Dadahead - This blog kills fascists

2006-04-27T21:09:00.000-05:00

"I know that you know as well as I do how fast thoughts and associations can fly through your head. You can be in the middle of a creative meeting at your job or something, and enough material can rush through your head just in the little silences when people are looking over their notes and waiting for the next presentation that it would take exponentially longer than the whole meeting just to try to put a few seconds' silence's flood of thoughts into words. This is another paradox, that many of the most important impressions and thoughts in a person's life are ones that flash through your head so fast that fast isn't even the right word, they seem totally different from or outside of the regular sequential clock time we all live by, and they have so little relation to the sort of linear, one-word-after-another-word English we all communicate with each other with that it could easily take a whole lifetime just to spell out the contents of one split-second's flash of thoughts and connections, etc. – and yet we all seem to go around trying to use English (or whatever language our native country happens to use, it goes without saying) to try to convey to other people what we're thinking and to find out what they're thinking, when in fact deep down everybody knows it's a charade and they're just going through the motions. What goes on inside is just too fast and huge and all interconnected for words to do more than barely sketch the outlines of at most one tiny little part of it at any given instant. The internal head-speed or whatever of these ideas, memories, realizations, emotions and so on is even faster, by the way – exponentially faster, unimaginably faster – when you're dying, meaning during that vanishingly tiny nanosecond between when you technically die and when the next thing happens, so that in reality the cliché about people's whole life flashing before their eyes as they're dying isn't all that far off – although the whole life here isn't really a sequential thing where first you're born and then you're in the crib and then you're up at the plate in Legion ball, etc., which it turns out that that's what people usually mean when they say 'my whole life,' meaning a discrete, chronological series of moments that they add up and call their lifetime. It's not really like that. The best way I can think of to try to say it is that it all happens at once, but that at once doesn't really mean a finite moment of sequential time the way we think of time while we're alive, plus that what turns out to be the meaning of the term my life isn't even close to what we think we're talking about when we say 'my life.' Words and chronological time create all these total misunderstandings of what's really going on at the most basic level. And yet at the same time English is all we have to try to understand it and try to form anything larger or more meaningful and true with anybody else, which is yet another paradox.

"…the whole my whole life flashed before me phenomenon at the end is more like being a whitecap on the surface of the ocean, meaning that it's only at the moment you subside and start sliding back in that you're really even aware there's an ocean at all. When you're up and out there as a whitecap you might talk and act as if you know you're just a whitecap on the ocean, but deep down you don't think there's really an ocean at all. It's almost impossible to."

--David Foster Wallace, "Good Old Neon"

Break

2006-04-02T15:24:00.000-05:00

I need to go on another short blogging hiatus; real life beckons. I'll be back before too long.

Love hurts

2006-03-30T21:32:00.000-06:00

Literally, sometimes.

Sometimes it even kills.

"Galileo was wrong"

2006-03-29T16:38:00.000-06:00

Which he was, of course, about a lot of things - but geocentrism was not one of them.

The Earth is at the center of Robert Sungenis' universe. Literally.

Yours too, he says.

Sungenis is a geocentrist. He contends the sun orbits the Earth instead of vice versa. He says physics and the Bible show that the vastness of space revolves around us; that we're at the center of everything, on a planet that does not rotate.

He has just completed a 1,000-page tome, "Galileo Was Wrong," the first in a pair of books he hopes will persuade readers to "give Scripture its due place, and show that science is not all it's cracked up to be."

Geocentrism is a less-known cousin of the intelligent design, or anti-evolution, movement. Both question society's trust in science, instead using religion to explain how we got here - and, in geocentrism's case, just where "here" is.

...There's also no proof that the Earth rotates, he said....And in the absence of proof, the Bible has answers.

"If you see the Earth as just a humdrum planet among stars circling in a vast universe, then we're not significant, we're just part of a crowd," Sungenis said. "But if you believe everything revolves around Earth, it gives another picture - of purpose, a meaning of life."

...He came to rethink the work of Nicolaus Copernicus, the 15th-century Polish astronomer who advanced heliocentrism over the Ptolemaic, or Earth-centered, system.

"Einstein told us there is no center, that any point in the universe can serve as the center," Sungenis said. "If that's the case, Einstein has undermined Copernicus. You can't prove either one."

...There are no statistics on numbers of geocentrists. Sungenis said he thinks it's "definitely growing, both nationally and internationally."

Marshall Hall is one. He's been researching it since 1980, and posted his Web site, www.fixedearth.com, in 1997.

Hall realizes it's a tough sell.

"Normally the reaction is, 'You've got to be crazy,"' he said from his home in Cornelia, Ga.

So sometimes he uses this illustration story:

You want to travel from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco. If the Earth is turning, why not just hover in a helicopter? Wait a few hours above the East Coast and eventually the West Coast will be underneath you.

I especially like the helicopter bit, and the fact that the guy totally contradicts his OWN THEORY by claiming that Einstein proved that there was no center of the universe.

And no, this isn't really any more ridiculous than "Intelligent Design."

Link (via the Corner).

"Journalism"

2006-03-29T14:48:00.000-06:00

If you haven't seen this Daily Show report on Fox "News," you have to watch it.

I'm back

2006-03-28T23:51:00.000-06:00

Sorry I was gone a bit longer than expected. (Making the world safe for democracy takes time.) We now return you to your regularly scheduled vitriol.

Looking ahead

2006-03-23T00:56:00.000-06:00

Sorry about the infrequency in posting as of late; I've been busier than usual. I've also been very behind on my email, so if you've sent me something and I haven't responded, that's why.

Now, I'm about to go incommunicado for a few days, so there probably won't be anything new here until Sunday or so. Hope all is well with everyone.

Too funny

2006-03-22T09:58:00.000-06:00

Michelle Malkin:

"If you can't see the poster for the Islamist-pandering piece of propaganda that it is, there's nothing I can do to help you."

All righty then.

The truth behind the criminalization movement

2006-03-21T22:43:00.000-06:00

It's long been obvious to anyone with the observational powers afforded by an even marginally rational disposition that the vast majority of those who advocate the criminalization of abortion are motivated not by a deeply and sincerely felt desire to "save babies," but rather by an anachronistic ecclesiastical wish to punish women for having sex outside the confines of marriage (within which, it is assumed, the question of abortion wouldn't come up - why would anyone but a shameful harlot want to avoid the divinely-dictated consequences of intercourse?). Why else would activists who ostensibly want to see as few abortions as possible be opposed to (or even not intensely enthusiastic about) the proliferation of birth control?

Still, it's always nice to see these things demonstrated, and Kevin Drum links to a post at Alas, a blog that does a pretty good job of making things plain. Basically, the author makes a chart that includes most of the policies supported by the criminalization movement, asking two questions about each: "Is this policy consistent with the belief that abortion is exactly the same as child murder?" (the professed motivation of the anti-choicers) and "Is this policy consistent with wanting women who have sex to suffer the consequences?" You can guess what the answers are.

On a side note, it's nice to see the Drumstir (as Battlepanda likes to call him) continue to refuse to placate the Amy Sullivan set by conceding that the pro-criminalization movement is about anything other than raw misogyny. Kevin is one of the few popular male bloggers who consistently pays attention to abortion politics; I wish more would. Abortion rights seems to be treated as something that women are supposed to worry about; as long as liberal men are on the record as being pro-choice, they feel they've done their part. The only time I ever get questioned about my gender is when I write about abortion; the notion that I could be a woman (I'm not) seems to cross people's minds only when I pay an unusual amount of attention (for a male) to the issue.

It's true that abortion is a "women's issue" in the sense that it is primarily women who suffer the consequences of the march toward criminalization, but that doesn't mean that only women should be alarmed by it. The Iraq War affects few of us directly, but we don't leave it to Iraqis and US military personnel to complain about it. The war on women's reproductive rights is something that should outrage anyone who respects basic principles of justice and autonomy, regardless of what gender they happen to be.

The only sane answer is "No"

2006-03-21T15:50:00.000-06:00

President Bush was asked:

"Do you believe this: that the War in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse and if not, why not?"

His response:

"I haven’t really thought of it that way."

That's right: not, "No," not, "Do I look like an idiot?," not "Are you crazy? Hell no!" The president of the United States just hasn't really considered that particular possibility as of yet.

Anyway, the Iranians are led by a religious fanatic and must therefore be bombed back to the Stone Age immediately!!

Link (via Blogometer).

2006-03-21T13:17:00.000-06:00

The National Security Strategy

2006-03-20T12:17:00.000-06:00

In case you missed it, the new NSS is up. More attention ought to be paid to official documents like these, as they often provide a surprising degree of frankness about the administration's goals and plans. Of course, it's all drenched in a thick covering of rhetorical bullshit; I haven't worked through it yet, but a quick glance yields knee-slappers like "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" an "the United States Government will work to advance human dignity in word and deed."

Also notable is the fact that an entire chapter is included with the title "Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade." Putting aside the destructiveness and injustice of "free trade" policy, what possible relevance does this have to "national security"? The administration's answer:

"Promoting free and fair trade has long been a bedrock tenet of American foreign policy. Greater economic freedom is ultimately inseparable from political liberty."

Of course, they mean "free and fair trade" for big business; "political liberty" for multinational corporations. But it's true that such economic motives have long been at the heart of US foreign policy, and continue to be. But the atrocity of using war as just another means to profit goes unmentioned in the mainstream, corporate press.

Mmkay

2006-03-19T21:02:00.000-06:00

Mark Noonan: "Iraq is one of the most brilliantly conducted military operations in history."

Is Bush the worst ever?

2006-03-18T23:17:00.000-06:00

Matt Yglesias has a puzzling post:

...seriously, what's with Harry Reid saying George W. Bush is "the worst president this country has ever had" or Hillary Clinton's similar claim that he's "one of the worst" in American history? On domestic policy, he's certainly been a bad president in the sense that I would gladly prefer Al Gore or John Kerry or Howard Dean or Joe Lieberman or Wesley Clark or Russ Feingold or pretty much whomever you like ... bad in a run-of-the-mill, parties- alternate-in- power, rightwingers- are-all-bad kind of way.

On other fronts, the Afghan War was necessary and it's been handled okay ... This just isn't the stuff out of which world-historical badness is made.

But wait! I forgot something: Iraq.

I still don't know that "worst ever" is the right thing to say, but certainly when Iraq comes into the picture you can start to see the case that Bush is super-bad. That was a big, giant, important blunder whose consequences we'll be living with for years if not decades. But then again, Clinton and Reid both . . . supported the war and don't support substantially changing Bush's war policy right now. So what can they be talking about? Who knows?

Now, what the import of this debate is I can't even imagine, so I don't even know why I'm commenting on it (but then again, few of these debates we have do matter, in the sense of actually having an effect on anything). But first of all, the Afghan war was neither necessary nor proper, and it has certainly not been "handled okay." And Yglesias ignores Bush's "handling" of the Katrina disaster, as Scott Shields points out.

It's true that it's hard to imagine Clinton and Reid basing their comments on the Iraq war, considering their support for it, but that's not really relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim that Bush is the worst ever.

I don't know if Bush is the worst ever; certainly Andrew Jackson and Harry Truman would deserve to be mentioned in that conversation, along with a few others. But he has been a disaster on every front, with basically nothing positive to point to, a track record which certainly puts him in the running. And he's still got three years to go.

Coolest death ever

2006-03-17T22:08:00.000-06:00

From Wikipedia:

Frank Hayes was a jockey who in 1953 suffered a fatal heart attack in the midst of a race. His horse, Sweet Kiss, finished and won the race with his lifeless body still atop, making him the first, and thus far only, jockey to win a race while dead.

Kind of makes you wonder how much of a role the jockeys really play, though.

Censure

2006-03-17T16:23:00.000-06:00

Sam Rosenfeld wonders how Harry Reid could possibly fail to support Feingold's censure resolution, given that Reid believes Bush is "the worst president this country has ever had."

(Is Bush the worst? There's a case to be made, if for no other reason than that the stakes are so much higher than they were when, say, Harding was president.)

Some are complaining that Feingold acted irresponsibly in bringing up the resolution; the charge is that he took his fellow Democrats by surprise. But first of all, do we know that? Just because Dems are scrambling doesn't mean they didn't have advance warning. I'm not saying Feingold did let them know ahead of time; I'm just wondering if anybody really knows.

But even if he did catch them off guard, that's hardly an excuse. This should be a no-brainer; if Harry Reid really believes Bush is the worst president ever, how many days does he need to decide that a censure is appropriate? Unless they're deliberating on whether to call for impeachment instead, or they believe that the censure should concern something other than the NSA scandal, he and the rest of the Democrats need to get their heads out of their asses pronto.

Father ready to give up plan to avenge dead son in Iraq

2006-03-17T15:13:00.000-06:00

From the AP:

AL-ASAD, Iraq It's been six months since a grieving Georgia father headed to Iraq to avenge his soldier son's death. And Joe Johnson is ready to come home.

Johnson went to Iraq after his 22-year-old son was killed in a roadside bombing. He says there were a lot of reasons for getting back in the military -- a sense of duty among them. Johnson admits he does not "really have love for Muslim people." And he says he'd be lying if didn't admit wanting some revenge for his son, Justin.

Now, after spending time manning a Humvee's gun, Johnson says he "shouldn't even have come." Johnson says he doesn't want to kill innocent people and won't be upset if he returns to Georgia without any blood on his hands.

Johnson's batallion is due to return home in mid-May.

Maybe this will help

2006-03-17T14:34:00.000-06:00

Fucking Blogger

2006-03-17T11:59:00.000-06:00

Grrrrr....

The dark side of Webster

2006-03-15T18:02:00.000-06:00

You thought it was just a sitcom about a cute little black kid who was adopted by rich white people and dated Michael Jackson. Oh, were you wrong.

When wingnuts try to be cool

2006-03-15T16:05:00.000-06:00

They make an offhand, one-line blog post that says: "The new Mogwai album is pretty good."

They've already started a website for conservatives who like organic food and wear Birkenstocks; maybe they'll start one for wingnuts who are into post-rock.

Cowards

2006-03-15T12:44:00.000-06:00

Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Durbin; none of them will even comment on Feingold's proposed censure of the president.

However, Kos digs up a list of senators who were willing to censure President Clinton for the Lewinsky affair, a list which includes Kerry, Schumer, and Durbin (as well as Kennedy, Lieberman, and Reid, among many others). This is maybe ever-so-slightly unfair, since in that context a resolution for censure was advocated as an alternative to impeachment, a possible compromise. But if these Democrats want to use that as an excuse, they will have to admit either that President Clinton was deserving of censure but President Bush is not, or that they supported the censure of Clinton even though they didn't actually believe it was warranted. Or I suppose, as a third possibility, they could say that they believe Bush is worthy of censure, but that they still don't support the resolution, but this would be more or less tantamount to admitting that they are cowards.

UPDATE: Via Kevin Drum I discover that the excuse mentioned above actually isn't available; the resolution to censure Clinton was introduced after the impeachment proceedings had concluded.

Chico-towner asks in the comments:

"Bush is at 34%... why aren't they ravaging his political carcass?"

Handdrummer answers:

"Because as a group they lack the courage of a lone buzzard."

How many Iraq dead?

2006-03-15T11:48:00.000-06:00

George Bush says 30,000; Andrew Cockburn says it's probably more like 180,000, possibly as many as half a million.

Joe Lieberman, protecting a rapist's right to breed

2006-03-14T23:22:00.000-06:00

Joementum doesn't think that hospitals should be required to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, saying "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital."

~~Battlepanda~~ Brock wants that quote to haunt him for the rest of his career. He's right. Hell, it should be his fucking epitaph.

Crashing the gates!

2006-03-14T23:06:00.000-06:00

Riiighht.

Lindsay has a good review of Kos & Armstrong's soulless strategery.

...I should note that I don't think that Kos & Armstrong are utterly full of crap (and neither does Lindsay, just in case that was unclear). I'm quite sure they have a lot of valuable things to say, some of which L.B. identifies in her review; she also, I think, puts her finger on a big part of what's wrong with their approach.

Reactionaries

2006-03-14T11:14:00.000-06:00

Look, I get that people don't like PETA, that they're offended by the group's habit of invoking historic tragedies like slavery or the Holocaust to draw comparisons with the way animals are treated. But an " Eat Meat Day" to protest PETA's tactics is just stupid. Don't take your anger with PETA out on innocent animals; the way animals are treated in factory farms is a serious moral offense, and the fact that PETA is staffed by a bunch of jokers doesn't change that.

Also silly is rhetoric like this:

I think what PeTA's moral equivalence shows us is how easy it would be to justify another Holocaust — after all, if humans aren't any more worthy of special ethical consideration than other animals, what is the moral argument against once again creating concentration camps and ovens to dispense with those undesirables who won't toe the ideological line for the greater moral good?

Whatever you might think about the Holocaust analogy, it's clear that the purpose of it is not to denigrate human beings by suggesting that they ought to be treated "like animals"; it's to make the point that the interests of animals ought to be accorded the same level of respect granted to the interest of humans (in theory, anyway; in practice, our "respect for human life" is quite often thrown right out). Humans aren't intrinsically "more worthy of special ethical consideration than other animals," as mere membership in a species buys you almost nothing, morally speaking. In most cases, the interests of humans are given more weight than those of animals because we think that certain characteristics of humans - their ability to have future goals, to conceptualize themselves as persons, etc. - warrant such special consideration. But it is these characteristics, which cannot be reduced to membership in the human species, that are doing all the work.

Animals can suffer, and that fact alone makes them worthy of moral consideration. How anyone could look at the mass suffering inflicted upon animals by the meat industry and not be repulsed is beyond me; even those who believe that it is OK in principle for humans to eat animals cannot approve of this. This isn't about which life is worth more, a human or an animal; it's about the duty to refrain from needless cruelty.

Globe luxation, a.k.a. when your eyeballs fall out

2006-03-14T10:50:00.000-06:00

I couldn't get through this article on Slate about what to do IF YOUR EYEBALL FALLS OUT OF ITS SOCKET - a.k.a. "globe luxation." Apparently this is more common than I had previously been led to believe - it can happen when you sneeze, for the sake of Christ. The article even tells you how to PUT YOUR OWN EYE BACK IN if it falls out.

First direct your gaze downward. Now pinch and pull your upper eyelid with the thumb and index finger of one hand. Lay a finger from your other hand on the top part of your luxated eyeball, taking care to press only on the insensitive white part. While you continue to hold your eyelid up, push your eyeball gently down and back at the same time until it's part of the way in. Then try to look upwards; if everything goes right your eyeball will rotate under the upper lid and back into its socket.

I am seriously disturbed.

War criminals

2006-03-13T16:33:00.000-06:00

Jeremy Scahill: Rest Easy, Bill Clinton: Milosevic Can't Talk Anymore

Milosevic's death means that those who bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days beginning seven years ago this month, killing thousands, will be once and for all protected from any public scrutiny for their crimes ... there is almost certain to be no condemnation of the U.S. bombing of Radio Television Serbia, killing 16 media workers; the cluster bombing of the Nis marketplace, shredding human beings into meat; the use of depleted uranium munitions; and the targeting of petrochemical plants, causing toxic chemical waste to pour into the Danube River. There will be no condemnation of the bombing of Albanian refugees by the U.S., or the deliberate targeting of a civilian passenger train, or the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

... there will never be indictments of these U.S. war criminals at The Hague: Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Jamie Rubin, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, Richard Holbrooke, and Wesley Clark. For many of Serbia's victims of U.S. war crimes, Milosevic's trial was a "Hail Mary" pass, as awful an historical irony as that is, aimed at someone recognizing their forgotten suffering.

It is a sad testimony to the state of international jurisprudence that after many attempts to find justice, the only hope for U.S. victims in the Yugoslavia wars was the trial defense of a man many of those same victims despised. If there was an independent international court that was recognized and respected by the U.S., those responsible for bombing Yugoslavia would have been alongside Slobodan Milosevic in the docks these past years instead of having their responsibility buried with him.

Question

2006-03-13T15:53:00.000-06:00

Why does the Washington Monthly continue to give the insufferable Amy Sullivan a platform from which to spout her nonsense?

Trade

2006-03-12T20:46:00.000-06:00

David Sirota points out that among the Democratic presidential hopefuls, most have swallowed the right-wing "free trade" ideology hook, line, and sinker; Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, Howard Dean, and Mark Warner all supported the grotesque NAFTA treaty, while John Edwards and Russ Feingold have better records on trade, especially Feingold.

The trade issue will be a boon to anyone willing to buck the Republican-Democratic tradition of kowtowing to big business; remember that Ross Perot managed to set a modern-day record for third-party candidates, despite being sort of insane and dropping out of the race half-way through, primarily on the strength of his opposition to NAFTA. A Democrat willing to campaign on the same kind of economic populism could win going away. But the majority of Democratic office holders are not really populists or progressives; they're welfare-state capitalists, and their allegiance to big business is as axiomatic as any Republican's.

Help animals

2006-03-11T18:57:00.000-06:00

Visit The Animal Rescue Site; click on the purple button to donate, for free, food for hungry animals. You can do this as often as once a day.

2006-03-10T23:10:00.000-06:00

Save it, Sandy

2006-03-10T22:19:00.000-06:00

Sandra Day O'Connor is making news for criticizing the GOP. Sorry, but this rings a little hollow coming from the woman who committed the twin crimes of putting Bush in the White House (as pointed out by Ruchira Paul and Fact-esque) and then retiring while he was still there, allowing him to replace her with the atrocious Sam Alito.

Suicidal? Get the hell out

2006-03-10T14:09:00.000-06:00

That's what George Washington U. said to a student who checked himself into the university hospital for depression and suicidal thoughts.

I smell a new slogan for the GOP...

2006-03-10T12:52:00.000-06:00

Alessandra Mussolini: "Better to be a fascist than a faggot."

Ah, moderates

2006-03-09T23:57:00.000-06:00

Didn't anyone ever teach them about the fallacy of the golden mean?

I'm not a big abortion blogger. It seems most people view abortion in terms of black and white. It's either akin to slaughtering babies, or it's a key aspect of woman's rights. And since the arguments seem to devolve into these simplistic terms rather quickly (even more so than in most political arguments), I remain confused.

So the idea that self-determination regarding their own uteruses might, you know, be a significant aspect of women's rights is just as crazy as the idea that removing a blastocyst is a form of murder.

The answer doesn't always lie in the middle, guys.

You can't get fooled again

2006-03-09T23:03:00.000-06:00

Good fucking question:

I think it's nice that some Democrats have finally come out and admitted that supporting the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, even though we all know that was obvious a good long time before the invasion actually took place.

But how can you account for some Democrats already falling in line for what looks to be a planned repeat performance in Iran? There's no room for the "We didn't realize how badly they'd screw it up" defense here - if you don't know by now, you shouldn't be allowed out.

And with that fact in mind - not to mention the fact that our troops are now so severely strained that only an idiot can imagine we can afford a war on a third front, well, I sure hope that this time no one will pretend this can be good for Israel.

Via the obscenely useful Daou Report.

Just say no

2006-03-09T11:47:00.000-06:00

Can anyone explain to me why I should take a professed anti-war Democrat in Congress seriously if they don't vote against giving the Bush war machine another $91 billion? Will they?

The bill also includes $75 million for "U.S. cultural outreach to Iranian citizens." I can only imagine what that means.

Unhelpful rhetoric

2006-03-09T05:17:00.000-06:00

This has got to stop:

If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on Wednesday.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program.

"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.

Iran denies wanting nuclear weapons and says it is only interested in the peaceful generation of electricity. It has also threatened to retaliate if Israel or the United States were to bomb any of its nuclear facilities.

Since when did defending yourself involve an unprovoked attack on another nation? I suppose the U.S. is just "defending" itself in Iraq, right?

Look, it's possible that Israel is just making noise in order to discourage Iran from going nuclear. If so, the calculus changes, but it's still hard to imagine that such rhetoric is helpful on the whole.

Is there anybody in their right mind who thinks that a war between Israel and Iran would be a good thing? Aren't we supposed to try to avoid World War III?

Dada

2006-03-08T20:46:00.000-06:00

Slate has put up a fairly decent "slide-show essay" on Dada. A few questionable remarks, but overall not bad.

Should politicians read more?

2006-03-08T13:53:00.000-06:00

Michael Tomasky is "disquieted" by the fact that presidential hopeful John Edwards apparently had never heard of one James Q. Wilson:

I was disturbed by this most of yesterday. He didn’t even know who the man is.

Over-react much? Jesus, of all the things that would bother me about a politician, a lack of awareness of a right-wing "intellectual" whose grand insight is that inner-city crime is the result of broken windows going unfixed would rank just behind his position on how to hang the toilet paper.

Supposedly this is a symptom of a larger problem:

One of the big problems with most politicians at Edwards’ level is that they don’t read seriously anymore. This means they don’t develop serious ideas of their own, and it makes them more susceptible to any shallow thing their pollsters and handlers tell them. It’s surely true of both parties, but it seems worse among Democrats for some reason.

I don't think that the problem with politicians is that they don't read enough. I don't really understand this obsession with developing "new ideas"; with most political issues, the answer is pretty clear, it's just a matter of having the will to do the right thing. (How many books do you have to read to know that it's not OK to wage war without cause, or that women have the right to control their own bodies?)

As for the idea that reading more would make politicians less susceptible to consultants, I have two words: Al Gore. A notorious bookworm, Gore is the paradigm case of the over-handled candidate.

Don't get me wrong; I could think of a few books I'd like Democratic politicians to read (they could start with Nickeled and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich, though Edwards specifically does seem to have a sensitivity to the plight of the poor). But if an increased reading load means more James Q. Wilson, they probably shouldn't bother.

The criminalization of abortion

2006-03-08T12:14:00.000-06:00

Question: If Chris Fucking Matthews can grill anti-choice politicians like this, insisting that the answer one very simple question - if you think abortion should be illegal, what should the punishment be for women who have them? - why can't Democrats? Why wasn't John Kerry asking George W. Bush the same damn question, over and over, during the presidential debates?

Democrats should never let a discussion about abortion go by without holding the GOP's feet to the fire on this. No Republican ought to be allowed to make a television appearance without being confronted on this point: how many years in prison should women who get abortions be sentenced to?

Line-item veto

2006-03-07T23:06:00.000-06:00

On the list of things most likely to get me worked up, the prospect of a line-item veto barely registers - but maybe I should care more; maybe it's a worrisome power grab by the executive branch. This bit by Brad Plumer (HT: Ezra Klein) strikes me as a sensible take on the matter. Upshot: the line-item veto does jack shit to "control spending" (money quote: "Pork isn't a big part of the federal budget, and never will be."), but can be used to great punitive effect (e.g., Congressman X fucks with President, President line-item vetoes pork spending for Congressman X's district).

I'll show you a casus belli

2006-03-06T22:02:00.000-06:00

The U.S. claims that the Iranian government is sending explosive devices across the border to aid anti-American insurgents. War-mongering idiots are claiming that this provides the U.S. with a "casus belli" to wage war on Iran. Putting aside the fact that the only evidence for the accusation is the assurances of U.S. officials, it should be kept in mind that the U.S. has been conducting reconnaissance missions inside Iran for some time now, which itself could be seen as an act of war and thus a casus belli for Iran to attack the United States.

But we all know that the U.S. plays by its own rules. So how about we can the Just War Theory bullshit, then? If the right-wingers want to agitate for unprovoked aggression, they should at least have the balls to admit to it.

Cheney less popular than O.J. (but more popular than Paris Hilton)

2006-03-06T21:36:00.000-06:00

Cheney's approval rating = 18%.

Michael Jackson = 25%.

O.J. Simpson = 29%.

Spiro Agnew (in 1973) = 45%.

Paris Hilton = 15%.

(Via DU.)

Indiana

2006-03-06T17:00:00.000-06:00

Kos reports that Bush's approval rating is down to 37% even in deep-red Indiana. This is good news, I guess, insofar as it bodes ill for Republican fortunes in the mid-terms, but it also kind of pisses me off a little bit, because Indiana gave Bush 55% of its votes, if I'm not mistaken, not even a year and a half ago, and yeah, a lot has happened in the meantime (Katrina, NSA), but the savagery, incompetence, and indifference of the Bush administration were on full display back in November '04 as well - and now they're unhappy with the president's performance. Great. Would have been nice if you had gotten a clue a little sooner.

Looking ahead

2006-03-06T10:56:00.000-06:00

Good post at Science and Politics about Edwards and the rest of '08 presidential field. I especially liked the parts about the irrelevance of "carrying your own state" and about "the war-criminal Wesley Clark."

Civil war

2006-03-05T22:54:00.000-06:00

From ABC News:

As Pentagon generals offered optimistic assessments that the sectarian violence in Iraq had dissipated this weekend, other military experts told ABC News that Sunni and Shiite groups in Iraq already are engaged in a civil war, and that the Iraqi government and U.S. military had better accept that fact and adapt accordingly.

"We're in a civil war now; it's just that not everybody's joined in," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a former military commander in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "The failure to understand that the civil war is already taking place, just not necessarily at the maximum level, means that our counter measures are inadequate and therefore dangerous to our long-term interest.

"It's our failure to understand reality that has caused us to be late throughout this experience of the last three years in Iraq," added Nash, who is an ABC News consultant.

Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told ABC News, "If you talk to U.S. intelligence officers and military people privately, they'd say we've been involved in low level civil war with very slowly increasing intensity since the transfer of power in June 2004."

But that's not what Instapundit told me...

Edwards gets bad reviews

2006-03-05T22:40:00.000-06:00

...for his performance on Meet the Press, from Matt Stoller and Jane Hamsher. I didn't see his appearance - I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've been up early enough on a Sunday to catch Meet the Press - so I can't say whether they're right or wrong. If Neil caught it, it'd be interesting to hear his response.

F'd in the A

2006-03-05T21:21:00.000-06:00

John Hinderaker, you got served.

Republicans for Pointless Suffering

2006-03-05T18:40:00.000-06:00

From the Times:

WHEN Frank and Anita’s daughter Chanou was born with an extremely rare, incurable illness in August 2000, they knew that her life would be short and battled against the odds to make it happy.

They struggled around the clock against their baby’s pain. “We tried all sorts of things,” said Anita, a 37-year-old local government worker. “She cried all the time. Every time I touched her it hurt.”

Chanou was suffering from a metabolic disorder that had resulted in abnormal bone development. Doctors gave her no more than 30 months to live. “We felt terrible watching her suffer,” said Anita at their home near Amsterdam. “We felt we were letting her down.”

Frank and Anita began to believe that their daughter would be better off dead. “She kept throwing up milk that was fed through a tube in her nose,” said Anita. “She seemed to be saying, ‘Mummy, I don’t want to live any more. Let me go’.”

Eventually, doctors agreed to help the baby die at seven months.

Wingnuts, secure in their conviction that their sky buddy doesn't want them to kill innocent white babies, are of course demanding that such children be forced to live out their short, painful lives.

One of Mark Noonan's commenters asks: "What kind of sick fuck wants an infant to suffer an entire short lifetime in pain?" Sick fucks like Mark Noonan, I guess.

The funniest thing you'll read today

2006-03-05T18:06:00.000-06:00

This is from "The Anchoress," who is nostalgic for the "Will to Power" days of 2005 ... or something like that.

Does anyone remember April and May of 2005? And the months preceeding them? The Orange Revolution? The Arab Springtime? The Cedar Revolution of Lebanon - all of them seeming to have a fire lit under them, a wonderful fire of liberty. Remember Revolution Babes?

All around the globe, there was a spirit of something that felt a lot like the Will to Power - something that was building in momentum…like we were on the brink of something truly remarkable and historic and new.

Then, suddenly - poof! - it all stopped? It all just seemed to go away. It was like a big giant foot just came down and stomped out all of those wonderful fires…and the White House seems to have just…blink! Forgotten about it.
...The momentum has stopped. Everything has come to a screeching halt. Is there something he’s not telling us?

It’s very troubling. Worrying ... there is this strange and sudden silencing of movement. I do not get it.six months ago, the world was dancing toward democracy and freedom - in places where only a few years ago the idea seemed improbable - and in short order the dancing has stopped, the photos are a dim memory, and it all seems like something that happened a long, long time ago.

So, last night, I wrote to a very smart, very knowledgeable guy who, if I told you his name, you’d be like, “you DO NOT correspond with him!” And I’d be like, “uh-huh, I do!” And you’d be like, “Get out!” And I wrote to this exceedingly brilliant man, of whom I am very respectful: “explain this to me, please, because you are very smart and because I don’t get it. What happened? How did we move from such a sense of promise - just six months ago - to this sort of dreary, stagnant, nuthin’ is goin’ anywhere sort of torpor? Where is the energy, where is the juice, what has happened?”

His answer: “I don’t know. I don’t like it, either.”

Well. If that’s the case, we’re really in trouble. I mean, I routinely don’t know what is going on, but I’m nobody and I’m not especially smart. If this guy also doesn’t get it…Well!

This is what I have noticed about George W. Bush: He plays his cards close to the vest and he loves to make the other side feel that first flush of victory. He’s a little cruel that way. He loves to allow the opposition to become overconfident and shrill and a little mad, he loves to make them think, “we’ve GOT him,” and then throw down a Royal Flush. And he always comes back from his August vacation with a surprise, with something unexpected. He’s done it every year.

No, don’t ask me to remember what each September has brought. I can barely remember what I made for supper last night…but I know that every September has begun with some sort of Bushian surprise or new idea or initiative - I know it because I’ve noticed it. I may not be brilliant, but I am very observant.
...I hope I see something, come September. I really hope so. I’m not minimizing the enormous accomplishment that is the Iraqi constitution - I’m really not. But I’m gettin’ antsy, Mr. President. Gettin’ antsy.
...I’ve got folks on the right castigating me for not fully supporting the president (hello - I DO - I just am wondering about this sailboat that seems to have lost its wind), or for not understanding he is tired. (Of course he is tired. But he’s got miles to go before he can sleep!)

...So let me be plain. I LOVE President George W. Bush. On my desk here I have a W doll that plays all sorts of goofy Bushian malapropisms, and I have his aviator doll, too. I pray for him, for our nation and our troops (and yes, for Cindy Sheehan and her fans, too) every single day…but I must admit I pray MORE for W than for the rest. I know he is only human. I know he’s probably dog-tired and weary in heart and in spirit ... But I’m thinking of another man who was, in his youth, no one’s idea of a leader, and who was slow-of-tongue and had an enormous amount of stuff put on his plate…and he didn’t get to see the promised land. I’d like to see Bush get there. All I am saying is…I really hope September brings some renewal of momentum. It’s important. And yes, I DO think it’s a good idea to send encouraging emails to President Bush. I used to do it myself quite a lot, until I began to wonder if the SS would think me a stalker!

Yes, I do believe she just compared George W. Bush to Moses.

Piling on

2006-03-05T15:45:00.000-06:00

Glenn Reynolds:

The press had better hope we win this war, because if we don't, a lot of people will blame the media.

He's right; a lot of people will blame the media. They'll all be right-wing buffoons making asses of themselves, but there will be a lot of them.

Things are good, except for all the horribleness

2006-03-05T00:21:00.000-06:00

A letter to Dan Savage's column, Savage Love, begins:

I am a 26-year-old female, and I've been with my boyfriend for almost five years. Our relationship is pretty good, for the most part, but I'm having a few reservations. I don't really know how to broach this subject, because I feel like I'm just being a bratty little princess. But here it goes:

OK, with that kind of opening, you figure, what, she's got some kind of minor complaint that's still maybe worth writing to an advice columnist about - maybe she doesn't get along with his mother, or he doesn't shower as often as he should, something like that.

But then this woman, whose "relationship is pretty good," goes on to detail the following facts about her boyfriend:

-He insists that they split the bills 50-50, even though he makes four times what she does.

-If she eats more than her share, he makes her pay him back.

-He won't give her a ride anywhere, even though she doesn't have a car, unless he's already going that way, and even then he makes her pay for gas.

-He takes her out for dinner on her birthday, but tells her: "If it goes over $50, you're paying the rest."

-She called him in the middle of the night, "stranded in the middle of nowhere," and the boyfriend told her to call her other friends first; if none of them could get her, he would - but she'd still have to pay for gas.

-They only have sex in the positions that he wants; if she asks to change positions, he gets angry and stops. Thus, if she wants to have sex at all, she must "pretend it doesn't hurt to have my legs pushed so far back they're gonna pop out of my hip sockets."

But other than that, the relationship is "pretty good."

I'm "skeptical," let's say

2006-03-05T00:11:00.000-06:00

Via the Mad Biologist, there's a Reuters story that says coalition forces plan to be out of Iraq by 2007.

No way. This won't happen. The U.S. has long-term plans for Iraq; they didn't invade just to give up the whole prize four years later. You should never say never, I guess, because of course the situation could change dramatically. But if things continue basically as they are, there will still be American troops in Iraq when the next presidential election comes.

Can we retire this?

2006-03-04T18:21:00.000-06:00

Kevin Drum makes an oft-employed sorta-joke:

For years, Ralph Reed has claimed that he was shocked — shocked! — to learn that when his friend Jack Abramoff hired him ...

I'm talking about the, "I am shocked - shocked! - that blah blah blah" thing. I'm not trying to rag on Kevin, because everybody uses this, and maybe it was funny once or twice, but now it just about drives me insane every time I see somebody do it.

By the way

2006-03-04T12:55:00.000-06:00

I've been nominated for a couple of the Koufax Awards, Best New Blog and Most Deserving of Wider Recognition. So you can go there and vote for me, if you feel so inclined, or for someone else more deserving. I of course have no chance of actually winning, but thanks to those who nominated me.

"Humanitarian" war

2006-03-03T15:21:00.000-06:00

One of the more dangerous ideas that goes unchallenged by mainstream liberals and conservatives alike is the right of the United States to wage war on foreign peoples as long as the professed motive is one of "humanitarian" concerns. Accepting such a principle effectively allows the U.S. to attack any nation at any time, as Bruce Miller points out:

If a unilateral declaration by one nation that an invasion is for humanitarian purposes is to be regarded as legitimizing war, in practice that will remove all moral/ethical/legal barriers to wars of aggression. Some phony "humanitarian" reason for a war can always be drummed up.

Especially since it's nearly impossible to find a nation on Earth whose government isn't guilty of human rights violations. The effect is the same as that of accepting the principle that says that the U.S. has the right to attack "rogue nations" who might, conceivably, be capable of developing WMD; this allows whatever administration happens to occupy the White House to wage war indiscriminately. Chomsky:

Virtually any country has the potential and ability to produce WMD, and intent is in the eye of the beholder. Hence [the Bush Doctrine] effectively grants Washington the right of arbitrary aggression.

Similarly, virtually any country (including the U.S. itself) can be accurately accused of human rights violations; when these violations rise to a level that justifies a U.S. military offensive is something that is likewise in the eye of the beholder. (Plus, the extent of the violations is rarely known with any precision, so it is easy to exaggerate beyond all reason until otherwise rationale people believe that, e.g., Slobodan Milosevic is the second coming of Adolf Hitler.) And thus the doctrine of humanitarian war effectively grants the U.S. the right of arbitrary aggression.

In addition, the stated humanitarian goals, whether they are stated beforehand (Kosovo) or after the fact (Iraq), often do not come to fruition; sometimes, as in Kosovo and arguably Iraq, things are made even worse. So even if we were to take at face value the humanitarian motives offered by Clinton and Bush for their (illegal) wars, it would be insane not to be highly skeptical of the likelihood of such noble ends actually being attained.

The powers that be aren't stupid; they know that no matter what overseas adventure they are considering, three-fourths of the punditocracy can be won over by insisting that war must waged for humanitarian reasons. The inherent paradox of "humanitarian war" goes unnoticed.

The CBS poll

2006-03-03T12:45:00.000-06:00

So CBS releases a poll showing Bush's approval rating at a "record low" 34%. Wingnuts responded, as they ALWAYS do to these kind of polls, that the sample was biased toward Democrats:

CBS "weighted" its sample to reflect an ideal cross-section of American adults. They adjusted the number of self-described Republicans up to 28 percent and Democrats down to 37 percent, and independents with the rest. That's hardly the exit-poll breakdown the networks found on Election Day 2004 (37 percent GOP, 37 percent Democrat, 26 percent independent).

Do you idiots ever consider the possibility that people are more likely to identify as a Democrat, and less likely to identify as a Republican, in 2006 than in 2004?

Also ominous

2006-03-03T12:01:00.000-06:00

Via Atrios:

Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.

House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature.

...The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."

Ominous

2006-03-02T23:06:00.000-06:00

Sam Alito to James Dobson:

"As long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me."

Kevin wants to know

2006-03-02T22:55:00.000-06:00

Kevin Drum asks:

I'm just curious: is there a liberal blogger in the United States — any liberal blogger — who doesn't support universal healthcare? I can't think of one. Sure, we have arguments about both details and political strategy, but underneath it all it seems like pretty much everyone supports a genuinely comprehensive France/Germany/Sweden/Japan (pick your favorite model) version of national healthcare.

I don't read every blog in the world, though, so maybe I'm missing someone. Are there any dissenters? Or is this literally a policy that's supported unanimously by the left blogosphere?

I can't think of any exceptions.

Chutzpah

2006-03-02T19:52:00.000-06:00

Bush visits Gandhi's grave.

Matt imagines the scene:

Wonder how that conversation at the grave site went? Bush probably turned to the president of India and asked, "Ghandi...he was in a movie, right? That one about a skinny brown guy? Won a bunch of Oscars?"

"Um...no sir. That was a film about Ghandi. Ghandi was one of the great leaders in our struggle for independence. He prevailed against the military aggression of the British Empire using civil disobedience. He was a pacifist."

Bush looks confused. "Hmm...a pacifist. Ghandi was a rubber tit?"

"No sir. That's a pacifier. Ghandi was a pacifist. He practiced non-violence."

Nazi Germany

2006-03-02T11:12:00.000-06:00

Because Nazi sympathizers/holocaust deniers have been in the news a bit lately, D.J. Waletzky thinks it's worth noting that the founder of the popular health food chain Trader Joe's is, in addition to being the 20th richest man in the world, a former soldier for the German army under the Nazi regime.  One response to D.J. went:

"Um, there were quite a few of those. They were -- what's the word? -- 'Germans'."

D.J. doesn't find this to be an acceptable answer.  We've dealt with this here before, when the new Pope (also a former soldier in the Nazis' army) was elected.  Some people thought this was not something that should be held against him, since service wasn't exactly voluntary in that time and place.  My position was that it is something that he should be held accountable for, since others could and did resist, and that although it was perhaps an understandable sin, under the circumstances, it was a sin nonetheless.

But D.J. raises an interesting point that I hadn't thought of before:

"...you have to wonder (speaking of soldiers), if you were willing to take up arms, not to mention possibly giving your life in defense of Nazi Germany, wouldn't you then be just as capable of taking up arms against Nazi Germany? ... Whether you felt "coerced," or genuinely believed in Nazi ideology, joining the Nazi army is, in my view, unforgivable. The Holocaust would not have been possible but for the participation or indifference of the ordinary citizens."

Most of those who defended the Pope (and presumably would defend Trader Joe, or whatever his name is) did so on the grounds that it would have been extremely dangerous to resist orders from the Nazi government.  Which is true, but as D.J. points out, it's not as if actually joining the German army in the midst of WWII was a hazard-free proposition.  Either way, you stood a good chance of dying a violent death; if you chose to risk such a fate by fighting for the Nazis, rather than against them, why shouldn't you be held responsible for that choice?

Flyover country

2006-03-01T16:29:00.000-06:00

For all the GOP pundits' nonsense about red-state values and the decadent liberal enclaves on the coasts, it's not too hard to tell what they really think about Jesusland:

BOYCOTTING SOUTH DAKOTA [JPod]

Well, that's a noble stand, I must say -- boycotting a remote state like South Dakota. In line with such a painful sacrifice on the part of pro-abortion nutjobs, I hereby announce my intention to boycott Nepal, Bourkina Faso and New Caledonia.

Mississippi owns your uterus

2006-03-01T15:13:00.000-06:00

In a move sure to cement its reputation as a bastion of enlightened thinking, Mississippi looks like it will follow South Dakota in banning abortion - not even including health or rape exceptions.

You sick fucks.

Support the troops? Pentagon says: Nah.

2006-03-01T14:27:00.000-06:00

Pentagon dismisses US troop poll:

THE Pentagon has dismissed a poll's finding that 72 per cent of United States troops in Iraq believe the US should pull out within a year or less.

"It shouldn't surprise anybody that a deployed soldier would rather be at home than deployed, even when they believe what they are doing is important and vital work," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

The poll by Le Moyne College and Zogby International found that only 23 per cent believed US troops should stay in Iraq "as long as it takes", as US President George W. Bush has insisted.

Nearly one in three troops said US forces should withdraw immediately.

Another 22 per cent said US forces should be out within six months, and 21 per cent thought they should exit within a year.

"I don't think anybody is getting alarmed over any one poll, if that's what you're asking me," Mr Whitman said.

Victimized twice

2006-03-01T12:42:00.000-06:00

This is really too horrible for words: a 16-year-old young woman who was raped is herself being threatened with jail - "because she doesn’t want to watch the videotape of her rape in court."

UPDATE: An explanation of why the judge's decision was wrong can be found here (via Bitch Ph.D.).

UPDATE 2: The judge has changed his mind. Good.

Damn airplanes

2006-03-01T11:46:00.000-06:00

Little known fact: I hate flying. As in, I will do just about anything to avoid it. I'd rather drive from New York to L.A. than take a plane. Part of it is that I spend the whole flight wondering if the plane is going to crash - taking note of every bump or funny noise, trying to figure out if it's just routine or a sign of imminent disaster. But another part of it is that flying is just about the most miserable way to travel I could possibly imagine. The hassle at the airport, the interminable 'taxi-ing', the passengers practically sitting on top of one another ... ugh. And what's with the flight attendants coming around and offering you a soft drink and a little bag of peanuts? (They really do have the stupid peanuts!) Are we still pretending that flying is some sort of genteel mode of transportation, as it was five decades ago when men would actually wear a suit just because they were going on a plane? Come on. It's a Greyhound bus with wings.

Anyway, before I veer off into stand-up comedy land, my point is: stories like these (HT: Moderate Voice) don't make me feel any better about the whole airplane business:

A PANIC-STRICKEN air stewardess sparked terror on her turbulence-hit flight by screaming: "We're going to crash."

The hostess, named only as Wendy, stunned hundreds of passengers on the Gatwick-to-Las Vegas Virgin flight by repeating the outburst three times.

She cracked as the jet began shaking and sharply dived 8,000ft.

Passenger Claire Daley, 34, of Stone, Staffs, said: "Outside, we could see the wing was bent right up by the force.

"I looked to the stewardess for reassurance. But she let out a large scream and shouted three times, 'We're going to crash'.

"At that, all the other passengers screamed too."

People were thrown to the floor in the drama and meals were sent flying.

They landed safely, for the record, and everything was fine....

...this time.

Deus ex machina

2006-02-28T23:41:00.000-06:00

Holy shit - Bush thinks that the election-eve tape from bin Laden helped push him over the top!

Listen carefully...

2006-02-28T23:39:00.000-06:00

...and you can hear the right-wing blogosphere shooting its collective load.

No big loss

2006-02-28T22:54:00.000-06:00

I'm really sorry for beating a dead horse, but I couldn't help but notice this editorial by Paul Hackett in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which Amanda aptly refers to as more of Hackett's "ceaseless whining." Basically, it's more of the same, with another accusation that Brown was behind an "ugly whisper campaign regarding my service in Iraq."

Shortly after Hackett's departure - his voluntary, self-imposed departure - one blogger responded: "I just have one thing to say right now: Sherrod Brown better win this." Well, every time he opens his mouth, Paul Hackett is making that more difficult. I'll be very surprised if his accusations against Brown don't end up being recycled by the GOP in the general election campaign.

Incidentally, for those concerned that we lost a true progressive in Hackett, I'd like to draw your attention to a sentence from Hackett's editorial about his congressional run:

With the special election, we began to believe our party could return to brighter days by returning to our roots: limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and fair trade.

With the exception of fair trade, those are all right-wing talking points, and are basically stand-ins for, respectively: tax cuts, "entitlement" cuts, and a sky-high military budget. Thanks, but no thanks.

Don't forget the gift-wrapping

2006-02-28T22:26:00.000-06:00

Because this is one fine present for Ned Lamont:

It's been the subject of whispered conversations among top Republican officials for the past month. Now, U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, R-4th District, has let slip the secret: GOP officials have discussed cross-endorsing Democratic Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman this fall.

In an interview today with the editorial board of The Advocate of Stamford, Shays said he intends to vote for Lieberman and is encouraging a Republican endorsement of the three-term senator.

Maybe we can get Jerry Falwell to endorse Bob Casey?

No heathens allowed

2006-02-28T22:18:00.000-06:00

The founder of Domino's Pizza is looking to establish a Catholic town:

A former marine who was raised by nuns and made a fortune selling pizza has embarked on a $400 million plan to build the first town in America to be run according to strict Catholic principles.

Abortions, pornography and contraceptives will be banned in the new Florida town of Ave Maria, which has begun to take shape on former vegetable farms 90 miles northwest of Miami.

Tom Monaghan, the founder of the Domino’s Pizza chain, has stirred protests from civil rights activists by declaring that Ave Maria’s pharmacies will not be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills. The town’s cable television network will carry no X-rated channels.

The town will be centred around a 100-foot tall oratory and the first Catholic university to be built in America for 40 years. The university’s president, Nicholas J Healy, has said future students should “help rebuild the city of God” in a country suffering from “catastrophic cultural collapse.”

Monaghan, 68, sold his takeaway chain in 1998 for an estimated $1 billion (£573 million). A devout Catholic who has poured millions into religious projects — including radio stations, primary schools and a Catholic law faculty in Michigan — Monaghan has bought about 5,000 acres previously used by migrant farmers.

The land on the western edge of the Everglades swamp will eventually house up to 30,000 people, with 5,000 students living on the university campus. Florida officials have declared the project a development bonanza for a depressed area, and Gov. Jeb Bush attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the new university earlier this month.

Sounds like a blast.

You know what's funny?

2006-02-28T11:06:00.000-06:00

Listening to wingnuts complaining about "Islamophobia."

Numbers

2006-02-27T19:46:00.000-06:00

Bush's.

The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.

Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement [...]

For the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care, compared to 47 percent last fall.

Just 30 percent approve of how Mr. Bush is handling the Iraq war, another all-time low.

By two to one, the poll finds Americans think U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going badly - the worst assessment yet of progress in Iraq.

Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Mr. Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he's handling the war on terror, while 43 percent approve.

Yet why do I suspect if Bush were running for re-election in November, he would still win?

As opposed to...?

2006-02-27T11:13:00.000-06:00

I saw this quote on The Moderate Voice:

"A lot of people get into racism for the wrong reasons." --Former Playboy Playmate Erika Snyder, now married to prominent Neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe

I fear John McCain

2006-02-26T21:50:00.000-06:00

Neil the Werewolf, in the grip of "mad Edwards love," which I suspect sounds worse than it actually is, argues that John Edwards is the Democrat most likely to be able to defeat John McCain in 2008, though he thinks McCain probably won't be the nominee anyway.

I hope he's right, because we have much to fear from John McCain. He's as wingnutty as any presidential hopeful in the GOP, but for some reason the dipshits in the media treat the guy like he's the second coming. I'm of the opinion that the press pretty much decides the outcome of presidential campaigns, and given their slavish conformity to Karl Rove's narratives in 2004, it's downright scary to imagine the deference with which McCain will likely be treated.

Which adds up to a very difficult campaign for the Democrats.

So I'm pulling for Bill Frist.

A comparison case

2006-02-26T10:45:00.000-06:00

Mike the Mad Biologist compares "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland with those in Iraq, and wonders how the former but not the latter can be called a civil war.

Hostile takeover

2006-02-25T20:28:00.000-06:00

Apparently there is a Christian organization that is trying to get fellow Jesus Freaks to move en masse to the state of South Carolina, for the purpose of seceding from the United States and establishing a Christian theocracy there.

Which, you know, fine by me.

Now you feel bad, don't you?

2006-02-25T12:41:00.000-06:00

Via Socialist Swine.

A question

2006-02-24T20:26:00.000-06:00

From the Poor Man Institute via Battlepanda:

If Faction A destroys the fourth-most holy site (built 11 centuries ago) of Faction B with a gigantic bomb in the middle of the day, inciting dozens of retaliatory attacks, is it maybe a little late to ask if this will start a civil war?

Attention, Democrats

2006-02-24T15:50:00.000-06:00

If there's one advantage to this business about Dubai and the ports, it's that it provides an opportunity for Democrats to emphasize the fact that "security" is something that should be primarily dealt with at home - foreign wars have little to nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorism. A new poll indicates that the public might be receptive to this message (HT: Moderate Voice):

From a political perspective, President Bush's national security credentials have clearly been tarnished due to the outcry over this issue. For the first time ever, Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President.

If these kind of numbers maintain, that is an extraordinary turn around on the 'national security' issue.

Is this a good idea?

2006-02-24T14:32:00.000-06:00

In response to the reprehensible decision by the South Dakota state legislature to pass a blanket ban an abortion, one blogger suggests that women in the state learn how to perform abortions themselves:

In the 1960s and early 1970s, when abortions were illegal in many places and expensive to get, an organization called Jane stepped up to the plate in the Chicago area. Jane initially hired an abortion doctor, but later they did the abortions themselves. They lost only one patient in 13,000 -- a lower death rate than that of giving live birth. The biggest obstacle they had, though, was the fact that until years into the operation, they thought of abortion as something only a doctor could do, something only the most trained specialist could perform without endangering the life of the woman.

They were deceived -- much like you have probably been deceived. An abortion, especially for an early pregnancy, is a relatively easy procedure to perform. And while I know, women of South Dakota, that you never asked for this, now is the time to learn how it is done. There is no reason you should be beholden to doctors -- especially in a state where doctors have been refusing to perform them, forcing the state's only abortion clinic to fly doctors in from elsewhere.

She then goes on to describe in detail how to perform a certain type of abortion.

My initial reaction to this was that it was a horrible idea - isn't the prospect of amateur abortions one of the reasons it is so important to keep the procedure legal?

But people whose opinion I trust have linked to the post with seeming approval of the basic idea (though not necessarily vouching for the specific information contained therein), so maybe my initial reaction was wrong.

I do know that in a sane world, this wouldn't even be an issue, so a big "fuck you" to all politicians who make it necessary to confront these kinds of dilemmas because of their backwards religious superstitions.

The new Fatboy Slim video

2006-02-24T13:21:00.000-06:00

Starring a shitload of kittens!

Watch it here (HT: Welcome to the Nut House).

The truth, via Ted Koppel

2006-02-24T02:27:00.000-06:00

Bizarre editorial in the NYT by Ted Koppel. He says things that leftists get ridiculed for saying - you know, pretty much anything that ought to be obvious to anyone with human DNA and a pulse, e.g., maybe oil had something to do with the invasion of Iraq, maybe the US isn't planning on leaving Iraq any time soon - but he doesn't really seem to disapprove. The article is behind NYT's annoying subscription wall or whatever you call it, but here are some excerpts via Cracks in the Facade and Editor & Publisher (emphasis added by me):

But the Bush administration's touchiness about charges that we acted — and are still acting — in Iraq "because of oil"? Now that's curious. Keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz has been bedrock American foreign policy for more than a half-century.

Fifty-three years ago, British and American intelligence officers conspired to help bring about the overthrow of Iran's prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh's shortcomings, in the eyes of Whitehall and the State Department, were an unseemly affinity for the Tudeh Party (the Iranian Communists) and his plans to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. The prospect of the British oil industry being forced to give way to Soviet influence over the Iranian oil spigot called for drastic action. Following a military coup, Mossadegh was arrested, imprisoned for three years and then held under house arrest until his death in 1967. Power was then effectively concentrated in the hands of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

The shah's unswerving commitment to the free flow and marketing of Iranian oil would, by the end of the 1960's, become a central pillar of the so-called Nixon Doctrine, in which American allies were tapped to be regional surrogates to maintain peace and security. The sales of sophisticated American weapons to Iran served the twin purposes of sopping up billions of what came to be known as "petro-dollars," while equipping (in particular) the shah's air force.

That reliance on Iran to maintain stability in the Persian Gulf enjoyed bipartisan support. On New Year's Eve in 1977, President Jimmy Carter, visiting the shah in Tehran, toasted his great leadership, which he said had made Iran "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas in the world." By January 1980, after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had driven the shah from the Peacock Throne, President Carter made absolutely clear in his final State of the Union address that one aspect of our foreign policy remained unchanged:

"An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

[...]

In 1990, when Saddam Hussein appeared likely to follow his invasion of Kuwait by crossing into Saudi Arabia, the defense secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, laid out Washington's concerns:

"We're there because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on — indeed on the world economy."

What Mr. Cheney said was correct then and remains correct now. The world's oil producers pump approximately 80 million barrels a day. The world's oil consumers, joined today by an increasingly oil-hungry India and China, purchase 80 million barrels a day. Were production from the Persian Gulf to be disrupted because of civil war in Iraq, the freezing of Iranian sales or political instability in Saudi Arabia, the global supply would be diminished. The impact on the American economy and, indeed, on the world economy would be as devastating today as in 1990.

If those considerations did not enter into the Bush administration's calculations when the president ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it would have been the first time in more than 50 years that the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil was not a central element of American foreign policy.

That is not to say that the United States invaded Iraq to take over its oil supply. But the construction of American military bases inside Iraq, bases that can be maintained long after the bulk of our military forces are ultimately withdrawn, will serve to replace the bases that the United States has lost in Saudi Arabia.

...Perhaps the day will come when the United States is no longer addicted to imported oil; but that day is still many years off. For now, the reason for America's rapt attention to the security of the Persian Gulf is what it has always been. It's about the oil.

I may disagree with Koppel regarding the normative implications of all this, but it would be nice if the discussion could proceed based on a similar acknowledgment of reality by all parties concerned. Until then, it will just be more silly rhetoric about "freedom," "democracy," "The War on Terror," blah blah blah blah blah.

Eros or Agape?

2006-02-23T13:46:00.000-06:00

The Socialist Swine loves David Hume. I mean, he really loves David Hume. Maybe too much.

Circumstantial ad hominem

2006-02-22T19:22:00.000-06:00

Slate's John Dickerson gives you the rundown on "Bush critics with pro-Bush backgrounds" and what they can "teach the public—and perhaps the administration—about the president that the lefty hacks can't." To wit:

Bush isn't a small-government conservative.
Bush is incompetent.
Bush was determined to invade Iraq no matter what.

So, yeah, when was the last time you heard someone on the left make those arguments?

Accountability

2006-02-22T13:00:00.000-06:00

In response to complaints about the torture and killing of detainees on the part of the US military, you'll often hear the same excuse: "The difference between the US and Saddam is that we punish those who mistreat prisoners."

Well, sorta kinda:

Two-thirds of US detainee killings 'go unpunished'

In only 12 of 34 cases has anyone been punished for the confirmed or suspected killings of US-held detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, a US human rights group reported today.

The steepest sentence for any American soldier linked to a torture-related death has been five months in jail, said Human Rights First.

Beyond those cases, in almost half of 98 known detainee deaths since 2002 the cause was either never announced or reported as undetermined, the New York-based group said.

Unite against American Empiricism!

2006-02-22T12:58:00.000-06:00

We all make mistakes, but some mistakes are funnier than others.

Dubai port business, part 2

2006-02-22T12:56:00.000-06:00

D.J. Waletzky delves more deeply into the issue.

Look in the mirror

2006-02-22T12:31:00.000-06:00

Malkin mocks a Muslim second-grader who says that "God doesn't like people to draw." And she's right; that's just silly. But is it any more silly than the notion that God doesn't like it when two men have sex with each other?

And homophobic wingnuts don't have the excuse of being in second grade, either.

It's almost like they want to go to war...

2006-02-22T02:25:00.000-06:00

From the Salt Lake Tribune - U.S. may have blown chance of open dialogue with Tehran:

In May 2003, shortly after the U.S. military destroyed the army of Saddam Hussein, a fax arrived at the State Department with an Iranian offer to open talks that would include a discussion of weapons of mass destruction.

The one-page document was written by Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's ambassador to France and nephew of Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi and passed on by the Swiss ambassador to Tehran, who represented U.S. interests in Iran, a former administration official said.

The official, who saw the document, said it indicated that Iran wanted to negotiate a grand political bargain with the United States that would include everything from Iran's nuclear program to its support for groups that Washington regards as terrorist.

But the Bush administration was in no mood for conversation or grand political bargains, the former officials said. According to Leverett, who left government in mid-2003, the administration rejected the Iranian probe and instead sent a complaint to Swiss Ambassador Tim Guldimann, saying he had overstepped his role as an intermediary by passing it on in the first place.

Critics, including the two former Bush administration officials, European diplomats, and policy experts, say the United States may have squandered an opportunity to negotiate an end to Iran's nuclear program by not talking with Tehran.

A more detailed look at this can be found in Newsday.

A point for Edwards

2006-02-22T01:24:00.000-06:00

I was reading Dean Barnett talking about Hackett (he calls him the "most overtly mean-spirited politician I’ve ever seen," but consider the source), and he said something interesting:

This [Hackett's supposed 24/7 mean-spiritedness] contrasts with guys like John Edwards who radiate warmth and sunshine when the cameras on but are ruthless jerks in private.

Now, I have absolutely no idea whether or not this is an accurate description of Edwards. He certainly does seem to "radiate warmth and sunshine," but I've never met the man and have no way of knowing if he's a ruthless jerk in private. But I'll tell you what - if he ends up being the nominee in 2008, I hope to God that Barnett is right about him, because that is exactly what we need - someone who is well-liked by the public but still willing to be a ruthless son of a bitch when he needs to be. That is a recipe for electoral success - witness George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan.

Contrast this with somebody like Barack Obama, who, in addition to radiating warmth and sunshine, actually does seem to have an aversion to political hand-to-hand - that is, he seems like a "nice guy" in public and in private. I suppose some might see this as an admirable trait, and maybe they're right, but it's not generally something you want to see in a candidate who has to win a tough race.

Dubai port business

2006-02-22T01:22:00.000-06:00

Whatever you think of the deal, it does illustrate one important point - that all the "you're either with us, or with the terrorists" stuff goes right out the window when there's business to be done.

Marriage and suicide

2006-02-21T23:14:00.000-06:00

A factoid via Bitch Ph.D.:

...states that legalized no-fault divorce experienced an average 20% decline in suicide rates among married women in the following five years...

I assume this will be taken as reason NOT to institute no-fault divorce by a certain segment of the population.

This is getting nasty

2006-02-20T21:06:00.000-06:00

Have you ever seen a primary campaign get so vicious, especially considering it never really began?

Paul Hackett is blaming his former Democratic Senate primary opponent, Rep. Sherrod Brown, for spreading a "whisper campaign" of rumors accusing him of war crimes in Iraq.

In an interview Monday on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, the Iraq veteran, who quit the Senate race last week, went further than he has in the past. "The word came to me from many Democratic chairs in the state of Ohio that my primary opponent was spreading rumors about my service in Iraq.''

Asked by Matthews about rumors that photos exist showing he mishandled body parts in Iraq, Hackett called the rumors "preposterous."

"I have heard those stories and they're absolutely preposterous. I invite anybody who wants to make those allegations to come onto your show. I'll meet them here.''

Hackett repeatedly said he was told Brown's campaign was the source of the rumors. "I do believe it came from his campaign,'' said Hackett.

My advice to introverts

2006-02-20T19:36:00.000-06:00

Battlepanda links to what she sees as an accurate account of shyness/introvertedness:

I marvel at Michael [Rauch's extroverted partner] who can always somehow turn the conversation right over effortlessly and keep it going even when what he says is not necessarily profound or interesting. What he comes up with is perfectly tuned to the sense and flow of the conversation. But it's not words that are particularly intended to convey ideas or mean things. It's words that socialize — that simply continue the conversation. It's chit-chat. I have no gift for that. I have to think about what to say next, and sometimes I can't think fast enough and end up saying something stupid. Or sometimes I just come up dry and the conversation kind of ends for while until I can think of another topic.

This is why it's work for me. It takes positive cognition on my part. I think that's probably a core introvert characteristic that you and I have in common and which can probably be distinguished from shyness per se — that small talk takes conscious effort and is very hard work. There's nothing small about small talk if you're an introvert.

One solution: ditch the small-talk, and just open your mouth and let whatever bullshit you're thinking about come out without any regard for whether the other person is interested in hearing it or not. That's what I do, and it either works, and we have a good conversation, or the person goes away and it's a moot point anyway.

Let's get ready to rumble

2006-02-20T14:45:00.000-06:00

Sez Atrios:

I really am dreading the coming presidential primary season, even aside from the fact that it ushers in the the Extreme Silly Season in American journalism. While in 2003-4 various competing online camps managed (barely) to avoid all out nuclear war with each other over who should win I don't expect that to happen next time. Everyone knows their favorite candidate is the only one who can win, everyone knows their candidate is the one true future of the nation. I see how people are tearing at each other over a Senate primary in Ohio and really don't look forward to what is next...

Are you kidding? It's going to be AWESOME! Let the rhetorical bludgeoning begin!

That's not very cool

2006-02-20T10:33:00.000-06:00

Hackett staffers trying to undermine Brown in the general?