictators, those folks who are finding the power of peaceful protest, who are taking their destinies in their hands not with terrorism, but with courage, are so incredible.  I don't know what future they'll build, but at least they've got the strength to build it for themselves.  I hope all of them succeed.  I'm in awe of them.

So there's the political world, all shaken up and in places toppling over, sometimes inspiring and sometimes horrific.  But that's not the only news that's crossed my Twitter feed and left me reeling.  There's also Christchurch, New Zealand, which got hit nearly dead-on with an earthquake.  Buildings are down, people dead, and it's a reminder that we are not as much in control of the world as we might like to believe.  Two earthquakes there in less than twelve months - and likely aftershocks to come.  I know they're strong folk and that they'll manage to rebuild, but I feel for them.  It's not easy, living at a plate boundary.  Days like this are tragic.

Really does seem like the world's coming down.  I just hope a better one rises up.

GOP Priorities: Redefining Rape

Right, then, ladies.  The Cons in Congress, together with a handful of despicable Dems, have decided we must have rape babies.  Observe:

Under this new bill, the only rape survivors who would be able to receive funding [for abortion] would be those who were able to prove that their rapes involved “force.” If your rapist drugged you, intoxicated you, or raped you while you were unconscious, you don’t get coverage. If your rapist used coercion, you don’t get coverage. If this is a case of statutory rape — that is, if you are a thirteen-year-old child, raped by someone outside of your family — you don’t get coverage. If you’re an incest survivor over the age of eighteen — if, say, years of abuse only culminated in a pregnancy after your nineteenth birthday — you just don’t get coverage. And if you live in a state that doesn’t distinguish “forcible rape” from “rape,” you might not qualify, meaning that no matter what the circumstances of your assault were, well, sorry: You might not get coverage.

I cannot begin to describe how angry these fucktards make me.  They won't understand, anyway.  Men can get raped, true - but they can never be impregnated by their attacker.  They don't have to face that particular hell.  And the chances of them being raped in the first place is so vanishingly small that they can't imagine the fear and the trauma women live with.

I would like to explain it to them.  I'd like to sit down in a room with all 173 co-sponsors and describe to them in minute detail everything that happened the morning I woke to a rapist at my door.  You know, it's been nearly twenty years, and I still get sick to my stomach, my hands still sweat and shake, thinking about it.  And I'm one of the lucky ones.  I wasn't physically scarred for life.  I didn't end up pregnant.

If I had, and if an abortion had been denied to me because I didn't fight hard enough, scream loud enough, risk my life adequately enough to satisfy the Cons in Congress, I can promise you something: I would've ended up killing myself if I couldn't abort that baby.  They can't understand, will obviously never understand, why many women wouldn't be able to face carrying their attacker's spawn to term.  Let me just put it this way: there are worse things than getting raped.  One of them is being denied any chance to regain some control over your own body afterward.  One of them is being forced to put your body through the further trauma of pregnancy and childbirth against your will.  And at that time, in the aftermath of the worst morning of my life, I wouldn't have had the mental strength to deal with it.  It was hard enough putting the shattered pieces back together without a swelling belly and constant reminders of the horror I'd gone through.

But they don't care about a woman's welfare.  Obviously not.  They have some fantasy about rape, which makes them just as despicable as the men who rape.  They think there's some kind of honor to be fought for, that a woman should do everything in her power to guard her virtue rather than survive, and if she doesn't, then she's a slut who deserves everything she gets.

I wish I could take them back in time.  I wish I could turn what's in my mind into a film, so I could walk them through the event.  I'd like to see their faces when they're faced with the reality of sexual violence.  I'd like them to have to walk in my mind.  And I'd like to pause every so often, and ask, "Did I fight enough here?  How about here?  Was that rape forcible enough, or was it too gentle to qualify as the kind of rape where a woman is granted an abortion?"

I'd like them to have to experience every emotion with me, both during the attack and in the months and years afterward.  I'd like them to know just what it is to have control and integrity ripped away from you.  I'd like them to walk that fine line, knowing that if you fight too hard, you're going to get yourself killed.  I'd like them to be there in my mind, the moment I realized I didn't have the physical strength to fight my attacker off, and that no one could hear me scream.  I'd like them to share that instant where panic and gut instinct turned into a cold calculation, where I decided it would be a better idea to live.

Do they think I made the wrong choice, choosing survival over a fight to the death?  Do they think that making the choice to survive means signing away your right to your remaining bodily integrity?  And would they still believe that were they forced to live it with me?

They believe abortion is murder, and yet each and every one of them, should you ask, would likely tell you that killing someone in self-defense is justifiable.  Let me try to explain something to them: getting rid of a clump of cells isn't murder, but let's play on their field a moment.  That clump of cells that could become a human being someday is an intruder.  It broke in, it wasn't invited, and it's stealing from me.  It could kill me.  It's certainly going to hurt me, both mentally and physically.  So if you believe some homicides are justified, why do you think it's not justifiable to kill that intruder?

They need to walk in my mind.  They need to watch the months it took, feel the force of will it took, to regain function again, to not hide in the house anymore, to learn how to cope with a terrible new reality.  I dropped out of school, because I wasn't capable of normal function for quite some time.  It took years before I could trust people again.  I still have bad moments.  But I'm nearly a whole human again.  I don't think I would've gotten there if I knew I'd been forced to bear my rapist's baby.  And I don't have words strong enough to describe the visceral reaction I have to the idea.  That would have given me a lifelong connection to my rapist.  That would have been a level of trauma beyond my imagination.  I know my mind well enough to know that bearing a rape baby at the age of 18 would have broken it.

Is that the price I'm supposed to pay for being attacked?  According to the Cons in Congress, it is.  It's my fault, you see.  I should've fought hard enough to keep from being impregnated or died in the attempt.  Nothing else will do.  They care more for a clump of cells than they do for a living, breathing, thinking and suffering woman.

But I don't think they've thought this through, and that's why I'd like them to experience what I did.  Because then, you see, they could imagine what it would be like if that had been their wife, or their daughter, or some other woman they may actually care about.  They may have to look at her a bit differently, and wonder if it's worth destroying her in order to force her to grow a clump of cells fertilized by a rapist.  They might have to ask themselves if they'd really want her rape to be so forcible that it could kill her before they'd allow her the choice of aborting that clump of cells before she gets traumatized all over again.

Because, you see, what the Cons in Congress are saying to women is that if we don't fight, if we don't drive our rapist to really hurt us, then we'd better be prepared to have a rape baby.  If we're strong enough and wise enough and lucky enough to survive, we're to be punished.  We're to have control and bodily integrity ripped away from us once more.  And if we want to avoid that second traumatization, we'd best escalate the situation.  There's only one way to respond to rape in their world: fight.  Even though fighting could get us seriously hurt or killed.

That's why, when I sit down in a room to describe what I went through in excruciating detail, I'd also want Robert K. Ressler, John Douglas, and Ann W. Burgess there.  Two of them are former FBI profilers, the other a forensic nurse.  They wrote a book called Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives.  They understand fully that a one-size-fits-all rape strategy would end in more seriously wounded and murdered women.  Let me direct your attention to the chapter for victims, wherein survival strategies are discussed:

When the amount of rage and aggression obviously exceed what is necessary to force compliance, a violent confrontative response on the part of the victim will generally increase the violence in the assault and place the victim at increased risk for serious physical injury.  Gratuitous violence on the part of the rapist places the victim in dangerous, volatile, and unpredictable situations.  For that reason, we recommend that the first response to violence not be violent.  If direct dialogue does not begin to neutralize the attacker (reduce the intensity of the aggression), then the victim will have no recourse but to employ any means available to object.  The offender believes that he is entitled to sex under any condition, and hence has a callous indifference to the comfort or welfare of the victim.  Both verbal resistance and nonconfrontative resistance strategies are appropriate.  Once it has been demonstrated that the rapist will likely use whatever force neccesary to gain victim compliance, confrontative physical resistance would be unwise unless the victim is confident that it will work.

[snip]

If the attacker responds to victim physical confrontation with increased anger and/or violence, the victim should cease physical resistance.  If he responds by immediately ceasing his aggressive/violent behavior and is willing to engage the victim in conversation, he is also likely to be an exploitative rapist and the victim should use verbal strategies.

[snip]

For the displaced-anger rapist, the victim is a substitute for and a symbol of the hated person(s) in his life.  The primary motive is to hurt and injure the victim.  Aggression may span a wide range from verbal abuse to brutal assault.  Continued physical confrontation, unless the victim is reasonably certain she will be able to incapacitate the attacker, may only justify the need to "punish" the victim and thus escalate the violence.

This is what the Cons in Congress want.  They want us, when confronted with a rapist, to have only one choice: escalate the violence.  Because, you see, if it wasn't violent enough, it wasn't a rape, and hence we are not victims who deserve the right and the funds to decide what to do with our bodies afterward, we're hussies who are supposed to live with the consequences of our "decision."  They want to teach little girls that they must fight to the death rather than do everything in their power to come out of a horrible situation reasonably whole, with a chance at a fairly normal life after.

They want us to ignore the sound survival strategies formulated by two FBI agents and a forensic nurse after years of study of violent offenders, because some of those strategies will lead to a not-so-forcible rape, which means the woman obviously didn't try hard enough to defend her virtue.

You know that I find most everything Cons believe and advocate for these days to be either stupid or despicable.  I make no secret of that opinion.  But some of their ideas are more odious than others.  This is one.  When they advocate disgusting legislation such as this, they become victimizers themselves, no less than the original rapist.

So, after I've had a chance to take them on a walk through my mind, I have one final question for them: How does it feel to join a rapist in victimizing a woman? 

If you find this all as disgusting as I do, take action.  And use the #dearjohn hashtag on Twitter to let John Boehner and all know what you think of them.

It's Not That Easy Addendum

Saw this at Digby's after I'd written the previous post:

All over TV today, I'm hearing the gasbags fret about the fact that Obama hasn't brought up gun control. It's a good question, but they know the answer to it very well: the Democrats have given up that issue, the only problem is that the Republicans refuse to accept their surrender. They have nothing more to say about it.

I'm more curious about why they aren't all over this:

Gov. Jan Brewer's plan to roll back state Medicaid coverage would leave thousands of Arizona's most mentally fragile without health care. 

An estimated 5,200 people diagnosed with a serious mental illness and thousands more who qualify for other behavioral-health services would be among 280,000 childless adults losing health-care coverage under the governor's plan.

But, Jan sez, she'll allocate $10 mil or so to cover psych meds.  Well, that's nice, Jan.  Too bad you're cutting out all the other services that go along with the meds.  You don't seem to realize that it's not just a matter of chucking pills down people's throats.  Meds have to be prescribed, they have to be monitored, they have to be adjusted, they stop working and have to be changed, above all they have to be taken.  Funny thing about mental illness, paranoid people often won't swallow the pills you hand them.

Without intensive monitoring, without counseling appointments, and without a support system that will help these poor ill people get well enough to achieve some level of function, you might as well be hosing them down with homeopathy for all the good it will do.

Just like with transplants, Jan Brewer doesn't get it.  Jan Brewer doesn't care.  That's the takeaway lesson here, people: do not get sick in Arizona, because Jan Brewer doesn't care if you suffer and die.  She and her merry band of fucktards do not believe the great state of Arizona needs to waste its money on you.

Suzanne left a comment on the last installment I want to make sure all of you see:

very well said dana. in the past, i've had to try to navigate the california mental health system for family and friends in addition to my experiences on the pd.

even before the draconian cuts that have happened in ca, the cops had to determine that the person was (1) a danger to themselves (suicidal); or (2) a danger to others (homicidal); or (3) gravely disabled (ie dementia/alzheimer) in order to place an involuntary 72 hour psychiatric hold. the patient would then be transported by ambulance to the county contracted mental health facility where the docs would either agree or disagree.

more times than i can recount, if ya didn't have good insurance, that 72 hour hold was ignored the patient would be discharged early -- many times later that same day.

it is heartbreaking what is happening to our safety net in the country.

its not that easy -- and it is being made harder and harder each and every day.

And that was in California, which according to some was a socialist paradise.

If you want to see what the Republican ideal of health care is, watch Arizona.  And consider carefully whether that's what you want for this country the next time you go to the ballot box.

It's Not That Easy

So David Dayen wrote this article right after the Giffords shooting, taking the WaPo out to the woodshed and administering some tough love for being such complete fuckwits.  You see, WaPo decided that since there's a law on the books in good ol' AZ saying crazy folk can be committed, all those people who didn't take advantage of the law to get Loughner off the streets before he put a bullet in a Congresswoman's head and killed a whole bunch of others have something to answer for:

According to the Washington Post, Arizona has a law on the books that enables anyone to identify a potential victim of mental illness, and remand them for treatment:

Under Arizona law, any one of Jared Lee Loughner’s classmates or teachers at Pima Community College so concerned about his increasingly bizarre behavior could have contacted local officials and asked that he be evaluated for mental illness and potentially committed for psychiatric treatment.

That, according to local mental health and law enforcement officials, never happened.

Ah, yes.  Good ol' Title 36.   Title 36, wot could've saved 'em all.

Let me tell you a little something about Title 36.  And it's gonna get personal.

The Tree of Liberty

There has long been a horrible concern in the back of my mind: that this country, founded on violence, couldn’t get away from violence.  How do you reconcile a country born in revolutionary war to governance by peaceful means?

When our Founders fought the Revolution, it was because they had no alternative.  They didn’t have representation.  They weren’t allowed to be part of England’s political life.  They were simply exploited and used.  They weren’t allowed a peaceful solution.  They couldn’t say these things they hated were the will of the country.  They couldn’t lose an honest political fight because they weren’t allowed a political solution.  So they fought.

I still question the wisdom of going to war, sometimes.  A country born in violence can find it hard to escape future violence.  But I can understand why our Founders felt driven to it.  They had tried and failed to obtain representation.  They had no other way to take their destiny into their own hands.

We don’t have that excuse now.  We have a democratic system, however imperfect, and we have a ballot box.  If the majority of your fellow citizens can’t be brought around to your views, it’s not a license to pick up a gun and achieve by violence what you couldn’t achieve by democracy.  This is not a dictatorship.  We are not ruled by a tyrant.  We’re ruled by a duly-elected government, and if we don’t like it, we can vote in a different one.  If we don’t manage that, well, too fucking bad.  Just because we have the right to vote doesn’t mean we’ll win.

Just because we don’t win doesn’t mean we get to turn to assassination.

And the right doesn’t understand that.

No, they take Thomas Jefferson a little too seriously.  They use his "tree of liberty" remarks as a blank check, a license to preach all the violence they want.  It's too bad we can't dig Jefferson out of the ground, bring him back to life, bring him up to speed, and ask if inciting unstable people to gun down senior citizens and children is what he had in mind when he wrote, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?"  I'm not sure that this sort of blood is what he had in mind for his tree.

We have extreme gun violence in this country.  And yet we have a Constitution that we're assured won't allow us to control guns.  But what if that's not true?  Jerry Coyne voiced an important thought:

Right-wingers, gun advocates, and the NRA use the Second Amendment as justification for Americans owning all sorts of guns, including automatic and semi-automatic weapons. And that’s the way the courts have interpreted it, too.  That Amendment says this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well, we have a militia now—it’s called the military.  How can anyone, even an originalist, say that this Amendment justifies untrammeled access to weapons by everyone? It’s about a militia!  And a “well-regulated” militia, not a bunch of unorganized Americans with rifles.  And if you respond that without guns, ordinary Americans couldn’t overthrow the government and the military like our ancestors overthrew the British, well, I’ll take that risk.

How did we go from "well-regulated militia" to "let the deranged have all the semiautomatics they want"?  How do we pull back from that brink?


I wonder if the Founders' attitudes would be a little more nuanced in this age of hate radio, propaganda television, and weapons whose destructive power they couldn't have imagined?  I hope this isn't what they wanted for this country.

But I think it's time for us to admit that, if we had the power to free slaves and give them rights as full human beings even though the Constitution originally didn't, we surely could do something to end the right to bear Glocks.  If we fail in that, we at least need to find a way to push the eliminationist rhetoric that gives deranged people with Glocks an idea for a mission to the fringes where it belongs.

And we need to remind our fellow citizens on the right that failure to impose their will on the country by convincing the majority they're right does not then give them license to impose it by force.

Enough With the False Equivalence!

When Jerry Coyne said,

While it does seem that this kind of violence is whipped up more by conservatives than liberals (viz. abortion-doctor killings), conservatives too can be the targets of gun-equipped crazies. (Remember John Hinkley, who tried to kill Ronald Reagan just to get the attention of Jodie Foster?)

I realized it's time for a handy guide to determining if the left is equivalent to the right in terms of inciting violence.  So here we go:

1.  Is the violence recent?  

Incident less than ten years old - provisionally equivalent.  You may proceed to the next question.

Incident more than ten years old - NOT EQUIVALENT.  Full stop.

2.  Did the violence take place in a pervasive atmosphere of eliminationist rhetoric spewed by liberal political leaders, media outlets including network news channels, and activist groups embraced by elected leaders?

Yes - provisionally equivalent.  You may proceed to the next question.

No -  NOT EQUIVALENT.  Full stop.

3.  Is there more than one example of such violence?

Yes - you managed a miracle.  Please provide evidence to back up your assertion, because no one else has been able to find any.

No - NOT EQUIVALENT.  Full stop.

Perhaps someone with some time and more skill with graphics than I've got could whip us up an easy-to-use reference chart.

Outside of the false-equivalence quibble, which in this case was weak tea anyway, and the over-reliance on the "but he was ker-azy!" trope, the rest of Jerry's post is wonderful and thought-provoking and definitely worth reading in full.  I shall be returning to it later in the week, in fact.

What Did You Think Would Happen?

In my home state of Arizona, a man loaded a gun, picked up a knife, and went to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's first Congress on Your Corner.  While she met with constituents at the local Safeway, he walked up behind her and put a bullet through her head.  He then proceeded to kill as many people as he could.

John M. Roll.  Gabriel Zimmerman. Dorwin Stoddard.  Christina-Taylor Green.  Dorthy Murray.  Phyllis Schneck.

Thirteen others he shot, and he had the bullets for dozens more.  But two people at the event tackled him.  They put themselves at risk to save others.  Everyday heroes, doing what had to be done, saving who knows how many people.

It should never have been necessary.

Intern Daniel Hernandez, who had been working for Rep. Giffords for just five days, ran toward the gunfire.  He checked the wounded and dying, applied what first aid he could to Rep. Giffords (likely saving her life in the process), gave instructions to those who were trying to assist the injured, and stayed by Giffords' side until they reached the hospital.  Later, he said, "Of course you're afraid, you just kind of have to do what you can....  It was probably not the best idea to run toward the gunshots, but people needed help."

It should never have been necessary.

Rep. Giffords is still alive, and has a chance to recover.  She had some of the finest trauma surgeons in the country there to save her life.

It should never have been necessary.

There are already far too many people ready and eager to attribute this assassination attempt to a lone nut, a deranged individual, a mentally-ill freak.  He may be those things.  We don't know much about him yet - we know that he displayed some pretty fantastic paranoia about the government, but he had enough wits about him to plan for this.  We know he targeted a Democrat in a Republican-rich environment.  And he had plenty of people to egg him on.

Sarah Palin, who scrubbed this from her website today:

And who tweeted this:

What did you think would happen, Sarah?

Giffords's opponent in the November elections, Jesse Kelly, held a little event over the summer:

What did you think would happen, Jesse?

Sharron Angle said, "... if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?"

What did you think would happen, Sharron?

I could go on.  But some of the insanity's been neatly gathered in one place here, and there's just too much of it to keep up with.  If you've paid any attention to politics in the last two years, you already know what I'm talking about.  The eliminationist rhetoric, spewed by political leaders on the right, parroted and amplified by Faux News and hate radio and right-wing blogs.  We're swimming in a sea of hate.  The vast majority of the Republicans have been winding their base up, associating with people who should be anathema in American politics, even trying to hire right-wing hate radio hosts who said,

“I am convinced that the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendments rights was they gave me a Second Amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will. This is the standoff. When I say I’ll put my microphone down on November 2nd if we haven’t achieved substantial victory, I mean it. Because if at that point I’m going to up into the hills of Kentucky, I’m going to go out into the Midwest, I’m going to go up in the Vermont and New Hampshire outreaches and I’m going to gather together men and women who understand that some things are worth fighting for and some things are worth dying for.”

They will stand before you tomorrow, and the day after, and as long as it takes them to remember that a man put a bullet in Gabrielle Giffords's head, and tell you how tragic, how unexpected, how utterly awful this was.  But they had just spent years telling their followers that bullets were the answer.

So I ask them again:

What did you think would happen?

Because this is what you told Americans you wanted.  And some Americans are mentally unstable enough to believe you, and to act.  They aren't lone nuts.  They aren't simply crazed individuals.  They have Republican politicians and Fox News and right-wing hate radio, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, whispering and shouting and screaming in their ear that liberals are killing America, that our President is a crypto-Muslim socialist who will bring fascism and death panels and FEMA camps to this country. 

And the unbalanced few decide to act.  What else did you expect?

What did you think would happen?

There's a responsibility that comes with free speech, with being a political leader or media figure.  There's a responsibility to realize that if you create a rhetorical climate in which all liberals are enemies worthy of death and destruction, if you wind up fear to a fever pitch, if you convince people that America is on the brink of total destruction if something is not done right now, if you literally paint targets on your political opponents, you are creating the conditions necessary for someone to act out the violence you suggest.  You are, in part, responsible for their acts.

You make it necessary for people to tackle gunmen, run into gunfire to save as many as possible, for trauma surgeons to do their best to save the lives you've helped destroy.

You helped kill a nine year-old girl today.  A federal judge.  A social worker.  A pastor.  Two old women who were just going to the grocery store.

You tried to kill a Congresswoman.  And even if she comes out of this with her life, even if by luck and by quick-thinking interns and incredibly skilled trauma surgeons she survives with minimal permanent brain injury, she will always bear scars. 

Sixteen other people will bear scars with her.  Some of those scars won't be visible, but they will always be there.

You, on the right, you helped make this happen.  You.  The left has nothing like you.  The leaders on the left do not go around casually talking bloody revolution and assassination.  You do.

And a man did your bidding today.

Are you proud?

Ding, Dong, DADT Is Dead!

Finally!

I am petty much dying of shock, because somehow, six Senate Republicans managed to do something right for a change.  Drugs?  Blackmail?  Vestigial human decency?  Who knows?  All I know is, 57 Dems, 6 Republicans, and 2 Independents pulled together and

DADT IS DEAD!

Huzzah!

You may ask, why not 58 Dems?  Well, that's because Sen. Manchin seems to find holiday parties more important than voting for legislation that restores civil rights to those who serve in our country's military.  When it comes to lead, follow, or get out of the way, he apparently chose option 3. 

Would've been a perfect day if the Senate hadn't been busy killing the DREAM Act earlier.  Sens. Lugar, Bennett and Murkowski deserve no blame on that one - they did the right thing, it was five defecting Dems who decided children who got dragged into this country illegally don't get a chance to go to college and get decent jobs in the only country they've ever truly called home.  You can find the offending dumbfucks at the link, and add them to your list of Dems who deserve to get primaried when next they beg for our votes.

Still.  Banner day.  I have no idea how the hell this happened - I expected Senate Cons to stand united against teh gayz, considering what frothing insane Tea Partiers are likely to do to the Republicans who try to take even small, popular stands for basic rights and freedoms - but I'm so glad DADT is dead.  Let's hope Gates et al work quickly to get the new policy in force.

And should you get a chance, give an LGBT servicemember a hug today.

Imaginary Death Panels vs. The Real Deal

I've been trying for several days now to figure out how to capture my outrage in words, but it's impossible to do it.  Let's just say that if I ever get a chance to do it, I will gladly punch Arizona's political overlords in the face.

The same pieces of shit who have no problem going on and on about imaginary death panels in order to defeat health care reform also have no problem with creating death panels of their own (h/t):

The only political effort to implement death panels since Obama got his health reform bill passed has been in the state of Arizona. There the Republican-controlled legislature with the approval of GOP Governor Jan “there are headless bodies turning up all over our desert” Brewer has told 98 people waiting for transplants that they must die.

Those 98, who are either poor or uninsurable by private insurance due to pre-existing conditions, need bone marrow, lung, heart, and other forms of transplants. They were told by the state’s Medicaid program—Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, or AHCCCS—that they qualified for coverage. But, this October 1, AHCCCS said it could not in fact pay for their transplants. Facing a billion-dollar-plus budget deficit, the Arizona legislature cut out all state funding for transplantation retroactively!

This means that people who were told they had a chance at life had the rug pulled out from under them without any warning. The Republican legislature not only acted as a death panel; it chose to balance the budget on the backs of the poorest and most desperate of Arizonians by welshing on a promise.

Just to be clear, the legislature and governor did not say there would be no more transplant funding going forward. They said they are telling those to whom coverage has already been promised to drop dead.

I hope Arizonans have the decency to realize just what kind of murderous assclowns they've elected, and remedy that the next time they go to the ballot box.  Otherwise, my old home state will gain a deserved reputation as the worst place in America to live.  Jan Brewer & Co. seem intent on proving that when it comes to treading on the poor and immigrants, nobody stomps harder than they do.  Once suspects she and her cronies rather enjoy the sound of bones breaking under their boots.

This, America, is what it looks like when the modern Cons get their way.  This is what they think this country should be.  If it doesn't horrify you, then there is no trace of morality or decency left in your shriveled little soul.

Shoes on Other Feet and So Forth

Oh, the humanity!  Poor Andy Harris.  He's discovering two important things: that guvmint-run health care is a desirable thing, and that gaps in coverage suck (h/t):

A conservative Maryland physician elected to Congress on an anti-Obamacare platform surprised fellow freshmen at a Monday orientation session by demanding to know why his government-subsidized health care plan from the government takes a month to kick in.

Republican Andy Harris, an anesthesiologist who defeated freshman Democrat Frank Kratovil on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, reacted incredulously when informed that federal law mandated that his government-subsidized health care policy would take effect on Feb. 1 – 28 days after his Jan. 3rd swearing-in.

“He stood up and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care,” said a congressional staffer who saw the exchange.

Awww, poor baby.  Somebody call the waambulance - only he can't afford it, cuz he ain't got coverage.  Oh, the outrage!

Harris, a Maryland state senator who works at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and several hospitals on the Eastern Shore, also told the audience, “This is the only employer I’ve ever worked for where you don’t get coverage the first day you are employed,” his spokeswoman Anna Nix told POLITICO.

Well, ain't he special?  I've never yet had the joy of working at a job where I don't have a waiting period for coverage.  Even my union-negotiated insurance didn't kick in until I'd been employed for 60 or 90 days - I don't remember quite which, because I was just so damned happy the company had a physician's assistant on the premises I could make use of immediately.  Came in useful when I had that ear infection that nearly turned serious.  Without them, I'd have let it go until it became critical, because as I mentioned before, I wouldn't have insurance for months.

All in the audience who've either had to endure a waiting period or no coverage at all, please raise your hands.  Yup.  It's what I thought - there are a fuck of a lot of us.

Maybe someone who knows how to do such things should start an online petition for Andy.  Maybe he'd feel better about having a waiting period for his government-run insurance to kick in if he knew all us peons working for private companies have to wait even longer for crap insurance that costs a fortune and, before the evil Obamacare law passed, could drop us like a hot rock at the first sign of our coming down with something expensive. 

And don't forget to remind Andy at every conceivable opportunity just how ironic it is that the man who hates guvmint-run health care so can't bloody wait to get himself some.

What He Said and Other Political Nonsense

Lately, our own George has been on a political roll.  It's about enough to make me put on a cheerleading outfit and jump up and down, because I haven't anything to add except "Yeah, baby!"

First, read a succinct and cutting history of modern American politics in "What You Can't Say, political edition," which should be required reading for students.  Then watch him deconstruct a scary Con flier in "Scared yet?"  I'm now wanting to send him every stupid conservative political flier I get just so I can watch him unleash his Smack-o-Matic upon it.

In other political nonsense, I want everyone to go read this Think Progress post: "While GOP Sought Exemption For Their Industry, PA Debt Collector Tricked Consumers With Phony Courtroom."  Then give it to everyone you know who believes Cons are looking out for the little guy.  Remind them that this sort of corporate behavior is considered just business as usual to Cons.  That's the free market, kiddies!

After that, if you need some entertainment at Cons' expense, you can go read Steve Benen's "Targeting Programs That Don't Exist (But Should)," wherein we learn that the Cons' Big Idea for cutting spending is to eliminate programs that no longer exist, while claiming they cost ten times more than they actually did. 

Great job, America.  You elected the most conspicuously unintelligent group of politicians to Congress in our country's history.  It's too bad we have to watch this country die from terminal stupidity whilst living in it.  Maybe it's time for a move to a nice tropical island somewhere.  One with an army of cabana boys, bringing me drinks on an assembly-line scale, because I'll need vats of the stuff while I watch the Cons in Congress proceed to destroy what little they left standing the last time.

I Agree With Glenn Greenwald

In this column, pointed out by my dear Paul.  So spend the time you would've spent reading a post by me and go read Glenn's instead.  Then bask in the warm glow of knowing the Blue Dog dumbfucks and their buddy Blanche Lincoln got the absolute stuffing knocked out of them.

Timid Dems may choose to believe they got their asses handed to them on a stake because they weren't Con enough, but if they do, they're just as dumbfuck as the dogs. 

And that's all I have to say about such matters at the moment, because I haven't finished House season six yet, the next Wheel of Time novel's sitting on my entry table howling for me to take it from the box, and Written in Stone isn't far behind.  My characters are screaming for my attention, old friends are crawling out of the woodwork, new friends are popping up like mushrooms in our lawn at work after the rain, the cat still thinks she's freezing to death, and my house would seriously appreciate some scrubbing bubbles.  In other words, I'm like killing snakes.  That's a Welsh phrase meaning busy.

Too busy to do more than tell cowering Dems to suck it up, grow a pair, own the progressive agenda, and learn a lesson from Cons about being motherfucking ruthless when it comes to pursuing an agenda.  If they can't learn that simple lesson after all that's happened, I'm not the one who can teach them.  As for Con stupidity, pounding it's not fun anymore - I like harder targets.  This is like shooting fish in a barrel - using tactical nukes. 

Don't worry, we'll get round to spanking them this winter when they have another go at raping this country up the arse.  I might even give up snark for sarcasm.  I'd try satire, but unfortunately, judging from the way they fell for Stephen Colbert's character, they don't quite understand what satire is.  Too bad - it's always more fun when the victim understands what's about to destroy them.  And believe me when I say that satire has destroyed more than one kingdom.  When you have to rely on a base as imbecilic as the Teabaggers, well, let's just say that despite a few battles won, the war's not looking too good.

Shutting up now.  House beckons.  I'll get all y'all some geology a bit later, and stay tuned for some culture as well, my darlings.

Cujo Spanks David Broder

Not to be missed.  Especially if, like me, you love watching David Broder get the crap kicked out of him.  Wot an asshat.



For those who are wondering, yes, I'm still up and blogging at 5:15am.  Post-PMS insomnia is teh awesome.

A Bloodbath, Not a Massacre

Because if it was a massacre, Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell would've ended up added to our list of national embarrassments.  As it is, we just have to worry about John "Agent Orange" Boehner parading around as Speaker of the House for the next two years.  Anyone know where I can get airsick bags in bulk?

Great job, America.  I do hope you enjoy the endless round of idiocy leading to the next Great Recession the lackwit majority of you voted for.  Those of you who don't pay attention to politics might not realize what voting for Cons does, but you'd think all those episodes of CSI would've taught you that arsonists aren't so much interested in setting backfires, but pouring gasoline on the conflagration.

At least I know the majority of my readers are smart enough not to give them matches.  You, my darlings, are my only consolation.  Well, you and endless episodes of House.  Which I am now going back to, as I haven't enough alcohol handy to ease the annoyance.  It's too bad.  I should've had a glass of something good handy with which to toast Blanche Lincoln's loss - my other consolation, as she's the one Senate Dem up for reelection this year whose unceremonious asskicking I can wholeheartedly applaud.  Her loss is our definite gain.

I shall leave you all with the wise words of Phoebes-in-Santa-Fe:

Okay, so we mourn our losses tonight and we get back to work tomorrow. 

Indeed we do.

Commending These to Your Attention

I have to go to bed early so that I'm nice and fresh for fending off used car salesmen in the morning.  I haven't yet decided how I'm going to approach this situation.  I got my hand in by test-driving a car I'm lukewarm about, and managed to escape without being invited back to the office to discuss a deal.  But we're in the big leagues, now, going to two different large dealerships and seeing two cars I adore already.  One is the snappiest Nissan Sentra I've ever seen in my life, complete with spoiler (and black!), the other a nearly-new Honda Civic that looks utterly delish.  Both are manual transmission.  Both are low mileage.  Both have clean Carfax reports.  And both seem like they would make me a happy woman indeed.  So I have two issues, here: 1) must talk salesman into lowering prices and 2) must choose between them.  What if the price is right for both?  What if I fall head-over-heels for both? 

Sean and I pondered this during the slow bits of work, and decided the only mechanism for choice would be to throw the used car salesmen in a mud wrestling pit.  Victor gets the sale.

(Gentlemen, if you're reading this, I just want to assure you it very probably won't come to that.  But you might want to have swim trunks to hand just in case.)

Anyway, whist I'm off on those adventures, here are a few links to keep you occupied.

Bing at Happy Jihad's has treated an Answers In Genesis "research paper" with due respect, i.e., none.  I plucked two quotes from it, one because it's beautiful, the other because I couldn't resist going there.

Quote #1:

The overwhelming consensus of the astronomical community is that you are not a part of it, Jason. 

Brilliant.  Simply brilliant.

Quote #2:

The Bing Bang sits on your head and farts, feeb.

So, ah, I guess that would be Bing Bang Boom, then.  Ah ha ha.

Right. 

Our own John Pieret (may he get well soon!) points out that John Wilkins has an important project going.  Scientists!  Here's your chance to shape a book explaining the basics of scientific method(s) to laypeople such as myself:

So scientists should follow the series and assist in formulating the manual and nonscientists can help in making it intelligible to people like them. Everyone can, I'm sure, learn something along the way and have fun in the effort.

Set to!

Finally, a pair o' quotes and a post from Steve Benen.

Quote #1:

Republicans will keep asking, "Where are the jobs?" and no one seems inclined to answer, "Your party got rid of them."

Quote #2:

And maybe it's just me, but when I hear about a "Goldilocks" planet that appears capable of supporting life, I don't think, "Cool, maybe there are aliens there." I think "Cool, maybe we can move there after we've finished screwing up here."

And the post:  "Lying About Lying is Never a Good Idea."  Just remember, kiddos, the woman who lied and lied and lied and then lied about lying repeatedly is the same one who said that a person hiding Jews should always tell the truth when Nazis come looking for said Jews, because lying is never ever justified.

How's that again, Christine?