Pork Pushers Demand Name Change for Swine Flu

Funny. I don't remember chicken farmers whining over avian flu being called avian flu. You'd think pork producers would be just as tough. Yet here they are, squealing like stuck pigs:

That's right, people. It's not just Obama refusing to call SWINE Flu by its real name - namely, SWINE Flu - but on The Takeaway this morning I actually heard the airheads transition from saying SWINE Flu to calling it the H18237FN10DSND027E - HIke! virus or something. And they even admitted they were doing that because the oh-so-tenderized sensibilities of the men who control the meat industry believe that calling SWINE Flu "SWINE Flu" is bad for business.

Fine. So what if it is? As Tristero so graphically points out, industrial pig farms are breeding grounds for disease and environmental disaster. Perfect places to breed a deadly flu virus. Call a spade a spade.

Of course, there's more to it than that:

Several commenters have objected to my refusal to accede to the wishes of corporate pork production and euphemize swine flu by calling it something else. Their argument is that calling swine flu "swine flu" harms small, independent pork producers. Farm Girl, who has studied food issues closely and certainly cares deeply about small, independent farming, agrees with me:

...Mexico's swine flu (and keep calling it that, no matter what the National Pork Producers say...)

In responding to the objections, I also posted several links to scientists' discussion of swine flu that make the point that the term is accurate (go here, here, and here, for example. ) In comments to my previous post, Glen Tomkins writes:

Long-established practice in the field is to characterize strains of Influenza A first and foremost by which species it attacks. Thus we have avian (or bird) flu, swine flu, horse flu, dog flu and human flu.

There are other ways to characterize a given strain, such as by which type of the two antigenic glycoproteins it displays, and by this scheme, this swine flu is H1N1, and the avian flu of recent concern is H5N1.

But characterization by the animal of origin is the more basic and informative classification, and the HxNx name should be used as the primary name only if we're talking about a strain of human flu. The animal vs human flu distinction is the most basic and informative because strains of flu adapted to animals other than humans tend to behave very differently in humans than strains adapted to us. The animal strains tend to cause more severe illness and death, because of some combination of our not being well-adapted to them, and their being not well-adapted to us. A microbe that uses us as its meal plan does not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs,and tends to do so only insofar as it hasn't "learned" any better by long practice at adapting to us. But these animal strains also tend to not spread as readily among humans, presumably because that trick, much like not killing us, also requires adaptation to our peculiarities.

So it's "swine flu", not because we have it in for the porciculturists among us, or even because "swine flu" is a sexier phrase for CNN to use than "H1N1 flu", but because that's the way the nomenclature works, and works most effectively to convey important differences in expected disease behavior that calling it "H1N1" would fail to convey.

Exactly.

It strikes me as exceedingly weird to insist that we describe the agent of a potential pandemic with a pretentious, and less accurate, euphemism. To do so at the insistence of powerful corporations because it might hurt their profits is simply outrageous.

I'm with Tristero. Fuck the pork producers' feelings. And no, they can't shelter themselves behind the small farmers they push out of business. Don't let them try it.

And now for something completely different:

Arlen Specter's Personals Ad

You know, I kind of wondered how Arlen Specter signaled to the Dems that he might be ready for a party change. Didn't realize he was desperate enough to advertise:

Is your tent big enough for my vote? Rakish, slightly used 79-year-old Senator seeks new political party for fun, games, and an uncontested primary.

I’m known as Snarlin’ Arlen, but I’ll be your sweet little kitten of a 60th vote for at least 29 seconds of filibuster-breaking joy (unless they actually seat that 60th guy). I won’t support you, share your opinions, or respect you the morning after a roll call. None of that. I’m only getting into party-swapping to get back at that old windbag of a party that I used to be with because it threatened to cheat on me with a younger, more ideologically pure man....

Alas, these intertoobz romances seldom last. He should never have fallen for those eHarmony.com commercials.

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Sen. Arlen Specter's on the fast track to getting his ass handed to him in a Democratic primary:

When Sen. Arlen Specter announced that he's switching parties, there were press reports indicating that he told President Obama, "I'm a loyal Democrat. I support your agenda."

On "Meet the Press" this morning, David Gregory asked about health care, with this quote in mind. Specter's response was important.

GREGORY: It was reported this week that when you met with the president, you said, "I will be a loyal democrat. I support your agenda." Let me test that on probably one of the most important areas of his agenda, and that's health care. Would you support health care reform that puts up a government run public plan to compete with a private plan issued by a private insurance company?

SPECTER: No. And you misquote me, David. I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that. And last week, after I said I was changing parties, I voted against the budget because the budget has a way to pass health care with 51 votes, which undermines a basic Senate institution to require 60 votes to impose closure on key issues.... I did not say I am a loyal Democrat.

It's quite a start for Specter's career in Democratic politics, isn't it? In the four whole days he's been a Democrat, Specter has voted against the Democratic budget, rejected a Democratic measure to help prevent mortgage foreclosures and preserve home values, announced his opposition to the president's OLC nominee, and this morning rejected a key centerpiece of the Democratic health care plan.

If he's not going to vote with the Dems on a single fucking issue, and continue to act just like a Con by denying reality, there's really no point to having him around. The amusement factor's worn off, even though the Cons are still in a slight freakout over his betrayal.

Of course, we all know the reason he ended up with a D after his name. He's sulking because the rabid right doesn't like him:

The party has changed so much since I was elected in 1980. And now, when I cast a vote with the Democrats on the stimulus package, that one vote created a precipitous drop so that I was looking at a situation where the prospects were very bleak to win a Republican primary, and I simply was not going to put my 29-year record before the Republican primary electorate.

No, because the Republican primary electorate is a bunch of raving lunatics. I just hope the Democratic primary electorate is a bunch of dirty fucking hippies, because it'll warm my heart to see Specter chucked out on his ear by both parties.

There's at least one challenger willing to take him on:

Joe Sestak's not giving up on primarying this guy. I hope he does. Maybe we can set up a special Lieberman Congress at a kiddie table somewhere so all these principled moderates can vote against each other's priorities and pat each other on the back for it.

I look forward to donating money to that campaign. Heh.

So, Arlen's failing spectacularly as a Democrat. How's the Con rebranding going? Ooo, not too good:

The newly unveiled National Council for a New America officially launched yesterday, hosting a town-hall like forum for 100 people at a strip-mall pizza shop in a D.C. suburb. Leading the discussion were House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R). I've read several reports on the event, and I'm still not sure what the point was.

The initiative reflects the emerging consensus of Republican leaders on how to take on Obama and rebuild their party. Worried that the GOP is being portrayed only as the opposition party, prominent Republicans hope to draw attention to their agenda by using well-known figures such as Bush and Romney to tout their ideas. But they don't believe they need to shift their political views to the left or the right to win.

And therein lies part of the problem. This new initiative is intended to be little more than a fresh coat of paint on a car that no longer runs. There's some value in a discussion that focuses more on Republican policy than politics -- the event reportedly featured very little Obama bashing -- but these GOP leaders don't seem to appreciate the fact that their policies failed miserably and aren't popular with voters.

[snip]

... [T]here were some policy-oriented questions from an obviously Republican-friendly crowd, which spoke to a larger truth. One young person asked what the government can do for people who "have aspirations to college" but can't afford it "because college expenses have gone up." Another asked what government can do "to assist small businesses."

So, at a Republican event with a Republican crowd about the future of Republican ideas, those on hand wanted to hear more about what the government can do for them.

Somehow, I don't think "Tax cuts" is the answer those folks are looking for. Oops.

And finally, in a follow-up to the hurricane warning brought to us courtesy of David "Diapers" Vitter's decision to hold up Craig Fugate's nomination as FEMA chief, we now know his lame excuse for doing so:

And here's the stupid, as explained by Vitter's compatriot from Louisiana:

Vitter's fellow Louisiana senator, Democrat Mary Landrieu, backs Fugate. She said, however, that she understands Vitter's concerns, which apparently relate to FEMA's maps of controversial "high-velocity flood zones," a designation related to coastal areas that are at high risk in a hurricane or an area that faces significant risk in the event of a flood. Federal regulations currently prohibit FEMA from funding new construction in such zones, and Louisiana officials want more flexibility.

So, what we have here is a Senator from Louisiana placing a hold on the most-qualified FEMA nominee ever, because he wants more "flexibility" to build in the areas most prone to flooding in huricanes.

Fugate himself provided what seems the appropriate response to Vitter's actions. Discussing the government's "National Response Plan" in the aftermath of Katrina in 2006, Fugate said:

"It's a good document, [but] we may have to use a 2-by-4 on a couple of folks."

Vitter seems a perfect candidate for that 2-by-4.

And I'd be happy to wield it, only I'm afraid that a man with a diaper fetish might enjoy it far too much.

I'm afraid the chances of these assclowns ever being fit to govern again is vanishingly small.

Taking the Night (Mostly) Off

Sunday Sensational Science is on hiatus this week. Most other blogging is also on hiatus for tonight. I'm stuffing my brain with fiction until it overflows. Sorry, my darlings, but it must be done.

In the meantime, check out this awesome upset at the Kentucky Derby:




Fantastic. That's why I love horse racing.

We'll resume our regularly scheduled blogging tomorrow.

The Teabaggers Make a Questionable Hiring Choice

OMFG.

The Teabaggers have hired a Media Training Coordinator:

Recognizing that the teabagging movement will never be taken seriously unless they grow beyond their astroturf roots and into a tree of liberty and low taxes for all but mostly rich people, the Tea Party Patriots (not to be confused with the more religious-minded Glory Holier Than Thous) are taking great pains to shape their ragged army of home-schooling moms, Randians, Scientologists, Social Security-collecting seniors who don't like that damn hippity-hoppy music, Amway distributors who are going to be totally fucking rich, Neo-Nazis, birthers, embittered divorced dads with big dreams that never panned out, social maladroits (aka engineers), law professors from Tennessee, Birchers, Paultards, and Libertarians (see: maladroits, social) into a Lean Mean Message Machine.

[snip]

With this in mind, the Teabagging Patriots have acquired the services of "Media Relations Expert" Andrew Ian Dodge:

In an effort to assist the hundreds (if not thousands) of Tea Party Patriots who are now facing the media for the first time in their lives, we are pleased to announce that Andrew Ian Dodge has agreed to serve as a volunteer Media Training Coordinator for TPP. Andrew has already positively impacted many in the movement with his straight forward, hard hitting approach to media training.

As best I can tell, Mr. Dodge is a blogger ("bloggers who combine a taste for heavy metal music with a taste for heavy metal politics..."), an author (self-published), a rock star (more on that later) and a computer game reviewer.

TBogg has samples of his, ahem, "creative works." I'm taking a biopsy of the tumor otherwise known as Andrew's self-published book, and shall allow you to determine whether it's benign or cancerous:

Andrew, for a change, was reading something entirely unrelated to his work. He was, as it were, reading for total pleasure for the first time in a very long time. He was reading a paperback copy of the latest from Tom Clancy. A book with not even a hint of the supernatural in it. It merely contained all sorts of rouges bent on destroying the United States and its allies.

TBogg has the rest of that passage (which, unbelievably, gets much worse). And a music video. I wish he'd provided complimentary brain bleach.

I'm left with just one question: do the Teabaggers seriously think this guy can help them?

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Awww, poor widdle Faux News didn't get to ask a question at a press conference they refused to put on broadcast teevee, and now they're bawling:

On Wednesday night, President Obama held a prime time White House press conference, fielding questions from a variety of news outlets. It lasted about an hour, and is always the case, some news outlets didn't get a chance to ask a question. It's the nature of the process -- some folks are going to get left out. Better luck next time.

And while it's not uncommon to hear some grumbling the morning after a press conference about one outlet or another feeling "snubbed," I can't recall the last time a news outlet whined as incessantly as Fox News is whining now about not getting called on during Wednesday's presser.

Soon after the event, Fox News was complaining. That's hardly odd. But 48 hours later, the carping was still going strong.

Chris Wallace, for example, whined yesterday about the president "boycotting" Fox News, because Fox didn't air the press conference the way the real networks did. (Is "boycott" really the right word here?) Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett said Friday the president deliberately sought "retribution" against the Republican network. Last night, Sean Hannity was outraged. Glenn Beck whined, "What a surprise. I mean how can the guy face Ahmadinejad but he can't face Fox?"

Let me put this in terms that maybe even Faux News can understand. Think of press conferences as toy soldiers, and the reporters as children. Unfortunately, there aren't enough toy soliders for every child to have one. So everybody has to take turns playing. The last two times, Faux News got to play with a soldier. This time, Obama decided that the other kids deserved a turn. And now Faux News is throwing an enormous fucking tantrum because they think they're more special than the other kids.

Special, yes. As in, "Must be sent to a special school because they don't play well with others and refuse to stop disrupting the big-kids class."

And here comes Big Daddy Gingrich trying to browbeat the teacher into letting his spoiled brat kids get their way:

A pretty good barometer of Republicans' utter desperation these days is just how farflung from reality their attempts to characterize President Obama are getting to be.

Newt Gingrich, who's clearly preparing for a 2012 White House run, was interviewed yesterday on Fox by Greta Van Susteren. Gingrich has been trying desperately to smear Obama as a weak leader, while cozying up to the GOP's tea-bagging populist wing.

So he hit on a way to hit both sweet spots in one swell foop: Smear Obama as an incipient authoritarian.

The subject was Obama's press conference earlier this week. First in the order, of course, he had to blame Obama's popularity on the media: "I think the Washington White House press corps has taken such a pathetic dive with this president that they ought to just be part of his PR firm!"

But then he there was this exchange:

Van Susteren: Well, you know, Fox News Channel got, quote, punished -- Fox News Channel didn't get a question the other night -- Major Garrett, our White House correspondent -- because the Fox broadcast, not the Fox News Channel, but the Fox broadcast decided not to air the press conference.

Gingrich: Right. Which should tell all of you about the abuse of power inherent in this administration. They now control General Motors, they basically control Chrysler, they control Citibank, they control AIG, and they are prepared to punish people.

I think that's very dangerous, to have a president who thinks he should get up in the morning and punish Americans. You know, appease foreigners, bow to the Saudi king, embrace the Venezuelan dictator, and punish Americans? I think that's a very dangerous attitude.

Newt, I think you're displaying a very dangerous psychosis. You should get some help with that before you end up standing nekkid in the middle of a city street screaming about the spiders and traumatizing innocent passers-by.

I'm not sure what explains a psychosis this strong, displaying with such varied symptoms - paranoia, narcissim, hysteria, sociopathic tendencies, hallucinations and delusions, among others. But Michael Steele may have an explanation. It may actually be something in the water:

Steele also talked about why the GOP had fallen out of favor with the American public. It’s not that the country is “less conservative,” he said. “It’s that our credibility with them is shot. It’s that we left them along the side of the road on our way to drinking that Potomac River water, getting high on power and influence and forgetting how we got where we are.”

Well, well. Drug psychosis. Admitted addiction. That explains quite a lot, actually. Of course, this came right after Steele got done telling moderate Republicans to come on back to the Party - as long as they don't try to change anything:

“All you moderates out there, y’all come. I mean, that’s the message,” Steele said at a news conference. “The message of this party is this is a big table for everyone to have a seat. I have a place setting with your name on the front.

“Understand that when you come into someone’s house, you’re not looking to change it. You come in because that’s the place you want to be.“

Hey, Michael? You might really want to rethink that metaphor. It makes you sound like a pompous, intolerant ass.

Of course, he is. So never mind. Let's just focus on the fact that we'd best be bracing for an out-of-season hurricane:

Paul Krugman noted the other day, "Bobby Jindal makes fun of 'volcano monitoring,' and soon afterwards Mt. Redoubt erupts. Susan Collins makes sure that funds for pandemic protection are stripped from the stimulus bill, and the swine quickly attack. What else did the right oppose recently?"

Well, as it turns out, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) doesn't want to let the Senate vote on President Obama's nominee to head FEMA.

A Louisiana senator is stalling Florida emergency management director Craig Fugate's nomination as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Fugate had sailed through his nomination hearing and Monday cleared the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee by a unanimous voice vote. Republican Sen. David Vitter said, however, that he'd blocked Fugate because of concerns he has with FEMA.

"I have a hold on the FEMA nomination because I sent a list of hurricane recovery questions and projects to FEMA, many of which have not been adequately addressed," Vitter said in a statement. "I'm eager to get full responses and meet with the nominee immediately."

Fugate, of course, was chosen to lead FEMA in large part because of his impressive work responding to hurricanes in Florida.

Whelp. Guess we know what the next disaster will be. Forewarned is forearmed. It's just too bad that, thanks to David "Diapers" Vitter, we won't have a FEMA chief who's an expert in hurricane response to help out...

Britain Gets It's First Female Poet Laureate

Score one for my gender:

LONDON – The centuries-old post of British poet laureate, bard to kings and queens, has been held by William Wordsworth, Alfred Lord Tennyson and Ted Hughes — but never, until Friday, by a woman.

Carol Ann Duffy said she hesitated before accepting the job, which brings a high public profile and an expectation to rhapsodize about royal weddings, funerals and major state occasions.

In the end, she left the decision to her 13-year-old daughter, Ella: "She said, 'Yes mummy, there's never been a woman.'"

The job's been around since Richard the Lionheart, at least. Pretty ancient shoes to fill, which I'm confident Carol will do with grace, style, and mad poetic skillz. There's also the possibility of some additional compensation for her efforts:

The salary has varied, but traditionally includes some alcohol. Ben Jonson first received a pension of 100 marks, and later an annual "terse of Canary wine". Dryden had a pension of £300 and a butt of Canary wine. Pye received £27 instead of the wine. Tennyson drew £72 a year from the Lord Chamberlain's department, and £27 from the Lord Steward's "in lieu of the butt of sack".

Hmm. I wonder what I'd have to do in order to become a British citizen and then fill Carol's shoes when she's done with them? A wordsmithing job that includes alcohol as part of the salary sounds utterly perfect.

Kidding aside, I'm happy to see Britian install its first female Poet Laureate, and I think they've made a great choice. After all, she knows what talent is:

Talent by Carol Ann Duffy

This is the word tightrope. Now imagine
a man, inching across it in the space
between our thoughts. He holds our breath.

There is no word net.

You want him to fall, don't you?
I guessed as much; he teeters but succeeds.
The word applause is written all over him.

Congratulations, Carol! I'd pour you a glass of the good stuff, but I imagine the stuff they supply as part of your salary's far better.

When Racists Attack: House of Representatives Edition

Stay classy, Steve:

Yesterday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) took to the House floor for an hour-long speech consisting of tired denunciations of Obama shaking hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and more hysterical complaints about how new hate crime legislation protects gays. During his tirade, King decided to direct part of his vitriol at the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, calling both organizations “separatist groups.”

What the fuck is wrong with Cons? Did they miss their cultural diversity training? Maybe their mommies and daddies didn't tell them it's bad to be racist fuckheads. And it's not like this is an isolated incident: the GOP seems to have declared war on colleagues of color:

On Wednesday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) released a fearmongering video, asking if Americans “feel safer” under President Obama. But one image in the video has caused outrage in Congress. After a shot of Obama shaking hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the video cuts to an image of Obama meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus...

Now, why would they do that, do you think? Maybe trying to imply that the CHC is - what was the terminology, Steve? - a "separatist group."

Or maybe it's just because Boehner, King et al are a bunch of racist fuckheads.

Places Not to Get Auto Loans

No. 1: The Auto Financing Network. Unless, of course, you like to be stalked if you fall behind on a car payment:

But the tale of Phoenix's Jennifer Dicks and her delinquent Chevy Cavalier is so beyond we fully expect Lifetime to option the story for a film. Last year Dicks (allegedly) bought a Chevy Cavalier with a loan from the Auto Financing Network, a local auto loan company that claims to approve 100% of applicants for loans. AFN's website claims its Top 3 Priorities of 2008 are #1 Treat Customer Right #2 Treat Customer Right #3 Treat Customer Right.

A new motto for 2009 might be in order. ("Treat Customer Like Psycho Ex-Girlfriend"?) In a lawsuit filed against the company in an Arizona superior court Dicks claims the collection agency went so far as to buy the url that matches her name and create a "Jennifer Dicks isn't paying for her Cavalier!" website.

[snip]

In early April Dicks fell behind on her payments again. This time, the lawsuit claims, AFN registered the URL to Dicks' name and created a site titled "Jennifer Dicks isn't paying for her Cavalier!"

And that's when the relentless text message campaign of shame began. On the other side of the phone was someone identifying himself as AFN President Michael Fischer, who started, innocently enough, by (allegedly) imploring Dicks to "Call me." Gradually he became more desperate. Here are some (alleged) highlights from the dozens of texts quoted in the complaint, which accuses AFN of a litany of charges including consumer fraud, invasion of privacy and defamation:April 8:

You need to call me. This has put me in a bad spot. I know you don't give a shit but I do. I need the car back.

April 10:

Can you quit playing games and give me the car?

April 11:

I'm 2 miles away coming to your house...are you home? Neeee the car.

Believe it or not, the text messages get even more psychotic. I foresee another company going out of business in the very near future. And Jesse Watters may end up with a new assistant...

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

I could've been watching more House. Instead, I've been wading knee-deep in stupid. Justice Souter announced his retirement, and the rabid right's after that like a pack of dogs on a mailman. They're breaking ground for the "B-bu-but he did it too!" defense:

A talking point emerges.

...Republicans are eagerly pointing out that Barack Obama, while in the Senate, voted to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to the court.

Well, that's at least accurate. Obama, as a senator, declined to filibuster the Roberts nomination, but opposed cloture on the Alito nomination. On this point, Republicans are not lying or playing fast and loose with reality.

That said, this stroll down memory lane may not be as fruitful for the GOP as they'd like. For one thing, Obama, right around the time of the Alito hearings and floor vote, made a variety of comments that Republicans may find interesting. For example, he told ABC News in January 2006, "[T]here is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers and mechanisms to block the president [on judicial nominees] instead of proactively going out to the American people and talking about the values that we care about. And, you know, there's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values and that's to win elections."

For another, the more Republicans focus on Obama's efforts during the Bush years, the more it's a reminder of their own efforts during the same period.

In 2005, many Republican Senators went so far as to claim the filibuster of judicial nominees was unconstitutional. Now four year later, with President Obama's first Supreme Court appointment looming, will they remain consistent in their position or commit one of the most blatant acts of hypocrisy in the 220-year history of the United States Senate?

I'll take "Blatant Acts of Hypocrisy" for $1000, Alex.

Red State's Eric Erickson reacts with his usual class:

The conservative movement is in shambles and this doozy comes from online conservative blogger Erik Erickson of Red State. Do we need any more proof that they are all certifiable? What's up with conservatives and their tweets? The men in white suits should be called in very quickly because he needs a serious 30-day observation period. Don't forget to bring a straitjacket with you.

pourmecoffee’s posterous finds this tweet for the ages:

Eric Erickson (@ewerickson), Editor-in-Chief of RedState didn't just toss off that gem. He wrote it, then deleted it, then re-wrote and re-sent it adding the proper hashtags ("LMRM" = Let Me Repeat Myself, "TCOT" = Top Conservatives on Twitter, "RS" = RedState). Made sure he got it just right. See for yourself.

This is the leader of the right's most prominent online community, not some carefree flame-throwing commenter or diarist. RedState is not an official GOP site, but it's a center of the conservative movement with a stated desire to take over leadership of the party. I'm not interested in flame wars. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. As a matter of strategy, however, I just can't understand why someone in a leadership position would act so publicly self-destructive. This stuff turns states blue. Put simply, a serious leader looking to amass political power does not publicly call a sitting Supreme Court Justice a "goat f**king child molester." A seemingly obvious point.

Obvious to all except rabid right-wing fucktards, that is.

I'm sure the Cons will outdo themselves in the hysteria department. What we've seen to date is but a warm-up to the frothing fury they'll work themselves in to over any nominee Obama suggests. I imagine their reaction would be the same no matter who's appointed. They'd probably end up calling Robert Bork a flaming sociocommiefascist left-wing terrorist.

But, they want us to know, they're not the party of "no." Really:

Yesterday, Republican leaders announced their latest effort to re-brand the party, the National Council for a New America, which will feature input from conservative luminaries like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Discussing the need for the new group with CQ, former House Minority Whip Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), complained about the party being branded as the "party of no," claiming that just because they consistently vote no on President Obama's agenda it "doesn't mean we are the 'party of no'":

In addition, they say, they are having trouble breaking through to Americans with a popular Democratic president, Barack Obama , in the White House and the binary choice of yes-or-no votes on Democratic-written legislation.

“Just because we’re in a situation now where we vote no doesn’t mean we are the ‘party of no’ or have no ideas,” said former House Republican Whip Roy Blunt , who is running for Senate in Missouri and signed the letter. “This adds another way of getting those ideas out there.”

Go on, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Alas for the Cons, America knows what it wants in a Supreme Court Justice, and it ain't what the Cons want. How do we know this? Because Bill Kristol tells us so:

From the January 29, 2006, broadcast of "Fox News Sunday":

BILL KRISTOL: Let's have a referendum on that in 2006 and 2008. Do they want a liberal Supreme Court, or do they want a moderately conservative Supreme Court?

JUAN WILLIAMS: That's called a presidential election.

Had one. We elected a dirty stinking liberal in a landslide even though he promised to put - what was it, Eric? - a "goat fucking child molester" on the bench. Well, he didn't put it in quite those terms, but he made it manifestly clear he wouldn't be appointing anyone the conservatives would scream with joy over. And yet we elected him, and we elected a Dem majority. Twice. According to Kristol, that means the people want a liberal Supreme Court. Works for me.

The people have spoken. Something tells me the screaming of a bunch of impotent culture warriors won't have much effect.

Poem o' the Day

A little hair of the dog? We can't just come off of National Poetry Month cold turkey, and thanks to Chris, we don't have to.

A NIGHT MOORING NEAR MAPLE BRIDGE

While I watch the moon go down, a crow caws through the frost;

Under the shadows of the maple-trees a fisherman moves with his torch;

And I hear, from beyond Su-chou, from the temple on Cold Mountain,

Ringing for me, here in my boat, the midnight bell.

-Chang Chi (Witter Bynner trans.)

Swine Flu Swine

Way to bring on the stupid, Arizona. Are you proud of electing these assclowns now?

In the wake of the swine flu outbreak, we have the inevitable calls for closing the borders with Mexico (h/t):

"A spokesman for Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said Wednesday night that Franks believes the border should be closed right now except in critical cases or situations involving emergency personnel.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said all options should be considered to end the crisis involving swine flu, "including closing the border if it would prevent further transmission of the deadly virus."

In a twitter message early Wednesday, McCain wrote "I said to Napolitano, 'We need to be prepared to close the border with Mexico if the swine flu outbreak escalates further.'""

Regrettably, this idiocy seems to be bipartisan:

"Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) said the border should be closed until the threat is resolved.

"The public needs to be aware of the serious threat of swine flu, and we need to close our borders to Mexico immediately and completely until this is resolved," Massa said in a statement."

Hilzoy points out that, aside from the fact the disease is already here and happily spreading, border closures probably won't do jack diddly shit, for the simple reason we can't seal the damned border:

Unfortunately, the flu is infectious for about a day before people develop symptoms. That means that any attempt to screen people at the border will not work. (So much for those heat sensors.) You'd have to keep everyone out, period. We can't do that even without an influenza epidemic; I have no idea why anyone thinks we would suddenly be able to do it now.

Earlier today, Ezra linked to a World Bank review of the literature on containing pandemic flu. It explains the pros and cons of various measures, and estimates of their likely effect, quite well (if a bit wonkily.) The discussion of travel restrictions starts on p. 30, though some of the terminology is defined earlier. The takeaway message is that even very effective border controls, including shutting down almost all air traffic, would have very little effect.

Franks, McCain and Massa's ability to understand the simple reality of pandemics: epic fail. And unfortunately, they don't lose their jobs for egregious stupidity.

But there is good news. The swine flu has claimed a deserving victim:

Conservative talker Jay Severin was suspended indefinitely today by Boston's WTKK-FM after using the current swine flu outbreak to attack Mexicans and immigrants. On his radio show, Severin blamed the swine flu on what he called "some of the world's lowest of primitives in poor Mexico"...

And that was the least of what he said. Hey, WTKK? Can we stretch that "indefinite" suspension out for, oh, say, the next 30 years?

I do so hope the swine flu continues to bring out the worst in right-wing radio hosts. It would be lovely to see a gaggle of racist gits swell the unemployment lines.

Advice for Bush & Co.: Don't Plan Any Trips Abroad

Because Spain's legal community's wanting to have a little chat about torture:

In some countries, they apparently take this sort of thing seriously:

In a ruling in Madrid today, Judge Baltasar Garzón has announced that an inquiry into the Bush administration’s torture policy makers now will proceed into a formal criminal investigation. The ruling came as a jolt following the recommendation of Spanish Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido against proceeding with a criminal inquiry, reported in The Daily Beast on April 16.

Judge Garzón previously initiated and handled investigations involving Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, Argentine “Dirty War” strategist Adolfo Scilingo and Guatemalan strongman José Efraín Ríos-Montt, often over the objections of the Spanish attorney general. His case against Pinochet gained international attention when the Chilean general was apprehended in England on a Spanish arrest warrant. Scilingo was extradited to Spain and is now serving a sentence of 30 years for his role in the torture and murder of some thirty persons, several of whom were Spanish citizens.

Garzón's ruling today marks a decision to begin a formal criminal inquiry into the allegations of torture and inhumane treatment he has been collecting for several years now.

Looks like European vacations are out for the Bushies. If they don't end up in the Hague, they'll be spending plenty of quality time in a Spanish jail. This is all to the good.

Of course, Spain may be able to stop doing our jobs for us. It seems the opinion in some circles is that if the President admits the former administration committed war crimes, criminal investigations must necessarily follow:

First up: Dem Rep Jerrold Nadler, who just told me in an interview that Obama’s comments leave the administration only one legal option: Investigate, and if necessary, prosecute.

“President Obama said, `They used torture, I believe waterboarding is torture,’” Nadler said, speaking of Obama’s comments about his predecessors. “Once you concede that torture was committed, the law requires that there be an investigation, and if warranted, a prosecution.”

Nadler and other House Dems have already called on the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to look into potential torture crimes. Yesterday’s comments from Obama, Nadler says, make it clearer still that this is the only legal path open to the administration — in part because Obama seemed to acknowledge that his predecessors had violated “international law.”

Ooo, that's gonna get some right-wing panties in a twist. But they have a defense! Nixon told them so:

There are all kinds of problems with the "Frost/Nixon" movie, but it's hard to miss the significance of the disgraced president saying, "[I]f the president does it, that means it's not illegal." It's one of those iconic phrases the political world recognizes as the height of abuses of power. Illegal acts are not made legal by virtue of a leader's whims.

It's the kind of thing former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should probably be aware of. And yet, there was Rice speaking with some students at Stanford University, when she was asked if waterboarding is, in her opinion, torture. Rice replied:

"[T]he United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture."

I was especially impressed by Rice's use of the phrase "by definition," since it was literally the exact same phrase Nixon used to explain why presidents are incapable of committing crimes.

Digby expands on Steve's observation about Condi's comments, including more snippets of Condi's supposed wisdom. I'm sorry the students at Stanford had to be sprayed with hoses of bullshit, but that's what happens when Bushies are invited to talk about the law. I hope everybody got a good laugh.

Once we're done clutching our sides, perhaps we could upstage the Spaniards. Prosecutions. Now.

Gilding Shit

You know what they say about shit: dip it in gold, it's still shit. For some reason, that old saying keeps coming to mind as I read up on various and sundry attempts at "rebranding."

The Republicon party's trying it. Yes, again. Arlen Specter's done it by changing his label from Con to Dem (and changing nothing else). When "clean coal" didn't fool anyone but the willingly fooled, Newt Gingrinch rebranded it "green coal." Now the abstinence only crowd's decided to take a whirl on the rebranding bandwagon:

It's been a rough several months for the abstinence-only sex education crowd. As study after study continues to confirm that their approach just doesn't work, the Obama administration has cut $14 million of funding to their programs and specified that remaining curricula will need to meet actual scientific standards. "When the National Abstinence Education Association gathered on Capitol Hill last month for their annual lobby day, the sense of fear in the room was palpable," writes Joe Sonka at RH Reality Check.

But they're not ready to admit defeat! The NAEA's constituent organizations are giving themselves marketing makeovers in an attempt to keep the gravy train rolling. "They would," writes Sonka, "simply rebrand themselves as curriculum that 'wasn't just about abstinence,' but was all about 'holistic approaches' to 'healthy lifestyle choices.'"

[snip]

Sonka points to WhykNow, a major abstinence-only program. With a PR firm's help, they've changed their name to OnPoint and made some noise about promoting "healthy decision-making skills." Nothing, however, is forthcoming about whether OnPoint will change its abstinence-only message.

One somehow gets the feeling that the answer to that last one is "no." They're just hoping P.T. Barnum was right about all those suckers, and relying on air fresheners to cover up the smell of bullshit under that thin gold leaf.

Premium Snark: LOTR Edition

Thank you, John Pieret. This is absolutely the pure Colombian snark:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

I'm hooked.